The scene, intellectual property and double standards
category: offtopic [glöplog]
"Free"? Wtf does that mean?
Define freedom. Freedom from what? freedom to what?
Define freedom. Freedom from what? freedom to what?
Lol, exactly like that! ^_^
Well, to concretise a interogation, in fact intellectual properties exist. but it's commonly only for scientists. In this world, scientists have domain public and artist intellectual properties. in fact, we get inspiration with birds and cats, animals like dolphins etc. So on, it's people looking at our creations that enable us to do arte. moreover, intelligencia wants to control everything in this world and birds talking give us some cool stuffs:
http://l.cance.free.fr/bartoshe/
from delirium of previous artist we build new arts, and it was enhancement of officials to produce arts commonly everybody can do a great stuff according to the importance it gives to its stuff. it's promotion.
http://l.cance.free.fr/bartoshe/
from delirium of previous artist we build new arts, and it was enhancement of officials to produce arts commonly everybody can do a great stuff according to the importance it gives to its stuff. it's promotion.
without going to be too political but i really think it boils down to the question if youre a capitalist or not.
sure, not every developer is rich (far from it) but if you support the business model of paying for the right to use a copy of a product (not to own it) you support the indie guys as much as apple or microsoft. to me it seems that the business model scales very badly: while the small devs and teams are struggling to make it work the big software companies are amongst the most expensive and successful ones in the world and this is (not only, but also) related to the fact that the costs of spreading their products is close to zero on a large scale but still just as expensive for the (honest) user, sometimes even more so.
of course this is more or less also true for any other profit oriented industry but with immaterial goods it becomes so obvious.
so instead of blaming people for using computers to copy data (which is what computers do all the time) you should focus your energy on developing new ideas how developers can be rewarded for their work and make a living of it if they wish. the internet brought so many possibillities for that, still in the end you listen to those business people who studied economics in the 80s or something and compare the software industry to industries which actually have to spend (way more) resources to create every product they sell.
capitalism endorses the splitting of the society in winners (rich) and losers (poor) so instead of trying so hard to be on the winning side (so you can point at the losers and feel better) maybe more energy of thought should be spend on how to distribute wealth and resources better.
maybe the idea of a world where resources are distributed fair and clever and you dont have to look at others because they have it all and you are poor is an utopia, but does that mean we have to stop persuing this vision and throw our money happily on the companies big piles because its the motherfucking law?
if the star trek replicator would exist (and be physically possible) it would very likely be illegal to have or use one (except if they DRM the shit out of it). they would probably re-introduce the death-sentence for the crime of jailbreaking one of those babies. think about it.
[tl;dr]
i dont think "wanting shit for free" is a bad thing, especially when its possible without taking it away from somebody else.
the thought of having to pay for the usage or consumption of immaterial goods is a perversion of our society/system.
the ways developers are compensated for their efforts is outdated and doesnt seem to work anymore, find new ones which do and are fair for both sides (kickstarter and bandcamp are just two of them and not perfect as well).
sure, not every developer is rich (far from it) but if you support the business model of paying for the right to use a copy of a product (not to own it) you support the indie guys as much as apple or microsoft. to me it seems that the business model scales very badly: while the small devs and teams are struggling to make it work the big software companies are amongst the most expensive and successful ones in the world and this is (not only, but also) related to the fact that the costs of spreading their products is close to zero on a large scale but still just as expensive for the (honest) user, sometimes even more so.
of course this is more or less also true for any other profit oriented industry but with immaterial goods it becomes so obvious.
so instead of blaming people for using computers to copy data (which is what computers do all the time) you should focus your energy on developing new ideas how developers can be rewarded for their work and make a living of it if they wish. the internet brought so many possibillities for that, still in the end you listen to those business people who studied economics in the 80s or something and compare the software industry to industries which actually have to spend (way more) resources to create every product they sell.
capitalism endorses the splitting of the society in winners (rich) and losers (poor) so instead of trying so hard to be on the winning side (so you can point at the losers and feel better) maybe more energy of thought should be spend on how to distribute wealth and resources better.
maybe the idea of a world where resources are distributed fair and clever and you dont have to look at others because they have it all and you are poor is an utopia, but does that mean we have to stop persuing this vision and throw our money happily on the companies big piles because its the motherfucking law?
if the star trek replicator would exist (and be physically possible) it would very likely be illegal to have or use one (except if they DRM the shit out of it). they would probably re-introduce the death-sentence for the crime of jailbreaking one of those babies. think about it.
[tl;dr]
i dont think "wanting shit for free" is a bad thing, especially when its possible without taking it away from somebody else.
the thought of having to pay for the usage or consumption of immaterial goods is a perversion of our society/system.
the ways developers are compensated for their efforts is outdated and doesnt seem to work anymore, find new ones which do and are fair for both sides (kickstarter and bandcamp are just two of them and not perfect as well).
Lol, exactly like that! ^_^
wysiwtf:
so... you should focus on making the world less capitalistic.
oh, I agree. most definitely. but shit is going to have to collapse before this happens.
Quote:
capitalism endorses the splitting of the society in winners (rich) and losers (poor) so instead of trying so hard to be on the winning side (so you can point at the losers and feel better) maybe more energy of thought should be spend on how to distribute wealth and resources better.
so... you should focus on making the world less capitalistic.
oh, I agree. most definitely. but shit is going to have to collapse before this happens.
wysiwtf, dude! \o/
then it shall collapse.
Okay, I'll bite...
So instead of developing a product for the end user the developers should figure out how to shaft the consumer?
Hint: when you pay for a software product (just like any other product), you pay the programmer, the artist (if applicable), the product manager, the marketing team, the accountant, the management of the company and indirectly everyone else from the person who runs the store that supplies paperclips for the office to the kebab house next door to the small company that created the development tools that the software company uses. If you take the software for free, none of these unrelated people will get paid and very few decent software producs would ever get made if no one paid for them.
The perversion of the society is people who, selfishly and without consideration, decide that the rules and laws of the society do not apply to them. Laws are not always fair and sometimes they do not make sense at all, but that is for the legislature and politicians to decide.
What exactly is unfair "you pay - you use it. You don't pay - you don't"? You don't NEED the software and there are probably plenty of other options anyway, some likely free, and if you're one of those free as in freedom guys you can always roll your own. You just selfishly WANT the software but you don't respect the software's author by respecting his or her will. By taking the software for free and acting holier than thou on the Internet, you make sure that the developer is not compensated.
Quote:
you should focus your energy on developing new ideas how developers can be rewarded for their work and make a living of it if they wish
So instead of developing a product for the end user the developers should figure out how to shaft the consumer?
Quote:
i dont think "wanting shit for free" is a bad thing, especially when its possible without taking it away from somebody else.
Hint: when you pay for a software product (just like any other product), you pay the programmer, the artist (if applicable), the product manager, the marketing team, the accountant, the management of the company and indirectly everyone else from the person who runs the store that supplies paperclips for the office to the kebab house next door to the small company that created the development tools that the software company uses. If you take the software for free, none of these unrelated people will get paid and very few decent software producs would ever get made if no one paid for them.
Quote:
the thought of having to pay for the usage or consumption of immaterial goods is a perversion of our society/system.
The perversion of the society is people who, selfishly and without consideration, decide that the rules and laws of the society do not apply to them. Laws are not always fair and sometimes they do not make sense at all, but that is for the legislature and politicians to decide.
Quote:
the ways developers are compensated for their efforts is outdated and doesnt seem to work anymore, find new ones which do and are fair for both sides
What exactly is unfair "you pay - you use it. You don't pay - you don't"? You don't NEED the software and there are probably plenty of other options anyway, some likely free, and if you're one of those free as in freedom guys you can always roll your own. You just selfishly WANT the software but you don't respect the software's author by respecting his or her will. By taking the software for free and acting holier than thou on the Internet, you make sure that the developer is not compensated.
Quote:
What rubbish. :) Everyone pirates stuff, no matter what economic or political affiliation they might belong to.without going to be too political but i really think it boils down to the question if youre a capitalist or not.
Quote:
What on earth does that have to do with anything?so instead of blaming people for using computers to copy data (which is what computers do all the time)
Quote:
This I am in complete agreement with. There is no question that a lot of business models are still stuck in a technology-void world, and this must change -- and it is, just look at Netflix etc.you should focus your energy on developing new ideas how developers can be rewarded for their work and make a living of it if they wish. the internet brought so many possibillities for that
Quote:
capitalism endorses the splitting of the society in winners (rich) and losers (poor) so instead of trying so hard to be on the winning side (so you can point at the losers and feel better) maybe more energy of thought should be spend on how to distribute wealth and resources better.
Not only is your definition of capitalism completely wrong, but it is clearly also biased. Capitalism is simply an economic system that favors private ownership and the creation of goods and services for profit. There is nothing inherit in capitalism that segregates into groups of "rich" vs "poor".
Quote:
You've clearly seen too many demotivational posters saying shit like "A copy of some data is just a copy of the data -- I didn't _steal_ your original data because you still have that" which is the most retarded way to argue for piracy ever.i dont think "wanting shit for free" is a bad thing, especially when its possible without taking it away from somebody else.
Timbaland didn't steal GRG's protools, he just copied the song so it's totes cool right?
Quote:
There is nothing inherit in capitalism that segregates into groups of "rich" vs "poor".
There is actually, because some people are smarter, more able etc. than others and not everyone starts with the same abilities and same possibilities in life, and also because unfettered capitalism tends to break the conditions that are required for well-functioning market. But that is a separate discussion and it's still the best system that we got.
preacher:
and what if i dont use a product (because im not able or willing to pay for it), where is the benefit for the developer in that? what does he gain in disallowing me to profit from it? there is none except the hope that someday i will take out my wallet and pay (with money that cant be spend on another product then where the circle starts anew).
you probably call this "freedom of choice"?
this has nothing to do with greed, if i had all the money to buy all the things i would probably do so but alas i dont.
in an ideal worls payments/compensation would not be enforced by law but given freely out of respect for the creator of the product. let the people decide how much a product is worth for them, not the price tag.
but of course in a world where you learn from childhood on that you have to pay for everything except the air to breathe its hardly possible because that sort of mindeset only endorses greed (hello ayn rand!).
do you feel bad about jumping on the steam-sales or buying the humble bundle for 10$ because the products you receive are worth a lot more? i bet you dont.
and what if i dont use a product (because im not able or willing to pay for it), where is the benefit for the developer in that? what does he gain in disallowing me to profit from it? there is none except the hope that someday i will take out my wallet and pay (with money that cant be spend on another product then where the circle starts anew).
you probably call this "freedom of choice"?
this has nothing to do with greed, if i had all the money to buy all the things i would probably do so but alas i dont.
in an ideal worls payments/compensation would not be enforced by law but given freely out of respect for the creator of the product. let the people decide how much a product is worth for them, not the price tag.
but of course in a world where you learn from childhood on that you have to pay for everything except the air to breathe its hardly possible because that sort of mindeset only endorses greed (hello ayn rand!).
do you feel bad about jumping on the steam-sales or buying the humble bundle for 10$ because the products you receive are worth a lot more? i bet you dont.
Quote:
You've clearly seen too many demotivational posters saying shit like "A copy of some data is just a copy of the data -- I didn't _steal_ your original data because you still have that" which is the most retarded way to argue for piracy ever.
well it maybe it doesnt make it right but implying there isnt a difference in downloading a game or stealing a car doesnt seem right somehow as well, does it?
not every downloaded piece of software would automatically result in a bought copy, while a stolen car results in a loss for the owner 100% of the time.
Quote:
and what if i dont use a product (because im not able or willing to pay for it), where is the benefit for the developer in that?
Nothing, of course.
Quote:
what does he gain in disallowing me to profit from it?
Nothing, of course.
Quote:
there is none except the hope that someday i will take out my wallet and pay (with money that cant be spend on another product then where the circle starts anew).
you probably call this "freedom of choice"?
That's a good name for it as any. I tend to look on it as freeloading: as long as enough people pay for it, software gets done and everyone, even the selfish ones, benefit. It's pretty much the same thing with public transport: if no one or only a few people paid for the tickets, would the trains run?
Quote:
in an ideal worls payments/compensation would not be enforced by law but given freely out of respect for the creator of the product. let the people decide how much a product is worth for them, not the price tag.
The price tag is the value of the software and the price tag is calculated so that everyone in the chain from the developer to the retailer can afford to make a living. If the price tag is way too high, in an ideal market with small entry costs (like software development), there will be stiff competition and the market price will go down. Hell, in software development, there's a multitude of absolutely free choices for pretty much everything.
In your ideal world, would you pay for software if you don't pay for it now?
Quote:
but of course in a world where you learn from childhood on that you have to pay for everything except the air to breathe its hardly possible because that sort of mindeset only endorses greed (hello ayn rand!).
I would argue that by making up your own morality and simply deciding which laws and societal standards you follow is a lot more objectivist than anything that any software company could ever come up with.
Quote:
do you feel bad about jumping on the steam-sales or buying the humble bundle for 10$ because the products you receive are worth a lot more? i bet you dont.
I don't buy many games, but that's a business choice by the developers or publishers. Why would I feel bad?
and yes, since im obviously not an expert on the topics my terms and reasoning are not entirely water-proof and offer a lot of room to be taken apart.
feel free.
feel free.
Quote:
and what if i dont use a product (because im not able or willing to pay for it), where is the benefit for the developer in that?
at least then you dont cost them money by using any of the surrounding infrastructure if it exists.
piracy is forcing a move towards pay-to-play - either directly or through advertising - which will be harder to get around, be more annoying for the user, punish you for enjoying something and wanting to use it / play it more. but hey, its fair right?
something that hasnt been brougth up yet is that software, music, film, games all have a huge risk involved in their development and a vast number of projects never make it out or flop when they do - and many only just break even. these projects are financed by the relatively small number of big successes.
you could argue that this is the fault of the creators and they should stop fucking up, but there's also something called creative risk.
lets not move to a place where the only way to make software,music,films and games is very cheaply by a tiny number of people, because any more isnt gonna justify the expenditure..
Quote:
This is -- as it always has been -- is a stupid straw man argument, and if this is the level of discourse this discussion is going to place itself, then I'm not interested in continuing it, sorry :)not every downloaded piece of software would automatically result in a bought copy, while a stolen car results in a loss for the owner 100% of the time.
also:
http://penny-arcade.com/2010/02/26/contrition
http://penny-arcade.com/2010/02/26/contrition
Quote:
Pirates are not consumers by definition, and exert a force on the industry which is distinct from the parties listed above. This conflict is squarely between pirates and publishers, and the people who buy games and play them and love them don’t get a vote.
Quote:
in an ideal worls payments/compensation would not be enforced by law but given freely out of respect for the creator of the product. let the people decide how much a product is worth for them, not the price tag.
let me play the devils advocate for a moment here: on an ideal world no one would want to pay a dime for anything they could get for free just as easily. and thats purely due to human nature / culture, not capitalism.
the problem is capitalism "smart, more able" thrives on speculation, not real prices. on some regards the "real" price is impossible to calculate but on most cases its just arbitrarily defined as: what people are willing to pay for it. and for that to lower you need fair competition.
this "fair competition" isn't just in terms of prices, it involves market saturation and outreach aswell. and in that regard piracy has been proven to have brought benefits to some products. in more extreme cases the open source software and free culture movements popped up, to accomodate what wysiwtf is talking about: a need for products, services and culture that can be created, maintained and distributed at cost zero. even if it does have costs for those who created, maintained and distributed it, they are donated in kind for the larger good: free shit!
if you think something isn't worth the money being asked for it, don't use it. i'm sure that if try to find out why someone else isn't doing a more affordable version you'll find that either it isn't profitable or that there is market monopoly/corruption involved. i believe it might serve society better in the long run if you try to create/support/contribute to the cheaper alternatives or complain to the right channels about changing the status quo on market monopoly/corruption. as oposed to just make of point of being illegal.
ofcourse it's still a grey area, and i ain't no saint in that regard either. i do buy more games, software and music nowdays then i used to though. but i also consume alot more freeware and free culture stuff aswell. and i can only recommend others do to the same.
wysiwtf: That's some weird sense of right and wrong you have there. Have you ever developed software for money? If not - try it and it'll change your view on piracy and copying data and the surrounding stuff.
Basically you just don't like big companies because they make money. Well that's how it works. You don't like it? Don't buy it. And as a conclusion - don't pirate it either.
A ride in a cab is also an immaterial good. So - not paying for transportation is also ok? ;)
Societies work by the exchange of goods/money/service. The only thing that's changed is, that you can copy/steal stuff without the people noticing. That doesn't make it right or any different from stealing physical goods though.
Basically you just don't like big companies because they make money. Well that's how it works. You don't like it? Don't buy it. And as a conclusion - don't pirate it either.
Quote:
the thought of having to pay for the usage or consumption of immaterial goods is a perversion of our society/system.
A ride in a cab is also an immaterial good. So - not paying for transportation is also ok? ;)
Societies work by the exchange of goods/money/service. The only thing that's changed is, that you can copy/steal stuff without the people noticing. That doesn't make it right or any different from stealing physical goods though.
blast them with cannons!
truth be said on an utopian society no one should pay for transportation either.
but we don't live there, and freeriding all the way as a protest that we should be doing so isn't going to get us there either.
but we don't live there, and freeriding all the way as a protest that we should be doing so isn't going to get us there either.