• HalfSalesman@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    A person working to make profit might not actually believe in copyrights. Nor hold any ideological kinship with the system they exist in.

    Further, virtually all resources to do anything originated in “the commons” and the sort of person who’s trying to produce a game as their means of making money probably are just trying to get away from a miserable 9 to 5 (or not live under a bridge).

    People who work and give away their shit for free are good people, but they are also usually people who are financially comfortable already. Its not right to dictate what resources some individual game dev is trying to use to make a living off their work.

        • Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Firstly, if they don’t believe in copyright, they shouldn’t be advocating for copyright, i.e. don’t base your whole business model hypocrisy. “Copyright for ther but not for me”.

          The second paragraph has a vaguely defined “resources”. I assume you mean that people learning art looks at existing art as a way to get better and produce new art. I don’t think this should be in the same category as copying art from “commons”. I do believe generative AI to be copying rather than learning, unlike humans.

          The third paragraph tries to put a class barrier on good morals. Let’s assume that is true. I’d argue that anyone that has the time and money to start their own venture into game development also is quite “comfortable” and should therefore be measured by the same stick.

          As to that assumption: Most open source is created by people in their spare time. They mostly have full time jobs to do as well, the collaboration is done for fun or as a calling to do good for the world.