Napster is why MP3 players became popular in the first place. I know this is an "overblown doomsday scenario" but think about how popular iTunes is: Napster almost filled that gap, for FREE. A few early adopters would spend gazillions on CDs, rip them, share them. Music of today would largely be available for free online. It only shipped MP3 files, not videos (porn) or programs (viruses). Napster was becoming widely popular, easy to use by everyone, kids and old people who barely knew how to use a computer. The truth of the matter is if nobody ever stepped in, iTunes wouldn't have gained momentum. 300 people pay 33% more so that 100 people can steal it). This is a fallacy: the time investment hasn't paid off, and others who are actually purchasing are subsidizing the value I'm not (i.e. Around here, people decide that if you lose some kind of asset, I've stolen from you if you're no poorer than when you started, then apparently I've created wealth by making myself richer (I now have music I've stolen) without making someone else poorer (you haven't lost anything). In either case, I might prefer the risk of not giving you any money for your work, but taking it anyway: I benefit, you don't. This is the same exchange as I pay you a value I see as worth losing in money in exchange for, say, a tea pot, and you give me a teapot worth $x in raw materials + $y value added for your time making it = $z that I'm willing to pay to acquire it. The exchange of work for value here is that I pay you for a value we agree on for the work, and you give me a copy of the work. The fallacy is that by either taking a copy or buying a copy, I'm gaining a specific benefit: I get a copy of your music. The premise here is that by either not buying that work or taking a copy, I'm not depriving you of anything: both actions are equivalent to you. But people seem to want to argue that if someone (working under a marketing agent, etc, whatever the circumstance, indie or signed) puts in their time and effort to produce a work, record that work, refine that work, and publish that work, that then it should be okay for us to just take that work. The large argument used against the RIAA here is a knee-jerk to their horrible inability to adapt to market and their abuse of the court systems. The issue is that people seem to think that stealing shit for personal use is different than stealing it and selling it for crack money. It would help both in keeping tiny titles like that away from falling into the abandonware pit (especially if it's incompatible with modern OS's), and helping aspiring game devs in understanding how game logic works. If someone wants to "steal" your game, they're going to have to build the rest themselves from scratch. Sell the textures, models, and sounds, and give the source away. I think a lot of games (especially indie type titles) could benefit from going open source, while keeping tight hold on their assets. Never mind, using the name is probably a blatant trademark violation. Meaning, as they charge $2.00 for it, Lugaru (non HD) is in blatant copyright violation. The assets were distributed with a "you can do anything BUT SELL IT" license For that, you're looking at a creative commons type license for something similar.ĥ. While they did distribute the assets (textures, models, sound, etc.) with the source code, those assets WERE NOT distributed via GPL.Ĥ. GPL DOES, in fact, allow you to sell your build of that executable.ģ. The SOURCE CODE to the EXECUTABLE was released as GPL.Ģ. I've seen too many stupid comments about this today and yesterday, so I'm going to clarify a few points:ġ.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |