you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (50 children)

The moral thing to do is to pay your share of that if you make a copy, even if the copy itself doesn’t cost anything.

under what ethical system?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 50 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (49 children)

    Mine, obviously. But feel free to correct me if you disagree with something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 49 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (48 children)

    there's no reason to believe what you claimed. a claim made without justification can be dismissed without justification.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    They made a justification. They showed you how people couldn't make these things without people paying for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    They showed you how people couldn’t make these things without people paying for them.

    but that's not true. people make things all the time without being paid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (13 children)

    people make things all the time without being paid.

    Less people make things without being paid than those who make things to get paid. That is a common fact we can both agree on. If you need the number of open source games compared to the number of paid games then I recommend you grab those numbers yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    "snake game" returns over one hundred twenty thousand results on github.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (8 children)

    You are equating someone's terrible hobby project to paid games like it's 1 to 1. You are simply arguing in bad faith. Have a good day though, hopefully, one day we can converse properly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (7 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (6 children)

    Not at all. I just assumed you understood the basics of quality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    you never mentioned 'quality' until you wanted to disqualify data that didn't support your position.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (4 children)

    Yes, because there is a basic assumption. Those projects aren't consumer-facing games. Those are hobbies. You know it and you are simply arguing in bad faith. I know actual game developers who released their games for free or under a pay-what-you-want model. They refuse to do so again because they can't support themselves by doing it. I am a game developer and I won't release my games for free because I need to support myself. There is all the data you need. Find me other data saying otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I know actual game developers who released their games for free or under a pay-what-you-want model. They refuse to do so again because they can’t support themselves by doing it. I am a game developer and I won’t release my games for free because I need to support myself. There is all the data you need.

    the plural of "anecdote" is not "data"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (31 children)

    What unjustified claim did I make that you disagree with? Seems all rather uncontroversial to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (30 children)

    The moral thing to do is to pay your share of that if you make a copy, even if the copy itself doesn’t cost anything.

    i don't need to disagree to disbelieve. i do disagree, but without establishing your justification for this claim, it's kind of hard to argue against it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (29 children)

    The justification was that creating things has a cost, even if a copy doesn't, and that we should distribute that cost as fairly as possible among the people benefiting from the creation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (28 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (27 children)

    Idk what to tell you but: Yes it does. We can't really argue if you refuse to elaborate your point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (26 children)

    when you drive over a bridge, do you tip the engineering form? the contractors? they're the ones who created this experience for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Yes, you do, in the form of buying gas or paying taxes. You don't even have to use the bridge to have to pay for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    so use isn't tied to paying. one has nothing to do with the other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (21 children)

    I pay taxes, those were used to pay the people who build the bridge. And yes, taxes should be fair. If it's a private bridge then the owners have every right to demand a fee for crossing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (20 children)

    not the owners: the designers. what if I copy the bridge and put it in my front yard: do you think I owe royalties to the engineering firm?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (19 children)

    Yes, of course. They created the design, it cost them time and money, you want to use it, so you should pay part of those costs. Or to put it differently: You both use the design, why should they be the ones to pay for its creation, and not you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (18 children)

    they still have the design. I haven't taken something from them. I don't owe them anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (17 children)

    Who says you can only owe something if you take something away first?

    Think about how rent works. The building or appartement will still be there, loose value over time and need repairs whether you live there or not, yet you still owe the owner rent if you do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    your might owe under almost any circumstance, but almost all of them have to drop with a mutually agreed contract or transfer of property. what circumstance do you think created the debt here? and what if someone walks across my front yard bridge? do they owe the engineers too? it's just silly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    This is going into feasability and away from morality, but ok.

    The law is the "mutually agreed contract", and the usage created the dept. You can be expected to know that the design of a bridge might be copyrighted, you can't be expected to know that a bridge is private property and crossing it requires a fee. Ergo it's on you to contact the owner of the design, and it's on you to collect a fee from people using your bridge if that is what you want to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (13 replies)