Comment on Court rules Gabe Newell must appear in person to testify in Steam anti-trust lawsuit

• Gabu@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  If anyone could sell the thing you just spent time and money creating for free, there would be little incentive to create the thing

  In one sentence, you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t understand artists at all.

  source

  • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    In one sentence, you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t understand how artists subsist at all. You’ve also confused the word “incentive” with “motivation”.

    source

    • Gabu@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Guess what I do for a living. You have 1 guess.

      source

      • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Look, I understand that money isn’t the primary incentive for (hopefully all) artists. But I don’t think a system where you effectively cannot make a living as a full-time artist is beneficial for society either. Since you’re an artist, can I ask how you subsist without an alternative source of income?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • BURN@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    No, he understands just fine

    Artists might create out of love, but they’re not going to share it for free so someone else can make a profit

    source

    • Gabu@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      We literally do it all the time…

      source

      • BURN@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Not all artists do

        I’m glad your line of work allows you to make a living, but the same model doesn’t work for everyone.

        source
  • ActionHank@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You misunderstand me. Artists want to be able to dedicate themselves to the development and creation of their art. Unfortunately that requires money. For most people (poor people) the only way to both be making art non-stop, and be able to live at a somewhat normal standard, is to get paid while doing it. I know many artists. I art majored. Everyone is trying to find a way to make it viable, by figuring out what they are able to sell. Sure, yeah, its for love art. It can only be so when you have someone paying your way, or you’re already retired. If your making art as a hobby and a hobby alone, you probably care little about conversations of IP. For one because your original work is protected immediately upon creation, and for two, IP is about protecting commercial interest. You made the thing for no reason than to satisfy your own interest. You don’t really care if anyone paid you or not, you would have done it anyways, therefore IP doesn’t really concern your hobby. As soon as you take the thing to gallery, and put a price tag on it, your no different than anyone else trying to see what they can make a buck off of.

    source
• Excrubulent@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Copyright is a tool that gives creators the ability to commercialize their work. That its spirit, nothing more.

  That’s what we are told is the purpose because otherwise we wouldn’t accept its existence. In practice it doesn’t work that way. The persistent story is that artists get very little compensation whilst whichever large entity is acting as the middleman for their copyright - often owning it outright despite doing nothing to make it - takes the vast majority of the profit.

  It is a tool of corporate control, nothing more. Without copyright there would be no way a middleman could insert themselves and ripoff artists, take their money, and compromise their work with financially-driven studio meddling.

  And the idea that the “spirit” of copyright is for artists, that completely falls apart when you understand that modern copyright terms exist almost entirely to profit one company’s IP - Disney is just delaying the transfer of Mickey Mouse into the public domain. That’s why copyright is now lifetime +75 years, or something ridiculous like that. That is not for artists to be compensated. Mickey Mouse isn’t going to be unmade when that happens. If Disney can’t operate as a business with all the time and market share they’ve built then they should just go under. There’s no justification for it beyond corporate greed.

  Also without copyright there couldn’t be monopolies like Disney buying Fox, Marvel and Star Wars. That is an absurd situation and should be an indication that antitrust is effectively gone.

  And as for artists getting paid, we’re transitioning more and more to a patron model, where people are paid just to create, and release most of their work for free with some token level of patron interaction. You don’t need copyright for that.

  source
• mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  At least in the US, we have a lifetime for exclusive rights, at which point the material moves into the public domain. It really seems like a good system to me.

  It’s not a good system to have it be 50 years past the death of the creator. Having access to content in public domain has historically caused art to flourish by serving as a base for creators to build off of. But for the past few decades companies have been plundering from pu lic domain while not contributing anything back.

  Our original copyright system in the US gave a baseline 17 years of copyright, with an additional 17 years extension that you could apply to. 34 years is a perfectly fair span of time to get value out of your creation because nobody is going to wait that long to get access to art they want. But it also ensured that the public domain continually had new content added that wasn’t completely antiquated. This is the system we should be pushing to return to.

  source

  • ActionHank@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    My quote is aligned with your statement. I didn’t say anything specific about what the lifetime should be. Just that I believe its good that there is one. Maybe 50 years is too long. Maybe 34 year is too long too. That number is the compromise line for two competing interest. People will always be pulling in the direction that servers their own.

    source
• Jarix@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  It wouldn’t be a problem if you didn’t need to sell the things you make and could just give them away.

  So copyright is only useful to protect your profits. There are many people who put effort into many things not because they expect to make money but because of the act of doing it.

  Just something to think about, not really sure what point im trying to make

  source