"If only the rest of us got that luxury! Maybe barbers would like to be paid based on the number of people who compliment you on your haircut. Maybe auto manufacturers would like to be paid based on the number of trips you take in your car, or the number of passengers you carry, instead of a fixed amount up front. But would it really be worth passing a bunch of laws enforcing those business models?"
Why are sports stars/actors paid millions? It just isn't fair. Boo hoo!
Some games cost over a million to create, develop, and market (and probably a longer list of other things that cost money). Instead of charging a million per copy, the cost is made up through the number of copies sold. If you don't like this business model, don't fucking buy it.
"I'd say if a publisher isn't willing to have their work copied, they shouldn't release it. Pouting because people copied the information you made available to them is like pouting because you built an igloo in the summer and it melted. Information is copyable, and water is a liquid above 32 F: these are facts of life."
I wish you would tell that to the FSF. They are going after gnu violators in court. The authors released it for free..why shouldn't I be able to put it in my proprietary application?
"Probably the reason there is piracy is that the original value proposition of the software distributor is not an acceptable offer for some or many of the end users. Software pirates instead secure an alternative price-point for the same product through illicit redistribution methods. This accounts for why a drop in piracy does not result in an increase in sales."
Have any proof to back this up? I didn't think so. I helped a friend out with his software company a couple of years ago, and sales were directly proportional to piracy. IE: When cracks on warez sites were fixed, sales went up as much as 70%.
"The market for software is probably much smaller than the software-producers wish. To me, this seems like a problem with the business model and marketing department, to be honest. Social reengineering to secure a market for a product which many people find to be of poor value compared to alternatives is not an effective solution; the problem is not that pirates steal, it's that some users don't see value."
Now you are trying to legitimize piracy. If something has no value to me, I don't download it or buy it.
Everyone I have ever known that has pirated software, has done so because:
1) the software has value and 2) they don't want to spend money on it.
"Quality product at a reasonable price....and completely without copy protection. I can honestly say that I have only gotten cracks for games I already own a full license to, but I would have never needed to if the games hadn't been virtually padlocked with a faulty key."
and you are in the minority. Quality products at a reasonable price still get copied to bittorrent. And what is a reasonable price? Most games don't cost more than $50 or $60 (which is VERY reasonable)..but still get copied all over the Internet. Why would a company want to make it easier for you to get their commercial product for free?
"I bet a lack of copy protection would also lower the number of calls to tech support as well."
Yeah, it will. But I think a company would rather have a few extra support calls than fewer sales.
"I have to wonder what your proposed response to massive, proven damage from copyright infringement is: an example would be commercial violation of the GPL. Death?"
So protection of copyright is equal to death? The problem is that there really is no solution to fixing the copyright problem at the moment..beyond a better lock.
The only way to get companies to change their practices is to stop buying their products, which most people just aren't willing to do.
Pirate sites are almost a type of competition, but without any of the innovation, so it doesn't give the original company creating the content a reason to innovate or make things better for the consumer...only better security measures.
This is why bittorrent will never put the music or movie companies out of business. To be successful, there needs to be a change in the artists..where they start selling songs without signing with a label.
"if you had read my entire post, maybe you wouldn't have made a silly comment."
yeah, I read it. Because you can't get your way, you decide to break copyright law.
Excuses like this will not go away until companies give out all of their movies and content for free with no restrictions.
I remember when Napster first came out and the people that tried to legitimize it were saying that albums were too expensive and if they could purchase a CD on a per/track basis, there would be no need to download it for free. Well, I-Tunes and other services are out now..and piracy is worse than ever before.
Even look at netflix. You can get 2 movies at the same time for $10/month (which is VERY cheap compared to buying them from the store) and people STILL have to pirate them.
People that pirate and give excuses for legitimizing it are just lazy fucks that don't want to spend any money.
Companies shouldn't have to make the thieves and terrorists happy.
"What a load of fear mongering bull. News flash: if you don't obey a software license you could get sued. How does that make GPL software any more or less risky than the proprietary alternative?"
The GPL is lauded as this free and open license, but in reality it is a risk for anyone that is interested in selling software. This is because they may be forced to release their source, which could mean the end of their business.
Now, with the GPL3, services (which has nothing to do with distribution) are going to be required to also release source code that are using open source libraries/code.
I don't see how anyone can mistake this for freedom. It must be similar to being a blind follower of religion.
Proprietary licenses also don't have zealots across the internet screaming for you to start using it because it's "free".
"Look at it this way, if you violate a proprietary license, you get sued and lose a bunch of money. If you violate the GPL, you get sued, and you have the option to settle and open the code, or lose a lot of money. Seems to me the GPL is the less risky option."
As there are more and more of these cases, businesses are going to steer clear of open source. This is what the OSS community does not realize. They want OSS to be mainstreamed, which will require acceptance from businesses, but continue to make it more and more difficult for anyone to make money.
Linux had a chance in the desktop market, but unfortunately:
1) most users that use linux don't want to pay for anything, making the commercial application market nearly non-existent 2) the numerous configurations and distros makes it almost impossible to release a binary (with no source) that will run on all variations of linux 3) Mac OSX has everything commercial developers need: unix-based, one system+api, a growing community that will spend money. The iPhones also now run a variant of it.
"There are definitely avenues by which even open source devs can be compensated without asking for it. What I wish would improve is overall human consideration. It would have been great for your big company to have just gone out and offered the devs money because they were extracting value from the devs' work. It was possible for that to happen, and if the company had, the project might still be maintained..."
You can't have it both ways. In an above comment, you talk about people working on open source projects for free and how it isn't necessarily worth a dollar amount.
If this is the case, you can't expect anyone to pay you anything for your time to develop an oss application, even if they are getting value from it. Don't like it? Start charging for your software rather than giving it out for free and passively wishing people would improve their "human consideration".
The reason most companies are using OSS in the first place is because it has a $0 price tag.
"And some FOSS developers do it because they fervently want Microsoft and similar companies to suffer economically, as payback for the pain they have caused, the crimes they continue to commit and the freedom they attempt to take away. For those people, no amount of money could replace the pleasure of driving Microsoft et. al. into the ground, salting the earth and sticking a sign there saying, "so shall it be to all such tyrants"."
And what "crimes" has microsoft continued to commit? I can find linux and many other operating systems at the store to purchase, so they are no longer a monopoly (a forced one, at least). I can also find at least 4 or 5 different office clones and many other OSS alternatives.
If OSS was better constructed and built for the average end-user rather than programmers...there would be no tyrants.
I also find it funny, because the more FOSS developers give away their stuff for free, the less jobs there will be for developers in the future. My company could have hired at least 2 or 3 other developers, but because we can get most of what we need for free, we only have one.
As OSS apps get better and better, this will continue to happen. What will be left over is code-money jobs that don't require actual engineering..but just the ability to make changes to an existing application. This will mean less salary overall because development jobs will require less skill.
"Digital music is commoditized because without distribution the business is limited to where you can travel and play. The distribution channel propped up a usury business. Now it's gone and the music industry now has to add value to what they sell or lower prices. That is the effect commoditization has on an industry."
The cost of music isn't in the distribution (CD's are 10 cents a piece..it's in the actual content. This is where your logic is flawed. You are paying for the millions of dollars it took to produce it (and all the people involved in producing it).
"The users 'get it' and slowly every other industry will 'get it' or die off. That is just how progress works... go ask a buggy whip maker?"
This is different. Buggy's weren't replace by something that still cost the buggy maker's money, but customer's didn't purchase. How is getting someone else's stuff for free progress and innovation? Progress and innovation would be artists and publishers giving their stuff out freely in digital form, not joe warez user downloading it from a bittorrent site.
Digital music is not a commodity. You may be able to copy the bits at $0, but creating the exact music that you download is not something anyone can do.
"Offer electronic texts, sell paper based Q/A sections. DRM won't work, so there will be copying, can't get around that."
The problem is that it *does* work. Even though textbooks are > $100. People still buy them. The only way universities (and the music/movie industry) will learn is if people stop paying these costs. Sharing it on the Internet/downloading it for free is not the answer either, because it's not true competition.
If you want to get rid of the RIAA, start convincing artists that they don't need them. Artists can easily use myspace,facebook, and many other Internet sites to sell their music.
Most people that talk about "free speech" with digital goods really just want stuff for free.
"[citation needed] 1%? I doubt it's that small. Regardless, the usage reason percentages are pretty irrelevant to the FSF's views or agenda."
yeah, it does. The FSF's view is that you can charge for software and that the freedom isn't about having a price tag of %0.
But, all articles I have seen that talk about using open source in business involve getting it for free (not speech, beer). Why not advertise the free speech aspect? It's because most people just don't give a shit.
"Depends on who you ask, who you are, what you make of it, and what you want from it. Some people use it because it's free, others because it's better, and still others for ideological reasons."
1% use it for ideological reasons. The other 99% use it because they don't have to pay for it. Why can't the FSF just admit that it's not free as in speech, but free as in beer.
""Open Source software SAVES the national community of software buyers $60 Billion that they can allocate to more profitable areas of their business.""
I thought the "free" in "free software" was supposed to be about speech and not beer.
"Explain, then, the people who invest in, for example, the sportswear companies that commit to sustainable manufacturing practices, even though they mean higher prices and lower profit margins?"
"Really? That question comes down to how much is enough. Working my corporate job was a means to an end, which was simply earning money. To me, that seems a poor life indeed. And how many IT people who you know earn enough money to throw off the shackles of their job early enough to not be a corporate slave?"
Working for anyone (profit/non-profit) is considered corporate slavery to me. So, in your position, it's just slavery at a lower wage...which is ridiculous.
Most people don't have the discipline to not over-spend and live below their means, which is why they won't ever have enough in the bank to stop working.
"I'm guessing one or none. I certainly don't know anyone who has that kind of income. And exactly what kind of freedom do you speak? I have lots of freedom...the freedom to choose my job and work for something I care about instead of being a slave to my paycheck."
I'm talking about not working for a company and doing what you want. Going on vacations, maybe working for a charity (but not relying on the paycheck coming in from that charity).
"plus you miss the whole point of that paragraph! Money is not an issue for me. I like to do work I enjoy. That, to me, is worth more than getting paid more money."
Me too. This is why I found a job that I not only enjoy (at a rubber dildo factory), but make enough to save for the future. I didn't miss the point of your paragraph, I just wanted to point out that you still are a slave to pay (if you got fired tomorrow, could you pay the bills with no job? If no, then you are a slave).
"To illustrate this point further, I received the offer for my current job on the same day that I received a different job which I eventually turned down. The other job paid almost twice as much money, I would be doing less work, but none of that mattered to me. Please read that carefully as I make the point several times that some people think differently than what is supposed to be the norm of earning a bunch of money."
I get it. You enjoy getting paid less to do more work from a non-profit.
"Again, reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. It was just the point that my boss isn't socking the money away for himself, nor is he someone that talks without action. Plus, he also supports a family."
Just because you don't see your boss driving an expensive car doesn't mean he isn't getting paid an obscene amount of money. Non-profits by nature are required to spend a certain amount of money per year (I have worked for a couple) and all of my bosses were getting paid > $150,000/Year. This is where your naivety is shining through.
"You must have some sort of disconnection from reality with the belief that people who work for non-profits or less for what they could get in an open market don't support families or volunteer for worthy causes, or both for that matter."
I don't have a disconnection from reality. I am a realist. You are a fool for slaving away at a non-profit for less than you are worth.
"If you are just looking out for yourself and how much money you have, then maybe that kind of life is for you. But you must know, you have to know that a life like that is not for everyone."
I have heard "money doesn't buy happiness". It's funny. The only people I have ever heard say that are people that don't have any. Money may not make you instantly happy, but it doesn't make life any worse.
It opens up many opportunities in life that you otherwise would not have.
"Also not true. Some investors are willing to accept a lower rate of return than they could otherwise get in order to also feel good about the benefit (or lack of damage) their investment brings to the world. They still expect a return, and aren't going to invest without one, but they'll accept a smaller profit."
Again, the people that aren't interested in a profit (or low profits) are not going to invest their money, they will donate, which is different. (non-profits either get dontations from private entities or grants from the government).
Investments are always a risk. If profits are not the highest priority, It's going to be very difficult to get people to invest their money (high risk with low rewards are a bad combo)
"Your problem here is that you're trying to cast profit-seeking as a boolean property. It's perfectly possible to seek profits without making profit the primary goal."
This type of business works in a couple of situations:
1) non-profit organizations (funded through government grants and donations) 2) academia (subsidized through government grants and research)
Profit and money great motivating factors.
Look at the Internet as an example. It was just a tool of academia from the 60s-80s and became what it is today because of business.
"You see there are people out there where the job and the social mission are more important than earning as much money as possible. I could go on here and wax poetic about how money can't get you everything and such,"
It can't get you everything, but it can give you freedom. With enough money in the bank, you never have to work as a corporate slave again.
"If I were working corporate (which I did at one point), I'd be getting paid probably twice what I'm getting now for less work. But I'd be under the thumb of some accounting knob who decides that my training is a risk of me leaving. If I strictly went consulting, I could earn up to three times as much. But then I'd be doing zombie work, not really caring about making someone else rich. Neither of those jobs give any type of appreciation from your employers. None of that matters to me. I have a great job, my clients are great people who really appreciate what I do, I work with brilliant people who are passionate about their jobs and life and I get paid a living wage, which allows me to live modestly and within my means."
This is pure foolishness. Either because you are naive, young, or both. The jobs where you can make double what you are making now won't be there forever. What you should be doing is taking one of those corporate jobs and living well below your means. This way, you can save half of your money in the bank.
You need to look out for yourself, or you will find yourself old and broke.
Corporate jobs aren't all bad. I am currently working a job that generally cares about its customers and is making a profit at the same time. You just need to find something that suits you.
"Oh and you may ask or wonder about our company owner/president. You might think he drives a fancy car and socks all the money away. Actually, he often bikes to work, volunteers a lot of his time and is a fantastic guy to boot."
Not everyone wants to bike to work or has the time to volunteer. Many people have families and need the money to support them.
"Assuming you can find investors who want to invest in a company with a primary goal other than profit, it's often a competitive advantage, because you don't have to worry as much about how to generate the returns investors are looking for. So, you can operate on thinner margins and take bigger risks, confident that as long as you're maintaining your focus on the primary goal, and not doing anything TOO foolish, that your investors will support you."
It's a competitive advantage because you don't have to worry about your competition anymore (and vice-versa). While your competition is following the market and doing things that will bring in more customers (and a profit), your company will be focusing on the social goal (whatever that may be).
The primary goal of an investor is to get a ROI. If they aren't going to get this, they aren't considered investors anymore..they are people making donations, and they won't care what you do with the money..because they never expect to get any of it back.
"Your parting statement is perfectly self-reflexive. If only you'd started your reply with "this post is an interesting...", you'd have scored an A+. But you do get a passing grade for taking your toys home and going away"
You sounds like a bitter person who doesn't get enough control in his own life, so you post on forums such as slashdot to make up for it.
Argue all you want about the topic at hand, but it doesn't change the fact that the US government is on my side..so there isn't much you can do about it.:-D
"Only they don't... They know their products are garbage, and always have. They rely on lock-in, users ignorance of alternatives and lack of choice in the marketplace because this is much cheaper than paying people to improve their products."
If Microsoft products are garbage, why is it installed on 99% of the world's computers? Hell, illegal versions of windows are installed more often in other countries than linux. That has to tell you something, and it's NOT because of a monopoly (if it was, I wouldn't see linux and open office on the shelves in retail stores right now. I can even buy computers with linux pre-installed).
Linux just can't compete. It lacks driver support, games, a good development suite for developers, and the biggest thing: an application industry driven by profit. Most applications for linux are expected to be free (as in beer) by the users, which will always be a barrier to win over Microsoft.
In 5 years, I believe that mac OSX will have almost as much of the OS marketshare as microsoft. Linux will have the leftovers.
"So you're now independently wealthy. Explain to me how my doing the same is not "doing something to better myself". If you're going to use the same kind of "logic" you've used so far, don't bother."
an interesting way to end an argument. It reminds me of a little kid that's going to take his toys home because he can't get his way.
"Trying to blame everybody is an attempt to blame nobody. There are a few people who more than anyone else share culpability for this disaster, conspicuously including Alan Greenspan, and the purpose of the talking point that you are parroting is to help them escape culpability and-as usual- shift blame onto the public at large. We saw this same pattern during Katrina and during the initial looting in Baghdad. Whenever a few boneheads fail to do their job and exert proper influence on everyone's behavior, they want to collectively blame everyone for their millions of individual decisions. It's like blaming the horses for leaving after a barn door was left open."
A few boneheads not doing their job? People LIED on their applications (or just couldn't handle the loan) and as a result, lost their house. The only boneheads not doing their job are the moron ex-homeowners that tried to cheat the system.
It's a typical response from the left: blame the faceless corporation or government rather than getting to the root of the problem.
I don't feel sorry for people that lost their house..and neither does the government.
"Yes, there were millions of people who took out loans they couldn't afford. I never said they shouldn't lose their houses, or otherwise take the hit. There were many people who got loans on fraud, too, though most of those frauds were encouraged by banks that didn't ask even for documentation - just asserting on a single form that you made $X a year was enough."
I still blame the person signing up for the loan in this situation. If you lie about how much money you are making per year, prepare for the consequences..which means losing your house when you can't afford it. How could someone be so stupid? I forgot..this is the US....where someone with no job and no money coming in seems to think they can pay for a $300,000 home with interest.
"One clue could be the bailout passed by Congress this week, which pumped $15B into the mortgage economy. $12B sent to banks, $3B sent to borrowers (people). That's 4x as much for the banks."
That's because the banks have risked 4X the money.
"Tell me about the people who borrowed money who got that kind of bailout. I'll tell you about the banks getting bailed out for so much more, and the even huger profits they made for years for supposedly taking risks they never took."
Loaning large amounts of money to people that probably won't ever pay it back is considered a huge risk.
Let's say you had $500,000 in bank X and bank X had no bailout protection from the government. Would you be okay if you just never got your money because bank X went out of business? Protections are there to also help the people that have invested all of their money in these banks. Without these protections in place, a bank account would hold just as much risk as the stock market.
"Now, what have you done to "better yourself"? How does making up crap to defend the privilege of the banks over the protection of everyone else better you? Or does it just better your imaginary life as a bank, that you'll never have?"
I worked a regular job from 15 until around 30. I now own my own company and am now independently wealthy.
Slashdot Mirror
"If only the rest of us got that luxury! Maybe barbers would like to be paid based on the number of people who compliment you on your haircut. Maybe auto manufacturers would like to be paid based on the number of trips you take in your car, or the number of passengers you carry, instead of a fixed amount up front. But would it really be worth passing a bunch of laws enforcing those business models?"
Why are sports stars/actors paid millions? It just isn't fair. Boo hoo!
Some games cost over a million to create, develop, and market (and probably a longer list of other things that cost money). Instead of charging a million per copy, the cost is made up through the number of copies sold. If you don't like this business model, don't fucking buy it.
"I'd say if a publisher isn't willing to have their work copied, they shouldn't release it. Pouting because people copied the information you made available to them is like pouting because you built an igloo in the summer and it melted. Information is copyable, and water is a liquid above 32 F: these are facts of life."
I wish you would tell that to the FSF. They are going after gnu violators in court. The authors released it for free..why shouldn't I be able to put it in my proprietary application?
"Probably the reason there is piracy is that the original value proposition of the software distributor is not an acceptable offer for some or many of the end users. Software pirates instead secure an alternative price-point for the same product through illicit redistribution methods. This accounts for why a drop in piracy does not result in an increase in sales."
Have any proof to back this up? I didn't think so. I helped a friend out with his software company a couple of years ago, and sales were directly proportional to piracy. IE: When cracks on warez sites were fixed, sales went up as much as 70%.
"The market for software is probably much smaller than the software-producers wish. To me, this seems like a problem with the business model and marketing department, to be honest. Social reengineering to secure a market for a product which many people find to be of poor value compared to alternatives is not an effective solution; the problem is not that pirates steal, it's that some users don't see value."
Now you are trying to legitimize piracy. If something has no value to me, I don't download it or buy it.
Everyone I have ever known that has pirated software, has done so because:
1) the software has value
and
2) they don't want to spend money on it.
"Quality product at a reasonable price. ...and completely without copy protection. I can honestly say that I have only gotten cracks for games I already own a full license to, but I would have never needed to if the games hadn't been virtually padlocked with a faulty key."
and you are in the minority. Quality products at a reasonable price still get copied to bittorrent. And what is a reasonable price? Most games don't cost more than $50 or $60 (which is VERY reasonable)..but still get copied all over the Internet. Why would a company want to make it easier for you to get their commercial product for free?
"I bet a lack of copy protection would also lower the number of calls to tech support as well."
Yeah, it will. But I think a company would rather have a few extra support calls than fewer sales.
"I have to wonder what your proposed response to massive, proven damage from copyright infringement is: an example would be commercial violation of the GPL. Death?"
So protection of copyright is equal to death? The problem is that there really is no solution to fixing the copyright problem at the moment..beyond a better lock.
The only way to get companies to change their practices is to stop buying their products, which most people just aren't willing to do.
Pirate sites are almost a type of competition, but without any of the innovation, so it doesn't give the original company creating the content a reason to innovate or make things better for the consumer...only better security measures.
This is why bittorrent will never put the music or movie companies out of business. To be successful, there needs to be a change in the artists..where they start selling songs without signing with a label.
"if you had read my entire post, maybe you wouldn't have made a silly comment."
yeah, I read it. Because you can't get your way, you decide to break copyright law.
Excuses like this will not go away until companies give out all of their movies and content for free with no restrictions.
I remember when Napster first came out and the people that tried to legitimize it were saying that albums were too expensive and if they could purchase a CD on a per/track basis, there would be no need to download it for free. Well, I-Tunes and other services are out now..and piracy is worse than ever before.
Even look at netflix. You can get 2 movies at the same time for $10/month (which is VERY cheap compared to buying them from the store) and people STILL have to pirate them.
People that pirate and give excuses for legitimizing it are just lazy fucks that don't want to spend any money.
Companies shouldn't have to make the thieves and terrorists happy.
"One guy abuses a service (one which the content producers actually get a cut of.) Therefore, restrictions on legal behavior are deserved."
Do you honestly think it's only ONE person here that is ripping netflix movies? You sound a little naive.
also, the only reason DRM exists is because of the the popularity of pirate sites..not the other way around.
"What a load of fear mongering bull. News flash: if you don't obey a software license you could get sued. How does that make GPL software any more or less risky than the proprietary alternative?"
The GPL is lauded as this free and open license, but in reality it is a risk for anyone that is interested in selling software. This is because they may be forced to release their source, which could mean the end of their business.
Now, with the GPL3, services (which has nothing to do with distribution) are going to be required to also release source code that are using open source libraries/code.
I don't see how anyone can mistake this for freedom. It must be similar to being a blind follower of religion.
Proprietary licenses also don't have zealots across the internet screaming for you to start using it because it's "free".
"Look at it this way, if you violate a proprietary license, you get sued and lose a bunch of money. If you violate the GPL, you get sued, and you have the option to settle and open the code, or lose a lot of money. Seems to me the GPL is the less risky option."
As there are more and more of these cases, businesses are going to steer clear of open source. This is what the OSS community does not realize. They want OSS to be mainstreamed, which will require acceptance from businesses, but continue to make it more and more difficult for anyone to make money.
Linux had a chance in the desktop market, but unfortunately:
1) most users that use linux don't want to pay for anything, making the commercial application market nearly non-existent
2) the numerous configurations and distros makes it almost impossible to release a binary (with no source) that will run on all variations of linux
3) Mac OSX has everything commercial developers need: unix-based, one system+api, a growing community that will spend money. The iPhones also now run a variant of it.
"There are definitely avenues by which even open source devs can be compensated without asking for it. What I wish would improve is overall human consideration. It would have been great for your big company to have just gone out and offered the devs money because they were extracting value from the devs' work. It was possible for that to happen, and if the company had, the project might still be maintained..."
You can't have it both ways. In an above comment, you talk about people working on open source projects for free and how it isn't necessarily worth a dollar amount.
If this is the case, you can't expect anyone to pay you anything for your time to develop an oss application, even if they are getting value from it. Don't like it? Start charging for your software rather than giving it out for free and passively wishing people would improve their "human consideration".
The reason most companies are using OSS in the first place is because it has a $0 price tag.
"And some FOSS developers do it because they fervently want Microsoft and similar companies to suffer economically, as payback for the pain they have caused, the crimes they continue to commit and the freedom they attempt to take away. For those people, no amount of money could replace the pleasure of driving Microsoft et. al. into the ground, salting the earth and sticking a sign there saying, "so shall it be to all such tyrants"."
And what "crimes" has microsoft continued to commit? I can find linux and many other operating systems at the store to purchase, so they are no longer a monopoly (a forced one, at least). I can also find at least 4 or 5 different office clones and many other OSS alternatives.
If OSS was better constructed and built for the average end-user rather than programmers...there would be no tyrants.
I also find it funny, because the more FOSS developers give away their stuff for free, the less jobs there will be for developers in the future. My company could have hired at least 2 or 3 other developers, but because we can get most of what we need for free, we only have one.
As OSS apps get better and better, this will continue to happen. What will be left over is code-money jobs that don't require actual engineering..but just the ability to make changes to an existing application. This will mean less salary overall because development jobs will require less skill.
"Digital music is commoditized because without distribution the business is limited to where you can travel and play. The distribution channel propped up a usury business. Now it's gone and the music industry now has to add value to what they sell or lower prices. That is the effect commoditization has on an industry."
The cost of music isn't in the distribution (CD's are 10 cents a piece..it's in the actual content. This is where your logic is flawed. You are paying for the millions of dollars it took to produce it (and all the people involved in producing it).
This is innovation and progress:
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9929031-7.html?tag=newsmap
This is not:
http://www.thepiratebay.com/
"The users 'get it' and slowly every other industry will 'get it' or die off. That is just how progress works... go ask a buggy whip maker?"
This is different. Buggy's weren't replace by something that still cost the buggy maker's money, but customer's didn't purchase. How is getting someone else's stuff for free progress and innovation? Progress and innovation would be artists and publishers giving their stuff out freely in digital form, not joe warez user downloading it from a bittorrent site.
"The trick is to start with something easy to avoid. Thanks to torrentz i can avoid buying all RIAA much"
You mean by downloading RIAA music for free? So, you are proving it's worth by actually listening to it, but not compensating the artists.
Digital music is not a commodity. You may be able to copy the bits at $0, but creating the exact music that you download is not something anyone can do.
"Offer electronic texts, sell paper based Q/A sections. DRM won't work, so there will be copying, can't get around that."
The problem is that it *does* work. Even though textbooks are > $100. People still buy them. The only way universities (and the music/movie industry) will learn is if people stop paying these costs. Sharing it on the Internet/downloading it for free is not the answer either, because it's not true competition.
If you want to get rid of the RIAA, start convincing artists that they don't need them. Artists can easily use myspace,facebook, and many other Internet sites to sell their music.
Most people that talk about "free speech" with digital goods really just want stuff for free.
"[citation needed] 1%? I doubt it's that small. Regardless, the usage reason percentages are pretty irrelevant to the FSF's views or agenda."
yeah, it does. The FSF's view is that you can charge for software and that the freedom isn't about having a price tag of %0.
But, all articles I have seen that talk about using open source in business involve getting it for free (not speech, beer). Why not advertise the free speech aspect? It's because most people just don't give a shit.
"Depends on who you ask, who you are, what you make of it, and what you want from it. Some people use it because it's free, others because it's better, and still others for ideological reasons."
1% use it for ideological reasons. The other 99% use it because they don't have to pay for it. Why can't the FSF just admit that it's not free as in speech, but free as in beer.
""Open Source software SAVES the national community of software buyers $60 Billion that they can allocate to more profitable areas of their business.""
I thought the "free" in "free software" was supposed to be about speech and not beer.
"Explain, then, the people who invest in, for example, the sportswear companies that commit to sustainable manufacturing practices, even though they mean higher prices and lower profit margins?"
The #1 goal is still profit.
"Really? That question comes down to how much is enough. Working my corporate job was a means to an end, which was simply earning money. To me, that seems a poor life indeed. And how many IT people who you know earn enough money to throw off the shackles of their job early enough to not be a corporate slave?"
Working for anyone (profit/non-profit) is considered corporate slavery to me. So, in your position, it's just slavery at a lower wage...which is ridiculous.
Most people don't have the discipline to not over-spend and live below their means, which is why they won't ever have enough in the bank to stop working.
"I'm guessing one or none. I certainly don't know anyone who has that kind of income. And exactly what kind of freedom do you speak? I have lots of freedom...the freedom to choose my job and work for something I care about instead of being a slave to my paycheck."
I'm talking about not working for a company and doing what you want. Going on vacations, maybe working for a charity (but not relying on the paycheck coming in from that charity).
"plus you miss the whole point of that paragraph! Money is not an issue for me. I like to do work I enjoy. That, to me, is worth more than getting paid more money."
Me too. This is why I found a job that I not only enjoy (at a rubber dildo factory), but make enough to save for the future. I didn't miss the point of your paragraph, I just wanted to point out that you still are a slave to pay (if you got fired tomorrow, could you pay the bills with no job? If no, then you are a slave).
"To illustrate this point further, I received the offer for my current job on the same day that I received a different job which I eventually turned down. The other job paid almost twice as much money, I would be doing less work, but none of that mattered to me. Please read that carefully as I make the point several times that some people think differently than what is supposed to be the norm of earning a bunch of money."
I get it. You enjoy getting paid less to do more work from a non-profit.
"Again, reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. It was just the point that my boss isn't socking the money away for himself, nor is he someone that talks without action. Plus, he also supports a family."
Just because you don't see your boss driving an expensive car doesn't mean he isn't getting paid an obscene amount of money. Non-profits by nature are required to spend a certain amount of money per year (I have worked for a couple) and all of my bosses were getting paid > $150,000/Year. This is where your naivety is shining through.
"You must have some sort of disconnection from reality with the belief that people who work for non-profits or less for what they could get in an open market don't support families or volunteer for worthy causes, or both for that matter."
I don't have a disconnection from reality. I am a realist. You are a fool for slaving away at a non-profit for less than you are worth.
"If you are just looking out for yourself and how much money you have, then maybe that kind of life is for you. But you must know, you have to know that a life like that is not for everyone."
I have heard "money doesn't buy happiness". It's funny. The only people I have ever heard say that are people that don't have any. Money may not make you instantly happy, but it doesn't make life any worse.
It opens up many opportunities in life that you otherwise would not have.
"Also not true. Some investors are willing to accept a lower rate of return than they could otherwise get in order to also feel good about the benefit (or lack of damage) their investment brings to the world. They still expect a return, and aren't going to invest without one, but they'll accept a smaller profit."
Again, the people that aren't interested in a profit (or low profits) are not going to invest their money, they will donate, which is different. (non-profits either get dontations from private entities or grants from the government).
Investments are always a risk. If profits are not the highest priority, It's going to be very difficult to get people to invest their money (high risk with low rewards are a bad combo)
"Your problem here is that you're trying to cast profit-seeking as a boolean property. It's perfectly possible to seek profits without making profit the primary goal."
This type of business works in a couple of situations:
1) non-profit organizations (funded through government grants and donations)
2) academia (subsidized through government grants and research)
Profit and money great motivating factors.
Look at the Internet as an example. It was just a tool of academia from the 60s-80s and became what it is today because of business.
"You see there are people out there where the job and the social mission are more important than earning as much money as possible. I could go on here and wax poetic about how money can't get you everything and such,"
It can't get you everything, but it can give you freedom. With enough money in the bank, you never have to work as a corporate slave again.
"If I were working corporate (which I did at one point), I'd be getting paid probably twice what I'm getting now for less work. But I'd be under the thumb of some accounting knob who decides that my training is a risk of me leaving. If I strictly went consulting, I could earn up to three times as much. But then I'd be doing zombie work, not really caring about making someone else rich. Neither of those jobs give any type of appreciation from your employers. None of that matters to me. I have a great job, my clients are great people who really appreciate what I do, I work with brilliant people who are passionate about their jobs and life and I get paid a living wage, which allows me to live modestly and within my means."
This is pure foolishness. Either because you are naive, young, or both. The jobs where you can make double what you are making now won't be there forever. What you should be doing is taking one of those corporate jobs and living well below your means. This way, you can save half of your money in the bank.
You need to look out for yourself, or you will find yourself old and broke.
Corporate jobs aren't all bad. I am currently working a job that generally cares about its customers and is making a profit at the same time. You just need to find something that suits you.
"Oh and you may ask or wonder about our company owner/president. You might think he drives a fancy car and socks all the money away. Actually, he often bikes to work, volunteers a lot of his time and is a fantastic guy to boot."
Not everyone wants to bike to work or has the time to volunteer. Many people have families and need the money to support them.
"Assuming you can find investors who want to invest in a company with a primary goal other than profit, it's often a competitive advantage, because you don't have to worry as much about how to generate the returns investors are looking for. So, you can operate on thinner margins and take bigger risks, confident that as long as you're maintaining your focus on the primary goal, and not doing anything TOO foolish, that your investors will support you."
It's a competitive advantage because you don't have to worry about your competition anymore (and vice-versa). While your competition is following the market and doing things that will bring in more customers (and a profit), your company will be focusing on the social goal (whatever that may be).
The primary goal of an investor is to get a ROI. If they aren't going to get this, they aren't considered investors anymore..they are people making donations, and they won't care what you do with the money..because they never expect to get any of it back.
"Your parting statement is perfectly self-reflexive. If only you'd started your reply with "this post is an interesting...", you'd have scored an A+. But you do get a passing grade for taking your toys home and going away"
:-D
You sounds like a bitter person who doesn't get enough control in his own life, so you post on forums such as slashdot to make up for it.
Argue all you want about the topic at hand, but it doesn't change the fact that the US government is on my side..so there isn't much you can do about it.
"Only they don't...
They know their products are garbage, and always have. They rely on lock-in, users ignorance of alternatives and lack of choice in the marketplace because this is much cheaper than paying people to improve their products."
If Microsoft products are garbage, why is it installed on 99% of the world's computers? Hell, illegal versions of windows are installed more often in other countries than linux. That has to tell you something, and it's NOT because of a monopoly (if it was, I wouldn't see linux and open office on the shelves in retail stores right now. I can even buy computers with linux pre-installed).
Linux just can't compete. It lacks driver support, games, a good development suite for developers, and the biggest thing: an application industry driven by profit. Most applications for linux are expected to be free (as in beer) by the users, which will always be a barrier to win over Microsoft.
In 5 years, I believe that mac OSX will have almost as much of the OS marketshare as microsoft. Linux will have the leftovers.
"So you're now independently wealthy. Explain to me how my doing the same is not "doing something to better myself". If you're going to use the same kind of "logic" you've used so far, don't bother."
an interesting way to end an argument. It reminds me of a little kid that's going to take his toys home because he can't get his way.
"Trying to blame everybody is an attempt to blame nobody. There are a few people who more than anyone else share culpability for this disaster, conspicuously including Alan Greenspan, and the purpose of the talking point that you are parroting is to help them escape culpability and-as usual- shift blame onto the public at large. We saw this same pattern during Katrina and during the initial looting in Baghdad. Whenever a few boneheads fail to do their job and exert proper influence on everyone's behavior, they want to collectively blame everyone for their millions of individual decisions. It's like blaming the horses for leaving after a barn door was left open."
A few boneheads not doing their job? People LIED on their applications (or just couldn't handle the loan) and as a result, lost their house. The only boneheads not doing their job are the moron ex-homeowners that tried to cheat the system.
It's a typical response from the left: blame the faceless corporation or government rather than getting to the root of the problem.
I don't feel sorry for people that lost their house..and neither does the government.
"Yes, there were millions of people who took out loans they couldn't afford. I never said they shouldn't lose their houses, or otherwise take the hit. There were many people who got loans on fraud, too, though most of those frauds were encouraged by banks that didn't ask even for documentation - just asserting on a single form that you made $X a year was enough."
I still blame the person signing up for the loan in this situation. If you lie about how much money you are making per year, prepare for the consequences..which means losing your house when you can't afford it. How could someone be so stupid? I forgot..this is the US....where someone with no job and no money coming in seems to think they can pay for a $300,000 home with interest.
"One clue could be the bailout passed by Congress this week, which pumped $15B into the mortgage economy. $12B sent to banks, $3B sent to borrowers (people). That's 4x as much for the banks."
That's because the banks have risked 4X the money.
"Tell me about the people who borrowed money who got that kind of bailout. I'll tell you about the banks getting bailed out for so much more, and the even huger profits they made for years for supposedly taking risks they never took."
Loaning large amounts of money to people that probably won't ever pay it back is considered a huge risk.
Let's say you had $500,000 in bank X and bank X had no bailout protection from the government. Would you be okay if you just never got your money because bank X went out of business? Protections are there to also help the people that have invested all of their money in these banks. Without these protections in place, a bank account would hold just as much risk as the stock market.
"Now, what have you done to "better yourself"? How does making up crap to defend the privilege of the banks over the protection of everyone else better you? Or does it just better your imaginary life as a bank, that you'll never have?"
I worked a regular job from 15 until around 30. I now own my own company and am now independently wealthy.