Just Donate the Intellectual Property as a "Work of Art" to Charity and Uncle Same will foot the bill!
According to IRS Publication 561 (Fair Market Value)
Donated works of art can be Tax Deducted. If the value is less that $5,000 (per charity) you need trivial documentation. For Values >$20K and >$50K there are additional requirements such as the opinion of an Appraiser or Expert and an 8x10 Photo.
So for example - if every charity or government office which uses Open Source software were to validate a Site License donation of a Work of Art in the appraised amount - Uncle Sam would pay for Open Source by allowing programmers to work part-time Open Source and part-time Tax-Free!
Obviously we would want some test cases - but if tested and proved legal - Open Source would be generously funded by the Government - which I think is best for everyone.
A Friend of mine points out that simply publishing source code in paper format has in the past converted contraband cryptography to Free Speech. Perhaps donating Open Source in bound volumes is enought to convey material value to the Charity and satisfy the requirments of IRS #561.
The Problem is the FCC serving the interests of it's major benifactors instead of the people is pretends to represent. Just like Author Anderson - it is taking huge - shall we say "Consulting" fees from rape-and-pillage corporations like At&t for an artificially scare resource (UWB has practically unlimited bandwidth) This has blinded it from serving its main purpose which it to see that the Airwaves are serving the best public interest.
Public WiFi Networks are largely a grassroots protest of the apparent inadequecy of the FCC and its paying co-conspirators to provide a necessary service. Do you think Verizon could charge $.10 a minute for 300 Baud internet in "some" areas if it had to compete with commercial grade 10MB WiFi?
If we argue that sharing WiFi is a protest of the FCC's impotence - then cutting it off amounts to political counter-pressure and it feels a lot like clamping down on Free Speech.
The Response should be - Damn - these guys have found an unfilled market demand - we'd better get off our collective arses and fill the need before someone else does!
I agree that it seems counter-intuitive to "charge" non-profits and let corporations use the software for free.
But you discount the idea too quickly I think.
Many non-profits now seek donations - for example of your old car. They pick it up and write you a tax deductable receipt. Why is leasing Open Source software any less of a donation?
If it is a donation - it is a tax deduction.
You say its stupid to expense the non-profits and not the profits. That's looking at the problem the wrong way round. The question is who "pays" and who "benifits". I suggest that the people of a country benefit from Open Source solutions. It prevents Monopoly as in M$, It breeds excellent services low cost (Google) and in general serves humanity. under the donation model - it is also the people who "pay". and Tax Deductions are the most effecient way of getting money "From the People" because there is no government agency involved.
As you said - dual licenses are not RMS approved. Do you think RMS would approve of government supported Free Source? and if so - why is the donation receipt required (basically an on-line registration) not a practical means to that end?
All you need to fund Open Source Software is to donate it to non profit organizations - ie United Way, Federal or State Governments, or better the EFF - and get them to issue a receipt.
In the hands of an otherwise employed programmer, tax exempt donations can be worth 75% of face value.
Just change the GPL or (Insert favorite open source license here) to include a requirement that non-profit organizations must provide donation receipts in exchange for the use of said software.
This in essense will cause the US government to foot the development - which is exactly waht it should do!
A Friend of mine recently authored OpenVPN which appeared in Slashdot. We were talking about ways to generate money from Open Source.
So I suggested that the GPL be gently modified to require non-profit and government organization who use the software to submit a receipt for donated services to the author of the Open Source program as a tax rightoff. Most programmers pay 30% to 50% in taxes, so the rightoff is worth 30% to 50% face value - provided the Programmer is gainfully employed).
This would really be a way to get the government to pay Open Source programmers for their contribution.
Can anyone give a reason why the GPL - or "Certified Open Source" software shouldn't or couldn't include the idea of manditory donantion receipts for qualifying organizations?
And why this wouldn't be a fair and practical approach to funding part-time Open Source Efforts?
Hydrogen - Of Course. (Late Night) However, The Russians have a far less cost per payload pound than we have.
I suggest this is because the problem of Space Flight is fundamental and not very susceptible to the western design improvement model which has brough us more's law for example.
The Russian's simply have fuel + lessoverhead = lower cost per payload pound.
You suggest more overhead - ie more engineering, more design etc. As a taxpayer - I think we should look at what the Russians are doing - which is probably using a rather dated design technologically, and amortizing the engineering.
You cite ferrite core RAM as a reason for redesigning an entire Spaceship. I think you might be forgetting that the expense in a computer system for rocket flight is in large part the testing and code audit. Once that's done - and it works - why pay more money to change it? Ferrite cores work - the Software works.
Redesigning without some serious improvements in the cost per payload pound is a waste of resources.
Questions for you: Why is the Russian Space Program so much more cost effective, and two - what improvments in converting weight into thrust have occurred in the last 40 years to justify scraping working designs?
JPEG didn't "find" a suitable alternative. They recognized a need, and the risk of incompatable formats, and found a solution to both. Not the best solution in every case (Cameras for example need a larger color space than printers, and for the most part - this is unsupported by JPEG - for which oversight the JPEG authors should be sterilized - but anyway, it is a highly workable format in the public domain - not by accident.
PDF is a horrible format (Try sometime to get columular data out)
Last Point. If the government placed a strong emphasis on the need where practical for open standards - open standards would be commonplace.
Right more or less - its a poor way to address the issue.
I would suggest as an alternative a Users Union - which would refuse to embrace or use file formats which are not Public Domain.
The JPEG Joint Photographers Group is a successful example. I think it would be in the people's interest for government to have an outstanding policy that they should use and convert to public formats if at all possible.
One possible route would be to leverage the freedom of information act by requesting documents in "public" formats. It may be a stretch, but i think the argument could be made under the FIA that data must be a. made available in the format best suited to the data and b. the only good format is an open format.
Anyway - courts are the fastest way to change things.
People don't use Office because it is a quality word processor. They use it because it is a defactor Standard. How it got that way was not be excellent engineering. It was by malicious manipulating of the Operating system intended to destabilize competative products. (Was it Lotus123?)
Photoshop became a defacto standard in part by buying their main competition "Photostyler". Buying the competition is fundamentally an agreement between two parties to fix prices. (Provided the companies together have enough market control to do so.)
So it isn't clear in my mind that the Price has come about honestly. Enforcing these licenses is a bit like arresting somebody for stealing from a fense.
Pirating was first experienced by the Grateful Dead who as I understand it became popular in part by allowing their fans to bootleg recording of their live concerts.
Since then it has been a greymarket tactic, used by the Copyright owner to increase demand for his product, and by the private person to reduce the barrior to entry.
Your point about flexible price points is well taken, but there are examples of this in practice. Photoshop Elements is a reduced featureset for a reduced price. Some software is sold by time used or prints made for example, and all of this is to lower the barrior to entry will maximizing profits from profitable applications of the work.
I think where the market has legitimate cause for complaint is the "Late enforcement of copyright". This is a kind of bait and switch. The Marketers leverage piracy - by for example not requiring a dongle in the case of Photoshop - which for $700 could easily justify the $8 expense in order to acheive defacto standard status, and then suddenly seek to enforce their copyright.
I think the legal system should say if you live by the sword - you die by the sword. No bait and switch.
Saying Performing Artists are not hurt by Record Companies sewing up the industry, monopolizing the airwaves, and preselected/preengineering the bands you will hear (and Will Not) doesn't hurt Performing Artists is like saying Wallmart doesn't impact Main Street.
I guess in some ways I'm an Artist. I have recorded on two albums, and performed live for the governor of California. Certainly not how I make a living however.
I'm not "Against" recording companies. But I'm certainly not "For" recording companies either. They shouldn't be protected. The musician should be protected.
We shouldn't waste time and effort to prevent the recording industry from its own demise. That effort should be focused on encouraging new creation of art.
And in closing I do believe that recording companies have a negative effect on the creation of new art. Not that the technology does - but economics certainly favors the supression of competition where the demand is fixed.
When you go to the Hospital - you pay three times the cost to cover "losses" which are patients who can't/don't pay.
Today's Software is much the same. Adobe for example charges big for Photoshop, but the success of Photoshop rides on the millions of Freeloaders who "Steal" it and learn how to use it. When they get a job - they "Prefer" Photoshop and the company has to pay the piper whether there is a less expensive alternative or not.
Enforcing licences is simply closure on a bait and switch marketing model.
I think Live Performers were in the crosshairs when RCA brought in the Phonograph. (Past Tense)
Now RCA is in the crosshairs. Certainly whether Records are distributed by Virgin or Napster doesn't much affect the live performer at this point. There is a good deal of evidence for monopolization by Recording companies - i.e. paying Radio Stations to air their artists over the DJ's taste and choice.
I for one don't see the point of worrying about the demise of the middleman. He is essentially irrelevent and impedes progress.
I think the discussion over Copyright should focus on the creation of art, not the middlemanning thereof.
Printing the procedure for compromising copyrighted CD is the same DMCA felony that the US used to jail Dmitri Skylarv. Now they should treat Reutors the same or apologize to all Russians in general and to Skylarv in particular.
Or somebody explain to me the difference.
Whether the step by step instruction are written in 4th grade english or in postgrad physics is a difference the DMCA doesn't contemplate.
Perhaps the difference is the scope of the problem? For example how many CD's were compromised by Reuters? how many eBooks by elmosoft. I rather think there are more CD's sold by sony than eBook sold by Adobe - so that's not the reason.
The fundamental reason is simple racism. Dmitri was a foreigner - Reuters is a member of the "fourth" branch of government.
Or Bullyism. Dmitri was easy pickings. Arresting foreigners is cheap entertainment. Getting the arrest of a Reuters reporter off the front page would take a nuclear war - and Bush has specifically told Ashcroft he isn't going to start a nuclear war over the DMCA. Oil maybe - but not the DMCA.
One of the joys of travelling is interaction. With your GPS and Cellphone - you could travel George Bush style - get your passport stamped and otherwise got home with no more cultural understanding than when you arrived. Leave your watch, your map, and your iPaq at home - Instead learn a few local phrases like "What time is it?" - "Where is the Metro?" and "Where is a good place to eat?"
Honestly - from experience - the best times come from simple questions to strangers - give yourself as many reasons as possible to interact with the native people. - Unless of course - your goal is to become the President of the US.
GPS is great for undeveloped countries like the U.S. but having lived in eastern Europe and visited the places you mention - I think you will realize even maps are redundant. The local Train guide will have both maps and routes.
Many, such as Harry Potter, are available illegally as soon as they are released in theaters. This lack of effective protection from this piracy is the greatest threat to incentives to create digital works and distribute them over the Internet.
These producers of digital works are the greatest threat to performing artists. The ability to reproduce at minimal cost an artistic experience is an obvious threat to those who would otherwise be able to make a living at their craft - ie live performers.
Now that mass production has disenfranchised several generations of performers - their ox stands to be gored by the same technology they have used to destroy others - namely the performing artists.
So begins the funeral procession of the cheap reproducers of art - Lead by the even cheaper reproducers of art. Let the tears of irony flow like wine - let us wring our hands in pathos and mourn the passing of the unnecessary.
What the world should miss is not the Anderson accountants who would otherwise be record and movie executives - but let the world miss the Waiters and Carpenters who would otherwise be Poets and Playwrights - Violinists and Sopranos.
Speaking of XBox Hacks and the DCMA. I noticed an MSNBC report that specifically stated the Reuters has used a black marker to circumvent copyright protection - and in fact reported on the Hack - making the step by step procedure for circumventing copyright protection available on the internet.
If the Fed's don't swoop in Janet Reno style and arrest MSNBC and Reuters in general and everybody there in particular, they could and should be accused of inconsistent enforcement of the DMCA.
Shawn Fanning has done to Recorded music what Recorded music did to live musicians. It is poetic justice that both Napster and the Labels will succumb to their own invention i.e. cheap reproduction of other people's art.
We have to find a sensible balance between intellectual property rights and freedom of speech. fair use etc . . . Because at this time - one of the few things still produced in America is intellectual property. Every thing from Flowers to steel to textiles, wood, airplanes, cars is being produced cheaper and better outside the country. Ask/. what's left when we lose IP. Russia and China can afford to have loose IP laws because they aren't sacrificing much GNP - here it is very different.
Slashdot Mirror
According to IRS Publication 561 (Fair Market Value) Donated works of art can be Tax Deducted. If the value is less that $5,000 (per charity) you need trivial documentation. For Values >$20K and >$50K there are additional requirements such as the opinion of an Appraiser or Expert and an 8x10 Photo.
So for example - if every charity or government office which uses Open Source software were to validate a Site License donation of a Work of Art in the appraised amount - Uncle Sam would pay for Open Source by allowing programmers to work part-time Open Source and part-time Tax-Free!
Obviously we would want some test cases - but if tested and proved legal - Open Source would be generously funded by the Government - which I think is best for everyone.
A Friend of mine points out that simply publishing source code in paper format has in the past converted contraband cryptography to Free Speech. Perhaps donating Open Source in bound volumes is enought to convey material value to the Charity and satisfy the requirments of IRS #561.
The Problem is the FCC serving the interests of it's major benifactors instead of the people is pretends to represent. Just like Author Anderson - it is taking huge - shall we say "Consulting" fees from rape-and-pillage corporations like At&t for an artificially scare resource (UWB has practically unlimited bandwidth) This has blinded it from serving its main purpose which it to see that the Airwaves are serving the best public interest.
Public WiFi Networks are largely a grassroots protest of the apparent inadequecy of the FCC and its paying co-conspirators to provide a necessary service. Do you think Verizon could charge $.10 a minute for 300 Baud internet in "some" areas if it had to compete with commercial grade 10MB WiFi?
If we argue that sharing WiFi is a protest of the FCC's impotence - then cutting it off amounts to political counter-pressure and it feels a lot like clamping down on Free Speech.
The Response should be - Damn - these guys have found an unfilled market demand - we'd better get off our collective arses and fill the need before someone else does!
AIK
Can't deduct Services . . .
If you can deduct a car donation. Could you deduct an intellectual property donation?
(Not the service of installing it - but the property itself?)
AIK
I agree that it seems counter-intuitive to "charge" non-profits and let corporations use the software for free.
But you discount the idea too quickly I think.
Many non-profits now seek donations - for example of your old car. They pick it up and write you a tax deductable receipt. Why is leasing Open Source software any less of a donation?
If it is a donation - it is a tax deduction.
You say its stupid to expense the non-profits and not the profits. That's looking at the problem the wrong way round. The question is who "pays" and who "benifits". I suggest that the people of a country benefit from Open Source solutions. It prevents Monopoly as in M$, It breeds excellent services low cost (Google) and in general serves humanity. under the donation model - it is also the people who "pay". and Tax Deductions are the most effecient way of getting money "From the People" because there is no government agency involved.
As you said - dual licenses are not RMS approved. Do you think RMS would approve of government supported Free Source? and if so - why is the donation receipt required (basically an on-line registration) not a practical means to that end?
AIK
All you need to fund Open Source Software is to donate it to non profit organizations - ie United Way, Federal or State Governments, or better the EFF - and get them to issue a receipt.
In the hands of an otherwise employed programmer, tax exempt donations can be worth 75% of face value.
Just change the GPL or (Insert favorite open source license here) to include a requirement that non-profit organizations must provide donation receipts in exchange for the use of said software.
This in essense will cause the US government to foot the development - which is exactly waht it should do!
AIL
A Friend of mine recently authored OpenVPN which appeared in Slashdot. We were talking about ways to generate money from Open Source.
So I suggested that the GPL be gently modified to require non-profit and government organization who use the software to submit a receipt for donated services to the author of the Open Source program as a tax rightoff. Most programmers pay 30% to 50% in taxes, so the rightoff is worth 30% to 50% face value - provided the Programmer is gainfully employed).
This would really be a way to get the government to pay Open Source programmers for their contribution.
Can anyone give a reason why the GPL - or "Certified Open Source" software shouldn't or couldn't include the idea of manditory donantion receipts for qualifying organizations?
And why this wouldn't be a fair and practical approach to funding part-time Open Source Efforts?
AIK
Hydrogen - Of Course. (Late Night)
However, The Russians have a far less cost per payload pound than we have.
I suggest this is because the problem of Space Flight is fundamental and not very susceptible to the western design improvement model which has brough us more's law for example.
The Russian's simply have fuel + lessoverhead = lower cost per payload pound.
You suggest more overhead - ie more engineering, more design etc. As a taxpayer - I think we should look at what the Russians are doing - which is probably using a rather dated design technologically, and amortizing the engineering.
You cite ferrite core RAM as a reason for redesigning an entire Spaceship. I think you might be forgetting that the expense in a computer system for rocket flight is in large part the testing and code audit. Once that's done - and it works - why pay more money to change it? Ferrite cores work - the Software works.
Redesigning without some serious improvements in the cost per payload pound is a waste of resources.
Questions for you:
Why is the Russian Space Program so much more cost effective, and two - what improvments in converting weight into thrust have occurred in the last 40 years to justify scraping working designs?
AIK
Really how much is there to learn. The problem with rockets isn't complicated like a multithreaded operating system - it's really just payload/fuel.
Unless liquid oxygen and nitrogen have changed lately - I doubt there is some new way to throw them together and set them on fire.
If the Saturns worked - they should be included as options.
AIK
JPEG didn't "find" a suitable alternative. They recognized a need, and the risk of incompatable formats, and found a solution to both. Not the best solution in every case (Cameras for example need a larger color space than printers, and for the most part - this is unsupported by JPEG - for which oversight the JPEG authors should be sterilized - but anyway, it is a highly workable format in the public domain - not by accident.
PDF is a horrible format (Try sometime to get columular data out)
Last Point. If the government placed a strong emphasis on the need where practical for open standards - open standards would be commonplace.
AIK
Right more or less - its a poor way to address the issue.
I would suggest as an alternative a Users Union - which would refuse to embrace or use file formats which are not Public Domain.
The JPEG Joint Photographers Group is a successful example. I think it would be in the people's interest for government to have an outstanding policy that they should use and convert to public formats if at all possible.
One possible route would be to leverage the freedom of information act by requesting documents in "public" formats. It may be a stretch, but i think the argument could be made under the FIA that data must be a. made available in the format best suited to the data and b. the only good format is an open format.
Anyway - courts are the fastest way to change things.
AIK
People don't use Office because it is a quality word processor. They use it because it is a defactor Standard. How it got that way was not be excellent engineering. It was by malicious manipulating of the Operating system intended to destabilize competative products. (Was it Lotus123?)
Photoshop became a defacto standard in part by buying their main competition "Photostyler". Buying the competition is fundamentally an agreement between two parties to fix prices. (Provided the companies together have enough market control to do so.)
So it isn't clear in my mind that the Price has come about honestly. Enforcing these licenses is a bit like arresting somebody for stealing from a fense.
AIK
Pirating was first experienced by the Grateful Dead who as I understand it became popular in part by allowing their fans to bootleg recording of their live concerts.
Since then it has been a greymarket tactic, used by the Copyright owner to increase demand for his product, and by the private person to reduce the barrior to entry.
Your point about flexible price points is well taken, but there are examples of this in practice. Photoshop Elements is a reduced featureset for a reduced price. Some software is sold by time used or prints made for example, and all of this is to lower the barrior to entry will maximizing profits from profitable applications of the work.
I think where the market has legitimate cause for complaint is the "Late enforcement of copyright". This is a kind of bait and switch. The Marketers leverage piracy - by for example not requiring a dongle in the case of Photoshop - which for $700 could easily justify the $8 expense in order to acheive defacto standard status, and then suddenly seek to enforce their copyright.
I think the legal system should say if you live by the sword - you die by the sword. No bait and switch.
AIK
I guess in some ways I'm an Artist. I have recorded on two albums, and performed live for the governor of California. Certainly not how I make a living however.
I'm not "Against" recording companies. But I'm certainly not "For" recording companies either. They shouldn't be protected. The musician should be protected.
We shouldn't waste time and effort to prevent the recording industry from its own demise. That effort should be focused on encouraging new creation of art.
And in closing I do believe that recording companies have a negative effect on the creation of new art. Not that the technology does - but economics certainly favors the supression of competition where the demand is fixed.
AIK
Today's Software is much the same. Adobe for example charges big for Photoshop, but the success of Photoshop rides on the millions of Freeloaders who "Steal" it and learn how to use it. When they get a job - they "Prefer" Photoshop and the company has to pay the piper whether there is a less expensive alternative or not.
Enforcing licences is simply closure on a bait and switch marketing model.
AIK
I think Live Performers were in the crosshairs when RCA brought in the Phonograph. (Past Tense)
Now RCA is in the crosshairs. Certainly whether Records are distributed by Virgin or Napster doesn't much affect the live performer at this point. There is a good deal of evidence for monopolization by Recording companies - i.e. paying Radio Stations to air their artists over the DJ's taste and choice.
I for one don't see the point of worrying about the demise of the middleman. He is essentially irrelevent and impedes progress.
I think the discussion over Copyright should focus on the creation of art, not the middlemanning thereof.
AIK
Not so fast there PD,
Yes - I was arrested and Yes they charged me with obstruction - all for verbally criticizing the establishment.
I still think American is a great Country, and I believe in Freedom of Speech as an ideal - but America doesn't really have Freedom of Speech.
AIK
Yeah - didn't expect that.
It bothers me that the passing of musicians went unnoticed while it appears the record companies will only go kicking and screaming.
In what way do you find the elimination of the middlemen record companies more disturbing than the elimination of the dialectic performance?
AIK
The US should be accused of favoritism.
Printing the procedure for compromising copyrighted CD is the same DMCA felony that the US used to jail Dmitri Skylarv. Now they should treat Reutors the same or apologize to all Russians in general and to Skylarv in particular.
Or somebody explain to me the difference.
Whether the step by step instruction are written in 4th grade english or in postgrad physics is a difference the DMCA doesn't contemplate.
Perhaps the difference is the scope of the problem? For example how many CD's were compromised by Reuters? how many eBooks by elmosoft. I rather think there are more CD's sold by sony than eBook sold by Adobe - so that's not the reason.
The fundamental reason is simple racism. Dmitri was a foreigner - Reuters is a member of the "fourth" branch of government.
Or Bullyism. Dmitri was easy pickings. Arresting foreigners is cheap entertainment. Getting the arrest of a Reuters reporter off the front page would take a nuclear war - and Bush has specifically told Ashcroft he isn't going to start a nuclear war over the DMCA. Oil maybe - but not the DMCA.
One of the joys of travelling is interaction. With your GPS and Cellphone - you could travel George Bush style - get your passport stamped and otherwise got home with no more cultural understanding than when you arrived. Leave your watch, your map, and your iPaq at home - Instead learn a few local phrases like "What time is it?" - "Where is the Metro?" and "Where is a good place to eat?"
Honestly - from experience - the best times come from simple questions to strangers - give yourself as many reasons as possible to interact with the native people. - Unless of course - your goal is to become the President of the US.
How can you get lost in countries with Trains?
GPS is great for undeveloped countries like the U.S. but having lived in eastern Europe and visited the places you mention - I think you will realize even maps are redundant. The local Train guide will have both maps and routes.
These producers of digital works are the greatest threat to performing artists. The ability to reproduce at minimal cost an artistic experience is an obvious threat to those who would otherwise be able to make a living at their craft - ie live performers.
Now that mass production has disenfranchised several generations of performers - their ox stands to be gored by the same technology they have used to destroy others - namely the performing artists.
So begins the funeral procession of the cheap reproducers of art - Lead by the even cheaper reproducers of art. Let the tears of irony flow like wine - let us wring our hands in pathos and mourn the passing of the unnecessary.
What the world should miss is not the Anderson accountants who would otherwise be record and movie executives - but let the world miss the Waiters and Carpenters who would otherwise be Poets and Playwrights - Violinists and Sopranos.
Article here
Speaking of XBox Hacks and the DCMA. I noticed an MSNBC report that specifically stated the Reuters has used a black marker to circumvent copyright protection - and in fact reported on the Hack - making the step by step procedure for circumventing copyright protection available on the internet.
If the Fed's don't swoop in Janet Reno style and arrest MSNBC and Reuters in general and everybody there in particular, they could and should be accused of inconsistent enforcement of the DMCA.
Shawn Fanning has done to Recorded music what Recorded music did to live musicians. It is poetic justice that both Napster and the Labels will succumb to their own invention i.e. cheap reproduction of other people's art.
/. what's left when we lose IP. Russia and China can afford to have loose IP laws because they aren't sacrificing much GNP - here it is very different.
We have to find a sensible balance between intellectual property rights and freedom of speech. fair use etc . . . Because at this time - one of the few things still produced in America is intellectual property. Every thing from Flowers to steel to textiles, wood, airplanes, cars is being produced cheaper and better outside the country. Ask
AIK
There actually is a (maybe) British production - but It hardly compares to the quality of the written work. I saw bits of it in Germany.