wodahSShadow wrote:You could also try webm video for the animations.
wodahSShadow wrote:You're saying "This tool is what I know best so it is best for this task." which is at best marginally true, it's cool that you know how to make it work but stick to only using the DRM benefit to justify its use.
wodahSShadow wrote:Imagine you could copy the cleanliness (no idea how that would work) and instantly clean your friend's house. Are you in the wrong for taking a potential sale from the cleaning company?
wodahSShadow wrote:the buyer still gives money but the seller is no longer giving anything back
sportd wrote:There will definitely be other ways of doing it and some (maybe all) will be better but I can only implement a strategy with my knowledge base which in my case makes it "best for this task"
sportd wrote:Yes. It doesn't matter what the intention is....
Greyelf wrote:Yes they are, the seller is giving the buyer the result of the seller's effort and time
wodahSShadow wrote:How does the existence of contracts affect what I said?
wodahSShadow wrote:Copyright gives one side too much power, some people are trying to make it fairer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft.
wodahSShadow wrote:http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/i ... tfinal.htm
wodahSShadow wrote:So we agree that better tools are available. Only looking at the tools you currently have when deciding which is the best for a task means that if you only have a hammer you better hope everything is a nail.
wodahSShadow wrote:theGym seems to work fine, I've looked at the code and with some tweaks you could streamline the process of adding scenes. Using a better data structure than just arrays would definitely curb the "misplaced comma" problem.
wodahSShadow wrote:Ownership of ideas?
1. Acknowledgement of Ownership of original work
sportd wrote:There are two things that stand out to me. The first is that my economic rent would be boosted if I stopped making these games and took the job in the IT office that is offered to me every now and again.
sportd wrote:The thing is... I am not selling anything. I am inviting people to come to my house (in this case godaddy's servers) and enjoy a story. If you want to help me write the game with a donation, you get invited a little earlier than the rest.
sportd wrote:The second (assuming I don't throw in the towel) is that I should remove all restrictions to my games and let them be freely distributed. The way in which I recoup my sunk costs (time / money) is to either:
sportd wrote:No. It means that to attach two pieces of wood together I could use a nailgun, hammer and nail, screws and a screwdriver, screws and a powerdrill or some adhesive. The wood is still attached together but the way in which it is done is up for debate. If I used different tools to produce the game, the game would still be similar to the current version.
Greyelf wrote:I said nothing about ownership of an idea but I did on the other hand associate ownership with the result of a physical activity, that activity in this case being using programming tools, techniques and knowledge to create a piece of software.
tlaero wrote:There's no way around this. If Sam creates a product and Bob takes it without Sam's consent, Bob is stealing the product. Bob can invent any justification he wants to help him sleep at night. But he's still a thief.
tlaero wrote:Before you tell me what is and isn't stealing, I suggest you spend all of your free time for 10 months making something only to have someone take it and distribute it as his own.
tlaero wrote:The near future world of 3D printing in almost any material may be a sad day for independent artists and craftsman.
wodahSShadow wrote:Decades ago: The near future world of digital media may be a sad day for independent musicians, film makers and photographers.
What you fear has already happened and the results aren't a drop of original works.
Greyelf wrote:Not sure how those that make a physical product will resolve the same distribution problem.
wodahSShadow wrote:Greyelf wrote:I said nothing about ownership of an idea but I did on the other hand associate ownership with the result of a physical activity, that activity in this case being using programming tools, techniques and knowledge to create a piece of software.
Does that mean that a copy of the software wouldn't be owned by the creator? Because a copy of a physical good isn't owned by the owner of the original item.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests