4 ms·

See, this is exactly the part that software people don't get. You give your code away for free, which means you have decided up front that you don't stand to be

See, this is exactly the part that software people don't get. You give your code away for free, which means you have decided up front that you don't stand to benefit from retaining any rights for yourself (except perhaps minor ones like attribution, or whatever the license(s) you use call for). That is the exact opposite of having skin in the game---your skin is somewhere else, in another game. As I said: different incentives. Why don't novelists all release their full manuscripts under highly permissive free licenses at the same time as their published volumes hit the store shelves? Is it because they're all stupid and vain, wringing their hands over a non-issue? Or could it be that all things are not equal, and that their living depends on the protections afforded them by copyright law in a way yours doesn't?

WalterBright 4y ago
I make money from the secondary effects. > Why don't novelists all release their full manuscripts under highly permissive free licenses at the same time as their published volumes hit the store shelves? They're likely afraid to try. I'm not afraid. Novelists don't make much money. Giving the novels away is a way to get fame, and fame can be turned into money. > their living depends on the protections afforded them by copyright law Does it? It's really hard to make a living writing novels.
- caconym_ 4y ago
  > I make money from the secondary effects. Are you even reading my comments? Because yes, you do, that's the whole point. I said as much in my last one. That's exactly what makes your opinion in this matter essentially worthless. If you read on, you'll see that I also anticipated your slur against novelists as being "afraid", or whatever---inferior to you, in any case. It honesty astounds me how willing some people in the tech world are to make pronouncements like this, mistaking their ignorance for insight. I am willing to be convinced that somebody who's not a working artist has meaningful insight here, but you're convincing me of the opposite. > Does it? It's really hard to make a living writing novels. Why don't you go ahead and tell me that there is nobody who depends on selling their novels for a substantial portion of their income?

WalterBright 4y ago

I make money from the secondary effects. > Why don't novelists all release their full manuscripts under highly permissive free licenses at the same time as their published volumes hit the store shelves? They're likely afraid to try. I'm not afraid. Novelists don't make much money. Giving the novels away is a way to get fame, and fame can be turned into money. > their living depends on the protections afforded them by copyright law Does it? It's really hard to make a living writing novels.

caconym_ 4y ago
> I make money from the secondary effects. Are you even reading my comments? Because yes, you do, that's the whole point. I said as much in my last one. That's exactly what makes your opinion in this matter essentially worthless. If you read on, you'll see that I also anticipated your slur against novelists as being "afraid", or whatever---inferior to you, in any case. It honesty astounds me how willing some people in the tech world are to make pronouncements like this, mistaking their ignorance for insight. I am willing to be convinced that somebody who's not a working artist has meaningful insight here, but you're convincing me of the opposite. > Does it? It's really hard to make a living writing novels. Why don't you go ahead and tell me that there is nobody who depends on selling their novels for a substantial portion of their income?