Why should something that can be copied infinitely have a “per unit” price? Isn’t that artificial scarcity?

I don’t know Adam, maybe because people who can actually program and don’t live in their mother’s basement want to make enough money not to starve?

Did you know who came up with the modern-day concept of copyright in the first place?

The French.

This is basically how the French law has traditionally viewed copyright since the 18th century, as pointed out in this Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_copyright_law

“French copyright law treats a protected work as an extension of the personality of the author which is protected by a certain number of moral rights. In general, the author has the right to 'the respect of his name, of his status as author, and of his work’ (Art. L121-1). The following rights are usually recognised:

right of publication (droit de divulgation): the author is the sole judge as to when the work may be first made available to the public (Art. L121-2).

right of attribution (droit de paternité): the author has the right to insist that his name and his authorship are clearly stated.

right to the respect of the work (droit au respect de l’intégrité de l’oeuvre): the author can prevent any modification to the work.

right of withdrawal (droit de retrait et de repentir): the author can prevent further reproduction, distribution or representation in return for compensation paid to the distributor of the work for the damage done to him (Art. L121-4).

right to protection of honour and reputation (droit à s’opposer à toute atteinte préjudiciable à l’honneur et à la réputation).”

Yep, the French law sees copyright as a moral right inseparable from the respective author, and that countries worldwide also value this view by ways of international treaties such as the Berne Convention of 1886 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works) and the WTO Trips Agreement of 1994 (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm0_e.htm). Thus, the “moral” agenda that FOSS advocates attempt to advance is in fact not only outlandish, but also inherently at odd with the moral values that sovereign nations, include the United States of America, uphold.

Adam… if the place I work don’t charge for the software we sell to our clients, they won’t be able to pay me.

If I don’t get paid, I can’t afford payments on my Fiesta, if I can’t afford payments on my fiesta, my fiesta goes bye bye and I would be sad.

Adam, by that logic, I should charge a one time $5,000,000 fee to the first person that uses my software. That’s the only way I could sustain me, my company and my business partners based on our sales and time between products.

This is the same reason athletes are paid so much; Their careers only last 3-7 years, after that, they’re riding on their past earnings.

Whilst I approve of Adam actually making sense, for once, I still don’t see what’s wrong with “artificial scarcity.”

Is this supposed to be some sort of axiom? Can I found a religion on the absence of artificial scarcity?

Oh, wait, RMS has beaten me to it.

Artificial scarcity is worrying in a scenario like the Irish Potato Famine of the mid 1800s. The people who grow the food are starving, and the actual food is exported for profit. (It’s not always acknowledged that Ireland produced a surplus in food at the time.)

Hardly applies to an OS which Loons claim to despise and never use in the first place, does it? First of all, nobody involved is actually “growing the food.” Secondly, and allegedly, nobody involved is actually “eating the food.” And thirdly, they wouldn’t starve to death in any case.

Can you spell “theft,” Adam? Pure and simple. Theft.

“I don’t know Adam, maybe because people who can actually program and don’t live in their mother’s basement want to make enough money not to starve?”

Why couldn’t we fund software development via copyright collectives?

Nice idea, Adam — why don’t you set one up?

Seriously. If you can make it work, I’m all for it.

Although something can be copied infinitely, doesn’t mean that there’s an imperative that it should be copied.

The creator of the “something” has the moral right to say “this is mine” and the legal right to say how many copies there can be, who gets them, and how much they might have to pay.

If the creator wants money for a copy, the software is only “scarce” if people are unwilling to pay for it.

“The creator of the “something” has the moral right to say “this is mine” and the legal right to say how many copies there can be, who gets them, and how much they might have to pay.”

The author has the moral imperative to help the most people possible. He can do this by sharing his work freely.

“The author has the moral imperative to help the most people possible. He can do this by sharing his work freely.”

It’s not anyone’s moral imperative to offer assistance at their own expense to anyone else as far as social standards are concerned, let alone a software author’s. Besides, even if a software author is willing to “help” those who have dumped thousands of dollars on hardware but won’t spend a dime on software, who, or what, is there is help the author in getting the most basic of human needs? The welfare system?

“The author has the moral imperative to help the most people possible. He can do this by sharing his work freely.”

How important are computers? We are forgetting the basic human needs: food, water, shelter and fire (I think).

If computers aren’t that important, let alone software freedom, then you should make a living out of software for survival.

Software freedom is a puny freedom compared to other freedoms, like human rights, female rights et cetera. Why are you even focusing on software freedom when hypothetically, some dictator will rule over your nation anytime soon and use his armed forces to kill disobeying citizens?

I think we have another reason to ignore software freedom.

“Software freedom is a puny freedom compared to other freedoms, like human rights, female rights et cetera. Why are you even focusing on software freedom when hypothetically, some dictator will rule over your nation anytime soon and use his armed forces to kill disobeying citizens?”

Because he is a suburban basement dweller that never gets out of his hole, and as such, his little computer and star wars/star trek action figures collection is all he cares about. Duuuuhh!!

Software freedom is a puny freedom compared to other freedoms, like human rights, female rights et cetera. Why are you even focusing on software freedom when hypothetically, some dictator will rule over your nation anytime soon and use his armed forces to kill disobeying citizens?

When you’re a middle class white kid from the burbs, there aren’t a whole lot of freedoms you don’t already have. So in order to feel like their lives have meaning they latch on to simple causes that don’t require them to actually do anything but shout on the internet.

When you’re a middle class white kid from the burbs, there aren’t a whole lot of freedoms you don’t already have. So in order to feel like their lives have meaning they latch on to simple causes that don’t require them to actually do anything but shout on the internet.

It would be nice for some of these types to invest some of their time and effort into some kind of actual service, whether it be the military, fire, police, rescue, mobile meals, or any other thing that actually benefits or protects their fellow humans. Unfortunately all they can do is whine about supposed “illegal” monopolies and try to compare Bill Gates to the likes of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Believe me when I tell you that closed-source software does NOT equal the Nazi war machine/SS, or the communist party. In fact, the proposed Open-Sauce schemes of some of Freetardia resemble communism way, way more than anything that MS has done. But, I guess in Freetardia MyFreedomISbetterThanYours™.

I see that you guys enjoy making great use of of the moral relativism fallacy.

The fact remains that producing an environment of artificial scarcity is inherently immoral. Be it for food, clothing, OR software.

I see you have no common sense. Food, clothing, shelter, health are all basic human needs and rights. Access to software is not.

Yes, because no software what-so-ever is used in the production of food, clothing or shelter, or in the health industry for that matter.

Software and computer automation is in the heart of almost everything these days. And by a encouraging a system of artificial scarcity, you are literally limiting it’s possible usefulness.

“The fact remains that producing an environment of artificial scarcity is inherently immoral. Be it for food, clothing, OR software.”

There is nothing that is not scarce behind a piece of software. The developers themselves are scarce. The Mtn Dew they drinks to fuel their coding spree is scarce. Even the elelectricity used to power their computers is scarce. It doesn’t matter if you label a piece of softeware “free” as in “free goods”, it will still, due its factors of production (as defined in classical economics), remains not “free” (i.e. in scarcity).

For the love of humanity, dig up your economics textbook and read it again, and in the case that you haven’t actually taken your economics classes, apologize to your teacher in advance before one.

Kid, you don’t wanna even try to talk about the software used to make clothing. Check out a GerberCutter S91 at some point. The license for that particular bit of software costs $10,000 per key brand new for the digitizing part and about the same for sunning the actual cutting machine itself. However, when you are pumping out multiple hundreds of thousands of garments per week the cost is negligible. the same for designing houses and offices. And as for food and and health care, yes there is software for both of those too.. that costs, but if you really want to be intellectually honest (not that you ever can be), clothing, housing, food, and software were all working well long before computers ever were inviented, otherwise the human race would have long died out. What you mean by software “freedom” is the freedom to rip a copy of Photoshop and not be prosecuted for theft… sorry kid, but it ain’t gonna happen. You gotta pay to ride all the rides in this amusement park called Life. So, what cause, other tha “free” software have you put your heart and soul into? Every been willing to die for something you believe in?

“What you mean by software “freedom” is the freedom to rip a copy of Photoshop and not be prosecuted for theft… sorry kid, but it ain’t gonna happen.”

I proudly own a pirated copy of Photoshp, Pinnacle Studio 10 and WinDVD.

Do i care if it’s “free software”? No, all I care was I got it for free, because I gave a friend of mine a beer in exchange of making me these copies. It’s free as in beer!!

What makes you people think that we average Joes care if software theft is real theft?? We just don’t care.

“Software and computer automation is in the heart of almost everything these days. And by a encouraging a system of artificial scarcity, you are literally limiting it’s possible usefulness.”

Do something that benefits your fellow human beings, not yourself. Stop complaining about software freedom and do something that benefits us homo sapiens.

There are a lot of poor people in our world, and one of them could possibly be your family member or long lost friend.

I’ll seem hypocritical, but I’ve gave some money to charities like the Terry Fox Foundation, and I participate in my local food drive. It’s not that hard.

Adam King, you are one of the most heartbreaking humans I’ve met. cough Is it hard for you to understand how to help your species?

“There is nothing that is not scarce behind a piece of software.”

Correct. Which is way the artificial scarcity [poorly] enforced by copyright is completely retarded.

@ kurkosdr

Nice one. Too bad your Winbred “buddies” would gladly put your ass in jail or give you a lethal injection for your heinous crimes.

@Adam

As regards the “artificial scarcity” thing: According to this type of thinking, toll booths in highways shouldn’t exist, because they are imposing an “artificial scarcity”. But we all know that construction workers of the maintainence crew will not work for free. And its better to have motorists pay the cost than the general public through taxes. Of course, there is a retarded group of motorists that thinks the public should pay. But fortunately, its a small percentage.

Similarly, programmers who can make a program like pinnale studio 10/photoshop will not work for free. So, “artificial scarcity” for such programs is necessary to pay those programmers. Of course there is a retarded group of Stallman followers who thinks programs should be developed at the expense of the public, through taxes, but fortunately, its a small percentage.

Now kid, go and take the “scenic route” (ex avidemux/gimp) while i do my work more comfortable and faster with pinnale studio/photoshop.

P.S. Yes, i lift the toll booth bars whenever i can, but pay when there is on other way around, like i paid for my copy of windows.

“As regards the “artificial scarcity” thing: According to this type of thinking, toll booths in highways shouldn’t exist, because they are imposing an “artificial scarcity”.”

That’s a bad analogy. When cars use a highway, they also tend to damage it ever so slightly. So the more cars, the more it costs to maintain. There is no artificial scarcity.

Even ignoring that I think you wouldn’t find many people except the most extreme libtards who are proponents of removing public roads in favor of pay-per-use private roads. So it makes your analogy even worse.

“That’s a bad analogy. When cars use a highway, they also tend to damage it ever so slightly. So the more cars, the more it costs to maintain. There is no artificial scarcity.”

That means that if we use software we have to pay for, we damage it ever so slightly?

What a bad analogy.

“That’s a bad analogy. When cars use a highway, they also tend to damage it ever so slightly. So the more cars, the more it costs to maintain. There is no artificial scarcity.”

“That means that if we use software we have to pay for, we damage it ever so slightly?”

I could go on and on about how programs need maintenance, such as compatibility with new versions of operating systems, new features to match expanding user needs, and support for new hardware, otherwise they gradually lose their usefulness. And programmers who can do this in a timely manner won’t work for free.

For example, WinDVD needed to be upgraded to support Windows Vista/7, a new feature called “multithreaded decoding support” needed to be added, as well as support for DXVA hardware acceleration.

Meanwhile VLC took entire years to support DXVA, and they STILL haven’t added the feature of multithreaded decoding into VLC. Ahh, the joys of open source.

So, some a fee needs to be imposed in every new version to cover the programming work that took place while putting these new features.

But you are all a bunch of freetards, so I won’t go on and on. After all, Stallman finds it perfectly acceptable to use 70s/80s CLI tools, or use an 80s graphical system called x window system.

“I could go on and on about how programs need maintenance, such as compatibility with new versions of operating systems, new features to match expanding user needs, and support for new hardware, otherwise they gradually lose their usefulness. And programmers who can do this in a timely manner won’t work for free.”

Highways don’t build themselves. I think that pretty much covers the entirety of the discussion already.

“Highways don’t build themselves. I think that pretty much covers the entirety of the discussion already.”

+1

But expect freetards to demand that companies should charge an one time fee and provide upgrades for free.

For them, the concept of charging for an improved version of a proprietary software (which, unlike FOSS tools, is almost always a true improvement with new features, instead of only bugfixes) sounds insane.

I don’t disagree that [good] software engineers should be paid for their work. I just don’t believe it should be via artificial scarcity.

A copyright collective would accomplish the same thing without artificially limiting people’s access to software.

how will this collective work? (no snark intended orincluded)

Look at copyright collectives that are already in place for music.

i“d rather you explained YOUR vision.

“Look at copyright collectives that are already in place for music.”

Pfft… You mean RIAA?

You pay a tax on every computer or computer like device sold that goes to a copyright collective which distributes the money to software developers.

I’m sorry, but I serious issues with that, considering that the number of programs and the number of programmers needed to maintain, update, and create new prgrams far far outweighs the limited funds you could derive from a tax at point of sale. Unless you want to make everyone pay a tax every year for their PC, but since way too many people won’t even pay for dirt cheap software there is no way that many of them will pay a yearly tax. Music and software are NOT the same things. Also, just because an artist makes a few pennies off of each sale on iTurds, or when a CD is sold, don’t think that is the only place they get income from. They also get parts of the royalty fees collected from every radio station that plays their music, not to mention the deals that have to be worked out for ads, TV, and movies.

Also add in allocation of resources—cash money dollars. All programs don’t use a similar budget for creating and maintaining software. How do you allocate money? Equally amongst all companies? Amongst all developers? At some point someone/company is going to need more than has been allocated to them, whether it is because they need to hire even more programmers and the like, or because it is easier to just buy up some existing technology. So how do they make up that cash? Suspend work on other projects? That means less choice for the user. Selling support on the back end? Unless you are a big business, support needs for most people won’t be worth the cost. It is much easier to delete the program and start over from scratch, or call the nearest PC whiz and pay him/her to come fix it if that is what it takes. Of course, software could go the route of radio, since you are making the argument that radios/songs and PCs/software are equal. In that case, radios need to raise money to pay royalties for the music they use. As artists are added to the pool, the cash needed to cover royalties also increases. Hence radio ads. Back when I was a young 20 something you could listen for and hour and hear plenty of music… in fact music out weighed commercials by a pretty good bit. If, IF, a radio station had a morning show, the dufuses would be on for a few minutes between songs, but you still heard songs. Now, early morning radio sucks ass. If you hear more than 3 or 4 songs per hour you are obviously at a very new station that hasn’t figured out that it is a lot cheaper to cut some of the royalty costs by having a pair of gibbering baboons yack for 4 hours than it is to pay for each song actually played.

a couple of things to finish up. One, people already complain about having to pay existing taxes and fees. try telling them that you are going to up the price of a PC they want to purchase by a few hundreds (or will it take a few thousands per unit), but that they will supposedly get free software (provided the maker doesn’t turn it into a billboard to make back lost $). I can guarantee you will be met with derision in most places and run out of town on a rail. The second is getting every country in the world to go for this scheme, and finding ways to make it work within the laws of all those nations. I just don’t see it happening. This is perfect proof of TANSTAAFL. There Ain’ No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Software still won’t be free… the user will just be paying more at point of sale, and the money needed to cover all the developers out there will be dependant on sales. If the price per unit goes too high, sales will drop of requiring an even higher software tax, thus putting tghe price even further out of reach of many people and business. The current system might not be the most perfect, but this snake eating its own tail isn’t any better.

“You pay a tax on every computer or computer like device sold that goes to a copyright collective which distributes the money to software developers.”

It’s risible enough that you think this would work anywhere, but you seriously think that will work in America?

A large proportion of Americans regard paying taxes to pay for HEALTHCARE is outrageously communist. How do you think they would they react to proposals for paying extra tax for software they never use?

@ Ted

Americans aren’t some kind of tax averse people that the few extremists on the right say they are. Americans are already paying very large amounts of money to pay for software developers that are under the employ of the US Government and various government contractors. As for healthcare, look up the costs of Medicare and Medicaid. It’s breathtaking really.

Americans have been paying taxes at almost 50% of their income (when you add them all up) and there has been no organized libtard revolt other than a couple of tea party nutters.

And this is something that will save people money in the long run. You tax them for software, and suddenly all software will become free to share. Even a $50 tax on a PC will put HUGE amounts of money into the software industry. Most people will save money overall, except for people who BitTorrent all their stuff already.

Money will also be saved in by no longer needing expensive copyright enforcement. Also, Internet and networking technology can finally reach it’s full potential not being hampered by the threat of “more efficient file sharing”.

@DigitalAthiests

You are arguing over minor details. Again, look at the copyright collectives that are ALREADY IN PLACE for music.

Yes, in much of the developed world you are already paying a music tax on every music player or blank CD you buy which goes back to artists.

“Yes, in much of the developed world you are already paying a music tax on every music player or blank CD you buy which goes back to artists.”

You mean this?

http://techcrunch.com/2008/01/10/the-music-industrys-last-stand-will-be-a-music-tax/

Try harder, Adam.

Adam, it’s time to wake up. It won’t happen, for the simple fact that it is completely unmanageable.

I’ll offer a challenge to you: set up a computer building business, install whatever OS you care, then charge the price you need to cover cost of parts, labor and profit, then tack on that $50 Ouroboros tax. You will also be obliged to decide how the Ouroboros tad gets distributed fairly. Will it be by company? Program? individual workers? Will very productive companies/programmers get more cash? Or will it be based on how much the program helps humanity or what? Software is NOT music. Regardless of what you may think, even in those music there are a lot of details that have to be worked out, and lots of infighting amongst the people in the collective. It isn’t a nice and need solution.

I hate to say it, but there will come a time in life when you wake up and realize that a companies (say Adobe for example) are NOT going to let every Tom with a hair d!cK freely copy and fling around their software while they sit back and hope that they get enough back from the Ouroboros tax.

I personally think it’s inevitable. The technology situation today is that of post-scarcity of all media. You got companies like Google who pretty much digitalized every book in existence and are just waiting for the legal framework to be there where they can simply flip the switch. Eventually the law will catch up.

“I personally think it’s inevitable. The technology situation today is that of post-scarcity of all media. You got companies like Google who pretty much digitalized every book in existence and are just waiting for the legal framework to be there where they can simply flip the switch. Eventually the law will catch up.”

IPredict™

Yes, indeed I do.

“Highways don’t build themselves. I think that pretty much covers the entirety of the discussion already.”

Software doesn’t build itself either.