So basically, if you make something that becomes hugely popular, morally it should no longer be yours.
No sir, I don’t like it.
Edit: If you make something that is hugely unpopular, would that also apply?
Nah, rather it’s you make something that becomes hugely popular, or culturally significant, then you purposely make it unavailable.
So the Internet will find a way to get it, illegally if necessary, and with extreme prejudice against you to boot!
Edited to correct the argument above that you’re arguing against.
Edited to screw up my point.
Or perhaps your definition of ownership is different than mine.
Do you work for Disney?
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. If you own something, you absolutely have the right to no longer sell it. But then why omit that when summarizing the argument that you’re arguing against? Include it.
They still have every right to make money off it. It’s still legally theirs.
It is now also, however, a part of the culture. That’s an essential piece of the problem, so maybe it’s not screwing up your point to make sure it’s included. :UpsideDownSmiley:
Not being OK with people feeling entitled to whatever they want whenever they want doesn’t make anyone a corporate shill.
It comes down to restricting rights of ownership, and that is a slippery slope toward a world I would want no part of.
What comes next? Making sure you next popular work is edited a certain way? For the good of the culture?
I think scharmers was referencing Disney because of their history of “putting things back in the vault” to increase their value. Not referencing them for being a corporate shill purposes.
By your own analogy, George Lucas is a book burner who torched his own 1st editions. That’s a world I want no part of.
Not a clean analogy. I’ve been disgusted with a book before and ripped it in half. I owned it.
If George Lucas wants to burn his own copies and not sell them anymore, who cares. He can’t touch all the copies already sold.
Maybe he believe that Han killing Greedo is morally wrong and leading to the decay of society.
Just because something is popular does not mean it is morally right.
We do. That’s kinda the whole point of the thread.
Glad you found something you could argue for there. Think about the rest though.
LOL, I’ve established that I’m a filthy software pirate and anti-intellectual property crusader; albeit one with a groaning GoG & Steam & etc. software library.
I 99.9% tend to buy software because:
a) I am a grownup who was taught that stealing things was wrong most of the time, unless it isn’t
b) I have the money, and, frankly, the convenience with which you can buy software (and have it supported, and not have Razor1911 or Fairlight or L33THaxxCrue mining your box with the crack) makes it preferable to buy.
I have an enormous collection of technically “pirated software”… all of which is abandonware, all of which I have bought at one point, and almost all of which I boot up every once in a while to stare at and feel the nostalgia of a young man who doesn’t have a life of corporate drudgery in front of him.
In terms of games/movie/book preservation, I absolutely think it should still apply. Even the unpopular stuff should be preserved as well. You should be able to go into a library or something and view it/experience it. Maybe not own it. To own it, you have to either buy a really expensive used copy, or a cheap digital copy that’s still sold somewhere, depending on whether the owner is still selling it. But it should still be preserved and accessible to view/experience, I think.
I just bought a retro gaming machine stuffed full of 1000’s of old games on Etsy of all places. My current backlog in GOG, Steam, Epic, Ubi, EA thingy, 6 plastic bins full of games and old consoles helps the guilt go away. Don’t get me started on how many qtrs I shoved in machines over the last 40 years. ;) I’m eyeing a full 4 player retro cabinet for my Man cave in the garage as well.
Sure, the logic should go both ways, and it would be wrong both ways.
Not ironically, nobody is standing on their moral soapbox to download crap they don’t like, which highlights the self serving nature of the argument and the fact that we justify bad behavior with logic all the time.
So, Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, and is hugely popular. Is that wrong, should Sherlock Holmes still be in the hands of it’s creator?