Harrison [He/Him]

The same thing except you then have to pay for the disk, distribution and worry about stock and so on.

until you have a library that you can rent games for free close to you.

It’s called a torrenting client

I had a similar experience. Loved it then, like it even more now.

Well, you’ve got to get rid of it some way, and while charity might systematically be a problem there are plenty that do genuine good.

If you have any decency, get rid of most of it, preferably to charities or political causes.

That sort of wealth in the hands of a single person is obscene, and spending it on luxury when there are people starving and homeless in the world is the height of immorality.

Foolish if the goal is to hold on to more money than you could ever need in ten lifetimes to pursue the goal of accumulating more from the work of others.

No, it’s more like doctor or engineer where it’s a protected profession that’s criminal to imitate.

The cost is just money in this case. It doesn’t use rare or unethically sourced materials (at least if you’re not a vegan), it advances the biological sciences as a whole and it’s something to do for bio grads that might generate a lot of value for society in the future.

We can, through collective effort, precipitate change away from or reverse negative change, and the first step to that is complaining about it.

Yes

Not religious, but if it works it works. Clearly there is joy in faith for some people.

They didn’t say trace. A good artist can use the style of another artist when creating a new work.

The ability and willingness to generate images in a style associated with a person, without consent, is a threat to that persons job security and shows a lack of value for them as a human. As if their creative expression is worth nothing but as a commodity to be consumed.

You can’t own an art style. Copyright only extends to discrete works and characters. If I pay a street artist to draw a portrait of me in the style of Picasso, I’m not devaluing Picasso as a person.

It sucked for candle makers when electric lights were adopted. It sucked for farriers and stable hands and saddle makers when cars became affordable for the average person. Such is the cost of progress.

This is true in US law but it should probably be noted that a lot of the “misconceptions” you’re outlining in OP’s comment are things that are legal in other jurisdictions

Once you display an idea in public, it belongs to anyone who sees it.

Art is a part of the human condition. Whether or not it can be commercialised, it will endure as a past-time, just not as a vocation.

The rich and powerful must go away, or everyone else will suffer.

Soon enough they will succeed in eliminating most jobs, and the moment will come where action must be taken. Them or us.

Artists don’t own their styles, so it’s interesting to see them fight to protect them.

The only thing that makes anything valuable is that someone wants it, or at least wants it to exist. Nothing has intrinsic value because value itself is a human construction. This necessarily includes art.

This aid is not charitable. America needs to maintain its hegemony to continue benefiting from it and Taiwan is a critical strategic asset.