Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
And though it's Memorial Day in one part of the world, this site is a part of the WORLD WIDE web.
I don't think that your post is a Troll, but please recognize that there is more than one thing going on around the universe today.
You have identified the major points though:
- GPL allows me to leverage the "free" model by getting my software into the hands of potential customers, letting them experiment or do initial implementations
- GPL stops competitors from taking my product and using it to directly compete with me, at least initially
The GPL does not preclude the open source community from forking and out innovating me. But any innovation done has to be done in the clear, assuming those changes are beyond "customizations" for a single customer.
Second, this is not about me. Not sure why you feel there is a need to divert away from the points being made in an argument and instead attack the messenger.
This is about economics, plain and simple. Price of a widget tends to the natural cost of producing a single unit of that widget. In the case of digital content, the cost of reproduction is ZERO.
If someone decides to focus on a model that can easily be circumvented, then they have made a TERRIBLE business choice. Throwing technology and legislation in trying to support this particular TERRIBLE business model has shown time and again that these are wasted resources.
Now, as for your disdain of the term "civil disobedience"...murder and theft are NOT "civil". For you to align copyright infringement with them shows that you are not being earnest nor open minded with respect to this topic.
Get this into your head: intellectual property is tradeable, and ought to remain so for otherwise artists, designers, and scientists would not be able to sell the results of their (very much appreciated) labors
You delude yourself, or have let the "IP" people do your thinking.
Why can an artist not make money without reverting to "IP laws"? Or designers? Or scientists (in fact, I know a LOT of scientists that make money without use of copyright, trademark, patents, etc...).
You have fallen for the broken-business-model trap. Simply because organizations have set themselves up on shaky business models and have succeeded with those using INEFFICIENT mechanisms, doesn't mean that society should continue to support that system. The general consumer base is now starting to understand just how inefficient the system is, just how badly the PUBLIC's rights are being trampled, and how advancements of the arts and science are being BLOCKED by these legacy organizations.
Civil disobedience is a signal of broken laws and traditions. "Digital Piracy" (sic) is simply a form of civil disobedience.
TPB is not like a drug dealer. It is more like a street corner where the dealers have decided to set up shop. Or maybe better would be TPB is the yellow pages, where dealers decide to advertise. Or maybe...oh, never mind.
TPB does not "have illegal stuff", it simply points to places where you can download torrents from (note: you do not download torrents from TPB). The fact that a large proportion of those torrents are infringing on organizations' copyrights is not something that TPB has any control over.
Could TPB do things to remove "illegal" torrents from their listings? Possibly, but that is putting an onus on TPB that, IMO, they should not be required to do.
THERE IS NO NEW ECONOMY. This is BASIC ECONOMICS: the cost of producing a copy of a digital item is ZERO, and basic economics says that the price of that item will tend to zero. Why in the world would anyone want to pay more than a token amount for something that costs NOTHING to make?
This is not about an "entitlement" on downloads. This is about the reality of the digital world.
And no one is telling artists they cannot make a living. The reality of the economics indicate that artists should not be relying on making profits off something that costs nothing to make and can be easily reproduced by anyone. Instead, focus on things that CANNOT be reproduced, and let the digital wares be your advertising for that SCARCE resource.
In what other profession does someone work for free and then look to make money by "selling" things that cost nothing and takes no effort? Stupid approach to business, so adapt. Otherwise you are fighting your fanbase, fighting technology, and fighting BASIC ECONOMICS.
Digital technologies have changed the world of recorded entertainment. Digital technologies offer HUGE efficiencies (equipment, production, storage, distribution). Yet the recording industries have not adjusted their business models to reflect those efficiencies. They have (or could) lowered their costs yet won't change their infrastructures such that those savings are passed to consumers.
Consumers recognize they are being fleeced, and the market is naturally circumventing the MASSIVELY INEFFICIENT processes of the 1950s.