Subject:
|
Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 9 Feb 2002 07:33:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
536 times
|
| |
|
|
I see at the bottom you acknowledge that how IP works is a tough cookie,
so please take the following questions not as criticism, but as ways to
probe the workings of IP...
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > If he wouldn't have purchased it a million years, then why would he want
> > you to give a copy to him?
>
> Maybe he's broke. Maybe he likes it enough to check it out, but not enough to
> procure a copy. Maybe it would be useful, but not useful enough to pay the
> asking price.
>
> Incidentally, I once searched for a way to pay a shareware producer ~$20 when
> he was asking $50. I thought that paying something was the right thing to do,
> but I wasn't going to get $50 of value from it. It was impossible. The legal
> thing to do, I think, was to not use it. The reality is that I used it a
> few times and paid nothing. Dumb system.
Is it really that dumb? In our current culture, I think that if the
producer allowed a range of contributions, that 70% or more of the
customers would pay the minimum. From what I can see, for the most part
the shareware didn't really work, at least not as a business model. Note
that most of the shareware packages which actually became popular enough
to really make money all converted to regular products.
As far as the broke guy, why does he deserve free goods? Or are you
arguing that ideas are not goods? If so, how do we determine how to
fairly compensate idea generators? If ideas aren't goods, can I build
the Blacksmith Shop and show it to friends and say: "Look at the cool
blacksmith shop I designed!"
> > If you're giving a copy to him because he wants
> > it but wouldn't in a million years deign to purchase it, then it's theft.
>
> Well, it's something. Maybe theft...I've called it that in the past. But it
> seems materially different in that it causes no harm to the owner of the
> copyright.
Does it really cause no harm? Where is the line drawn (well, I would
have paid a penny for it, well, I would have paid a buck for it, well, I
would have paid one cent less than list price for it)?
I suspect that for us to truly enter the digital age, we will have to
create a new understanding of just which ideas are goods and which
aren't, and how to value them, and what constitutes use of them which
must be compensated.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| (...) He lost $20. That seems dumb to me. (...) I wonder what percentage of LUGNET members paid more than the minimum (I don't even remember what it is) for membership. I wonder if it matters. If the system we have is set up so that an average piece (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| (...) Maybe he's broke. Maybe he likes it enough to check it out, but not enough to procure a copy. Maybe it would be useful, but not useful enough to pay the asking price. Incidentally, I once searched for a way to pay a shareware producer ~$20 (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
