_______'S PROFILE

author=LockeZ
No, I'm not saying I can't imagine other reasons for not wanting to let people use your stuff. I'm just saying those reasons are less important than creating art. The only reason anyone I ask ever gives me about why it shouldn't be allowed is because the original artist benefits from it somehow, which does make that artist a selfish asshole - they care more about themselves than about art. If you have a different reason than benefitting the artist, then my generalization about selfishness doesn't apply to you.

It was a generalization that I think applies to most of the cases I will personally encounter, not an intrinsic truth written into the U.S. Bibletution that I would bet my life on in every single circumstance. This is a thing people do in internet arguments where one person says "I think a thing" and the other person is like "Oh so you can't imagine any possible situation where that's not the case? You would have sex with Hitler to uphold that idea?" and then someone starts citing sources and it gets unpleasant. Let's not do that.

i dont believe that you can imagine the reasons, and if youve contrived to formulate them for the sake of argument, then i dont believe that you can appraise them. i see a difference between knowing the reasons and having had to profoundly consider them within the context of the self. this is what i mean by difference in perspective

furthermore 'creation of art' doesnt in every case justify any means necessary to enable it. if you have policies or views which are practical for you and limited to you personally, then you have to consider your own output in that same practical and limited scope. you dont get to assign other peoples positions your personal generalizations and then empower your own position with lofty concepts like 'art' and 'beauty' and automatically assume that your actions are beyond examination. do you truly understand 'art' or 'beauty', or do your works stand up to the standards of art and beauty to the same extent that you invoke the power of these concepts to explain your behavior

author=Feldschlacht IV
As long as the modding community exists (and it has existed, for 20+ years), I think arguments like these are pretty moot as long as no profit is made. This is especially apparent on the PC and genres such as first person shooters, as games such as Half Life, Counter-Strike, Halo, and Quake have been the source for graphics and engines of dozens upon dozens of derived nonrelated works for years and years. Not to mention the various mods based assets from RPGs such as Fallout or the Elder Scrolls. This really wouldn't be a conversation in those circles.

I feel like conversations such as these are at an infant level compared on the scale of say, a work like Red vs. Blue or even The Nameless Mod.

studios (ie: typical source of modding communities) tend not to care about their assets. of course there is no conversation

is it not explicit that the argument is re: people who do care. what are you talking about. clue me in

author=LockeZ
ONCE AGAIN I HAVE SOME OVERABSTRACTED THEORIES RE: MATTERS I HAVE NO GREAT EXPERIENCE IN

this is the kind of magnanimous attitude only possible in a person completely removed from risk

author=Kylaila
People choose to give them money for what they do, so if they want to pay them whatever much, then the people can receive it.

That's all there is to it.

let audience dissent and structured criticism take their course. it's the only form of regulation that culture has in the movement of money

'people do what they want to do and thats that' just sounds to me like 'lets stop thinking'

which is a great way to get your basest impulses exploited









e: i need more whitespace. whatever happened to margins

author=kentona
I saw this as a tumblr screencap posted to imgur

somewhere in the sloshing pool of the internet a new pigment was dispersed