Rowling earned her billion ethically – she just turned out to be a unethical person, and it wasn’t known until much later.
Alongside Taylor Swift it highlights the only way to ethically be a billionaire – mass global popularity. When you have 100,000,000 fans, and each of them spend just $10 on a book or album, you make a billion.
Just want to throw out there that those were fantastic video games too! Goblet of Fire and sadly Deathly Hallows were fairly sucky adaptations, but all of the others were amazing, high quality games.
I recommend everyone pay them, but given that Rowling is a TERF, you’ll want to pirate them.
I don’t think copyright is inherently immoral. I think it’s good to have at least a temporary monopoly on a piece of creative work that you’ve made. The important word here is temporary. The way it’s set up right now, copyright protection lasts too damn long.
Unless it’s a multigenerational collaboration then yeah it should protect the creators relationship to their work in their lifetime, but that “happy birthday to you” nonsense is stifling.
Rowling earned her billion ethically – she just turned out to be a unethical person, and it wasn’t known until much later.
Alongside Taylor Swift it highlights the only way to ethically be a billionaire – mass global popularity. When you have 100,000,000 fans, and each of them spend just $10 on a book or album, you make a billion.
>Rowling earned her billion ethically
citation needed
She famously wrote books that sold well and then she sold rights to movies and video games based on those books which got her even more money.
If you’re saying that is unethical then the onus is on you to tell us how.
Just want to throw out there that those were fantastic video games too! Goblet of Fire and sadly Deathly Hallows were fairly sucky adaptations, but all of the others were amazing, high quality games.
I recommend everyone pay them, but given that Rowling is a TERF, you’ll want to pirate them.
copyright is immoral
Not inherently, but the way it’s currently set up sure is.
Is it immoral for an artist to charge money for their art?
no. it’s immoral to tell people they can’t share it. sharing is good.
We have entire facilities with the sole purpose of sharing books. You can buy a book and lend it to whoever you want.
right. this has nothing to do with copyright.
So what exactly is the issue again with artists and authors and singers making billions when hundreds of millions of fans buy their work?
Oh you’re one of those people, living in delulu fantasy land.
this is just an insult. it is not a rebuttal. personal attacks are expressly prohibited in this community.
cOpYrIgHt iS iMmOrAl is also not a rebuttal. It’s a platitude based on your delusional worldview.
This means you’ve been reported already. Be prepared.
citation needed
I don’t think copyright is inherently immoral. I think it’s good to have at least a temporary monopoly on a piece of creative work that you’ve made. The important word here is temporary. The way it’s set up right now, copyright protection lasts too damn long.
Unless it’s a multigenerational collaboration then yeah it should protect the creators relationship to their work in their lifetime, but that “happy birthday to you” nonsense is stifling.
something only a closeted racist would say
people share stories. it’s natural and good. copyright is a government enforced monopoly that prohibits sharing. it’s immoral.
The gubmint isn’t forcing you to only sell your stories. If you want, you can upload your stories on a website for free.
But you don’t get to tell people how they should distribute their creation. That’s some authoritarian bullshit.
I should be able to share any story I know.
You dont need to sell stories to share them.