Re:Historical nitpicking (Score 1)

Your thoughts are very clear and I agree with you! There's definately a problem today and the benefits of today's system often go to the wrong people.

If I had it my way (which I probably won't -- ever), I'd have it quite simple:

1. An abstract idea/concept could not be protected by law. (I.e.: you shouldn't be able to patent the idea of putting a shopping cart on a website...also all scientific discoveries would fall into this category).
2. Tangible "things" can be protected. (I.e.: you can't protect the idea of an online shopping cart, but if you've spend lots of time building one people aren't allowed to simply take your code and run with it).
3. The author(s)/creator(s) of actual text/code/music/movie/whatever should be able to decide whether or not he/she/they make their work public...if they make their work(s) public (by selling it, publishing it, or in any other way), they shouldn't be able to disallow the general public to spread their work(s) further on a non-profit basis as long as the original creator of the work is always credited. (I.e.: if I write an excellent shopping cart and use it on my site, nobody can force me to publish the code, but IF I choose to do so, anyone's allowed to spread the code I published on, as long as they credit me properly. But, only I, the creator, am allowed to SELL the work I created. You couldn't just take my code and sell it).
4. Creator(s) of ideas/code/texts/art/etc can get financial compensation for their hard work from people who like their works enough to purchase the "real" thing or who choose to donate an amount of money. (I.e.: If I want to, I get to ask money for a download of the code of my shopping cart, or for a CD-ROM).
5. The creator always has a final say over whether or not others can modify his/her actual work. This doesn't go for the abstract idea class. (I.e.: As a creator, I could still choose whether or not I would allow others to modify the code of my shopping cart or not, but I couldn't disallow anyone to build on the idea of an online shopping cart and add one-click-ordering to that idea. If they want to implement it using my code, they'd need my permission as I would run the risk of getting a bad rep or even law suits if they mess up my code and cause damage).
6. The creator would ultimately have complete moral control over his/her works. This would override anything a publisher or laywer could come up with. (I.e.: if I find a minor flaw in my code and happen to be a perfectionist, I can hold my code back until a patch is ready, even if the software distributor that handles it would prefer to keep the flawed version available for commercial reasons. Also, if I would choose to develop a free (as in beer) version of the shopping cart, no "contractual obligations" can hold me back from making it available -- this also goes for publishing the source code of the cart in the first place; if I made it, I decide what happens with it).

I suppose these are some of the things I would like to see. My reasoning behind the whole thing is that most creators (coders, writers, musicians, artists, etc.) are decent people who would like to see their works spread to all appropriate audiences. I also have enough faith in "normal" people (as in: people who haven't gone to law school where they were taught how to expertly deplete their brains of oxygen by wearing neckties for too long) to pay for the stuff they like. I feel (software) publishers (and record companies, movie studios, etc) and especially their legal departments should not get in between the creator(s) and the public. They can facilitate greatly and do a great many things, but they are NOT the be-all, end-all some of them think they are. (Not all; there are also some great publishers/companies out there).

And if you're too poor to pay for the stuff, anyone can provide you with a free *copy*. I realize a few people would take everything for free, even though they're loaded and could easily pay for the code/text/music/movie. Oh well, too bad. I believe these people are already not paying their dues; copying illegally, etc. The way I would have it, we woudln't be rid of these people, but we could do without the money-absorbing legal crap.

The internet can help greatly: get whatever you want for free and if you like it, do the creator(s) a favor and "buy" the stuff you like. (Like shareware). If you don't like it: don't pay!

After this long message, you might wonder if I practise what I preach.

The last thing I've published was software for the PalmOS and that was quite awhile ago (before they went color). And yes: I did give out full free versions of my apps without an expiration date. People had the option of buying if they liked it. After about a year I didn't have the time to do regular updates to my apps anymore and I figured that would make my apps obsolete within 3 months, so I decided to not even offer the option of paying for it anymore. Since then you can only get them for free.

There was absolutely not enough money coming in to support a family on, but I didn't advertize, didn't ask much from those willing to pay (a few bucks an app), and, frankly, my apps weren't THAT stellar (I did this next to a full-time job, so never got around to making them great). If I break it down to the time I put into making these programs and the money I received in total (after taxes and costs for the dev software), I come down to a very decent net hourly wage; more than I made an hour in my full-time job at the time.

I made a fair share of money for the time I put in. Then why would I care if fifty or five million people are using my apps? Or if there are fifty other people out there who see my apps and think: hey...that's a great idea for a handheld app...I can do better than that... And who go on, take what my apps do and develop better programs? More power to them! That's how it should work!