I’m still working through Manga Studio. I really like the way it smooths out the pen strokes. I still need to figure out how to control the taper at both ends of the brush strokes, but I’m figuring it out. I decided to leave my pencil strokes in, though I will probably remove them in future works.
One of the arguments I often hear in the open source community is the distinction between different types of “free.” The most commonly cited example is the distinction between “free beer” and “free speech.”
As I look at the arguments over SOPA/PIPA (and now the new ACTA), I had a vision in my head similar to the image I posted with today’s entry. It’s the same type of “em passe contempt” that I often see between frugal pauper and the wasteful rich kid as they consider the others’ lifestyle. In this case, the RIAA/MPAA fears “free” because they don’t want their content being given out for free, while the EFF and other groups love “free” because they don’t want to see their freedoms stifled.
The interesting thing about these arguments is that each group seems to be projecting their own interpretation of “free” onto the other. That is, the pro-SOPA crowd seems to think that the anti-SOPA crowd is just out to get free stuff, while the anti-SOPA crowd seems to think that the pro-SOPA crowd is actively trying to constrain free speech. NOTE: as I wrote that, I caught myself saying “and that might be true.” Which side of the argument do you think I’m on?
Perhaps a common ground could be found, even if that common ground leaves both sides unsatisfied. Issa’s OPEN bill seem to be disliked by the industry. Perhaps the EFF would be more interested in supporting a SOPA-type bill if the same bill provided an expansion and better clarification of “fair use” clause. Either way, something needs to be done so that each side gives the other an assurance that they understand their perspective and are willing to compromise.