>>325672>In that scenario, you are the asshole, yes. That's just bootlegging
So if i was charging 5 bucks, that would be bootlegging and bad, but if i was distributing it for free, that would be alright?>But nobody buys bootleg games intentionally, because if you want to play a game without supporting the developer, why pay any asshole money?
Because in the world you describe, where this is a legal and socially acceptable practice, why would i pay the original dev the price they need to pay for the development, if i could get the same program for cheaper from someone who just copied it onto a CD or made their own switch cart?
DRM bad in your world, (and possibly illegal?) So, i imagine if i wanted the newest PS4 game, i could just go to any gas station and legally get the disk with the full game for 2 bucks or whatever they want to charge, if i didnt feel like burning it myself.>But, it's an undeniable fact that not only is it still possible to do, but it's also piss easy to do, and piss easy to face zero consequences for. Yet companies and indie devs alike still profit off their products. I could easily have pirated Super Mario Odyssey. Instead I paid $60 for it*. Why?
Right, they do make profit, because they are working under the system as it is, not the system that you want to see.
In the world where its legal common practice to just distribute someone elses work, for profit or for free, no one would ever pay the originators the cost they need to recoup the cost of their labor. You would be ether be crazy, or extremely charitable to do so.
Why did you? Idk, your asterisk seems to imply that you just didnt feel like doing the work. But still, in your world, there would be no work to do, obtaining the game for free would just be the standard, so why would anyone pay Nintendo for it?
Also, it seems like your saying that the morally correct thing to do would have been to be a thief, because you want some mario, and you dont like the creator of the thing you want, so you should still take from their labor but give no compensation.
I cant agree with that. >If I had to choose between someone pirating my game, and them not playing my game at all, I would choose the former. Obviously, I would prefer to be compensated for the fruit of my labor, but many people who pirate games wouldn't be paying customers regardless; if they can't pirate, they simply won't play. In the end, it's still more profitable for me to have them play my game, love it, and give me free advertising through word of mouth.
Again, in the system your advocating for, it would be normal common practice, and the morally correct thing to do to obtain your game for free, so no one would pay, regardless of how much "word of mouth" there was.
You can maybe hope some charitable donations come your way, but dont expect to be able to pay employees or fund R&D to move tech forward at all. It would just be released into the world and distributed, as it never belonged to you in the fist place, even as you were working in it. >Hundreds if not thousands of rare, obscure games are only playable now through piracy, and without piracy, those games would be forgotten; the legacy of their creator lost to the ages.
Are you looking for an emmy nomination with this post? The drama Haha.
Yes, i agree that copyright law is really messed up, in fact, i kade a thread about it less than a week ago. But i dont think it shouldnt exist
. >I still have yet to hear a defense for why I, as a fan of Mario games, shouldn't be allowed to make my own Mario game, and distribute it to other Mario fans, for free or otherwise.
Copyright laws exist so that the creator of an IP can be assured they they will be compensated for their labor throughout their life. It use to be ~50 years now its around ~70 which, i agree is too long.
They exist to protect the person who did the work and had the idea, from copies of that work being distributed and repurposed the moment it becomes a popular and profitable IP.
It also protects mario from legally becoming a symbol inconsistent with the creators intent thereby tarnishing the reputation of the creator. For example, you cant adopt mario as a white supremacist symbol and legally publish games that work on nintendo hardware where he the goombas are black people or some shit and distribute it.
Though, this also falls under trademark.
Its going to be interesting soon because Micky mouse will once again be coming into the public domain in just a couple of years, and though disney has done a lot of work to make that character the "symbol" of Disney, the character they trademarked describes steamboat willy, not the current character design of micky they use as a symbol.
Also keep in mind that there is more to the world than video games, and these laws also prevent people from marking inferior possessors as "AMD" or "Intel" and also protect products such as medical and saftey devices.
The world dosnt hinge on mario and micky mouse. Even if cartoons and video games are what are most important to you, specifically.
Whinny the pooh is actually falling into the public domain in 2021 i think, and that will be an interesting test case for what is to come, because disney will fight it, but they cant exactly argue that character is the "symbol" of disney and thereby covered under trademark.
This post was edited by its author on .