Let's say you create a game on the assumption that 500,000 people will want to play the game, based on demographics and popularity of similar games. You want to sell it for $50 each so that's a $25,000,000 budget - pretty good!... Your game is awesome and indeed garners 500,000 players very fast. Unfortunately only 20% of those people pay for the game.
Let's say your game only garners 50,000 players, and there's no (or negligible) copyright infringement. You know, like most games. Of course, you covered the results of that as well.
Instead of being rewarded with a nice profit and the ability to make a new game, you are now on the verge of bankruptcy.... It results in a worse experience for all gamers, both through more limited games and less risk taking (because studios don't have as much money to cover the potential losses). Instead people stick with what they know can make money - boring MMORPGs that can't be pirated because they need an account, or console games that don't have a keyboard.
Well said. What does this have to do with copyright infringement though?
I'm sick and tired of the fact that every $language related post to Slashdot ends up sludgefest of old jokes, one-line jabs at $language, and misinformation.
Can you provide some examples of highly constructive and polite UI discussions? I do very little GUI-related work; I'm curious to see the proposals and discussions.
Almost as one, the FOSS developers here seem to have responded (paraphrasing): "Nobody is paying me for this work, so I'll be darned if they're going to tell me how the UI should be designed for usability."
That's a lousy paraphrase, almost libelous. How about "Nobody is paying me for this work, and the development model and license I have chosen let other people make changes as they see fit. If you want it, please feel free to contribute something more constructive than whining about how unusable you think this software is."
The patches are welcome statement pisses people off, its arrogant and the wrong response.
Exactly how is it arrogant or wrong?
The price of community-produced software is participating in the community. If anything, non-commercial software doesn't make that cost visible enough. "Patches welcome" means "We're all in this together. If you have a need or a desire, jump in!" That's how things get done.
Didn't Henry Ford also say: "They can have any color they want as long as its black"?
Do you know why he said that? My understanding is that this is because black paint dried the fastest, speeding up the slowest part of his assembly line.
They have the power to increase the net worth of all paychecks given to all American workers by up to 30%, yet you think they have no power over the economy?
Without the Senate? Yeah, I think they have almost no power over the economy in five-week increments.
Maybe when the country is headed full-force into a recession, it's not time for a 5-week vacation when there are laws to be passed.
Precisely what do you believe that the House of Representatives can do productively in five weeks to have any effect on the economy? Raise GDP by fiat? Increase productivity? Reduce inflation? They don't get to ride their magic candy-flavored flying unicorns until next January, and even then their super secret magic powers don't control complex economic behaviors, not even the wizardly powers of the Chicago representatives.
Of course, this conveniently ignores the massive production cost before that duplication can begin.
I don't believe it does. Even so, it's easy to counter that proprietary software conveniently ignores the amortization of production costs over an increasing customer base when per-unit prices stay the same.
"Give the software away for free" only works when income can subsequently be generated by some other good or service tied to that software.
Name a few proprietary software companies which don't also charge for support.
Open Source makes it near-impossible to make money developing and selling software, without tying it to some other product....
You could also say that F/OSS removes artificial scarcity from a market where duplicating a piece of software is so cheap as to be free. It's difficult to imagine free market proponents complaining about the removal of pricing inefficiencies.
The grandparent post contained a hypothetical situation used to justify of a hypothetical response. I answered in kind. Even if Apple never takes legal action against its customers, choosing to purchase software from Apple because Apple might take legal action against you seems unhelpful, to me.
Using emulators thus would fall far closer to an act of civil disobedience against unjust extension of copyright...
I'm comfortable with that, as long as everyone's honest about the civil disobedience (and willing to accept the consequences of breaking unjust or at least unwise laws).
Slashdot Mirror
Abutebaris modo subjunctivo! Better start eatin', kid.
Who's pretending? They're important to me when I buy a product.
I can't wait to see all of the VoIP clients in the app store!
Let's say your game only garners 50,000 players, and there's no (or negligible) copyright infringement. You know, like most games. Of course, you covered the results of that as well.
Well said. What does this have to do with copyright infringement though?
Are you thinking of, for example, Joseph II cutting off Mozart's funds because Die Entführung aus dem Serail had "too many notes"?
Fixed it for you.
Prove it.
(Also, abutebaris modo subjunctivo.)
Can you provide some examples of highly constructive and polite UI discussions? I do very little GUI-related work; I'm curious to see the proposals and discussions.
People don't buy Lotus Notes?
That's a lousy paraphrase, almost libelous. How about "Nobody is paying me for this work, and the development model and license I have chosen let other people make changes as they see fit. If you want it, please feel free to contribute something more constructive than whining about how unusable you think this software is."
If there's a worse way to encourage people to continue to develop and distribute free software for free, I haven't heard it.
Exactly how is it arrogant or wrong?
The price of community-produced software is participating in the community. If anything, non-commercial software doesn't make that cost visible enough. "Patches welcome" means "We're all in this together. If you have a need or a desire, jump in!" That's how things get done.
Do you know why he said that? My understanding is that this is because black paint dried the fastest, speeding up the slowest part of his assembly line.
More charitably, perhaps the parent poster is not a bondslave to self-righteous and ungrateful whiners.
Without the Senate? Yeah, I think they have almost no power over the economy in five-week increments.
This is why Mac OS X will never be ready for the desktop!
Precisely what do you believe that the House of Representatives can do productively in five weeks to have any effect on the economy? Raise GDP by fiat? Increase productivity? Reduce inflation? They don't get to ride their magic candy-flavored flying unicorns until next January, and even then their super secret magic powers don't control complex economic behaviors, not even the wizardly powers of the Chicago representatives.
I don't believe it does. Even so, it's easy to counter that proprietary software conveniently ignores the amortization of production costs over an increasing customer base when per-unit prices stay the same.
Name a few proprietary software companies which don't also charge for support.
You could also say that F/OSS removes artificial scarcity from a market where duplicating a piece of software is so cheap as to be free. It's difficult to imagine free market proponents complaining about the removal of pricing inefficiencies.
Says the person posting on the Internet.
The grandparent post contained a hypothetical situation used to justify of a hypothetical response. I answered in kind. Even if Apple never takes legal action against its customers, choosing to purchase software from Apple because Apple might take legal action against you seems unhelpful, to me.
When you can buy a box full of only Apple-branded packaging from your local Apple Store, then Apple is also a packaging company.
That thinking is part of the problem. Why do business with a company so actively hostile toward its customers?
The ASF is much, much more than Apache httpd. Consider Apache POI, for example.
I'm comfortable with that, as long as everyone's honest about the civil disobedience (and willing to accept the consequences of breaking unjust or at least unwise laws).