[CS-FSLUG] Proprietary Software: Capitalism or Greed?

[Don Parris]

On 3/30/06, Robert W. <robertwo at insightbb.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:03:05 -0600 doc <edoc7 at verizon.net> wrote:
> > > Software, digital music, digital movies, etc have an extremely low
> > > cost for copying. You can make perfect copies in minutes. That
> > > covers both production and distribution. And that ease comes
> > > inherently from the media. The question, in my mind, becomes "should
> > > the consumer understand and follow a complicated contract or should
> > > the author find a medium that better protects their ideas?"
> [snip...]
> > The musician invests months or years in developing
> > and exceptional piece of music.
> >
> > He and his family sacrifice financially and socially
> > during this time.
> >
> > Under the propositions posted here once he has sold
> > a single copy he no longer has any right to expect
> > any compensation for his efforts.
>
> I wouldn't say that a musician doesn't deserve compensation. I would
> say that you can't, in a practical manner, restrict digital data.
> Copying is inherent in the medium. If a musician wants to make money
> from his creation, then use a medium that doesn't lend itself to nearly
> costless production.
>
> Any item (music, movie, or software) produced electronically MUST make
> all of its money from the first copy. The musician should charge $10,000
> for the very first CD copy. Because after that he has little chance of
> making any more.
>

Actually, that is only partially correct.  While I do not hold them up
as a model, the Grateful Dead have enjoyed much, if not most, of their
success because of their liberal music-sharing policy.  While they may
be within their freedom/rights as authors to establish such a policy,
they seem to understand the concept of the goose that lays the golden
eggs.  So do their fans.  Software is more durable than music, of
course, in that one is not likely to collect software as if it were
music.  But the principle is nevertheless at work here.


> This has nothing to with whether that's good or bad. It's just the
> reality of electronic medium. And any solution (legal or philosophical)
> must acknowledge that reality. Current copyright law does not. Or more
> to the point, proprietary licenses don't.
>
> Does that help clarify? I appreciate the comments. It makes me think
> harder about what I'm really wanting to say.
>

I think that's what I like about this thread - and debating with Doc. 
Discussing an issue like this - which I believe is fairly important -
with those who are like-minded can lead to a logical myopia, if one
isn't careful.  If I may take the opportunity here to say so, I have a
great deal of respect for Doc's abilities and opinions, even though we
may differ on some fundamental points.

Blessings,
Don
--
DC Parris GNU Evangelist
http://matheteuo.org/
gnumathetes at gmail.com
"Hey man, whatever pickles your list!"