D&D 5E (2014) I'll make my own Fifth Edition.

[fireinthedust]

(off topic, but is anyone else adding "with blackjack and hookers" at the end of the title?)

YYYYEEEEEESSSSSssss!!!!!

(ahem) For those wondering: [video=youtube;BGi6Q1pNbS0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGi6Q1pNbS0[/video]

 

[Morrus]

I practice supporting those economic corporations who charge a true-and-fair price for their goods, and whose goods are made in such a way that is sustainable and regenerative (for example organic produce and fair-trade certified). The goal is for economic commodities and services to be transparently priced (neither overpriced, nor underpriced).

And I'm practicing supporting the nascent Free Culture movement. The goal is to make a whole sector which is composed of freely given and freely received cultural services and objects. Despite the commodified state of the art world and music scene, a Free Culture was historically a goal of a significant segment of artists and musicians. Amanda Palmer is one example of someone who is striving toward a Free Culture--the decommodification of art and cultural services.

I prefer that Hasbro go in the direction of either a transparent Associative Corporation or a Free Cultural Organization. Game design is potentially a cultural field. My essay is about going the direction of Free Culture.

Then start. Create something and give it away for free.

That's only an example, brought from my own life (so as to make it more personable), as to why I suggest that the PDF D&D Classics be released into the public domain, and thereby fuel interest in the 5e worldbooks and novels.

Write your own novels and give them away for free! Lead by example.

I'd say the same to the film corporations. A healthy future would be to go in the direction of providing a living, abundant, but modest livelihood to actors and film crew, and having the films kickstarted, and accepting only freely-given gift monies to fund filmmaking. The quality of films would change.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, produce your own film and give it away for free! Show us how to do it! I encourage you to blaze this path!

 

[Remathilis]

And I'm practicing supporting the nascent Free Culture movement. The goal is to make a whole sector which is composed of freely given and freely received cultural services and objects. Despite the commodified state of the art world and music scene, a Free Culture was historically a goal of a significant segment of artists and musicians. Amanda Palmer is one example of someone who is striving toward a Free Culture--the decommodification of art and cultural services.

You're speaking of two different elements here: the right of an artist to make a living of his art (the commercializing of art) and the rights of the artist to retain control of his art. These are separate issues that have traditionally gone hand-in-hand, but need special addressing.

The first part is the obvious monetization of "culture" (art, music, literature, etc). While there is some merit to the notion that the public domain needs to expand (the so-called Disney clause that has extended the copyright of Mickey Mouse is long overdue for an overhaul) the idea that a creator should not profit from his art seems counter-intuitive. I can't paint, so I pay for the time and talent of someone who can to make me a painting to hang in my living room. Patronage has existed since medieval times, and I'm certain you don't believe anyone should just "give" away their art for free. Taylor Swift, Mike Mearls, Michelangelo, they all profited from their talent. To say they should give away their gift for free is a hard pill to swallow.

Moreso, giving something to the Public Domain means you no longer control its destiny. Anyone can create their own vision of your art and you have no contorl over it. Wizards has had a dickens of a time combating Pathfinder, a creation of the OGL with its stiff restrictions. Imagine what Paizo could have done if they could have lifted the name "D&D" to go along with it! Just because you can derive an idea from an older source (Superman is really a Herculean myth brought to modern times, doesn't mean I get to make Superman stories) doesn't mean the derivatives are open as well. A world where an creator cannot profit nor control his art is not a world of artists, its a world devoid of creative genius.

Now, if we lived in a world where all artists were given stipends from the people directly to sit and create stuff, I could see the tables turning. Alas, we don't. So its not fair to ask them to give away their fruits for free, esp without stipulation on its use.

Oh, and I'd be real careful mucking around with Tolkien's work: Chris will sue for derivatives that hew too close to his father's work faster than you can say "hobbit, ent, and balrog". Gygax learned that the hard way.

 

[Mercurius]

I realize you didn't read my essay.

I did, but after that first response - see the second one (which you didn't reply to, but expressed appreciation for your essay).

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

The difference between this guy's argument and communism is that the communists smelled the baloney in the whole "art for art's sake" concept a century ago (c.f. Walter Benjamin's Arcade Project).

 

[Dire Bare]

Ignore me, I don't want to be a part of this conversation.

Ah, that's not how conversation works, on the internet or in the real world. If you don't want to be part of this conversation, YOU leave the thread. Pretty simple.

 

[Dire Bare]

The difference between this guy's argument and communism is that the communists smelled the baloney in the whole "art for art's sake" concept a century ago (c.f. Walter Benjamin's Arcade Project).

Not just ZRN, but we're starting to throw around the word "communist" a bit too much in this thread as a derogatory word . . . can we remember ENWorld's "no politics" rules please? Tanks.

 

[drjones]

Not just ZRN, but we're starting to throw around the word "communist" a bit too much in this thread as a derogatory word . . . can we remember ENWorld's "no politics" rules please? Tanks.

That cow is out the barn door, down the street and on a plane for Vegas already with this thread.

 

[Dire Bare]

A world where an creator cannot profit nor control his art is not a world of artists, its a world devoid of creative genius.

Eh, not really. In ancient days, artists told a story, sung a song, painted something on a cave wall, and had zero control over their work. And yet the arts still flourished. Homer never had much control of the Iliad or the Odyssey once it left his hands. It took time for humans to develop the concepts of trademark and copyright, or their precedents.

And also since ancient days right up to today, some artists have created simply for the joy of creation, with no intention of profit. And some of them are pretty damn good.

Allowing for profit and control of one's art in society doesn't create a world of artists, but a world of professional artists who can devote more time and energy to their work . . . and give us large projects such as blockbuster movies and fantasy role-playing games. Which model is superior? Well, that's what we're arguing here, it's subjective.

I sympathize with DnDPhil's dreams of "free culture" and the un-corporatization of modern society . . . but that's a massive shift that isn't going to happen easily or anytime soon, if ever. But if it happens anywhere, it certainly could be in the RPG hobby where we have a decent number of passionate hobbyists making their own worlds, adventures, house rules, and entirely new RPG games simply for the love of D&D. Although his arguments and desires are confusing me also to what he is really looking for here specifically.

And yeah, WotC is never going to release D&D to the public domain, nor should they. It's a bit of a chuckle. A nice open OGL on the other hand . . .

 

[pkt77242]

Ah, that's not how conversation works, on the internet or in the real world. If you don't want to be part of this conversation, YOU leave the thread. Pretty simple.

Really, why don't you tell me more. I had no idea how that works.

I originally posted a reply and then decided that it was best not to go down that rabbit hole and I edited my post and put in the comment that you quoted. So I did leave the thread and didn't plan on coming back till you quoted me and pointed out the obvious.