Why Making Money From Free Software Matters

Glyn Moody sends in what could be a watershed article, if the recording and movie industries are paying attention. "People have been making money from free software ever since Richard Stallman started selling GNU Emacs on tapes for $150 a pop. That's been good for hackers, who have often managed to make a living from their coding by working for one of the startups based around free software. And as companies like Red Hat and Google have grown in size and profitability, so have the credibility and clout of free software. But there is another reason why the success of these new kinds of businesses is so crucial: in many respects they offer a glimpse of coming shifts in other industries that need to grapple with the conundrum of how to make money from goods that are freely available. In particular, they offer the music and film industries an example of an alternative to fighting people's natural instinct to share digital abundance, by making money from new scarcities."

Comments

Generational turnover

[paiute]

It is human nature to dig in one's ideological heels against change, especially when money is involved. Substantial changes or the oft-cited paradigm shift often have to wait for an older generation to die off.

Re:Generational turnover

[Stenchwarrior]

I agree with you. This is off topic, but I wonder if there is evolutionary value in resisting change? Maybe to make sure that which is new stands a rigorous test to ensure it has a rightful place in history? Or perhaps to challenge our already set ways and give strength to existing process?

Google, here I come...

Re:Generational turnover

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Oh, definitely. Two main things:

Assuming that you are the incumbent(whether The top dog, or just one of the people for whom the status quo is working quite well, thanks), every day you successfully delay change is another day of profit rather than loss, and risk rather than security. There may be a point where you cut your own throat by resisting change(either the cost of resistance simply becomes too high, and consumes all your profits, or your resistance actively precludes your taking advantage of certain options in the changed future); but until you reach that point, a rearguard action is totally rational, even if it is inevitably doomed on the medium to long timescale. The degree to which rearguard actions are logical is increased if you have access to overt or covert subsidies. In the media case, they've been very effective in lobbying for copyright infringement, and its tools, to be ever more criminalized and, once criminalized, made a greater law enforcement priority. Fighting change is always cost effective when you are using somebody else's money...

Second is that change is only really inevitable in hindsight. Many changes have been successfully fought, even though their proponents were convinced of their inevitability. Incumbents who don't fight change don't remain incumbents for as long as incumbents who do; because almost any change, unless it is truly structurally unsound, can push you over unless you push back; but only a relative few changes are irresistible(and, even in those cases, see point 1).

On the minus side, I would be rather more surprised to see a net positive value in change resistance("net positive" in the "overall value across a society" sense from econ). Incumbents, by virtue of being incumbents, so very often have access to other people's money with which to fight change. Therefore, it is logical to suspect that(because of that effective subsidy) a greater-than-socially-optimal amount of change-resistance is generated. Further, all but the most dramatic innovations have a period of manifest inferiority to existing, well-polished, methods. During this period, they can be smothered in the cradle at comparatively low cost.

Re:Generational turnover

[2obvious4u]

Except that the older generation is managing to codify many of their ideals in Federal and International law. We really don't have time to wait for them to die off.

Re:Generational turnover

[wealthychef]

evolutionary value in resisting change?

Oh, definitely. Two main things: (blah, blah)

No, it's way simpler: changing to a new state is risky. Evolution has taught to minimize risk and avoid it. Let someone else be brave, I'll stay here in my hole.

Fundamentally different things, though

[BadAnalogyGuy]

You can't really equate software and music/movies. Music and Movies are consumable products. You get it, you consume it. Maybe you watch it or listen to it more than once, but it's the rare consumer that uses the media as the means to an end.

Software is typically a means to an end. You don't install Linux just to have Linux. You install it because you want to do something with it. Same with web browsers, office suites, and just about any other software. The exception would be games which are meant to be consumed similarly to movies and music. But on the whole, most software is meant to help you create something else. Whether it be a resume, a presentation, a spreadsheet, even more software, the software exists as a tool, not a thing to be enjoyed in and of itself.

That's why it doesn't make sense to compare the music/movie industry to the general free software industry. The media industry is involved in making consumables, and that means they provide a finished product to the customer. The software industry provides tools which have ample room for customization and service work. The two industries start from different premises, so that's why software can be free whereas media cannot.

If you want to compare the industries, it makes sense to compare the media industry to the niche game software industry. But here you'll find very similar actions. Anti-piracy is the norm. Expensive packaged software (or downloadable paid software) and expensive CDs/DVDs are analogous. Even the antagonistic attitude between the customers and the producers is similar. It's just inherent in any industry that needs to protect its IP because that is precisely what it is selling.

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[betterunixthanunix]

Actually, movie and music companies make a lot of money selling usage rights, to each other and to advertisers. Whenever you hear a well known song in a movie, the studio that produced the movie had to pay some music company for the rights to use the song like that. Likewise with commercials, or MacDonald's using movie characters for kids meal toys, and so forth. "Consumables" are not the be-all and end-all of music and movies.

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can't really equate software and music/movies. Music and Movies are consumable products. You get it, you consume it. Maybe you watch it or listen to it more than once, but it's the rare consumer that uses the media as the means to an end"

That's always been the trouble with `software', it don't ever wear out. The producers of the software would like if it was a consumable product like movies, which is why they would like to move us to software-as-a-service, in the Cloud.

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[AnonymousClown]

You don't install Linux just to have Linux.

Speak for yourself. I install Linux so I can say "I have Linux at home." with an air of superiority over the Windows people and an air of non-conformity and superiority over the Apple people. It's kind of like wearing Che Guevara t-shirts only for technically inclined folks. I may do that: get some Che Guevara T-shirts, Birkenstocks, grungy shorts, and pump my fist in the air and yell "I"M STICKING IT TO THE MAN!" every time I boot up Linux. Then I can feel all good about myself.

Yep.

I have a really pathetic little life.

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[IBBoard]

That's also something that can't be done with music or movies. You can't give away movie sets, cameras or unmixed multi-track recordings for free.

That depends. Some of the Blender movies do it. You can't give away physical props so easily, since they're physical, but that's a fundamental difference with physical versus digital.

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[jamienk]

The conceptions of what we "do" with music and film have been limited by the sales and "IP" models. Remixing, adding/replacing tracks, mashups, even sampling, all come about as a consequence of ignoring the "consumption" model as you describe it. So does all "traditional" or "folk" music. There are places that film and music can go that we can't easily think of today. Try to come up with your own examples of what can be done. If you can't think of anything or if your ideas don't seem all that revolutionary or important, maybe you're not an artist.

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[IBBoard]

If you want to compare the industries, it makes sense to compare the media industry to the niche game software industry. But here you'll find very similar actions. Anti-piracy is the norm. Expensive packaged software (or downloadable paid software) and expensive CDs/DVDs are analogous. Even the antagonistic attitude between the customers and the producers is similar. It's just inherent in any industry that needs to protect its IP because that is precisely what it is selling.

Which "niche games" market is that? Presumably not the independent-yet-original-and-good games market like 2dBoy (World of Goo) and Stardock (Sins of a Solar Empire) compete in, where they're happy to have no or minimal DRM because pirates could be customers and customers are customers and should be treated as such.

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[McDutchie]

The two industries start from different premises, so that's why software can be free whereas media cannot.

Your opinion is belied by the fact that there is plenty of free media out there.

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[shentino]

Trust me, it takes skill to make music.

The RIAA is proof of that...in the sense that even cat /dev/urandom does better.

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[Kjella]

Software is typically a means to an end. You don't install Linux just to have Linux. You install it because you want to do something with it. Same with web browsers, office suites, and just about any other software. The exception would be games which are meant to be consumed similarly to movies and music.

I think your distinction is also why we see so much decent free software minus games and not so much of the others. It's a tool and refining it to make a better tool is desirable to most people. Games and such I want to consume, you go through a campaign or story or levels of difficulty but you don't go over and redo and refine many times over. It's no surprise to me that the most common open source games are FPS and strategy games where you play the same maps or procedurally generated ones over and over.

If you want to compare the industries, it makes sense to compare the media industry to the niche game software industry. But here you'll find very similar actions. Anti-piracy is the norm.

My impression would be quite opposite, that the mainstream game industry has far more and worse DRM than the niche games. Niche games tend to not have the time and money to waste on creative new DRMs, they might slap a standard copy protection on it but that's also it. More often than not they rely on the fact that they are niche to say "Please pay for this game, we don't have execs with multi-million dollar salaries we're just hoping the numbers work out so we can keep making games." and I'm sure it has some effect.

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[2obvious4u]

You missed the point of TFA. Even music and movies create new scarcities which can be monetized, even if the original work itself cannot be. Here is an article with a clip that explains it much better than I can.

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[Yvanhoe]

Yes, the things are different. But OSS counters the argument "You can't make a living by giving away stuff.". Yes you can, but it takes a clever businessman to manage it. No one claims anymore that OSS is something you can easily dismiss, but do you remember how it was 15 years ago ? Nowadays, people who give movies or song for free only encounter marginal successes. This doesn't mean the Google of online music won't appear.

If you sell sand $100/kg in the middle of the Sahara it is not a workable business model. Even if you have a mine employing 1000 people, protecting this business plan would be silly. Well, selling $30 DVDs that can't be read easily whereas it is free to download a rip that provides more functionalities is exactly the same situation.

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[patSPLAT]

They really are different things.

First off, people do modify software on a daily basis. Customization of software is ubiquitous. Open source is an extreme model of customization and it has been successful because it addresses in a very specific way needs that are peculiar to software.

Customization of movies is *not* prevalent. You watch the movie that James Cameron made. Or the movie that Michel Gondry made. There is an entire notion of authorship is important to music / movies / books, and is utterly out of place in software.

Remixing is a practice of quotation, not customization. It is a way of leveraging the audience of another artwork to bring authority to your own, and as such is and will always be a loaded and potentially manipulative practice. Take a close look at Shepard Fairey's legal practices of defending his acts of appropriation as Fair Use, while suing those who appropriate his own work.

Remixing is similar to open source development in the way that it leverages the source work, but the effects are totally different. The audience of remixes remains fragmented. Open source software behaves in a different manner -- forks tend to merge back together, defragmenting the audience and increasing the value of the centralized project.

Here's the real issue. To those who would discard copyright, the question is what is it's replacement?

Without a legal framework to control distribution, content creators have already turned towards pervasive DRM as privatized solution. Sacrificing copyright also means sacrificing fair use. Or re-use of any kind, for that matter.

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[b4dc0d3r]

Sometimes both the code and product are free but support costs money.
Sometimes the code is free to download but the compiled version contains trademark or other branding, like CentOS and RedHat.
Sometimes you can buy installation CDs but you can also download and build the code yourself.
Some companies take software they didn't write and put it together in a target way, like Music-centric linux (Ubuntu studio style), or Real-time linux, or whatever else.

Björk, Nine Inch Nails, Public Enemy, Stardust, and in a limited fashion Erasure, have given away parts of the music and allowed fans to re-mix the music. so yes you can give away unmixed tracks, it's been done. The discussion is about music, the article is about music... bringing movies in just makes it more complicated. Animated movies as the other poster said are certainly possible but could require huge piles of data (all fo the models, the environments, the animation and rendering software).

Free software doesn't have just one revenue stream, there are numerous different ways to get money. The fundamental problem is that music does not require support. Most of the revenue streams either assume you're paying for physical media or support. With music, most people don't need the physical product since it's going on the iPod anyway. And they don't need support.

The entire point of the article was that open source software has many solutions, and free music has several options, but music still needs more options in order to be successful. It's not a solved problem, and the open-source model is only an inspiration. Jill Sobule is an example, but she's hardly the typical case. If you're the right person at the right time you can do that, but most people won't make it.

(yes I'm talking about the deserving garage-band people, not the attractive but unmusical pop tarts we have on the radio - they wouldn't make it without heavy AutoTune and would barely be able to scrape by on concerts - Ke$sha on SNL and the recent Black Eyed Peas on American Idol pretty much proved there are some things you just can't do live, but I'm editorializing now).

Re:Fundamentally different things, though

[harlows_monkeys]

Free software doesn't have just one revenue stream, there are numerous different ways to get money. The fundamental problem is that music does not require support. Most of the revenue streams either assume you're paying for physical media or support

I'd say the fundamental problem is that support as a revenue stream incentivizes the wrong thing. Being good at programming and being good at providing support are not the same skill. In fact, good programmers are often lousy at dealing with customers and their problems. Why should a programmer's income be based on how well he provides support, instead of how well he programs?

Even worse, if a particular programmer is good at providing support, he makes the most money by making sure his software isn't as good as it could be. It should have bugs and problems, just as long as they aren't enough to drive people to his competitors, so that he can sell more support.

Similarly for music. Many musicians are great in the studio, but suck at concerts. For some kinds of music, the whole notion of a concert doesn't even make sense.

A good system for paying creative people (programmers, musicians, artists, and so on) should make their money be tied to their creative output, not some ancillary thing. Programmers should be paid to program. Musicians should be paid to make music. etc.

Cognitive dissonance

[silverbax]

I'll never understand the cognitive dissonance that makes people say 'software should be free' but at the same time 'I should get paid to work on that free software for you'.

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[miffo.swe]

I think a large part of the "cognitive dissonance" stems from the fact that you get no guaranties whatsoever that said software will work. I can only talk for myself but i have a very hard time persuading myself pony up for something that may or may not work and where the seller takes no responsibility of the goods.

The industry put themselves in this situation when they used copyrights to protect their goods (software is traded as photos, movies or books, not real products). The upside, no guaranties, is offset by the backside, nobody thinks your product is worth the money.

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[hedwards]

There isn't any. The more accurate statement is 'software should be free' but if 'you want me to work on it consistently for larger periods of time you'll have to pay me.'

It's not hard for people to find a half hour here and there to work on a project, but it becomes really difficult to find hours every week to do so without being paid. There are exceptions, but not many, and certainly not enough to support the ecosystem.

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[NickFortune]

I'll never understand the cognitive dissonance that makes people say 'software should be free' but at the same time 'I should get paid to work on that free software for you'.

The software is free, the developer's time is not.

You're free to use the software however you choose, but if you want the developer to spend his time working to your schedule, then you may have to make it worth his while.

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[betterunixthanunix]

The unfortunate reality of the English language is that "free" has two very different meanings. You are thinking of the "no cost" meaning, which is not what the Free Software Foundation is about -- the other meaning, "freedom," is what is more important. You should have freedoms with your software, particularly the freedom to use and modify that software, and also the freedom to study and share the software (how one can modify with studying is a mystery to me). Sharing is where people always get angry, since it means that people may be able to obtain the software at no cost -- but the benefits outweigh the potential losses here.

Personally, I choose to use the word "libre" to describe GPL (or similarly licensed) software, to help reduce the confusion. There is no confusing "libre" with some other term, and people who are unfamiliar with the word will generally ask for clarification (rather than assuming a specific meaning). Those who neglect to ask for clarification are generally the people who do not care about the issue at all; this is still better than someone who does not care about the issue and just assumes that I want to get my software at no cost.

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[dangitman]

Which is why OS companies make money of support: They give software for free with no guarantees.

That seems like a pretty shitty way to conduct business. It gives an incentive for creating crappy software that requires extra support. Shouldn't the ideal be to make great software that doesn't require much support?

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[laughingcoyote]

If you're saying "should", then sure, there's cognitive dissonance. But that's a straw man.

If you want me to work in your IT department to install and maintain software on your computers, that's a job, and you need to pay me for it. If you'd like me to design, program, and test POS or support software tailored specifically to your company, that's a job, and you need to pay me for it. You don't have to hire me (or anyone) to do those things. If you're a one man shop, and perfectly comfortable doing your installs yourself, no one "should" get paid-you've every right to do it yourself. On the other hand, if you're a large corporation, chances are someone's going to get hired to do installation, maintenance, and customization. They're no more being paid for the software installing and maintaining Linux then they are installing Windows-they're not getting a cut of the licensing on Windows either. They're being paid for their time.

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[selven]

The word "free" has more than one meaning:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[dkleinsc]

I think a large part of the "cognitive dissonance" stems from the fact that you get no guaranties whatsoever that said software will work.

1. If I pay someone to modify an open source package for me, I can secure a guarantee from that person that it will do what I paid him to make it do. Legally, all that needs to happen is that there's a separate agreement above and beyond the requirements of the open source license that includes that guarantee. So, for instance, if the package was GPL, if someone modifies it for me, we can have an agreement that says that he's giving me the modifications with source code (as he's required to under the terms of the GPL), but also guarantees that it will do what I want it to. And this isn't a hypothetical: I've worked on projects that involved paying an outside contractor to do precisely that.

2. Proprietary software licenses universally disavow any and all warranties including the implied warranty of merchantability and warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. You have no guarantee whatsoever that Microsoft Windows will not set your computer on fire rather than be a functioning computer operating system.

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[MBGMorden]

Easy - software is duplicable into infinity. When I'm done on software, I'm done, and as many people as want it can use that software at no cost to me. I can (and usually do) also work on my projects when I darned well please. An hour or two put in before I turn in for bed, or with the advent of netbooks even while waiting for a friend to show up somewhere I can work on something for 10-15 minutes. IE, I can invest time that is inherently less valuable into it. It also helps that often times I'll (and I'm wagering many, many other developers) write software that I personally am interested in using myself too, so I have an incentive to write it regardless of compensation.

That said, support, custom coding, etc, are face time. You are paying for the EXCLUSIVE use of my time, and you often want it during peak business hours. That's not the same thing.

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. It creates an incentive for creating software that seemingly requires support, but doesn't require that support in reality. In other words, it creates an incentive to build software that is better than it looks.

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[dangitman]

Wrong. It creates an incentive for creating software that seemingly requires support, but doesn't require that support in reality. In other words, it creates an incentive to build software that is better than it looks.

So, it's based upon the deception of customers. Still doesn't sound appealing. As a customer, I'd rather know exactly what I'm getting, rather than being tricked into something. If the software doesn't need that much support, why should I have to pay for it?

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[NickFortune]

But developers spent time developing the software. So, if their time is not free, then how did the software come to be free in the first place?

If the developer does it because the developer wants to do it, it's a hobby. If he does it because you tell him to do it, it's a job. In the second case, he'll probably expect you to pay him. Bear in mind however that all you're buying his time and the right to direct his efforts.

The software became free because the initial developers chose to release their work under a free software licence. It remains free regardless of whether or not you choose to help fund further development.

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[Hatta]

Software is not scarce, developer time is. I'll never understand the cognitive dissonance that makes people think a non-scarce resource should be treated like a scarce one.

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[natehoy]

Several possibilities.

1. The software author was contributing to a project that he/she saw their own benefits from, and therefore were compensated by the resulting product. In a few smaller projects, a single person writes code entirely for their own benefit, then releases the code because someone else might want to use it, too. In this case, their time was "free" in terms of money, they compensated themselves with the results of their own work then offered out a copy of it for others to benefit from as well.

This, by the way, is why FOSS is often compared to "communism" (not the totalitarian kind as we've seen practiced, but the purer Marxian kind of "from each according to ability, to each according to need"). Everyone in a project like this is free to contribute whatever they can or want to, and everyone benefits from all of the contributions. Of course, where communism in the real world breaks down is in simple resource limitations - a lot of people want to take according to need, but not give according to ability. In the world of software development, you can have a very low number of givers and a very high number of takers and the model still works as long as you have some givers. And if the givers are benefiting themselves by creating what they themselves need, then they are building their own compensation.

2. The software was written under contract for a specific company to solve a specific problem and that company is not using the software for competitive advantage, so they release the code for others to use. It can also mean that software they use themselves can be improved by others at no cost to them, so symbiotic relationships can form.

3. The software was available in crude form and a company didn't want to reinvent the wheel, so they started with what was out there, improved it, and released the improved version as a way of "paying back" for the fact that the codebase saved them a crapload of development time. Or, in the case of a lot of projects, the company wants to sell you some hardware and they are OK with you doing other things with it once you've bought it (ie. what is now known as the Linksys WRT54GL series), so providing the source code moves more cheap generic-parts units off the shelf because the modding community wants to turn them into all sorts of crazy stuff.

In reality, most free software is the result of multiple of the above scenarios happening.

The fact is that while an author's time is not free, they can still give away the software under circumstances where enough people will give them small amounts of money (advertising on their download site, voluntary donations, or even kudos and appreciation to feed the ego for a spare-time project). They can also write software that benefits themselves and send it out, but if you want them to change it to suit your own needs you can offer them some money to make the changes, and the improved version can be released for all to enjoy.

I've seen projects where the original author makes the source code available, then uses "paypal voting" for new features. "Many people have asked me for feature 'x'. It's going to take me about 8 hours to write it, and I'm out of beer and nachos. If you want me to add feature 'x', send money and tell me it's for feature 'x' - when my donations for feature 'x' hit $400, I'll write it and release it for all to enjoy."

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[jadavis]

But developers spent time developing the software. So, if their time is not free, then how did the software come to be free in the first place?

Someone paid them to spend time on it?

If you have free software, you're free to modify and distribute it as you please.

If you want free software, you can:

1. Write it yourself; or
2. convince someone who already has the software to provide it to you under a free software license (perhaps by paying them); or
3. convince someone to write it and provide it to you under a free software license (perhaps by paying them).

Re:Cognitive dissonance

[williamhb]

The software is free, the developer's time is not. You're free to use the software however you choose, but if you want the developer to spend his time working to your schedule, then you may have to make it worth his while.

It's the open source ineconomy of scale. A million organisations can use a piece of software, and all want the same new feature added. But if any organisation says "add the feature, Joe" they have to pay full price for the change as if they were the only user, because the feature is given free to all the other 999,999 users rather than sharing the cost. So, of course, nobody does -- while the feature might be worth $1,000 to each of the million organisations it's not worth the $10,000 it would cost to develop to any of them. So it never gets developed.

Google is not a FOSS sofware vendor!

[AnonymousClown]

RedHat sell FOSS services - pretty much all Linux and makes half their money from financial activities. RedHat is a FOSS vendor - I can't take that away from them.

Google is a search engine that uses FOSS for it's company - it makes its money from advertising and selling non FOSS software.As a matter of fact, Google is actually a shitty FOSS company - see Sketchup and Sketchup Pro. Where's the source for those things? Hmmmm? And Sketchup Pro is pretty expensive, btw, and it's closed and proprietary program.

All the software written by Google, how much of it is really open? Honestly.

Authorship of software is different

[patSPLAT]

Thus far engineers are the only ones to directly profit from open source businesses.

The single biggest mistake open source advocates make when envisioning a future is the assumption that successful engineering practices will be successful artist practices. You don't sample a Britney Spears song to make a longer, better Britney Spears song; you sample it for reference. Whereas when you patch emacs, you aren't referencing emacs, you are adding functionality.

Even if an artist subscribes to the free->fame startup model, eventually the steps to monetization involve controlling the distribution of copies. For example, first Danger Mouse released the Grey Album to great acclaim, then formed Gnarls Barkley and released music in traditional commercial channels.

While copyright is bad for engineers, it is a 300 year old legal framework designed to compensate artists. Discarding it for nothing is short sighted at best, and at worst exploitive of artists.

Re:Authorship of software is different

[dkleinsc]

Even if an artist subscribes to the free->fame startup model, eventually the steps to monetization involve controlling the distribution of copies.

Counterexample: The Grateful Dead. They not only allowed the distribution of copies, they actively encouraged it.

Re:Authorship of software is different

[orasio]

You started with the wrong foot.
"Open source advocates" are guys who think that open source is good from a technological standpoint.
They don't envision the future, they code. You don't want to extract an ideology from programmers talking about programming.

You should read some free software material. Free software _is_ about freedom, and about the balance between users and programmers. _Some_ of the ideas inherent to free software can be applied to the whole of society. The "balance" between the different actors is similar in software and in music.

Here's the thing. Software is easy to see, because free software is almost as old as proprietary software. Both had a similar start from a cultural standpoint. That's why it's easier to understand. On the other hand, we have had proprietary music all our lives, and almosta all business models are anchored to that. It's hard to see a world without copyrights in music. That doesn't make it a bad world, it just makes it unusual.

This is what _I_ think: 300 years ago, copyright arised as an bargain, an incentive for authors to publish. Publishing was hard and expensive, and required upfront investments. Right now, we don't need that. We would have the same amount of cultural production without copyright, so the public is getting nothing from copyright, and its costs are getting higher and higher.

I don't care if some music company wants to restrict distribution of songs they publish, let them do that, but I think it's nonsense that I have to pay for it. And it's nonsense that my internet connection is threatened by their whims. I think the only solution would be to go back to the bargain table, and get a better deal. With copyright, the public is losing a lot, and getting nothing in exchange.

(Of course, authors do have some inalienable rights that should be protected, like authorship, to prevent plagiarism and stuff, but a monopoly on distribution is not an inalienable right, it's just the result of a bargain)

Google?

[Lazy Jones]

And as companies like Red Hat and Google have grown in size and profitability, so have the credibility and clout of free software. ...

Erm, Red Hat and SuSE, or Red Hat and Canonical Inc, or even Red Hat and Geeknet Inc., yes. But Red Hat and Google of all things? Google does not provide or support or grow from providing Open Source software any more than e.g. Microsoft does. They run a close-source search engine, a closed-source mail hosting service and sell ads for a living.

Re:Google?

[HuguesT]

They also use and support free software. Google has made a ton of money *from* free software. They have shown it is possible to grow from a garage operation to one of the most influential company on the planet using Linux. They have shown free software can be relied on to deliver stuff people want and that you don't necessarily have to hand out bushels of money to Sun, HP, Microsoft, Apple et al to make money in the IT industry.

Re:Google?

[LordLucless]

Why do people see free, and read open source? Google has provided heaps of free software - google maps, office, calendar, etc. Just because they're webapps and proprietary does not exclude them from the free as in beer moniker. And the article is obviously about the beer-free, not the speech-free - all it talks about is money, and the making thereof. Leave the OS/Proprietary baggage at the door.

Lesson learned

[AnonymousClown]

Google has made a ton of money *from* free software.

That's right FOSS developers, all the work you released for free was used to make billions for a couple of guys. And they of course took all that money they made off of the back of the FOSS community and ....kept it.

And they're paying back to the FOSS community by adding some minor code and ....well really nothing.

So, the lesson I get from Google is exploit the free software and the free labor of others, make a billion, and keep it all to myself.

false dichotomy

[circletimessquare]

the differences you cite aren't really differences. everything is a means to an end, including music and movies: pleasure. "You install it because you want to do something with it" applies to linux. it also applies to "iron man" and beyonce

put it this way: a hammer is not a screwdriver. but in terms of how they are acquired: bought in a store or ripped off from woodshop class, they are the same

foss is the future business model of all media

[circletimessquare]

and it isn't really that revolutionary: its the same business model as broadcast television or radio

content is free, and money is made via ancillary revenue streams. you give your music or movies away for free on the internet and you make cash from the people who show up at concert gigs (because they like your music: your mp3 files are merely advertising) or in the cinema house (the internet, like television and the vcr before it, despite all the panic, is not going to kill the cinema house)

furthermore, this "radical" future is not the death of capitalism, it is the ultimate expression of capitalism: the marketplace, the internet, is a great equalizer. quality and quality alone becomes the dominant determinant about who triumphs and who has to keep their day job. the only people who suffer are the old media companies from the previous, now dead, era of vinyl and cellulose: they aren't needed anymore

and don't believe their lies: when such dying distributors whine about capitalism, they actually are talking about corporatism. corporatism is a greater enemy of capitalism than communism or socialism ever can be, and this is also historically true: oligopolies and monopolies using their size and influence over legislators to warp and destroy the free market to their advantage. so if you are interested in a free market, a marketplace of competing equals, you are interested in strong government regulations which curtail the influence of the dominant players

but this simple truth is unfortunately contrary to so much libertarian and tea party rhetoric

on the topic of foss, and also on many other topical issues, too many people confuse the idea of capitalism and corporatism

too many people unfortunately buy the self-serving rhetoric and the propaganda and the alligator tears of the 800 pound gorillas in the room who say they are on the side of capitalism, but who are not interested in true capitalism at all, they are in corporatism. they are interested in destroying the free market to their advantage by doing away with regulations or flat out rewriting the regulations to grandfather themselves into dominant positions in the marketplace

are you a libertarian? are you a free market fundamentalist? are you a tea party member? then recognize this: your greatest enemy is not the government, it is large corporations. they will destroy the free market UNLESS the government is strong enough to check their power so the little guys can compete equally. the government is the enemy ONLY to the extent that large corporations have corrupted it. so fight to CHANGE the government, not destroy it, for that is far worse in the name of YOUR ideals. IN THE NAME OF THE FREE MARKET, you want and need a strong regulatory government. this really is 100% the truth. a truly free market functions only amongst equals. and since in a marketplace no one stays equal very long, you must have strong regulations to make sure the larger players don't take advantage of the smaller players. there's simply no way around that

so in the name of true capitalism, defy the mpaa and riaa. monopolies and oligopolies are the greatest threat to capitalism, ever