"Customers" who don't pay are not customers that any business wants.
Who says that "customers" who don't pay for their software from Microsoft are going to be any more likely to pay for OSS? If the OSS companies want to compete for non-paying customers, I'm sure that MS wouldn't mind in the least bit. The issue is not just non-paying but paying customers where a mistake is made.
Also, I am fairly certain MS would indeed mind having non-paying customers switch to someone else's programs. It is a plus to them to domintate the market. Paid or unpaid. Naturally they prefer paid where possible, but do you really think they would prefer for all non-genuine windows users to switch to linux overnight?
That's something to think about. It is indeed and your reasoning could be correct, however you say nothing of why they may have the preference. It could just be ignorance, inertia, FUD, or any number of other reasons that they would kick themselves for after a switch. It could also be valid.
With software patents being the legal quagmire that they are, the only protection these corporations have from others abusing the system is to be the patent holder themselves. I don't believe that. The big guys could get software patents done away with in no time if they wanted to. That is my take. Naturally, I could be wrong and often am, but I doubt it in this case.
" While I should probably state that I hate DRM, but when you purchase a DVD, you have not purchased the movie"
I do know that you have not purchased the copyrights to the movie. I am not maintaining a right to purchase a movie withour DRM. I am maintaining that it is about Freedom none the less though.
At the most basic level, the copyright that the government gives to the author/creator takes away my freedom. The DMCA (Is that right?) takes away my right to break the DRM for otherwise legal purposes if I can. So, it is indeed quite clearly about Freedom.
This isn't about "Freedom". There is no right for anybody to be able to purchase a movie without DRM. Yes it most certainly is about Freedom. Those same people have managed to get laws passed to take away your freedom to break that DRM on goods you bought. And that is not all of it either.
Companies always scream 'let the market decide', yet they manage to pressure politicians into passing laws which are anything but the market deciding. Bingo!
In fact, I have been saying that once copyright or patent protected goods are in the market it is no longer possible for that market to be a free market. It is now a market in goods having government granted monopolies.
"so CREATE something yourself and see how it works voluntarily instead of forcing authors to agree with your politics."
Ah, I am not the one running to get copyright laws amended over and over. Retroactively. There was a legal (lopitical?) agreement made with the public, but it wasn't good enough for some. They wanted to change the agreement. Now it is wrong for others to change it back to something more like it was? Or even completely different?
Seems some people are trying to force us into new "agreements." Why should we not fight back?
Who made the ad hominem attack? You, against the whole world. You will note that I said perhaps you do. I make no claim that you do. If you don't, that makes two of us at least. I would believe that htere are a few more around.
"People will steal anything if they can get it for free, regardless of the cost."
and
"Anecdotal data espoused as if of value. Mistake number 2."
You were the one who made a statement that applied to everyone. It only takes one exception to disprove such a statement. That makes such evidence of value. Unless you wish to make another ad hominem attack and insist that I am not only a thief but a liar to boot?
"Snide holier than thou attitude"
Nope just a statement of fact actually. And, by the way, isn't this another ad hominem attack?
If you actually want to engage in a conversation or even an argument on the issues, by all means, if not...
"I disagree. People will steal anything if they can get it for free, regardless of the cost."
Perhaps that is how you operate, I don't.
In fact, these days, the less non-Free stuff that gets into my head, the happier I am. I am messing with a new term, "copyright pollution" to describe how I am beginning to look at things.
I prefer to put things in my head that I can legally build upon.
[People have the right to be stupid. Without that as Right 0 no other "Right" can be read as anything other than "You have the Right to ____ unless we, the anointed elite, think decide your exercise of it is dumb."]
Yes, but in general we are pretty much already there. Seat belt laws, helmet laws? I am sure we could think of a bunch. No swimming when conditions get bad?
Now, in this particular case, the government has already stepped into the free market and distorted things by offering copyright and patent protections which protect the "things" of convern in this case. Having done this, are they not duty bound to at least try and make sure the deal works out well for their citizens (especially if they see abuses) as long as they continue to distort the market?
(I am still thinking through how I feel about these issues so these are honest questions.)
[I'm not real sure I want government to step in and say that people can't write a contract that says "well, you get to use it, but not as much as if you paid a bunch more".]
Can you figure out why you feel this way? I mean the government has already stepped into the market and offered monopolies to various players in the form of copyrights and patents. As long as they have already distorted the free markets aren't they actually duty bound to see that their distortions work to the benefit of their citizens?
"These countries just don't understand free market competition."
Just a hint, we are not talking free market competition here in the first place.
We have devices and more protected by patents (government granted monopolies) and tunes protected by copyrights (government granted monopolies) so I am unsure how the free market is supposed to work its magic in cases like this.
(Just in case this causes you to wonder, I am not an anti free market person, I just don't think we can have free markets in goods and services which the government gives monopoly protections to.)
"I doubt many people riding the copyright gravy train trot out "let the market decide" (and actually mean it) very often."
They do trot it out though. When people are calling for the government to step in and fix some of their mess. I just think we can start by calling them on it when they do.
[ Actually, wouldn't a true free market proponent say that the market would be able to come up with an even better solution than the government granted monopolies that we have today?
It would. That solution would almost certainly be DRM that actually worked (or came a lot closer than it does now).]
"Firstly, because DRM would eventually be broken by professional "pirates", even if the average consumer never saw a major benefit from it.
Secondly, because only the law allows you to sue for damages, etc. DRM does not. The best DRM gives a content producer is time - Copyright gives them means to retaliate."
Which is it to be? Can the free market come up with a better solution than government granted monopolies, or can't it? take your pick, but please don't argue both sides so close together.
You say that the free market can come up with a better solution. You say that solution would be good DRM. then you say they don't want a better solution becuase the worse solution is better for them?
Can you explain? (Now, it could be that the ones wanting the laws are not free market proponents, but they do trot out the "let the market decide" meme from time to time don't they?
"It would. That solution would almost certainly be DRM that actually worked (or came a lot closer than it does now)."
Hmmm. I wonder why they keep going back for more and more laws then? Why not ask for copyright to be done away with and go with market based solutions?
All that GPL code people want to get their hands on would suddenly be fair game.
"I suggest you watch a documentary called The Corporation [amazon.com]: they very clearly demonstrate that the laws governing corporations make then sociopathic by nature."
Taking this as true for the sake of argument here... Doesn't this then indicate to us that the laws need to be changed so as to fix this issue?
"If IP laws were repealed, and nothing replaced them, it is likely that content creators would re-create something similar to the IP system using complicated contracts (e.g., you would have to sign a lengthy agreement prior to purchasing an album at a music store)."
Actually, wouldn't a true free market proponent say that the market would be able to come up with an even better solution than the government granted monopolies that we have today?
"Because of the necessity of a corporation-like object, it is very likely that such an object would quickly appear, and over time would evolve into something indistinguishable from today's corporation."
Surely this is not a given. What prevents us from changing how corporations work now? Why not only allow humans to own shares for a start? Any thoughts on the results of such a change?
Slashdot Mirror
Who says that "customers" who don't pay for their software from Microsoft are going to be any more likely to pay for OSS? If the OSS companies want to compete for non-paying customers, I'm sure that MS wouldn't mind in the least bit. The issue is not just non-paying but paying customers where a mistake is made.
Also, I am fairly certain MS would indeed mind having non-paying customers switch to someone else's programs. It is a plus to them to domintate the market. Paid or unpaid. Naturally they prefer paid where possible, but do you really think they would prefer for all non-genuine windows users to switch to linux overnight? That's something to think about. It is indeed and your reasoning could be correct, however you say nothing of why they may have the preference. It could just be ignorance, inertia, FUD, or any number of other reasons that they would kick themselves for after a switch. It could also be valid.
It could also be because of network effects.
all the best,
drew
all the best,
drew
" While I should probably state that I hate DRM, but when you purchase a DVD, you have not purchased the movie"
I do know that you have not purchased the copyrights to the movie. I am not maintaining a right to purchase a movie withour DRM. I am maintaining that it is about Freedom none the less though.
At the most basic level, the copyright that the government gives to the author/creator takes away my freedom. The DMCA (Is that right?) takes away my right to break the DRM for otherwise legal purposes if I can. So, it is indeed quite clearly about Freedom.
all the best,
drew
all the best,
drew
In fact, I have been saying that once copyright or patent protected goods are in the market it is no longer possible for that market to be a free market. It is now a market in goods having government granted monopolies.
all the best,
drew
"All the people complaining about DRM should actually DO something"
r o&search=Search3 A%22drew%20Roberts%22)%20OR%20(collection%3A(ourme dia)%20AND%20%2Fmetadata%2Fauthor%3A(drew%20Robert s))
DONE.
Sayings - Deterred Bahamian Novel - http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
Tings - Anuddah Bahamian Novel - http://www.ourmedia.org/node/85937 &
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
drew Roberts's Storefront - Lulu.com - http://www.lulu.com/zotz
Some tings for you from zotz : CafePress.com - http://www.cafepress.com/zotz
Now for some other stuff of mine:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zotzb
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=(creator%
http://code.google.com/p/drsoundwall/
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
http://musicians.opensrc.org/DrewRoberts
https://sourceforge.net/projects/zbcw
I am not the only one doing such things either. For instance:
http://ccmixter.org/media/tags/attribution
"so CREATE something yourself and see how it works voluntarily instead of forcing authors to agree with your politics."
Ah, I am not the one running to get copyright laws amended over and over. Retroactively. There was a legal (lopitical?) agreement made with the public, but it wasn't good enough for some. They wanted to change the agreement. Now it is wrong for others to change it back to something more like it was? Or even completely different?
Seems some people are trying to force us into new "agreements." Why should we not fight back?
all the best,
drew
"DRM is just software to enforce an agreement between producer of content and consumer."
Your thinking might have a chance in the absence of copyright law and patent law.
all the best,
drew
"Icecast has had Theora support for a while now."
It has been a while since I messed with it, but I think I had Theora streaming with peercast as well.
For those that don't know, peercast does peer to peer streaming.
http://www.peercast.org/
all the best,
drew
"There is no money in that."
Look at the business model proposed that you replied to.
The proposal is to make a bit of your name for yourself and then to get paid up front from then on.
"youtube is not a viable option for distribution as they don't allow for uploading long videos"
Perhaps the internet archive then?
These people:
http://www.aswarmofangels.com/
are trying out a twist. We shall see what happens.
all the best,
drew
"Ad hominem attack. Mistake 1."
Who made the ad hominem attack? You, against the whole world. You will note that I said perhaps you do. I make no claim that you do. If you don't, that makes two of us at least. I would believe that htere are a few more around.
"People will steal anything if they can get it for free, regardless of the cost."
and
"Anecdotal data espoused as if of value. Mistake number 2."
You were the one who made a statement that applied to everyone. It only takes one exception to disprove such a statement. That makes such evidence of value. Unless you wish to make another ad hominem attack and insist that I am not only a thief but a liar to boot?
"Snide holier than thou attitude"
Nope just a statement of fact actually. And, by the way, isn't this another ad hominem attack?
If you actually want to engage in a conversation or even an argument on the issues, by all means, if not...
all the best,
drew
how are those low budget films financed, -> on spec?
marketed, and distributed?-> youtube?
all the best,
drew
"I disagree. People will steal anything if they can get it for free, regardless of the cost."
Perhaps that is how you operate, I don't.
In fact, these days, the less non-Free stuff that gets into my head, the happier I am. I am messing with a new term, "copyright pollution" to describe how I am beginning to look at things.
I prefer to put things in my head that I can legally build upon.
all the best,
drew
"In fact, looking at download numbers for content is probably more accurate than other methods of determining the market viability of content."
So, if they look at these numbers, should they have to pay the downloaders for this valuable market research data?
all the best,
drew
[People have the right to be stupid. Without that as Right 0 no other "Right" can be read as anything other than "You have the Right to ____ unless we, the anointed elite, think decide your exercise of it is dumb."]
r o&search=Search
Yes, but in general we are pretty much already there. Seat belt laws, helmet laws? I am sure we could think of a bunch. No swimming when conditions get bad?
Now, in this particular case, the government has already stepped into the free market and distorted things by offering copyright and patent protections which protect the "things" of convern in this case. Having done this, are they not duty bound to at least try and make sure the deal works out well for their citizens (especially if they see abuses) as long as they continue to distort the market?
(I am still thinking through how I feel about these issues so these are honest questions.)
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zotzb
[I'm not real sure I want government to step in and say that people can't write a contract that says "well, you get to use it, but not as much as if you paid a bunch more".]
r o&search=Search
Can you figure out why you feel this way? I mean the government has already stepped into the market and offered monopolies to various players in the form of copyrights and patents. As long as they have already distorted the free markets aren't they actually duty bound to see that their distortions work to the benefit of their citizens?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zotzb
"Compete on merit, not on artificial technical barriers."
r o&search=Search
You were doing good up until this point. (Probably doing good here as well but I would appreciate your input on what follows.)
What do you think of this:
Compete on merit, not on artificial legal barriers. ???
Isn't that exactly what patents and copyrights are? The whole market is non-free to begin with.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zotzb
"Just as the Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it, so it is with the market forces."
Would you prefer they did away with patents and copyrights and really let those market forces have free reign?
all the best,
drew
"These countries just don't understand free market competition."
r o&search=Search
Just a hint, we are not talking free market competition here in the first place.
We have devices and more protected by patents (government granted monopolies) and tunes protected by copyrights (government granted monopolies) so I am unsure how the free market is supposed to work its magic in cases like this.
(Just in case this causes you to wonder, I am not an anti free market person, I just don't think we can have free markets in goods and services which the government gives monopoly protections to.)
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zotzb
["Revenue: $55.908 Billion USD (2006)
Net income: $3.572 Billion USD (2006) (6.39% profit margin)
employs more than 63,700" = Dell]
[Revenue: $44.2 Billion USD (2006)
Net income: $12.6 Billion USD (2006) (31.6% net margin)
employs 71,172 = Microsoft]
Things that make ya go hmmmm.
all the best,
drew
"I doubt many people riding the copyright gravy train trot out "let the market decide" (and actually mean it) very often."
They do trot it out though. When people are calling for the government to step in and fix some of their mess. I just think we can start by calling them on it when they do.
all the best,
drew
"Realistically priced goods and services."
I am not sure how this actually answers the question asked. Can you explain.
"that same $17 could support many many *more* artists to a good standard of living."
You will not find me making loud objections if this occurs.
all the best,
drew
[ Actually, wouldn't a true free market proponent say that the market would be able to come up with an even better solution than the government granted monopolies that we have today?
It would. That solution would almost certainly be DRM that actually worked (or came a lot closer than it does now).]
"Firstly, because DRM would eventually be broken by professional "pirates", even if the average consumer never saw a major benefit from it.
Secondly, because only the law allows you to sue for damages, etc. DRM does not. The best DRM gives a content producer is time - Copyright gives them means to retaliate."
Which is it to be? Can the free market come up with a better solution than government granted monopolies, or can't it? take your pick, but please don't argue both sides so close together.
You say that the free market can come up with a better solution. You say that solution would be good DRM. then you say they don't want a better solution becuase the worse solution is better for them?
Can you explain? (Now, it could be that the ones wanting the laws are not free market proponents, but they do trot out the "let the market decide" meme from time to time don't they?
all the best,
drew
"It would. That solution would almost certainly be DRM that actually worked (or came a lot closer than it does now)."
Hmmm. I wonder why they keep going back for more and more laws then? Why not ask for copyright to be done away with and go with market based solutions?
All that GPL code people want to get their hands on would suddenly be fair game.
all the best,
drew
"I suggest you watch a documentary called The Corporation [amazon.com]: they very clearly demonstrate that the laws governing corporations make then sociopathic by nature."
Taking this as true for the sake of argument here... Doesn't this then indicate to us that the laws need to be changed so as to fix this issue?
all the best,
drew
"If IP laws were repealed, and nothing replaced them, it is likely that content creators would re-create something similar to the IP system using complicated contracts (e.g., you would have to sign a lengthy agreement prior to purchasing an album at a music store)."
Actually, wouldn't a true free market proponent say that the market would be able to come up with an even better solution than the government granted monopolies that we have today?
"Because of the necessity of a corporation-like object, it is very likely that such an object would quickly appear, and over time would evolve into something indistinguishable from today's corporation."
Surely this is not a given. What prevents us from changing how corporations work now? Why not only allow humans to own shares for a start? Any thoughts on the results of such a change?
all the best,
drew