> I'm sure a lot of the products I use were made, designed, or distributed by
people who did unethical things. That doesn't mean I have to reject the
products.
But why do you think is unethical? I don't understand why you consider
restricting commercial use of my work without my permission something
unethical.
> Trademark law is a limited monopoly on a particular image or name which
identifies something, designed to prevent misleading consumers. For example,
"GNU" is a trademark. It is illegal to use the name "GNU" in a way that would
be likely to confuse people into thinking that something that isn't GNU is
GNU.
No problem, others can still rebrand the game. Actually is worse, if they
know how to sell, their brand could be more popular than the original from
the author. So the other one sell a lot more than the author. And this is an
injustice, because the author is the one who did work in pro of society.
> This statement makes no sense. I never said that I was against competition.
It's essential in a capitalist economy.
Oh, so I have to let everyone sell my work while I receive nothing or else
I'm against competition and doing unethical things?
Does that sounds more concise?
> Firstly, no one necessarily has a right to make money doing something just
because they like doing it.
Of course no, I meant to say when people do work that benefits society. Or
even if don't benefits society, people has the right to sell what they
produce as log as the product don't attack society. Then you're going to say
that restricting commercial copies of my art is attacking society. So can you
elaborate your ideas and explain why is this and attack to society?
> I haven't made much money from all of my programming, either (the only
money I made was $50 when someone decided to sell one of my games in a
bundle, and then decided to send me some of the money he made).
Alright, but you did made money, more over that other guy did made money with
your work with your permission. But how would you feel in this scenario: You
made a good game with the intention of sell it and live doing what you like,
which is making games that people like. You sell it in the Internet and
months after the exact same game appear with another game. The guy that copy
your work pay some advertisement so the name that he created for your game
grows in popularity. In the end you did all the work and receive $50/month
while the another guy that simply copy your work is making $2000/month and
living from your work. Can you still put a happy face and say that everything
is as it should?
> Secondly, why do you suppose that other people distributing gratis copies
has no effect on your ability to distribute paid-for copies, but that other
people distributing paid-for copies completely ruins your ability to
distribute paid-for copies? Both of these are competition. If anything, the
latter is much stronger competition.
Having other people selling my work without my permission isn't competition,
that's just steal.
> If you're an artist and want to be paid for the work, you should probably
be paid up-front, in full, not expect to get that money by selling copies
Why?
> I also never claimed to know that these methods would work. These are just
possibilities to try.
In other words, you're just babbling about it.
> I'm hoping to try crowdfunding myself, hopefully later this year. We'll see
how it goes.
I wish you good luck, I would like to know more about this system too.
> Actually, I think Dragon Ball is so huge that he wouldn't have any problem
at all making money from it without copyright.
Now is huge. Could it be that huge if it was CC BY-SA from the beginning? No
one can know that, but still I would like to know how that could've played in
their success.
