Subject:
|
Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 9 Feb 2002 15:56:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
654 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
>
> > Is it really that dumb?
>
> He lost $20. That seems dumb to me.
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?
> > 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!
I agree that online banking will help the situation. There does still
need to be some minimum fee. How would you like it if 10 million people
decided to use PayPal to pay 25 cents for your software, as PayPal sends
you a bill for 1 million dollars (don't they have a 35 cent base fee on
business accounts?). Remember, ANY exchange of money or goods costs
something.
> > 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.
But there were some graduated payments. I know plenty of shareware
software offered one agreement for personal use and another for
corporate use.
> > 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?
Contracts probably are the right way to handle it. Of course a contract
could be pretty informal, and the degree of formality will be based on
the perceived need. I agree that the intangibleness of ideas is what
makes it so hard to pin down the right way to handle them.
I do think that different kinds of labor does deserve different
compensation. One factor of course is the investment required to be
trained to do that labor. Another factor is the need for market
motivating factors.
Our current system of course is not ideal. Certain jobs get paid too
much, and others don't get paid enough.
> 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?
I'm not sure a legal system should be changed to reflect reality. On the
other hand, flagrant ignoring of a law suggests that law needs to be
re-evaluated. The question then comes down to is it really a bad law, or
is there some flaw in the system which causes people to feel they must
circumvent the law.
> > 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?
Unless we agree that an idea creator has no ownership of his idea, then
the system must encourage proper attribution of the creation of the
idea. In a free market, I think this will happen, though since we are
imperfect, abuses will always happen. The problem is that our current
system often puts disincentives in the way of the course of truth.
> > > > 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'm not arguing that there should never be an option. I'm just trying to
find a way to understanding how goods should be priced. Our society does
understand that different circumstances require different prices. Many
services have lower prices for children or elderly people. Other
services have cheaper prices if you are part of a group purchase. Other
services have cheaper prices if you take on more responsibility for the
delivery of the service. Others have prices which fluctuate over time
depending on how badly the service provider wants to fill the capacity.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| (...) I don't know. You seem (though maybe not) to be implying that it would be less. I'm not so sure. But what if he'd been asking $50 but had an unadvertised way to send less. Would I have been the only one to use it? Today, I can just email money (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
