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.
nothing is wrong with selling your work. it’s immoral to (use a government-enforced artificial monopoly to) stop others from sharing culture, though.
it’s impossible to know how much money she made just because of her (artificial, government-enforced) monopoly position in the market. but without that monopoly, i don’t believe she’d have ever come close to being a billionaire.
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
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?
nothing is wrong with selling your work. it’s immoral to (use a government-enforced artificial monopoly to) stop others from sharing culture, though.
it’s impossible to know how much money she made just because of her (artificial, government-enforced) monopoly position in the market. but without that monopoly, i don’t believe she’d have ever come close to being a billionaire.
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.
Oh you’re one of those people, living in delulu fantasy land.
This means you’ve been reported already. Be prepared.
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.