Subject:
|
Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 9 Feb 2002 13:26:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
586 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Is it really that dumb?
He lost $20. That seems dumb to me.
> 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.
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 of shareware is asking $20
and that's the only option, I bet many more than 70% of the users are using it
for free. If the author wrote a little thing saying that "it took 300 hours to
write this software and he has two kids to feed, and a payment of $20 would be
the really decent thing to do, but if you can only afford $5, that would be
cool too", or something then many of those folks using it for free would pay
the $5. Especially as more and more of our banking goes online. It used to be
a hassle to pay, but if I can click on a paypal icon from within the shareware
app, and just zap $10 by entering my password, then I'm much more likely than
if I have to supply my CC# and fill out long forms, or worse, back in the day I
had to print out forms, fill them out and smail them with a check. Ugh!
> From what I can see, for the most part
> the shareware didn't really work, at least not as a business model.
But how far was it refined? Without graduated payment systems (and lots of
other innovations), I'd say it wasn't given a fair shot.
> As far as the broke guy, why does he deserve free goods? Or are you
> arguing that ideas are not goods?
Ideas are not goods of the same category as tangibles. This, I think, is the
crux of the difficulty with IP. To take the liberal or communitarian stance,
how much of your ability to develop ideas is due to your lucky station in life
and your ability to take advantage of common infrastructure that could not
exist without the will of The People? If some, do you really have the right to
unchecked profit without debt for the advantages you were given? Why is your
time more valuable than mine just because you are more able to produce ideas of
a certain type than I am? And to what degree does the government have a right
or interest in regulating your IP profits? If it has any, from where does that
interest stem? Why not handle the whole thing with contracts?
And I'm not sure that deserve is the right question. The fact is, that it's
easy to duplicate and use these ideas for personal use and that practice will
continue to run rampant regardless of what our law says. Since the majority
seems to act in a way that suggests acceptance of this reality, shouldn't our
legal system reflect this?
> If so, how do we determine how to
> fairly compensate idea generators?
What does fair mean? Is it fair that you get more for an hour of idea
generation than I get for an hour of basket generation? Conversely, is it fair
that I get the same amount when my basket only helps one person and your idea
might help everyone?
> 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!"
Of course you can. I started to say "You don't think lying is illegal do you?"
But then I realized that's exactly what IP laws say. It's funny how these
little 'obvious' things only occur to you at certain times. Also, how much do
you have to change before you can call it your design?
> > > 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)?
Good point. Under the current system, if my friend wouldn't pay the cost that
is required to get the CD, then he wouldn't have paid for it. Does it matter
if he _would_ have paid $4, but not $13? I don't see how since paying only $4
isn't an option.
> 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.
Me too. Maybe that could be your new job. ;-)
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| (...) Again, my question is, if he allowed the users to decide how much to pay (which is effectively what you are asking for), would he have got more or less money total? (...) I agree that online banking will help the situation. There does still (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| 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... (...) Is it really that dumb? In our current culture, I think that if the (...) (23 years ago, 9-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
|
|
|
|
