Earthborn's post on software reform

[scribble]

Forgive me for not knowing what else to call it. I'll post the post in it's entirety here, the original being in the obvious thread:

"Would it ever be ethical to download software from a p2p?"

I think a more interesign question would be:
"Will it ever be unethical to demand money for something that technology has made freely available to everyone?"

The makers of that thing obviously need to be compensated for their work, but it is not as if treating their work as 'intellectual property' is the only way. Here are some of the alternatives, all allowing people to freely copy as much as they want:

Public distribution systems


State distribution: Programmers, musicians and other intellectual innovators are all employed by the state and paid from tax money. It could be a tax on empty media or copying devices.

License System (BBC broadcasting model): People who own equipment that enables them to make copies of copyrighted works are mandated by law to pay license fees, but these fees are not handled by the state, but by a more or less independent organization which pays intellectual innovators for their work.

Diverse Public distribution System (Dutch Public Broadcasting model): Intellectual innovators are paid with money raised from taxes or a license system, but the money is distributed by several independent organizations representing population groups. The way the money is divided among these groups might depend on elections or on the number of paying members of these organizations (which would also increase the amount of money).


Free market systems


Insurance model: All people can insure themselves for the 'risk' of doing an intellectual innovation. Those that do are paid from the money raised by the premiums. Insurance companies have commities to decide how innovative it is to determine how much money should be paid. People can decide whether what kind of coverage they want: if they expect to be very creative they can take an insurance that will pay them lots or allows many payments for a high premium, while people who don't expect to do anything creative might be satisfied with a low premium or no insurance at all (in which case they won't make any money if they do make something innovative). If too few people insure themselves to make this system work, causing premiums to rise too high, the government can make it mandatory (like health insurance should) so all people contribute even if it is a low mandatory premium.

Hardware manufacturer sponsoring: People who sell hardware - like computers, CD players - ultimately depend on software that is easily available to users. It makes sense that they could pay to ensure there is a large pool of software titles available. This model is especially useful for manufacturers that want to push new hardware onto the consumer. They can make sure themselves that the new gadget is interesting for consumers to use. Obviously hardware will become more expensive, but people will never have to buy software again and copy it freely.

Classic Shareware Model: The software is freely available but the maker asks for a voluntary donation. Any profit that is made could be shared with the registered users to encourage them to pay. Only a small percentage of the people is likely to pay, but because the software spreads more easily, the maker might still profit from it.

Lottery Shareware Model: The classic shareware model is a bit like a Ponzi scheme when the profit is divided among the paying users. To avoid this, the lottery system uses a percentage of the profit from paying members as prize money and gives it to a random user. This encourages users to pay for the software in order to play in the lottery, but unregistered users can still freely use the software. It also encourages users to ask others to pay for it in order to increase the price money, or even to pay for it several times. The maker of the software can set up a draw every month or so. The important thing to realize about this system is that the benefit the user gets from paying for the software is in full control of the maker. If the maker blocks certain features in the software to encourage the user, s/he has no control over whether the user finds a hack or a serial somewhere and gets the benefit for free. With lottery shareware the maker can make sure only the paying users have the chance to win.


And these are just the things I thought of. Any of these things can have a myriad of variations, and they can exist side by side or as combinations as well. I think we really need to look for alternatives to the normal proprietary system, because the freely copying of tangible objects is just around the corner, even complete houses!

 

[scribble]

My peice-by-peice response.

"Would it ever be ethical to download software from a p2p?"

The obiovus thread in which you can find the original post if you'd like.

I think a more interesign question would be:
"Will it ever be unethical to demand money for something that technology has made freely available to everyone?"

Very well, a new question on the table, thus a new thread.

The makers of that thing obviously need to be compensated for their work, but it is not as if treating their work as 'intellectual property' is the only way.

Question avoided, and...

Here are some of the alternatives, all allowing people to freely copy as much as they want:

...changed again. The question of whether it's unethical to charge for something that technology has made it possibly to painlessly copy is shucked off in favor of: "what are some models in which we can see software made freely for everyone and not hurt the developers?"

Which seems to suggest that the current model is assumed by Earthborn to *not* be favorable to publishers when rampant piracy exists... but *that* is a topic for the original thread, not this one -- ironically.

State distribution: Programmers, musicians and other intellectual innovators are all employed by the state and paid from tax money. It could be a tax on empty media or copying devices.

(emphasis mine)

Actually, there already is a system like this in place in many countries for musicians. A tax on blank media, that is. That's more analogous to your next example, though, so for this one I'll merely respond that it sounds like an interesting system. Would you care to expound on how the system would tell an innovator from Joe Schmoe who just wanted to sign up to get paid? How would it determine whether to pay more to me or to Linus Torvalds, or another obviously more accomplished programmer? Or would we get the same pay? Exactly who would determine how much my programs were worth?

License System (BBC broadcasting model): People who own equipment that enables them to make copies of copyrighted works are mandated by law to pay license fees, but these fees are not handled by the state, but by a more or less independent organization which pays intellectual innovators for their work.

Now this is definately being done in some countries for musical artists. (I believe America is one of them, but I could be wrong... I can look it up if you want to know and don't want to look yourself.) As far as I know, software publishers get no part of it. How well does it work? Not well at all, from what I've heard. The biggest problem is, how do you distribute the taxes levied on blank media to the producers of things which might be copied, fairly?

Now, in all fairness, the places this is being done, it's meant as a supplement to traditional sales - a sort of "piracy tax" if you will, not as a full replacement for the current system as you are proposing. But I can only see that multiplying the problems.

Diverse Public distribution System (Dutch Public Broadcasting model): Intellectual innovators are paid with money raised from taxes or a license system, but the money is distributed by several independent organizations representing population groups. The way the money is divided among these groups might depend on elections or on the number of paying members of these organizations (which would also increase the amount of money).

So uh... I do my programming and give away the software, and then I'm paid by who, exactly? I don't quite get this one.

Insurance model: All people can insure themselves for the 'risk' of doing an intellectual innovation. Those that do are paid from the money raised by the premiums. Insurance companies have commities to decide how innovative it is to determine how much money should be paid. People can decide whether what kind of coverage they want: if they expect to be very creative they can take an insurance that will pay them lots or allows many payments for a high premium, while people who don't expect to do anything creative might be satisfied with a low premium or no insurance at all (in which case they won't make any money if they do make something innovative). If too few people insure themselves to make this system work, causing premiums to rise too high, the government can make it mandatory (like health insurance should) so all people contribute even if it is a low mandatory premium.

That's interesting. Given I think government mandated health care is a shaky proposition at best, I'm not at all in favor of this idea, but it's certainly inventive. What of the people who don't get insured and invent something anyhow? Or what if I insure myself too low?

How would you go about getting it implemented? I might ask the same of any idea you had, but this is the most interesting - how would you propose we go about changing the existing model to one like this?

Hardware manufacturer sponsoring: People who sell hardware - like computers, CD players - ultimately depend on software that is easily available to users. It makes sense that they could pay to ensure there is a large pool of software titles available. This model is especially useful for manufacturers that want to push new hardware onto the consumer. They can make sure themselves that the new gadget is interesting for consumers to use. Obviously hardware will become more expensive, but people will never have to buy software again and copy it freely.

Another interesting idea, that of course happens in some circumstances already. My MP3 player, for example, comes with software comissioned especially for it, that's totally free to me, the consumer, with the purchase of the hardware.

But mandating this as The Way to distribute software, which of course would have to be what you mean to make it work for all the publishers out there, seems to leave one with the same questions as your other proposals. It could be made nice, I suppose, but how? How do we decide what to pay to whom, how do we get it implemented in the first place? And would it raise the price of your average PC out of the consumer's possible budget? Exactly how much would you have to charge per unit so that I can get my supper and every other software developer, too? Do we all get the same supper, or if someone else does more or better work, can we get a system in here to get him more or better compensation? How is it to be measured?

Classic Shareware Model: The software is freely available but the maker asks for a voluntary donation. Any profit that is made could be shared with the registered users to encourage them to pay. Only a small percentage of the people is likely to pay, but because the software spreads more easily, the maker might still profit from it.

I've always been under the impression that at least some of the people who release shareware today do it out of a desire to send their program into the wild and let people copy it freely. Which is great, but I think what you must be discussing here, due to the nature of the conversation, is having that be The method of software distribution. This one I like more than your others; but I wonder what makes it better than the system we have, where I can do this if I think it's a good bet, or not if I choose.

Also, your note about the profits being given back to the users: huh? I'll address that below since it's more related.

Lottery Shareware Model: The classic shareware model is a bit like a Ponzi scheme when the profit is divided among the paying users. To avoid this, the lottery system uses a percentage of the profit from paying members as prize money and gives it to a random user. This encourages users to pay for the software in order to play in the lottery, but unregistered users can still freely use the software. It also encourages users to ask others to pay for it in order to increase the price money, or even to pay for it several times. The maker of the software can set up a draw every month or so. The important thing to realize about this system is that the benefit the user gets from paying for the software is in full control of the maker. If the maker blocks certain features in the software to encourage the user, s/he has no control over whether the user finds a hack or a serial somewhere and gets the benefit for free. With lottery shareware the maker can make sure only the paying users have the chance to win.

To me, this sounds like a slaes gimmick, not a distibution model. Can you explain to me how it's not? Basically instead of saying, "Please pay me for my software, because it does what you want," I'm saying, "Please pay for my software, because you could get some money out of it."

Well, I know your driving forces (morals, whatnot) differ greatly from mine, but in my world, people are purchasing my software for what it can do. If they want a chance at winning money, they can play the lottery.

And these are just the things I thought of.

Okay, let me try a distribution scheme out on you, instead. Mine's a little different from yours. Yours all assume, "how can we allow software to be copied freely and still get publishers paid," whereas mine is based around the idea of, "how can I get people to use and pay for my service, a service they desire, without giving them an entire copy of that service to use as they see fit?" I don't have a fancy name for it, but we can call it the
"Yahoo Mail" scheme to give it a title most readers will immediately understand.

How about publishers don't release their software ever, and all the technology in the world won't make it easy to copy? Instead, publishers charge you to use it, and provide to you only the interface. You're still welcome to duplicate the interface and all the functionality, of course, but it'll be much harder without me giving them to you.

I'm not sure if you meant this conversation to be a discussion of what model would be the most moral, what would be the most workable, what would be the most profitable, or exactly which criteria you'd like to evaluate schemes by, so your evaluation of mine should give me some clue. In addition, feel free to spell out any of the above explicitly.

 

[scribble]

I'm about to hit the sack, so I thought I'd add this in case you get time to reply.

If you don't like my scheme, please outline for me what makes your ideas better solutions to the problem you've described as "people will act as they will, so it's the environment that must be changed."

I'll go ahead and tell you why I think mine is better: no one has to decide how much my software is worth except me (and the consumer). It keeps my intellectual property mine, and removes the entire question of whether it's moral to copy it. I don't need a new governmental agency or private agency to handle anything, it's simpler and self-regulating just like our current model should be, which I personally feel is a swell thing.

(I also personally feel that question of should to be the equivalent of the moral question. You appreantly feel there is no should, there is only what people will do and how we can prevent the undesireable behaviours. Well, my proposal addresses that directly.)

 

[Earthborn]

Would you care to expound on how the system would tell an innovator from Joe Schmoe who just wanted to sign up to get paid?

Certainly. In this system, innovators are simply civil servants and they are paid for the work they do, just like a garbage collector or a clerk at the tax office. If Joe Schmoe gets hired but doesn't innovate, he can be fired (under the provisions negotiated with the union).

How would it determine whether to pay more to me or to Linus Torvalds, or another obviously more accomplished programmer?

The same way it is determined whether a prime-minister needs to be paid more than a street sweeper: democratic decision making. A democratically elected body decides how important your work is to society and pays you accordingly.

The biggest problem is, how do you distribute the taxes levied on blank media to the producers of things which might be copied, fairly?

Like in the state system, people are employed and get paid according to what is decided is the importance of the work. However, in this system the organization that makes these decisions is seperated from the government to ensure the government can't use it for purely politically motivated things.

So uh... I do my programming and give away the software, and then I'm paid by who, exactly?

The foundation that has employed you. This system is similar to the BBC model, but instead of a single independent organization, there are several. This is to ensure the diversity of society is reflected in the system. For example, an atheist can chose to be make software for a humanist foundation, while a catholic does the same for a catholic foundation. Anyone can choose for themselves for which organization they want to work for, and anyone can choose to start a new organization. The only government involvement will be in deciding which organization is serious enough to be awarded some of the taxes. This could depend on how many paying members each organization has.

Given I think government mandated health care is a shaky proposition at best, I'm not at all in favor of this idea

Not to derail the thread, but those countries that do have mandatory healthcare have cheaper healthsystems than those that don't. The more people in the pool, the cheaper it becomes for each individual.

What of the people who don't get insured and invent something anyhow?

The same thing as happens with those that have no insurance and their house burns down: they get nothing. (Of course if the innovation is considered of great importance to society, the government might give at least some compensation, just like it sometimes pays damages if an uninsured person suffers a loss it considers unacceptable.)

Or what if I insure myself too low?

You get very little.

How would you go about getting it implemented? I might ask the same of any idea you had, but this is the most interesting - how would you propose we go about changing the existing model to one like this?

All that is needed for this idea to work is an insurance company saying "That's a nice idea, we can make some money with this. Earthborn, do you mind if we steal it?" and me saying "Not at all. It is public domain.". This system is fairly easy to implement because it doesn't require any government intervention (except to make it mandatory if necessary) and can easily work side by side with the present system. The only problem might be that the software companies that have invested much in the proprietary system will hate it, as it will compete with them.

How do we decide what to pay to whom(?)

Simple, as this is a free market proposal, hardware manufacturers have the freedom to decide for themselves how and how much they will pay to encourage programmers to write software for their hardware. The only problem I see with this, is that hardware manufacturers will have an incentive to make hardware that is more incompatible than it already is: they can only make money when people buy new hardware, and to make sure people buy their hardware, they will try to flood the market with software titles that only work on their system. Imagine that Nintendo gives away free games for the GameCube, which has discs that are incompatible with anything else. After a while consumers will be more willing to buy the console since they already have the software. This is the sort of behaviour you can expect under this system.

And would it raise the price of your average PC out of the consumer's possible budget?

No doubt. It will raise the price of hardware skyhigh probably. It will be the opposite of the Polaroid camera effect (cheap camera, expensive film): expensive hardware, cheap software.

Exactly how much would you have to charge per unit so that I can get my supper and every other software developer, too?

Whatever the hardware producer and you have agreed on.

Do we all get the same supper, or if someone else does more or better work, can we get a system in here to get him more or better compensation? How is it to be measured?

It will be measured by the free market. A hardware manufacturer wants you to make software for his hardware, and you want to make software and the both of you will have to agree on what is a fair price.

Also, your note about the profits being given back to the users: huh? I'll address that below since it's more related.

I once saw an interview with the person who first came up with the concept of shareware. His original idea was to make the users share in the profit - hence the name 'shareware' - to encourage them to pay. Today the meaning of shareware has unfortunately changed to mean what can be more accurately described as 'demoware' or in some cases 'donationware'.

To me, this sounds like a slaes gimmick, not a distibution model. Can you explain to me how it's not?

It is. But it shows that even if you can't set up a whole system of distribution, you still can do something to encourage people to pay for your product, while at the same time allowing them to freely use and copy it as they see fit.

Well, I know your driving forces (morals, whatnot) differ greatly from mine, but in my world, people are purchasing my software for what it can do.

But you must have noticed that lots of people use your software for what it can do, but they are not purchasing it. My proposal shows a possible way you can still make money even though it is not directly for the thing you made.

How about publishers don't release their software ever, and all the technology in the world won't make it easy to copy? Instead, publishers charge you to use it, and provide to you only the interface. You're still welcome to duplicate the interface and all the functionality, of course, but it'll be much harder without me giving them to you.

If I understand you correctly, you are proposing a sort of NetPC system. You give people a minimal interface for a system that runs on a central server that you control and you charge for using it. With more and more people using Broadband it might actually work.

Well, if you think you can make it work and can make it interesting enough for people to pay for it, i'd say: more power to you! It will work best for applications that people can't easily use on their own computer though. If people can do it with a little program they can install on their own machine, you will not be able to compete with that. Here's an application that might work very well for such a system: rendering/raytracing of 3d images. On homecomputers it still is too slow, so people might be interested if they can hire some rendering time on a supercomputer.

They can send for example a POVray script, which is a fairly small text file and they get an image file (JPG or BMP or something) back which probably is not a very large download either, but they don't have to strain their own computers too much. Even if the rendering isn't faster than with people's own computer, it might still be interesting for people to use it as they keep their own computer available for other things during the rendering time. I think lots of 3d artists would be happy if their final render was simply sent by email within a week or so! Payment can be controlled fairly easily: people buy credits, and the server simply will not process any scripts that come from an adress of a person whose credits are zero. But again, that's just one idea. I'm sure there are many others.

'Steal' it, if you want. I don't care.

I'm not sure if you meant this conversation to be a discussion of what model would be the most moral

I think the most moral would be to allow serveral ways run side by side, even the one we have now, and see which would end up the most profitable. I think some of my ideas would give the present system a pretty hard time!

 

[geni]

State distribution: Programmers, musicians and other intellectual innovators are all employed by the state and paid from tax money. It could be a tax on empty media or copying devices.

Why should I pay dfor the delevlopment of sofwhare I'm never going to use? Do you know how much specalist softwhare costs? dDo you think there is the faintest chance that a govenmanet would be prepared to lay out several million on software that about three people word wide have the ababitly to use? why should I be paying compaines development costs for them?

License System (BBC broadcasting model): People who own equipment that enables them to make copies of copyrighted works are mandated by law to pay license fees, but these fees are not handled by the state, but by a more or less independent organization which pays intellectual innovators for their work.

Why should I pay for other peoples software? Why would I want my software provived by a monopoly?

Diverse Public distribution System (Dutch Public Broadcasting model): Intellectual innovators are paid with money raised from taxes or a license system, but the money is distributed by several independent organizations representing population groups. The way the money is divided among these groups might depend on elections or on the number of paying members of these organizations (which would also increase the amount of money).

great so I wan't a program to simulate the atmosphere fine. But if I want a program that simulates transtion metal chemical bonding who is going to support that?

Insurance model: All people can insure themselves for the 'risk' of doing an intellectual innovation. Those that do are paid from the money raised by the premiums. Insurance companies have commities to decide how innovative it is to determine how much money should be paid. People can decide whether what kind of coverage they want: if they expect to be very creative they can take an insurance that will pay them lots or allows many payments for a high premium, while people who don't expect to do anything creative might be satisfied with a low premium or no insurance at all (in which case they won't make any money if they do make something innovative). If too few people insure themselves to make this system work, causing premiums to rise too high, the government can make it mandatory (like health insurance should) so all people contribute even if it is a low mandatory premium.

Why would I want to pay for a risk that is not going to happen to me?. I'm not isured against floods or car theft (I don't own car and I live on top of a hill.)

Hardware manufacturer sponsoring: People who sell hardware - like computers, CD players - ultimately depend on software that is easily available to users. It makes sense that they could pay to ensure there is a large pool of software titles available. This model is especially useful for manufacturers that want to push new hardware onto the consumer. They can make sure themselves that the new gadget is interesting for consumers to use. Obviously hardware will become more expensive, but people will never have to buy software again and copy it freely.

Why should the intelectal property behind hardware be any different from that for software? just because you can't cop[y it doesn't mean that other can't.

Classic Shareware Model: The software is freely available but the maker asks for a voluntary donation. Any profit that is made could be shared with the registered users to encourage them to pay. Only a small percentage of the people is likely to pay, but because the software spreads more easily, the maker might still profit from it.

To put it bluntly I'm not going to pay.

Lottery Shareware Model: The classic shareware model is a bit like a Ponzi scheme when the profit is divided among the paying users. To avoid this, the lottery system uses a percentage of the profit from paying members as prize money and gives it to a random user. This encourages users to pay for the software in order to play in the lottery, but unregistered users can still freely use the software. It also encourages users to ask others to pay for it in order to increase the price money, or even to pay for it several times. The maker of the software can set up a draw every month or so. The important thing to realize about this system is that the benefit the user gets from paying for the software is in full control of the maker. If the maker blocks certain features in the software to encourage the user, s/he has no control over whether the user finds a hack or a serial somewhere and gets the benefit for free. With lottery shareware the maker can make sure only the paying users have the chance to win.

so we get people who fcan't hanndle basic stats to pay for software?

You know I'v got an idea. How about we make people pay for the software that they use?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

All this reeks so strongly of byzantine political ramifications that I'm not sure what to think.

However, let me admonish those who come up with the new system: Don't forget to make it flexible enough to handle the future situation where nanotechnology allows me to copy an actual object of yours. Then it won't be just the information workers' lament anymore.

~~ Paul

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

All this reeks so strongly of byzantine political ramifications that I'm not sure what to think.

My tummy is hurting, so I won't be posting anything substantial. But we already have byzantine political ramifications with the DMCA and the US government's push to get DMCA-clone laws passed worldwide.

However, let me admonish those who come up with the new system: Don't forget to make it flexible enough to handle the future situation where nanotechnology allows me to copy an actual object of yours. Then it won't be just the information workers' lament anymore.

We'll just have to make doing so illegal then, won't we? I mean, it's not as if there is any conceivable social benefit to be had from people being able to duplicate and distribute valuable things for near zero cost. Doing so would be immoral, in fact.

 

[Earthborn]

Why should I pay dfor the delevlopment of sofwhare I'm never going to use?

To make sure it is available to everyone.

Do you know how much specalist softwhare costs? dDo you think there is the faintest chance that a govenmanet would be prepared to lay out several million on software that about three people word wide have the ababitly to use? why should I be paying compaines development costs for them?

great so I wan't a program to simulate the atmosphere fine. But if I want a program that simulates transtion metal chemical bonding who is going to support that?

I am talking about consumer software. If a company needs very specific software written for a very specific task, then it can pay for it itself. Basically, it then pays for a service provided to them, not the software itself. Very specialist software isn't very likely to get illegally copied either, so the problems with consumer software don't exist for specialist software.

Why would I want to pay for a risk that is not going to happen to me?

Assuming the insurance isn't mandatory, you don't have to. Assuming it is, you will probably only pay a very low premium while still getting good coverage if you do happen to be innovative.

Why should the intelectal property behind hardware be any different from that for software? just because you can't cop[y it doesn't mean that other can't.

Please be clearer.

To put it bluntly I'm not going to pay.

Good. Using that system, you don't have to.

so we get people who fcan't hanndle basic stats to pay for software?

Actually, you will probably have a much better chance when you participate with lottery shareware. Probably only a few people will pay for the software and participate in the lottery, and one of those few people will win.

You know I'v got an idea. How about we make people pay for the software that they use?

A fine idea if only you could stop them from using it when they don't pay for it.

However, let me admonish those who come up with the new system: Don't forget to make it flexible enough to handle the future situation where nanotechnology allows me to copy an actual object of yours. Then it won't be just the information workers' lament anymore.

That wil only be a problem for the Hardware sponsoring system... and the present propietary system. The other systems are all flexible enough.

 

[geni]

To make sure it is available to everyone.

but why should it be avaible to everyone?

I am talking about consumer software. If a company needs very specific software written for a very specific task, then it can pay for it itself. Basically, it then pays for a service provided to them, not the software itself. Very specialist software isn't very likely to get illegally copied either, so the problems with consumer software don't exist for specialist software.

you're a dugs company and one of your rivals has just spemnt several million developing a program that simulates protien folding. Why excalty wounld you not waqnt to copy this? Or how about some of the molecular moddleing stuf my uni uses at over £1000 a time? Why would anyone bother to make that. the market for it is small and would have no problems with copying it and the cost for deveolment is high.

Assuming the insurance isn't mandatory, you don't have to. Assuming it is, you will probably only pay a very low premium while still getting good coverage if you do happen to be innovative.

You are still making me insure against a risk that can't happen to me. I don't do programing.

Please be clearer.

At the moment there are certain legal restctions on copying chip desighn. These are the same kind of restictions that apply to software.

Good. Using that system, you don't have to.

What makes you think anyone will?

Actually, you will probably have a much better chance when you participate with lottery shareware. Probably only a few people will pay for the software and participate in the lottery, and one of those few people will win.

Yes they will win smeg all. On avarge I lose money under such a system why should I take part.

A fine idea if only you could stop them from using it when they don't pay for it.

Large fines on those who break the rules has a long history of working. Making it less hassle to pay for the thing rather than getting it free also works quite well.

 

[scribble]

If I understand you correctly, you are proposing a sort of NetPC system. You give people a minimal interface for a system that runs on a central server that you control and you charge for using it. With more and more people using Broadband it might actually work.

Well, if you think you can make it work and can make it interesting enough for people to pay for it, i'd say: more power to you!

Oh. Okay, then. I like my scheme, because there's no Risk to me, as there is in yours (besides the obvious Risks of business that I choose anytime I decide to spend my time producing). I also like it because I can go ahead and run my scheme now without any help from agencies or big involvement from other groups (or legislation!). It's a choice that works as well when made by an individual as mandated for all society.

Why mandate one of your systems instead of leaving things they way they are where a publisher is free to choose whether he wishes to publish by a shareware scheme, seek a hardware manufacturer's sponsorship, or choose to not publish at all, like I suggest, or to go for the traditional publishing route?

What benefit is there in removing the current choice to force one of your schemes?

And how would you go about seeing this change done? That was my most interesting question and I didn't see a response. Obviously I'd see the change to *my* scheme either happening or not as people like - and whether everyone's on board in no way will effect to profits of those who are. It's just a beautiful thing.

I think the most moral would be to allow serveral ways run side by side, even the one we have now, and see which would end up the most profitable. I think some of my ideas would give the present system a pretty hard time!

The problem is that many of your schemes require total participation to work any better than the existing ones (and even then it's a question). Which of your schemes did you mean when you said this?

And what do you mean by calling it the most moral?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Kevin said:
But we already have byzantine political ramifications with the DMCA and the US government's push to get DMCA-clone laws passed worldwide.

No argument from me there. As I said in the other thread, these folks should stop moaning and groaning and find workable solutions to the problem.

We'll just have to make doing so illegal then, won't we? I mean, it's not as if there is any conceivable social benefit to be had from people being able to duplicate and distribute valuable things for near zero cost. Doing so would be immoral, in fact.

I'm not suggesting that we force the copying process to be expensive. I'm only pondering how the folks that came up with the products can be compensated for their efforts.

Earthborn said:
I am talking about consumer software. If a company needs very specific software written for a very specific task, then it can pay for it itself. Basically, it then pays for a service provided to them, not the software itself. Very specialist software isn't very likely to get illegally copied either, so the problems with consumer software don't exist for specialist software.

Oh, the joys of determining whether an application is "consumer software" or a "service." Even more fun if and when we can copy objects. Can I get you to underwrite my desire for an Enzo Ferrari, or only a Geo Metro?

I smell the old "People will just want to create these products out of a love of sharing." I shall mention no discredited forms of government.

~~ Paul

 

[scribble]

EB - is this a dead topic?

 

[Earthborn]

EB - is this a dead topic?

Not at all.

The problem is that many of your schemes require total participation

I disagree. I did assume in my descriptions of the methods that they stand on their own, but this does not mean very similar systems could not easily function side by side and independent from eachother.

For state distributed software to exist, all that is needed is someone who thinks "Kids love games that glorify war and violence and running around killing people. Such a game would be an excellent recruitment tool for the military!." Already happened!

For something like the BBC system to evolve, you need a foundation that advocates the distribution of free software, like this, or this or this this. It's not the exact same thing, but it does have some similarities.

The Diverse Public Distribution system could evolve from non-profit organizations spreading free software out of specific ideological reasons, such as Evangelist Christian, Christian, Muslim or Socialist affiliations.

(Some interesting stuff I found about free software)

All that is needed now is a hardware manufacturer trying to encourage people to buy their new game console - for a ridiculous introduction price - by giving away free games, to bring about hardware manufacturer sponsoring, and an insurance company thinking it can make a few bucks with the insurance model.

If these things happen, variants of all my ideas are running simultaneously side by side the propietary system and we'll found out eventually which one works best.

And what do you mean by calling it the most moral?

I mean with 'most moral' is that I think we run into the fewest moral issues if we don't try to force any scheme onto society. The simple fact that I presented more than one system should be proof enough that I don't think we should be thinking about this issue in a single way and demand a single solution, but that many systems are possible.

We can ask ourselves what will become of the proprietary system when all these other systems providing free software become successful. Will people still be willing to pay for software if they can also get it for free somewhere else?

Let's also consider the question I raised in the first post on this topic: "Will it ever be unethical to demand money for something that technology has made freely available to everyone?" I think that in the future people could consider asking money for software not only stupid, but also unethical, because doing so must necessarily limit the rights of people to do with the software what they want.

 

[Earthborn]

Oh, the joys of determining whether an application is "consumer software" or a "service."

I see no fundamental problem with determining what is a service and what is consumer software. If someone can take an application from 'a shelf' it is consumer software, if it needs to be specifically written for his/her situation, it is a service.