Hacker News Reader

Comment by baobabKoodaa | Hacker News Reader

Here's their argument (which I disagree with, but I believe I understand what it is to the extent where I can explain it):

1. Person A starts creating work W and selling it as a profession

2. Person B also starts creating work W and giving it out for free (with some Patreon income, but that is not the point here)

3. Person A can no longer compete with person B, because free is free. Person A is no longer paid

View on HN

I also want to add; It's not like selling a physical product. Digital products usually need to be edited to fit your design. Person A still paid because they will always have customers who like their style & creations. We are not creating and sharing "Kitbash or Evermotion" level assets. These works require thousands of work hours and it's impossible to live sharing them free.

Nope, you are killing an income stream for others. That's what you have to understand, but I think you know it, just want to ruin the ecosystem. FOSS has the same issues, and now you are making sure another area heads there.

Could you elaborate on why you think it's appropriate to dictate what others sell their work for, or whether they sell it at all?

If that's the case, I guess my confusion comes from how one can assume this position and in the next breath complain about people acting entitled to others' work?

We, who cheer on the people who give out stuff for free, are "entitled" when we think we "deserve" the free stuff?

I don't know, man.

If someone can create or reproduce the same kind of work that Person A produces, then that work effort (not the work product, the work) holds less value. Person A should do something to add more value.

A similar argument can be had for something that can be made cheaper than a more expensive option. If my company makes a widget that takes 100 people to make over the course of a year, and then someone comes along and finds a way to make it at substantially less cost (not labor costs) via technological improvement, then seems like OP would similarly be against this, which doesn't jive with nearly any definition of capitalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com