What remedy would you suggest instead of the FBI attempting to prevent terrorists? Arming the populace to the teeth? A heavily armed population would not be able to fight terrorism at all. If every person in the World Trade Center had been wielding a weapon, would that have stopped the planes? No, but there would have been a lot of murdered Arab-Americans...
But you are forgetting......
if the people on the planes were all armed, the terrorists wouldn't have been able to take them over with simple box cutters.
Think of it: everytime a release of a major piece of software takes place, what is one of the first things you read on Slashdot? That's right, a cry for mirrors, because everyone starts hitting the project homepage. Now think in terms of a marketeer: how many eyeballs is that hitting a single page? How much is a brand and market goodwill worth?
if everyone going to these mirrors is 1) getting it for free and 2) not seeing any advertising at all, a marketeer only sees a waste of bandwidth.
let's say, for instance, that I have a large programming company. I pay 10 programmers around $100,000 a year. They work on a project for 2 years. For research and development, I haven now paid 2,000,000.
Im selling my product for $49.99. If someone decides to make illegal copies, I am out $49.99 (what you would normally be forced to pay). When you buy software, you are also paying for R & D.
I'll explain it to you really simply. For the benefit of anyone else reading the thread
let me explain something to you: Unlike free software, proprietary companies have to pay programmers.
It looks like people still don't get want the free software movement is all about: free as in free speach, not free as in free beer
it looks like you don't either. Although the free software movement is all about "free as in speech", if the software is not "free as in beer" in one form or another (binaries or source) it is not considered free (and also a violation of the GNU license).
When you copy software you don't diminish a supply. When you take gas, you diminish the supply of the vendor thus producing the damage. YOU, sir are a moron AND a troll
no, but from the looks of your post, it seems you are, though.
examples: I am a copyright infringer. I am wealthy. I copy a version of a $2,000.00 CAD software just to try it out. I end up thinking it's ok but definately not worth $2,000.00, I _continue_ to use it though. Has the company lost revenue on me? Answer: NO. I was able to pay, but not willing. I am a copyright infringer. I am a poor student/foreigner (how common is this among those who ignore copyright?). I copy a version of a $100 popular OS. I know I need it very much and would pay ANYTHING to get it for without it I would drop out of school or whatever. Has the company lost revenue on me? Answer: NO. I was willing to pay, but not able. I am a copyright infringer. I am a free-software advocate. I use a small program to tell the vmware trial it hasn't expired. I use vmware to run a copy of windows XP with MS office so that I can more easily send things to my professors. I didn't purchase them. I have $200.00 in my bank account. Has any company lost money on me? Answer: no. Because I am not willing to pay their prices AND because I am not able to pay their prices.
example:
I get gas for my car at a gas station. The price per gallon is too much for me. I drive off, and never pay. Does the company lose money?
Under your argument, it would be no, because I was never willing to pay for it in the first place.
If you are not willing to pay for software, you should not be willing to use it either.
Just like if I own a business, and I want to use GNU licensed code. If I was never going to abide by the license anyway, does it mean I can sell it without re-releasing the source?
Piracy did not make it standard. The standard caused the piracy.
That, and doing business with the US (MS centric).
if that were true, then the prices that adobe or microsoft have set are good (people must be buying it at $200 or more), and there is no legitimate reason to pirate besides greed and selfishness.
A quick search turns up Office XP prices running in the $NT18,000 - $19,000 range for a new user. With current exchange rates hovering around NT$35 to US$1, that makes Office XP more expensive in Taiwan than MS's own MSRP of US$479. Prices in the PRC are in the same ballpark -- which translates there to roughly two months' laborer's wages. And MS wonders why piracy rates are so high
Piracy is extending the high prices of all these companies. Think about it: if people didn't use (or pirate) software that was at such high a price, the companies would have to lower their prices (or go out of business).
Instead, people pirate software and make it a standard, allowing companies like microsoft or adobe to charge upwards of $300 for their products.
which suggests Taiwan is going to continue in the spirit of which 'free software' was intended
giving away software for free, yes. Following the GNU license, no. If piracy of commercialized applications is rampant in taiwan,what makes you think they are going to follow the GNU license?
All they want is free as in no price software, which is not a good thing for the free software movement.
That't the point, why? Because it is wrong denying freedom, copyleft consists in making sure everyone has freedom by denying the right of denying freedom.
If I make any additions to GPLd code, I must release my changes. this is denying me my freedom, over my own code.
Microsoft's business model is suffering not because of open source, but because open source programs have the living snot beaten out of them before, during and after release
honesty, the whole industry is in a recession right now. This is why microsft's business model is suffering, nothing more.
I work in a pretty profitable retail computer store (we also do tech. work), and I have yet to hear from any non-tech customer that they have switched over to any piece of open source software.
Unauthorized distributions can be dealt with same as pirates
But this is something that RMS is firmly against. Take, for example, the new per-seat license of united linux.
If you charge for a piece of GPLd code, you must give it out for free (as in beer) anyway, because otherwise it will violate your "freedoms". So, it is nearly impossible to make a profit with GPLd code.
Saying RMS is costing programmer jobs is crying wolf. My original post was a reaction to that.
you're right it doesn't. But GPL will probably never be the industry standard. There is no motivation to give something out for free that you paid to have developed.
It should be obvious from my last paragraph, but here it goes: copyleft [www.gnu.org] does not mean free for all. It means free for those who will respect others' freedom. Per-seat licensing schemes are a violation of freedom, and besides a violation of GNU GPL licensing. Also, it's not about not liking someone, but what licensing someone uses to restrict someone else's freedom.
true freedom is all or nothing, others people like the KKK and the black panthers would be put in prison on the sole bases of their views.
How do you define a zealot? Why is being a zealot bad? What is a GPL zealot? Why is RMS one of them? Remember, a zealot is one who has zeal, and zeal in itself is a good thing.
Blind faith, and no it is not always a good thing.
Now, denying the freedom to restrict others' freedom somehow strikes me as completely reasonable.
If you don't want to make money fine, but why deny someone else the FREEDOM? When it is the other way around (software piracy) people in the slashdot community instantly try to rationalize it.
Oh, you meant it can destroy the shrink-wrap software economy? Ho hum. Only Microsoft really makes money doing that anyway. Everyone else must offer service and support on top of that to survive
Free software will never gain more popularity than proprietary and or commercial applications, unless
1) there is a law against proprietary applications 2)capitalism is gone forever.
Here is why:
If you have two applications side by side (one free and one commercial). Each application equal in function, which one will be greater in popularity?
The commerical application, because it costs money to promote (money that free software can't afford), and that is really the only way the average joe user will even see it.
dep writes "Likening the practice to Windows, Richard M. Stallman has issued a brief statement condemning the per-seat licensing that it appears will be employed in the "UnitedLinux" core distribution. He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution."
I have seen in countless arguments stallman claiming that OpenSource can and should make money. Could that free in free software now mean beer?
The problem is, if they don't lower their prices first, Adobe will never know how much their sales might have gone up (yes, they probabably have done focus groups along the lines of "How much would you pay for Photoshop"). The devil's advocate (to the above view) is that by pirating, you are actually showing that it is worth less. The thing is that there is no way to tell how much less, because there is no where you can say, "I pirated Photoshop, but would have paid x dollars for it if it were available at that price.
if they don't lower the price, it means people are buying their product. Just because you can't afford to shell out the cash for an adobe product, doesn't mean it shouldn't be sold at that price. The market will choose the price.
So people pirate, partially because the market does not give them the price point they want.
What about the GIMP and other free pieces of software? why can't people just use those?
The problem with your reasoning is that there are always going to be people that want something for nothing. This occurs in all industrys, although it doesn't make it right (to force it upon a proprietary vendor).
Piracy is the beginning of a question, but it is an answer to nothing at all. The true answer to the question (a market that will better seve all people's price points, hasn't been thought of yet, though I'd love to know if any economists are thinking along these lines
If you would like free software, use it. There are plenty of open source packages available.
By the massive amounts of people trying to legitimize copying proprietary software, it also poses the question: Is open source software all it's cracked up to be? It seems people would much rather have a copy of a proprietary app, than an open sourced one, hinting toward free as in beer more than speech.
Of course, this assumes that the pirate would have actually shelled out the $600+ to buy Adobe Photoshop 7.0 to begin with. I know I have tons of pirated software that I never would have bought in the first place. It's simply a convenience factor. If I would have never purchased the software, but have it now, it's actually a wash when it comes to profit/loss statements.
If you are not using your pirated software, the I would say yes. But if you are getting any use out of it, the company is losing money. (because under legal circumstances, you are forced to pay for it).
No, those jobs disappeared because your product sucks, not because of Piracy.
Here is something to remember: Software that sucks, isn't worth pirating.
Do you think Adobe will reduce the cost of their software if sales go up 50%? This is very similar to believing in Santa Claus.
They run a business, by their terms, not yours. If they want to charge $900, they can. But, people won't buy it, and they will in turn, lower their prices.
If you pirate it, you are proving the point it is worth its value.
Don't get me wrong. Pirating is wrong, and so is copyright infringment, but callng it theft and saying your losing billions of dollars because of it isn't exactly right either
In theory, the United States is a democratic republic, where, eventually, public opinion can change laws to reflect the public opinion. One has to wonder how long current copyright law can stand, when so many people clearly don't support it as it is? Whether it's music or software or movies, more and more people want information to be free... even if they don't realize it yet.
and somehow you think it needs to be forced upon us? Information needs to be free, but what you don't understand, is that games,applications, and music are not considered information. They are copyrighted materials.
if open source was so great, you wouldn't be whining about your ability to share (read: ripoff the companies that make them) proprietary apps.
Some people of course will say it will hurt the economy. But will it? I tend to believe it will shift the economy, and move it in a new, more promising direction.
out of work programmers, socialism, or communism, take yor pick.
Business may like free software, but only because it can be exploited to a degree that will in turn cost less. (because they don't have to hire any programmers).
for him to use non-free tools to distribute a free OS sends the kind of mixed message that got us into this mess (first IBM, then Windows) in the first place
I think you are mistaken about linus's views. He is not nearly as zealous as RMS.
If he was, he wouldn't have landed that job at a proprietary software based company (the ones that made the crusoe processor).
would you be happy if Linus openly professed his love for Internet Explorer (it is available free of charge)?
yes, because then I would know that the linux community was going somewhere. Ignoring something that is technically better will not make it go away, or change the views of the millions of people that are using it.
Slashdot Mirror
What remedy would you suggest instead of the FBI attempting to prevent terrorists? Arming the populace to the teeth? A heavily armed population would not be able to fight terrorism at all. If every person in the World Trade Center had been wielding a weapon, would that have stopped the planes? No, but there would have been a lot of murdered Arab-Americans...
But you are forgetting......
if the people on the planes were all armed, the terrorists wouldn't have been able to take them over with simple box cutters.
Think of it: everytime a release of a major piece of software takes place, what is one of the first things you read on Slashdot? That's right, a cry for mirrors, because everyone starts hitting the project homepage. Now think in terms of a marketeer: how many eyeballs is that hitting a single page? How much is a brand and market goodwill worth?
if everyone going to these mirrors is 1) getting it for free and 2) not seeing any advertising at all, a marketeer only sees a waste of bandwidth.
Admit it, their figures are bogus.
let's say, for instance, that I have a large programming company. I pay 10 programmers around $100,000 a year. They work on a project for 2 years. For research and development, I haven now paid 2,000,000.
Im selling my product for $49.99. If someone decides to make illegal copies, I am out $49.99 (what you would normally be forced to pay). When you buy software, you are also paying for R & D.
I'll explain it to you really simply. For the benefit of anyone else reading the thread
let me explain something to you: Unlike free software, proprietary companies have to pay programmers.
'nuff said
It looks like people still don't get want the free software movement is all about: free as in free speach, not free as in free beer
it looks like you don't either. Although the free software movement is all about "free as in speech", if the software is not "free as in beer" in one form or another (binaries or source) it is not considered free (and also a violation of the GNU license).
When you copy software you don't diminish a supply. When you take gas, you diminish the supply of the vendor thus producing the damage. YOU, sir are a moron AND a troll
no, but from the looks of your post, it seems you are, though.
I guess you agree with my final point, then.
According to CIA factbook for example: Taiwan: Population below poverty line: 1% (1999 est.) US: Population below poverty line: 12.7% (1999 est.)
If you also look, they have almost no social programs. Which explains a lot.
examples:
I am a copyright infringer. I am wealthy. I copy a version of a $2,000.00 CAD software just to try it out. I end up thinking it's ok but definately not worth $2,000.00, I _continue_ to use it though.
Has the company lost revenue on me?
Answer: NO. I was able to pay, but not willing.
I am a copyright infringer. I am a poor student/foreigner (how common is this among those who ignore copyright?). I copy a version of a $100 popular OS. I know I need it very much and would pay ANYTHING to get it for without it I would drop out of school or whatever.
Has the company lost revenue on me?
Answer: NO. I was willing to pay, but not able.
I am a copyright infringer. I am a free-software advocate. I use a small program to tell the vmware trial it hasn't expired. I use vmware to run a copy of windows XP with MS office so that I can more easily send things to my professors. I didn't purchase them. I have $200.00 in my bank account.
Has any company lost money on me?
Answer: no. Because I am not willing to pay their prices AND because I am not able to pay their prices.
example:
I get gas for my car at a gas station. The price per gallon is too much for me. I drive off, and never pay. Does the company lose money?
Under your argument, it would be no, because I was never willing to pay for it in the first place.
If you are not willing to pay for software, you should not be willing to use it either.
Just like if I own a business, and I want to use GNU licensed code. If I was never going to abide by the license anyway, does it mean I can sell it without re-releasing the source?
Piracy did not make it standard. The standard caused the piracy.
That, and doing business with the US (MS centric).
if that were true, then the prices that adobe or microsoft have set are good (people must be buying it at $200 or more), and there is no legitimate reason to pirate besides greed and selfishness.
A quick search turns up Office XP prices running in the $NT18,000 - $19,000 range for a new user. With current exchange rates hovering around NT$35 to US$1, that makes Office XP more expensive in Taiwan than MS's own MSRP of US$479. Prices in the PRC are in the same ballpark -- which translates there to roughly two months' laborer's wages. And MS wonders why piracy rates are so high
Piracy is extending the high prices of all these companies. Think about it: if people didn't use (or pirate) software that was at such high a price, the companies would have to lower their prices (or go out of business).
Instead, people pirate software and make it a standard, allowing companies like microsoft or adobe to charge upwards of $300 for their products.
which suggests Taiwan is going to continue in the spirit of which 'free software' was intended
giving away software for free, yes. Following the GNU license, no. If piracy of commercialized applications is rampant in taiwan,what makes you think they are going to follow the GNU license?
All they want is free as in no price software, which is not a good thing for the free software movement.
That't the point, why? Because it is wrong denying freedom, copyleft consists in making sure everyone has freedom by denying the right of denying freedom.
If I make any additions to GPLd code, I must release my changes. this is denying me my freedom, over my own code.
i can produce an album just fine. record guitars, drums and vocals with cool edit, mix them with cool edit. burn with nero. f**k the record labels
too bad you won't make any money. Recording labels or not, the music pirates of the world will always have an excuse.
Microsoft's business model is suffering not because of open source, but because open source programs have the living snot beaten out of them before, during and after release
honesty, the whole industry is in a recession right now. This is why microsft's business model is suffering, nothing more.
I work in a pretty profitable retail computer store (we also do tech. work), and I have yet to hear from any non-tech customer that they have switched over to any piece of open source software.
Unauthorized distributions can be dealt with same as pirates
But this is something that RMS is firmly against. Take, for example, the new per-seat license of united linux.
If you charge for a piece of GPLd code, you must give it out for free (as in beer) anyway, because otherwise it will violate your "freedoms". So, it is nearly impossible to make a profit with GPLd code.
Saying RMS is costing programmer jobs is crying wolf. My original post was a reaction to that.
you're right it doesn't. But GPL will probably never be the industry standard. There is no motivation to give something out for free that you paid to have developed.
It should be obvious from my last paragraph, but here it goes: copyleft [www.gnu.org] does not mean free for all. It means free for those who will respect others' freedom. Per-seat licensing schemes are a violation of freedom, and besides a violation of GNU GPL licensing. Also, it's not about not liking someone, but what licensing someone uses to restrict someone else's freedom.
true freedom is all or nothing, others people like the KKK and the black panthers would be put in prison on the sole bases of their views.
How do you define a zealot? Why is being a zealot bad? What is a GPL zealot? Why is RMS one of them? Remember, a zealot is one who has zeal, and zeal in itself is a good thing.
Blind faith, and no it is not always a good thing.
Now, denying the freedom to restrict others' freedom somehow strikes me as completely reasonable.
If you don't want to make money fine, but why deny someone else the FREEDOM? When it is the other way around (software piracy) people in the slashdot community instantly try to rationalize it.
Oh, you meant it can destroy the shrink-wrap software economy? Ho hum. Only Microsoft really makes money doing that anyway. Everyone else must offer service and support on top of that to survive
Free software will never gain more popularity than proprietary and or commercial applications, unless
1) there is a law against proprietary applications
2)capitalism is gone forever.
Here is why:
If you have two applications side by side (one free and one commercial). Each application equal in function, which one will be greater in popularity?
The commerical application, because it costs money to promote (money that free software can't afford), and that is really the only way the average joe user will even see it.
dep writes "Likening the practice to Windows, Richard M. Stallman has issued a brief statement condemning the per-seat licensing that it appears will be employed in the "UnitedLinux" core distribution. He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution."
I have seen in countless arguments stallman claiming that OpenSource can and should make money. Could that free in free software now mean beer?
The problem is, if they don't lower their prices first, Adobe will never know how much their sales might have gone up (yes, they probabably have done focus groups along the lines of "How much would you pay for Photoshop"). The devil's advocate (to the above view) is that by pirating, you are actually showing that it is worth less. The thing is that there is no way to tell how much less, because there is no where you can say, "I pirated Photoshop, but would have paid x dollars for it if it were available at that price.
if they don't lower the price, it means people are buying their product. Just because you can't afford to shell out the cash for an adobe product, doesn't mean it shouldn't be sold at that price. The market will choose the price.
So people pirate, partially because the market does not give them the price point they want.
What about the GIMP and other free pieces of software? why can't people just use those?
The problem with your reasoning is that there are always going to be people that want something for nothing. This occurs in all industrys, although it doesn't make it right (to force it upon a proprietary vendor).
Piracy is the beginning of a question, but it is an answer to nothing at all. The true answer to the question (a market that will better seve all people's price points, hasn't been thought of yet, though I'd love to know if any economists are thinking along these lines
If you would like free software, use it. There are plenty of open source packages available.
By the massive amounts of people trying to legitimize copying proprietary software, it also poses the question: Is open source software all it's cracked up to be? It seems people would much rather have a copy of a proprietary app, than an open sourced one, hinting toward free as in beer more than speech.
Of course, this assumes that the pirate would have actually shelled out the $600+ to buy Adobe Photoshop 7.0 to begin with. I know I have tons of pirated software that I never would have bought in the first place. It's simply a convenience factor. If I would have never purchased the software, but have it now, it's actually a wash when it comes to profit/loss statements.
If you are not using your pirated software, the I would say yes. But if you are getting any use out of it, the company is losing money. (because under legal circumstances, you are forced to pay for it).
No, those jobs disappeared because your product sucks, not because of Piracy.
Here is something to remember: Software that sucks, isn't worth pirating.
Do you think Adobe will reduce the cost of their software if sales go up 50%? This is very similar to believing in Santa Claus.
They run a business, by their terms, not yours. If they want to charge $900, they can. But, people won't buy it, and they will in turn, lower their prices.
If you pirate it, you are proving the point it is worth its value.
Don't get me wrong. Pirating is wrong, and so is copyright infringment, but callng it theft and saying your losing billions of dollars because of it isn't exactly right either
how about I coin a new term right now.
Digitheft.
does that make you feel better?
In theory, the United States is a democratic republic, where, eventually, public opinion can change laws to reflect the public opinion. One has to wonder how long current copyright law can stand, when so many people clearly don't support it as it is? Whether it's music or software or movies, more and more people want information to be free... even if they don't realize it yet.
and somehow you think it needs to be forced upon us? Information needs to be free, but what you don't understand, is that games,applications, and music are not considered information. They are copyrighted materials.
if open source was so great, you wouldn't be whining about your ability to share (read: ripoff the companies that make them) proprietary apps.
Some people of course will say it will hurt the economy. But will it? I tend to believe it will shift the economy, and move it in a new, more promising direction.
out of work programmers, socialism, or communism, take yor pick.
Business may like free software, but only because it can be exploited to a degree that will in turn cost less. (because they don't have to hire any programmers).
for him to use non-free tools to distribute a free OS sends the kind of mixed message that got us into this mess (first IBM, then Windows) in the first place
I think you are mistaken about linus's views. He is not nearly as zealous as RMS.
If he was, he wouldn't have landed that job at a proprietary software based company (the ones that made the crusoe processor).
would you be happy if Linus openly professed his love for Internet Explorer (it is available free of charge)?
yes, because then I would know that the linux community was going somewhere. Ignoring something that is technically better will not make it go away, or change the views of the millions of people that are using it.
For Stallman Free does not been free download or free beer, Free mean Free Speech or Free Source.
but if you charged for the source (and offer no free as in beer download), it isn't considered free as in speech, so the two go hand-in-hand.