Comment: "Finally, consider cultures. Not everyone shares the "american dream" of becoming the super-rich boss of a huge corporation. Quite a few other cultures have other dreams. They might be happy at having found their niche where they perform best, even if it's on a smaller scale. They might not wish the ruthlessness sometimes necessary and often demonstrated by US "robber barons" and corporations, but put more value on human values and moderation. Your "success" does not necessarily have to be my success, and we both might laugh over what someone else considers his personal big success."
Reading the above one would assume that the American Dream is simply about getting rich. Having developed a number of startups in the US (it takes $30 to set up a company and about 5 minutes of your time), I can tell you that the bulk of start ups are done because its the passion of the owner. Money factors in but it is more about the building and entrepreneurial process than "getting rich".
American culture is focused on building, creating, making, and advancing. The structure of the country allows and even encourages this process. The outcome is stunning.
Note that, because the government doesn't control it's population, leaving individuals to make their own way, wealth comes easily. And for those who feel greed is the key, keep in mind that the US is the most altruistic country in the world; indeed, in history. US citizens give, out-of-pocket, more money to charity than all the countries and all the peoples of the world combined. You can even get a degree in giving your money away. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4756363.stm ).
One of the 'robber barons', Carnegie, gave most of his money away. The US library system is based upon his gift of THOUSANDS of public libraries across the nation. He is known for other great acts of philanthropy; none of which gets mentioned much.
In short, in the US, its about the journey not the destination.
As I pointed out, if you could copy a car as easily as you can copy software or other copyrighted material, the usage rights would be drastically different for cars.
It is incredibly easy to reverse engineer software and figure out how something was done. It can very easily be included in your software; changed just enough to avoid litigation. This is what is being addressed. This allows the IP owner to have some method of remedy.
I've run and owned a few companies and have never had issue with any of the lic. or use of the software. Nothing has prevented me from innovating and creating new products - using other software to do it.
Using your analogy, if you don't like the usage agreement with my mousetrap, don't buy it. The old adage with capitalism is that you vote with your dollars. If you don't like something, don't buy it.
I've got to admit that I've always loved the "greed" argument and how it's supposed to suppress innovation and be destructive to society and against the common good. Yet it was greed that spurred all of the most significant innovations in human history; most coming from the US, in the past century and a half.
The only examples of suppression of innovation come from government intervention - these days under the guise of "for the good of the people". One has to wonder what "people" they are referring too.
You can certainly make and distribute all the free software you want. Just don't tell me that I can't charge for mine. Don't tell me that the fruits of my labor belong in the Public Domain.
Yes, you make a point, I don't NEED to be rewarded. Equally, you don't NEED to have free software. The point is moot.
1) You can't take the engine out of the car, make a duplicate and start selling, or giving away, the duplicates. 2) You can't copy the whole car either and start selling or giving them away.
You didn't design it. You didn't do the research and development, yet you feel that the $20,000 dollar you plot down on a car gives you the right to make as many copies as you like to sell or give away?
Yes, you can do anything you want to the car; the manufacture didn't limit that. If they did, then it would be illegal to modify it (you will void the warranty in many cases however).
How do you think the car industry's "usage" agreement would look if you if you could simply take their car over to a copying machine and run off 100,000 copies in an hour; even for your "personal use"? I tend to think that your usage agreement for the car would be a bit different.
You do understand that the car didn't cost $20,000 to build. The materials were a couple thousand but the R&D is sometimes in the Billions of dollars of which they need to sell millions of cars to recoup.
Same with software. The owner who creates it owns it. If you don't like the license agreement, don't pay any money for it. Go somewhere else.
This is pretty much what open source is about so go use that or create your own or *gasp* do without.
However, if you remove the reward, there is no reason for me to take a change. Risk is in relation to reward. The more you risk -- in most part -- the more reward you reap.
Society is under no obligation to reward me for my efforts; equally, I am under no obligation to reward society with my thinking and my work product.
Nor is it even ethically and morally appropriate for society to "take" my work product and make it free
I've owned a couple of startup software companies. I've sold a few and closed a few. In almost every case, I am personally liable and must put many of my assets on the table to operate the enterprise.
I do need to be rewarded for this type of risk or I'm just not going to put my butt on the line like this and thus goes a couple hundred jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Comment: "Finally, consider cultures. Not everyone shares the "american dream" of becoming the super-rich boss of a huge corporation. Quite a few other cultures have other dreams. They might be happy at having found their niche where they perform best, even if it's on a smaller scale. They might not wish the ruthlessness sometimes necessary and often demonstrated by US "robber barons" and corporations, but put more value on human values and moderation. Your "success" does not necessarily have to be my success, and we both might laugh over what someone else considers his personal big success."
Reading the above one would assume that the American Dream is simply about getting rich. Having developed a number of startups in the US (it takes $30 to set up a company and about 5 minutes of your time), I can tell you that the bulk of start ups are done because its the passion of the owner. Money factors in but it is more about the building and entrepreneurial process than "getting rich".
American culture is focused on building, creating, making, and advancing. The structure of the country allows and even encourages this process. The outcome is stunning.
Note that, because the government doesn't control it's population, leaving individuals to make their own way, wealth comes easily. And for those who feel greed is the key, keep in mind that the US is the most altruistic country in the world; indeed, in history. US citizens give, out-of-pocket, more money to charity than all the countries and all the peoples of the world combined. You can even get a degree in giving your money away. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4756363.stm ).
One of the 'robber barons', Carnegie, gave most of his money away. The US library system is based upon his gift of THOUSANDS of public libraries across the nation. He is known for other great acts of philanthropy; none of which gets mentioned much.
In short, in the US, its about the journey not the destination.
I have 15 down, 2 up. It's the two up that really make the difference! (Although, I've almost always got it red-lined at 15....
Of course there's always replicator technology (Star Trek not Star Gate)
So there would be no need for "companies" and "work" anymore? Who, exactly, is going to grow all that food?
As I pointed out, if you could copy a car as easily as you can copy software or other copyrighted material, the usage rights would be drastically different for cars.
It is incredibly easy to reverse engineer software and figure out how something was done. It can very easily be included in your software; changed just enough to avoid litigation. This is what is being addressed. This allows the IP owner to have some method of remedy.
I've run and owned a few companies and have never had issue with any of the lic. or use of the software. Nothing has prevented me from innovating and creating new products - using other software to do it.
Using your analogy, if you don't like the usage agreement with my mousetrap, don't buy it. The old adage with capitalism is that you vote with your dollars. If you don't like something, don't buy it.
I've got to admit that I've always loved the "greed" argument and how it's supposed to suppress innovation and be destructive to society and against the common good. Yet it was greed that spurred all of the most significant innovations in human history; most coming from the US, in the past century and a half.
The only examples of suppression of innovation come from government intervention - these days under the guise of "for the good of the people". One has to wonder what "people" they are referring too.
You can certainly make and distribute all the free software you want. Just don't tell me that I can't charge for mine. Don't tell me that the fruits of my labor belong in the Public Domain. Yes, you make a point, I don't NEED to be rewarded. Equally, you don't NEED to have free software. The point is moot.
You make some good points; however:
1) You can't take the engine out of the car, make a duplicate and start selling, or giving away, the duplicates.
2) You can't copy the whole car either and start selling or giving them away.
You didn't design it. You didn't do the research and development, yet you feel that the $20,000 dollar you plot down on a car gives you the right to make as many copies as you like to sell or give away?
Yes, you can do anything you want to the car; the manufacture didn't limit that. If they did, then it would be illegal to modify it (you will void the warranty in many cases however).
How do you think the car industry's "usage" agreement would look if you if you could simply take their car over to a copying machine and run off 100,000 copies in an hour; even for your "personal use"? I tend to think that your usage agreement for the car would be a bit different.
You do understand that the car didn't cost $20,000 to build. The materials were a couple thousand but the R&D is sometimes in the Billions of dollars of which they need to sell millions of cars to recoup.
Same with software. The owner who creates it owns it. If you don't like the license agreement, don't pay any money for it. Go somewhere else.
This is pretty much what open source is about so go use that or create your own or *gasp* do without.
However, if you remove the reward, there is no reason for me to take a change. Risk is in relation to reward. The more you risk -- in most part -- the more reward you reap. Society is under no obligation to reward me for my efforts; equally, I am under no obligation to reward society with my thinking and my work product. Nor is it even ethically and morally appropriate for society to "take" my work product and make it free
I've owned a couple of startup software companies. I've sold a few and closed a few. In almost every case, I am personally liable and must put many of my assets on the table to operate the enterprise. I do need to be rewarded for this type of risk or I'm just not going to put my butt on the line like this and thus goes a couple hundred jobs.