• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 22nd, 2023

help-circle













  • Yeah, it feels kinda like OP is really wondering if what’s there now is just as good as what used to be there because it might still be labeled “art”. Not all art is equal, and I’d much rather have nice looking art than art that says “this used to look nice but now it’s just dicks”. But, given that some asshole decided to just paint over it with monocolour, I’d rather have that “fuck you” than to see it left blank.

    I hope the 2nd artist has the determination to put it back if the owners try to get rid of it again, but the patience to wait until they stop watching it so they don’t get caught. Or make them spend money on a surveillance system and someone to monitor it but still put it back one or two lines at a time. Until the owners have an aneurysm and it eventually ends up in the hands of someone more chill.





  • I was part of an ISP that was a customer coop. I bought a share when I signed up and then sold it when I moved away.

    Another way it could be done is via dilution. Like every so often, new shares are issued to current employees based on whatever criteria they use to determine division of ownership. Existing shares remain outstanding so former employees still get dividends and voting rights, but the guy that worked there for 3 months 8 years ago isn’t an equal owner to someone who joined 3 years ago and hasn’t left. Though there’s then the question of can people sell their shares to someone else, potentially leaving the door open for a hostile takeover when a large enough group of former employees want to cash out? If they can’t sell them, what happens to the shares when an owner dies?

    The first one is cleaner. Personally, I’d go with the first option but have an exception for people retiring so their shares can act as a non-transferable pension but then the shares cease to exist once they die (or exist for a limited amount of time after death for their next of kin).



  • Oops thanks for putting that out, corrected.

    For the first point, it might be more of a patent thing than copyright, because you can patent improvements you come up with for someone else’s invention.

    Though another angle might be that game studios want to avoid encouraging a freelance game improvement market where people look to financially gain from swooping in and making improvements to their games. It might result in improvements they already planned to make but hadn’t gotten to being blocked by patents and license demands. I don’t agree that this is something that should be avoided, though I don’t think current IP laws would make this a desirable system for anyone other than lawyers.

    That’s not to say that it’s legally impossible to figure out how to navigate pulling in community changes to the main game, there’s just complications involved that so far Bethesda has preferred to avoid. They might even just want to avoid a case going to court to set some kind of precedent because it might involve paying royalties to modders. IMO they would deserve to be paid if their work gets pulled into the game directly or indirectly, and even just as modders adding value to the base game I think maybe they deserve some compensation for their efforts.