But it still costs money *up-front* to write the program, debug it, market it, improve it, etc. It also costs money up-front in the music and movie businesses too. How are providers supposed to recover those costs and make a profit?
To me, it indicates that companies that are in the business of selling ideas have simply found themselves in the wrong business with the advent of the Internet. Rather than adapt their business models to suit the market or go out of business, they use their political power to silence and imprison those who disagree with their ideas on how their products may be used.
In other words, this is not a free market at work. This is fascism, in that the government is
finding itself to be the sponsor and caretaker of corporate power.
To answer your point, I shed no tears for those who would lock away freedom in the name of
self-preservation. This includes companies who have built themselves on selling information and ideas, and who are finding it impossible for their "products" to remain scarce with the advent of a global digital network.
Under your logic, once a single CD is sold, the product is then "represented in digital form", and the seller can do nothing to prevent unlimited copies from happening
Correct! You win a prize. I don't see the basis for your claim that this is a reason for promoting IP protection laws, however. That is a complicated solution to the problem that restricts freedom in the process. Occam's Razor would say simply that if we can't prevent information from being copied, we should look for other business models besides selling information.
IOW, if it costs me $foo to develop this product, and $bar to market it, and the sales can't recover $foo + $bar due to widespread digital copying, my opinion is that I should rethink my business plan.
Your idea, however, is that I should request a law to preserve my business plan and guarantee
me a profit, which as a proponent of individual freedom, I cannot agree with.
No. Adobe loses the potential to earn 500 bucks from this kid.
This statement is actually the real crock of shit here. Who's to say this kid won't end up buying Photoshop and other Adobe products, when he gets a job based on his m4d Photoshop skillz that he acquired from his warezed copy?
OK, cool, so it's OK if I come to your house and "share" your TV, your car, your computer, and anything else I can find without your permission?
This is utterly idiotic. Nobody here is arguing about physical property rights.
What is the "freedom" that is being taken away by content providers and copyright holder saying you cannot distribute copies of their stuff?
The "freedom" is the fact that ideas represented in digital form can be duplicated and disseminated for zero cost. The fact that there is inherently no scarcity to the medium, lends itself to the idea that it was a medium meant to be free of restriction in regards to duplication.
However, we are attempting to apply concepts of capitalism, which requires scarcity to function, to the realm of ideas, which have no inherent scarcity aside from the original creation of the idea.
A piece of software is an idea just as much as a movie, a song, or a book. As soon as it is represented in digital form, it becomes information rather than a scarce object, and thus is subject to a whole different realm of natural law.
However, copyright holders would have you believe that this is not the case, and that "piracy" == stealing. Under the current legal system, this might be the overwhelming status quo, but there's nothing that naturally says that creators of ideas have property rights to those ideas.
So remember, IP law is the result of a system attempting to artificially create scarcity in something that isn't scarce to begin with. The freedom that is being lost is the freedom to share information, because we have decided that it's easier for companies to make money that way. Well, no shit it's easier for companies to make money that way -- and that's the problem, in that it ignores the desires of the public and shifts the balance toward IP-hoarding companies.
Why is warez sharing different from me stealing your car, and giving it out to whoever wants it?
Utterly idiotic. If you can make an exact duplicate of my car without harming the original car, and give it out to anyone who wants it, feel free. Otherwise, your analogy is without merit.
warez is IN NO WAY, NOR WILL BE AT ANY TIME the moral equvalent of slavery or civil rights...
Presumptuous of you to claim that. Where are your sources?
There are a lot of people fighting for information freedom in an increasingly locked-down digital world. Once all information is available in digital form only, and we have to pay a price for each access of that information (if we are even allowed to access it), you might re-think your position. By then it'll be too late though, and if you're lucky, you will have been saved by the very people you decry right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignore this post and reply to the other one, I accidentally posted anon.
To me, it indicates that companies that are in the business of selling ideas have simply found themselves in the wrong business with the advent of the Internet. Rather than adapt their business models to suit the market or go out of business, they use their political power to silence and imprison those who disagree with their ideas on how their products may be used.
In other words, this is not a free market at work. This is fascism, in that the government is finding itself to be the sponsor and caretaker of corporate power.
To answer your point, I shed no tears for those who would lock away freedom in the name of self-preservation. This includes companies who have built themselves on selling information and ideas, and who are finding it impossible for their "products" to remain scarce with the advent of a global digital network.
Correct! You win a prize. I don't see the basis for your claim that this is a reason for promoting IP protection laws, however. That is a complicated solution to the problem that restricts freedom in the process. Occam's Razor would say simply that if we can't prevent information from being copied, we should look for other business models besides selling information.IOW, if it costs me $foo to develop this product, and $bar to market it, and the sales can't recover $foo + $bar due to widespread digital copying, my opinion is that I should rethink my business plan.
Your idea, however, is that I should request a law to preserve my business plan and guarantee me a profit, which as a proponent of individual freedom, I cannot agree with.
See my longer reply to your other post. I hope you are willing to consider that others have different perspectives on the matter.
However, we are attempting to apply concepts of capitalism, which requires scarcity to function, to the realm of ideas, which have no inherent scarcity aside from the original creation of the idea.
A piece of software is an idea just as much as a movie, a song, or a book. As soon as it is represented in digital form, it becomes information rather than a scarce object, and thus is subject to a whole different realm of natural law.
However, copyright holders would have you believe that this is not the case, and that "piracy" == stealing. Under the current legal system, this might be the overwhelming status quo, but there's nothing that naturally says that creators of ideas have property rights to those ideas.
So remember, IP law is the result of a system attempting to artificially create scarcity in something that isn't scarce to begin with. The freedom that is being lost is the freedom to share information, because we have decided that it's easier for companies to make money that way. Well, no shit it's easier for companies to make money that way -- and that's the problem, in that it ignores the desires of the public and shifts the balance toward IP-hoarding companies.
Utterly idiotic. If you can make an exact duplicate of my car without harming the original car, and give it out to anyone who wants it, feel free. Otherwise, your analogy is without merit.There are a lot of people fighting for information freedom in an increasingly locked-down digital world. Once all information is available in digital form only, and we have to pay a price for each access of that information (if we are even allowed to access it), you might re-think your position. By then it'll be too late though, and if you're lucky, you will have been saved by the very people you decry right now.