> a small subset that can afford it will pay you if you disclose, perhaps in the game, what your financial goals are and how far you are from them kindly, but without demand.
But you are not the one publishing it! Someone else is, because they copied your public-domain game and put their name on it. That someone else is getting a lot of money, and you aren't.
> Wonderful
Really? I genuinely don't understand how you can not see how it is a problem?!
> But you are not the one publishing it! Someone else is, because they copied your public-domain game and put their name on it. That someone else is getting a lot of money, and you aren't.
That is going to happen. Not all countries have or enforce copyright laws even if you rely on those.
It would however be trivial for the author to go public proving the third party game used their code without attribution. Apple famously used openstreetmap data without crediting them and openstreetmap publicly shamed them until they corrected the mistake.
People should have attribution if they ask for it, but it also should not be legally enforced. Only socially and technically.
> Really? I genuinely don't understand how you can not see how it is a problem?!
Anyone in the connected world has likely benefited from software I have written or security bugs I have identified and helped get fixed. Some of that work took years with little to no pay.
If you can get my work to more people than I can, do it!
My experience is still easy enough to monetize enough on a contract basis to pay my bills, and that is plenty. Often people pay to prioritize what features I add to open source projects they benefit from. Paid or not, I am always happy knowing my work benefits as many people as possible, rather than having it benefit only those that can afford to pay for it. My ego is not so fragile as to demand my name be in everyone's faces all the time.
Our mission in life as humans should not be about maximizing dollar amounts in our bank accounts. It should be about maximizing the amount of value we can give back to society. If value can be copied and replicated to benefit a lot of people, that is amazing! Shame we cannot do that with food, but at least we can do it with information, media, etc.
> My ego is not so fragile as to demand my name be in everyone's faces all the time.
Yet you keep bringing everything back to you. "It's okay for me because I manage to get a decent salary". Sure, what about those who don't?
> People should have attribution if they ask for it, but it also should not be legally enforced. Only socially and technically.
Laws are here because reputation is not enough anymore in our world. Those who think that laws are unnecessary generally don't directly need them. Can you show some empathy and accept that some people need to be protected by more than reputation?
> That is going to happen. Not all countries have or enforce copyright laws even if you rely on those.
You mentioned Doctorow as an example, right? Do you even know what he thinks of BigTech abusing their power? He's totally for more regulations for those, not fewer.
> Yet you keep bringing everything back to you. "It's okay for me because I manage to get a decent salary". Sure, what about those who don't?
You seem to be operating under the assumption I came to these views from an ivory tower.
I have been open sourcing all of the work I legally can since I was living in my car working on library computers. Yes. I stand by this for everyone.
I had no degree, no credentials, and the only reason I was able to make a career for myself as an uneducated vagrant is -because- my work was public and free, people often used it, and demonstrated my capabilities better than any degree could.
Plenty of peers have made careers for themselves the same way.
> Laws are here because reputation is not enough anymore in our world. Those who think that laws are unnecessary generally don't directly need them. Can you show some empathy and accept that some people need to be protected by more than reputation?
This -is- coming from a pace of empathy.
My meals as a kid sometimes came from food stamps and food pantries. Most of my early internet access came from abusing 30 day AOL trial dialup cds, and I had to wait in line 3 days for a $200 black friday sale laptop I could afford. I had to break a LOT of copyright laws to get unlimited access to information my local library did not have.
Laws work in a subset of countries, and a lot of countries straight up ignore them. That gives them a major advantage over us. They can pirate freely and openly to level up their skills and capabilities with no risk of legal consequences... and we cannot? Why should the poor in America not have the same free access to any digital goods the poor in other countries do?
> You mentioned Doctorow as an example, right? Do you even know what he thinks of BigTech abusing their power? He's totally for more regulations for those, not fewer.
My read of Cory Doctorow on these topics is that the copyright wars were a failed experiment. Copyright laws are almost mostly weaponized by big corporations to hurt individuals. We should regulate the shit out of corporations to protect the freedom and privacy of users and prevent monopolies. It is perfectly compatible to both anti-big-tech and also against the current IP law system.
I would like to start with this: what is the advantage of other countries enjoying the work of artists/authors for free?
My point, from the very beginning, is that the concept of copyright does not seem entirely, as in 100% stupid. I am not saying that it is perfect the way it is now. Just that throwing it away entirely is maybe not what we want. I hate it when BigTech abuses copyright, but the problem is BigTech there.
Copyright is also what makes copyleft possible. Which I believe is a good thing to protect the users from the corporations.
And finally IP laws are what prevents an employee from leaving a company with all the code, renaming/rebranding it and selling it for a fraction of the price. Doesn't seem completely ridiculous, does it?
> You seem to be operating under the assumption I came to these views from an ivory tower.
Not at all. I operate under the assumption that you don't have that need anymore. Apparently you did, and because you got to where you are, you now believe that it's all based on merit and that people who don't manage to do the same don't deserve any empathy. Or something like that?
It's a typical US mentality, though (the "all I have is based on merit and merit only, and I don't want to pay for others").
> Laws work in a subset of countries, and a lot of countries straight up ignore them. That gives them a major advantage over us.
There is plenty of need for laws inside a country as big as the US. Not seeing that suggests that you are in a pretty good situation now and don't care about those who aren't.
Reputation doesn't work. Do I need to mention the nazi billionaire who now controls the US government as an example?
> We should regulate the shit out of corporations to protect the freedom and privacy of users and prevent monopolies.
Exactly. I don't think he says "we should remove copyright as a concept entirely.
But you are not the one publishing it! Someone else is, because they copied your public-domain game and put their name on it. That someone else is getting a lot of money, and you aren't.
> Wonderful
Really? I genuinely don't understand how you can not see how it is a problem?!