Slashdot Mirror

If we're going to spend unfathomable amounts of MY money, lets have something to show for it that will still be useful in 80 years.

My preference to "paying the salaries of Open Source writers" would be a system for giving people income deductions if they contribute meaningfully to unfunded public projects (be they GPL development or be they performing free concerts in a public park).

I've written about this in more detail here.

Part of the problem is that most anti-IP ideals (consumers gain SO MUCH from piracy!) ignore the fact that their are artists who gain so much from the financial gain of their art. By simply supporting the abolition of IP, you are throwing mud into the faces of artists everywhere and culture will suffer in the long term.

Not to long ago I submitted a letter to Senator Leahy urging him to consider an alternative approach to the PRO IP legislation. See the full text here, but this is the jist of the alternative that I think would (a) empower consumers, (b) empower artists, and (c) bitchslap business execs who hoard IP:

But if you'll allow me to go off on a tangentially related rant.... it's my belief to strive for an economy where artists do it for the love of creation, the desire for fame/notoriety, and not the greed of monetary gain. In that spirit, I am going to suggest a financial encumberance that will downplay greed and cut "Big Business" out from the position of funding the creation of most types of art (arguably, BB would still maintain control over mediums of art that require large-scale co-ordination and efforts to orchestrate (such as big budget movies and video games)).

My proposal would be to offer tax incentives (via a "deduction" applied to decrease the "gross income" of creators during the year so that their overall tax burden is lessened). This would have the effect (in my opinion) of enticing businessmen and laborers to create and support art in their free time. Meanwhile, "starving artists" would benefit from this by earning the right to claim a high "artistic deduction" which would position them to be supported by minimium wage occupations. This would work so that an individual who has significant artistic talent could work at McDonald's to earn $25k and create art that qualifies him for a $50k tax deduction. As such, his "taxes" would be calculated based on $0 income. The additional $25k (because his previous gross was in the poverty range) would be refunded based on some TBD percentage. Meanwhile, a person who works as a bank manager might make $75k per year and dabble in performing arts during the holiday season. Let's say for the sake of argument that these performances (made to the public) would qualify him for a $10k tax deduction so that his annual tax burden is decreased to $65k. This presents a good incentive for him to continue to do this year to year.

Now the trouble becomes determining how to calculate how much the "tax deduction" should be, and that comes down to picking values. For example, if you did a painting that was accepted to be displayed in a public place you'd get a $2,000 tax deduction. You took photographs of a natural phenomenon and published them on the internet in a noteworthy archive? A $500 tax deduction. You metaphrasted Shakespeare's Sonnets? A $1,000 tax deduction. You donated $40 to charity at a public concert? Write it off as a tax deduction. Additionally, some types of art require multiple years to create (books, animations, statues), so there would be additional consideration to let people claim a certain amount of time and evaluate that using a predetermined rate (say, $10/hr).

Again, this is letting people work on their own projects in their free time in a manner that will allow them to lower their tax burden for the express purpose of producing a work of art that will be free of copyright to be enjoyed by the general public.

Now, politicians would argue that all these "tax deductions" would be lowering the government's income. Meanwhile, others would clamor that the corruption of big businesses would see the lucrative value of the deductions and take advantage of them for greedy purposes. But these arguments wouldn't understand the goals of the proposal in the first place. The whole point of the exercise is to expand the culture of creation. There are gains when Joe Smith has an incentive to get toge

I have previously modded you up earlier in this story, so this response will cost you that point, however what you said needs to be addressed.

All these bailouts do is screw over me, as both a taxpayer and a person who otherwise* would be able to afford to buy a house!

You are somewhat misguided to say that the bailouts are your problem. In my view... it was the bubble all along. The bubble was the result of the (1) buy, (2) fix, and (3) sell economy that dominated the first half of this century. When $500k houses were divided into 3 separate $300k condos... that was a sign of the market taking it on the chin.

And then, in 2003-2005 a peculiar thing happened. Renting became a more profitable long term strategy than home ownership. If you don't realize this, then you are not seeing the forest from the trees. There are many other affordable options for people like you.

Now, if I could guess at something... you are dreading the student loans that you'll have to pay back. If you are unfortunate enough to have students loans at greater than 8%, you have my sympathies. In the meantime, please direct your angst towards the unfair student loan providers and the rising cost of American tuition. Average students have $20k in debt, but $60-80k in loans are not unheard of. This takes $300-500 per month for 30 years to pay back... and I know there are "amnesty laws" which forgive loans after 20 years in place, but affording to pay back an education (in my opinion) is a much bigger crisis in America than affording a place to live.

And yes... I graduated and have been working in the technology sector since 2004. I make a good wage, and have gone to the trouble of paying off $35k in loans since graduating and have an additional $15k ahead of me. And with the light at the end of the tunnel, I support efforts for local governments to consider the value of making life easier for individuals who are encumbered by their educational loans.

I am going to assert that Open Source software has not previously been successfully deployed as an enterprise solution to a large government's IT infrastructure. In other words, it is a big fat risk. One of the first rules of engineering is to minimize and mitigate risks.

The first couple of governments that shift to Open Source will be blazing an expensive trail to deal with interoperability and all the minor "glitches" that come up along the way. With any luck, they will also DOCUMENT their journey so it can be repeated by other governments without such huge expenses.

And as to what can be done with $25 Million dollars that TFA says was spent on software during the first half of the year (assuming that government's can get past the 'growing pains' effect mentioned above that the early adopters will face)... I would like to see that the savings be allocated to fund city improvement projects to beautify the urban landscape. Build parks, improve roads, and erect attractive low-income housing buildings. I guess that is covered by #1 (used for other government programs), but nothing would be better for the local citizens than having a city which is invested in keeping the standard of living for all its citizens high.

In light of that, when I noticed that my local government (the state of Massachusetts) was considering an Open Source agenda, I sent them my support and feedback.

I can't vouch for the misguided souls who ferret their way through liberal arts educations at even the prestigious schools in America, but as a graduate from one of the leading science and engineering schools in the country I believe your view of the "nomad lifestyle" is inaccurate. I actually job-hopped after 3 years for personal reasons, but secured a position at a destination company before giving my 2 weeks. I have no idea how somebody could financially get by while serving as a career-blogger. As a writer who doesn't need to make money from my words (i.e. no advertisements), I publish to a site that you might find interesting enough to spend 5-10 minutes reading.

I am not sure that I can change your perceptions about my generation as a whole though, but I would like to at least hope that you'll spew your venom towards a more narrowly defined group then "kids age 20-30". Pragmatically I feel like your argument is that young folk have their priorities backwards, when realistically you are just angry to see so many who have priorities that are so different than your own. I generally agree that loud, obnoxious, and drunk are not desirable qualities. Financial security and smart economic decisions play a big part in having the "latest toys". I can't explain how people can afford such luxuries. I certainly can't.

I mean, I did buy a new car in 2004 - but I only spent $13k. I bought new laptops in 2001 and 2006. They have served me well, and I will be very happy if I can make the one from 2006 last until 2011 (replacement hard-drives notwithstanding). And I tend to get the "near free" cell phones when signing up for a new plan every two years. Giving the rapid changes in tech, I won't wish an old, outdated "used" 2003 cell phone on my worst enemies.

I don't know... but to seriously continue this discourse you need to talk about what things were like when you were 24-27 - and let the world in on what decade that occurred during. I think, largely, most of Gen Y gets along just fine in a manner completely different than you are describing.

I wrote about this the other day. See here.

Here is the thought that sums up my meanderings...

I think that the hardest question for celestial colonization is how to design that system.

Off Topic: The link in your Sig to "bangamovie.com" seems to point to a Domain Squatter.

On topic:

Word of caution: Making a film is hard work, but you probably know that from the low budget film you are producing. I have personally put together a "movie" of an experience I had last summer. This came together over the course of 2 weeks of filming and 3-4 months of editing. Mind you, I didn't have to any of the things that you'll have to do such as (a) research, (b) write a script, (c) edit the script to create a compelling story, or (d) contact people to do interviews with.

I guess my point is: You would really need the right set of creative and technical people to accomplish what you are suggesting.

That said, it sounds like a great idea. If I could help with research or scripting or anything needed based in the Boston area... try to get in contact (link to a site that has an e-mail address for me is in my signature).

I think Hollywood and conventional wisdom have perverted the term "success" for their own power so that it implies "commercial success".

A more general definition is "an achievement of an objective or goal". To some extent, this is rather arbitrary but having created my own movies (all videos licensed under Creative Commons), I would say that it would be a success for them to just finish it.

Now, to inject my own selfish opinion into the argument of the definition of what success might be for an "Open" project like this, I would list the following, "an work that makes a positive contribution to the culture of humanity". It doesn't have to be a large contribution, but as long as people can gain something from it (a lesson, some entertainment, faith and hope) then it would qualify in my mind as a "success".

This is what I aim for when I mark a publication with the Creative Commons license (which, in addition to the movies, includes this).

I think Hollywood and conventional wisdom have perverted the term "success" for their own power so that it implies "commercial success".

A more general definition is "an achievement of an objective or goal". To some extent, this is rather arbitrary but having created my own movies (all videos licensed under Creative Commons), I would say that it would be a success for them to just finish it.

Now, to inject my own selfish opinion into the argument of the definition of what success might be for an "Open" project like this, I would list the following, "an work that makes a positive contribution to the culture of humanity". It doesn't have to be a large contribution, but as long as people can gain something from it (a lesson, some entertainment, faith and hope) then it would qualify in my mind as a "success".

This is what I aim for when I mark a publication with the Creative Commons license (which, in addition to the movies, includes this).