The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you’ve already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

  • Rough_N_Ready@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    348
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Piracy was never stealing. It’s copyright infringement, but that’s not the same as stealing at all. People saying it’s stealing have always been wrong.

    • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      191
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      One of the great modern scams, was to convince society that unauthorized copying of data is somehow equivalent to taking away a physical object.

      • Coasting0942@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        74
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Jesus didn’t ask for permission to copy bread and fish. It’s a clear moral precedent that if you can copy you should.

        What would the Jesus do?

        Checkmate Atheists!

            • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              You seem to not understand what the word own means and the difference between material and not material goods.

                • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I have a thing and than someone takes it away, so I can’t use it anymore. If somebody copies that thing - it’s not really theft.

                  My point is more - concepts from physical world don’t nessessary apply to digital world.

                  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It just seems that what you are saying is that people shouldn’t be paid if their work doesn’t create something physical.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I love how you guys play these mental gymnastics to justify this shit to yourselves.

              I love how you bootlickers always deny that anyone could possibly have a principled objection to modern intellectual property laws. I don’t need to “justify” at all. I rarely even pirate anything, but I don’t believe I’m doing anything wrong when I do.

            • aylex@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Something you never would have dedicated as much time to if you couldn’t be compensated for it.”

              Just telling on yourself 😂

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Intellectual property is not a thought that you own. It’s an idea

              Ah, it’s an idea, not a thought. Gotcha. Glad you cleared that up.

              Something that actually takes time to make, often a whole lot of time.

              Who the fuck cares? Dinner also takes a great deal of time to make.

              Something you never would have dedicated as much time to if you couldn’t be compensated for it.

              That’s not true. People have been telling stories and creating art since humanity climbed down from the trees. Compensation might encourage more people to do it, but there was never a time that people weren’t creating, regardless of compensation. In addition, copyright, patents and trademarks are only one way of trying to get compensation. The Sistine chapel ceiling was painted not by an artist who was protected by copyright, but by an artist who had rich patrons who paid him to work.

              Maybe “Meg 2: The Trench” wouldn’t have been made unless Warner Brothers knew it would be protected by copyright until 2143. But… maybe it’s not actually necessary to give that level of protection to the expression of ideas for people to be motivated to make them. In addition, maybe the harms of copyright aren’t balanced by the fact that people in 2143 will finally be able to have “Meg 2: The Trench” in the public domain.

              • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why should an artist not be paid but a gardener or someone who build your house is supposed to be paid?

                After all, humans build stuff and make stuff with plants without compensation all the time.

                You just sound like a Boomer who thinks work is only work when the product isn’t entertaining or art.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Intellectual property is a scam, the term was invented to convince dumb people that a government-granted monopoly on the expression of an idea is the same thing as “property”.

          You can’t “steal” intellectual property, you can only infringe on someone’s monopoly rights.

          • Katana314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            This feels like an easy statement to make when it applies to Disney putting out new Avatar movies. Then, suddenly, you realize how extensively it causes problems when you’re a photographer trying to get magazines to pay for copies of the once-in-a-lifetime photo you took, instead of re-printing it without your permission.

            “InfORMaTioN wANts tO Be FrEe, yO.”

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Then, suddenly, you realize how extensively it causes problems when you’re a photographer trying to get magazines to pay for copies of the once-in-a-lifetime photo you took

              That’s a pretty specific example. Probably because in many cases photographers are paid in advance. A wedding photographer doesn’t show up at the wedding, take a lot of pictures, then try to work out a deal with the couple getting married. They negotiate a fee before the wedding, and when the wedding is over they turn over the pictures in exchange for the money. Other photographers work on a salary.

              Besides, even with your convoluted, overly-specific example, even without a copyright, a magazine would probably pay for the photo. Even if they didn’t get to control the copying of the photo, they could still get the scoop and have the picture out before other people. In your world, how would they “reprint” it without your permission? Would they break into your house and sneakily download it from your phone or camera?

              • Katana314@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                This is the kind of situation I’m citing:

                https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/one-mans-endless-hopeless-struggle-to-protect-his-copyrighted-images/

                A lot of photography is not based on planning ahead before being paid (a person requests Photo X, and then pays on delivery). Nature photographers, and in fact many other forms of artists, produce a work before people know/feel they want it, and then sell it based on demonstration - a media outlet notices their work in a gallery or on their website, and then requests use of that work themselves.

                The struggles of the above insect photographer are even with the existing IP laws - they only ask for fair compensation from what they’ve put so much effort into, and VERY MANY media outlets don’t bother; to say nothing of giving a charitable donation.

                • merc@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  then sell it based on demonstration - a media outlet notices their work in a gallery or on their website

                  So, they choose to rely on copyright, when they could do work for hire instead.

                  they only ask for fair compensation from what they’ve put so much effort into

                  No, they ask for unfair compensation based on copyrights.

                  • Katana314@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No - they CAN’T do work for hire. Are you listening?

                    “Hi. I do really cool photos. Please hire me to take one, and after you’ve paid me, you can see it.”

                    According to you, that’s a comprehensive resume and advertisement for a photographer, absent of a single graphic. According to you, a client could come to a consult about buying a photo, sneak their phone camera up to the print, and say “Never mind about payment! I just copied it. You can keep the print! So long, loser.”

                    You’re not even trying to imagine the impossible hurdles such a craft would have trying to earn enough to eat food every day, much less have a roof over their head. If you have nothing substantive to add, everyone on this site should be done with you.

          • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Imagine if startrek was written with IP in mind. Instead of all these wunderkinds being all gung ho about implementing their warp field improvements on your reactor you’d get some ferengi shilling the latest and greatest “marketable” blech engine improvements.

            Fiction is much better without reality leeching in.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Star Trek was set in a future utopia. One of the key things about the show is that it’s a post-scarcity world where even physical objects can be replicated.

              They definitely wrote the series with IP in mind… in that their view of a future utopia was one where not only did copyright etc. not exist, but nobody cared much about the ownership of physical objects either.

            • TootGuitar@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              For someone who bitches all over this thread about people strawmanning their position, this is a pretty fucking great reply.

              Hint: one can be pissed about people throwing around the not-based-in-legal-reality term “intellectual property.” One can be pissed about people using it as part of a strategy to purposely confuse the public into thinking that copyright infringement is the same as theft, a strategy which has apparently worked mightily well on you. One can be all of those things, and yet still feel that copyright infringement is wrong and no one should be entitled to “literally everything someone else creates.”

              What you posted was a textbook definition of a straw man.

                • TootGuitar@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t know how the original poster meant it, but one possible way to interpret it (which is coincidentally my opinion) is that the concept of intellectual property is a scam, but the underlying actual legal concepts are not. Meaning, the law defines protections for copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets, and each of those has their uses and are generally not “scams,” but mixing them all together and packaging them up into this thing called intellectual property (which has no actual legal basis for its existence) is the scam. Does that make sense?

                  • merc@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Exactly, “intellectual property” doesn’t exist. It’s a term that was created to try to lump together various unrelated government-granted rights: trademark, copyright, patents, etc. They’re all different, and the only thing they have in common is that they’re all rights granted by the government. None of them is property though. That was just a clever term made up by a clever lobbyist to convince people to think of them as property, rather than government-granted rights related to the copying of ideas. Property is well-understood, limited government-granted rights to control the copying of ideas is less well understood. If the lobbyists can get people to think of “intellectual property” they’ve won the framing of the issue.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If no one thinks that, why are you saying it right now?

          Actual theft of intellectual property would involve somehow tricking the world into thinking you hold the copyright to something that someone else owns.

        • Cypher@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          71
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The performers time is not infinitely reproducible so your argument is apples to oranges.

          • ominouslemon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            But the time to create a novel, a videogame, or a news story is not infinitely reproducible, either. So when you are pirsting one of those things, you are actively reaping the benefits of someone’s time for free, like going to a concert without a ticket

            • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s a difference between the performer’s time to create not being infinitely reproducible, and an user’s time to use the product being or not infinitely reproducible. Whether I’m pirating or buying a TV show, the actors were already compensated for their time and use for the show; my payment for buying actually goes to the corporate fat: licensors, distributors, etc.

              Whereas when pay a ticket into a live concert, I’m actually paying for something to be made.

                • CybranM@feddit.nu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It just magically appears /s Its disingenuous to try and justify piracy on the basis that the performers have already been paid. I don’t agree with studios either of course, customers are being scammed

                • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  From the investors who are paying the cheques of course. They are corporations, they can afford to spend some coins on [checks notes] living wages.

              • ominouslemon@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                This only applies to cases where the artist/actor/whatever gets paid upfront. Most of the times, that does not happen. The creator of something only gets money when somebody buys what they have created (books, videogames, music, etc)

                • Katana314@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Even if they were paid upfront, they were paid off the idea that the company could make bank on their (ready yourself for the word in case it triggers): Intellectual Property.

                  In a future world where people have achieved their wish and the concept no longer exists, companies have no reason to pay creators ahead of time.

                • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I can get that they’d not necessarily be paid upfront, but there is no possible legal contract in which they are to be paid only in the future, in causality, according to the performance of a ~~third~ ~ fourth party who is not in the contract. What, are the actors paying their weekly groceries with IOUs?

                  • ominouslemon@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Every artist in every field get MAYBE paid a tiny bit upfront, and then a percentage of the sales. That’s how books and music work, for instance

            • Chobbes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, this is the real issue. That said it is a shame and a waste for the results of these efforts to be artificially restricted. I do really hope that one day we can find a way to keep people fed and happy while fully utilizing the incredible technology we have for copying and redistributing data.

              • ominouslemon@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean, we’ve kinda already found a way, and it’s ads. Now it’s obvious that the ad market as a whole is horrible (it’s manipulative, it has turned into spying, it does not work really well, it’s been controlled by just a handful of companies etc), but at least it’s democratic in that it allows broader access to culture to everyone while still paying the creators.

                Personally, I would not be against ads, if they were not tracking me. As of now, though, the situation seems fucked up and a new model is probably necessary. It’s just that, until now, every other solution is worse for creators.

        • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t see anything wrong with paying for software or music or digital media. I don’t think that not doing so is theft - like I also don’t think that getting into a concert without paying is theft. By the way a concert is also not digital data, at least an irl one.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            A library card is your ticket there and libraries are paid via taxes, which is why they’re free at point of use.

            Attending a free concert is not stealing. Breaking into the Eras tour is.

            • snooggums@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The library buys once and allows multiple people to read/watch each item without each person needing to individually purchase. Just like one person buying something and sharing it with others.

              The main point is that digitization distribution is not a concert

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Digital distribution is a service. You can steal a service.

                If you fuck a prostitute and then don’t pay them, you are stealing from them.

                • snooggums@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If the prostitute uses a technique, and then you use the same technique without paying hem for reuse, is that stealing or does their direct involvement matter?

                  • sdoorex@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If you’re going to retype the code of a program from scratch, then your analogy is valid. If instead you are taking the production created through someone else’s labor without compensating them, then you are stealing from them.

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Prostitutes don’t become prostitutes because they know secret techniques.

                    The metaphor is describing the service provided, and that not paying for said service is indeed stealing.

                    Trying to make it a different metaphor requires a new framework from you, because you copying their actual service would be you pimping them, under this metaphor.

                • psud@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s okay I won’t use their digital distribution system to pirate their stuff.

                  It’s just like falling to pay a prostitute you never fucked

                • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re not using their distribution service when you pirate something. That’s the whole point.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Libraries get money via tax. What people here are arguing for is that others should work for them or free. Because game studios, for example, are overwhelmingly not paid via tax money. They are depending on people buying their software. And many software has ongoing costs.

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you think I should be forced to pay for a ticket if I’m standing next to the concert venue on the sidewalk but can still hear the performance?

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have never had a problem with people taking a tape recorder to a concert, even if it’s against terms of service

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m a software developer, and I endorse the grandparent comment.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes.

            Well, not literally, both because I’m more inclined to “high five” and you can’t do either gesture over the Internet. But figuratively, yes.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              18
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why don’t you just gift away your software than? That’s an honest question. You obviously aren’t expecting to be paid for it, do you think in general developers shouldn’t earn money with software or is it just you?

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                21
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why don’t you just gift away your software than?

                Because I don’t make those decisions; my employer does. They ought to give it away, but they don’t.

                (The software I’ve worked on has tended to be either (a) tools for internal company use or (b) stuff used by the government/large companies where the revenue would definitely have come from a support contract even if the code itself were free.)

                  • grue@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That question is a red herring. My employer isn’t paying me to write software; they’re paying me to write the software they want instead of the software I want to make.

              • psud@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The writer whose article is the subject of this post releases his books without DRM. He ends his podcast with a quote encouraging piracy. I found him because of an earlier book he released under a share alike licence

                He has found that piracy increases the reach of his message, and increases his sales

              • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Software developer who gives away my software for free as Free and Open Source Software. I agree with the grand-grand-parent comment.

      • puttybrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I made software that people cared enough about to crack and pirate, I’d be happy that it’s popular enough for that to happen.

        I am a software developer but I’ve only worked on SaAS and open source projects.

        • zerofk@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I work on software which is pirated. It is even sold by crackers, who make money off my work. This does not make me proud.

          What does make me proud is when a paying customer says they love a specific feature, or that our software saves them a lot of manual work.

        • poopkins@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Pride unfortunately doesn’t pay the bills. It’s terrific that you contribute to open source, but not all commercial software can be open sourced.

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Popularity opens other ways to make money. Open source is profitable for GNU. Cory Doctorow does fine.

            • poopkins@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect every commercial product to find profitability through exposure. I can attest to this first hand as I had published an open source Android game that was republished without ads. This led me to ultimately make the repository private, because I could not find a way to remain profitable while offering the source code and bearing the costs of labor and various cloud services.

              On the flip side I guess I can take credit for the millions of installs from the other app… except they didn’t publicly acknowledge me.

              • psud@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Was it under a “copyleft” licence (like GPL) that forces the other one to also be open source? Did you use a licence that requires you are acknowledged?

                If you did the first, you at least pulled someone else into open source work

                • poopkins@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, GPL.

                  At the time I had seen that it had been forked into numerous private repositories, I believe roughly 100 or so. Perhaps I could have made a claim to have the other app taken down through Google Play, but I had no faith that this would be resolved, and even if it would be, it would be an ongoing problem.

                  As for whether they would have made open source contributions or not is in the end a moot point for me, because the only change that I observed was that they changed the colors and typeface and extracted the in-game menu into a separate welcome screen. I would not have merged this back into my repository.

                  While I myself violated the copyleft of my project by taking it closed source, I felt that it was my only resort. I’ve continued to develop the game over the past few years and by modernizing it and adding additional content, I’ve been able to significantly outpace my competitor.

                  For me, this ordeal had been a bit of an eye opener. I came out of university fully supportive of open source and when I discovered how this affected a real world project, I genuinely approached this situation understanding that it was just a risk I needed to accept. However, in the three years that it was available on GitHub, I received only two small PRs, and combined with the license violations, I felt that there was really no advantage to keeping it open source.

                  While this is just my anecdote, it has changed my perspective on how open source can realistically work more broadly. I honestly can’t envision any kind of business that needs to offset large production costs able to publish that content viably as open source.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Most people who work on open source projects have a lucrative job and work on Open Source on the side. I also volunteer, but I still need a job that actually pays me as well.

            Reading some of the comments here it feels like speaking to little children who believe money magically appears on their account.

        • aksdb@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tell me which so I can develop a competing service and steal your userbase!

        • satan@r.nf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          46
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d be happy that it’s popular enough for that to happen.

          of course you would. you would actually give them your house and wife, because you’re so proud now. right?

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ah yes, because downloading Shark_Tale.mp4 is exactly the same as someone taking your house away from you and obtaining your wife and owning her as personal property.

            Get some fucking perspective. I usually try to be polite online but this is just straight up moronic and you need to be told so bluntly.

      • iegod@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You need to disconnect the badness with the term stealing because you’re just wrong. Yeah it’s ip infringement. Yes it’s illegal. Yes people are impacted. And still… Not stealing.

      • Rough_N_Ready@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I have been for over 20 years actually! What do I get for winning the bet?

        Edit:

        One of our games we actually ended up supporting a form of piracy. A huge amount of our user base ended up using cheat tools to play our game which meant that they could get things that they would normally have to purchase with premium currency. Instead of banning them, we were careful to not break their cheat tools and I even had to debug why their cheat tool stopped working after a release.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          How did your employer pay your salaries? Or did your money perhaps came from those people who actually do pay for in-game currency in your games?

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes I am. And the two companies I worked for both were small, offered their products for cheap and still had people pirating the modules or circumvent licensing terms. It’s a legit problem that a lot of people don’t see why they should pay for software simply because it’s sometimes easy to steal it.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            circumvent licensing terms

            So to be clear: was it possible to purchase and own the software? Or did users have to pay a subscription for a license? Because personally I’m getting sick of every piece of software thinking it’s appropriate to require a subscription.