Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

[Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:16:58 +0300
Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Vi, 20 iul 12, 04:29:05, Gary Dale wrote:
> > On 20/07/12 03:30 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > >On Jo, 19 iul 12, 22:50:25, Celejar wrote:
> > >>Quite true - and completely irrelevant to my point. I don't deny that
> > >>money can be made with FLOSS, just that it's pointless to try to sell
> > >>copies of one's software if it's freely copyable. The examples you give
> > >>are all of models other than the straightforward sale of licenses or
> > >>copies.
> > >IMO a business model that relies on the possibility to sell copies that
> > >basically cost nothing to produce is broken.
> > >
> > Actually, probably not. Take the music and film industries (please).
> > Stamping a disc costs almost nothing yet they sell them for
> > outrageous amounts. Like software, the real work is in the source,
> > not the medium. You can listen to the music for nothing on the radio
> > or television or even record it yourself. Still neither the film nor
> > music industries are suffering from lack of sales.
> 
> I didn't mean it doesn't work now (and it will still work for some 
> time), but my hope is that eventually people (buyers) will realise the 
> absurdity of it and move to a different model. AFAICT it has already 
> started, but it will take a (long) while.

I fail to see the absurdity - they invest money producing the stuff,
and they want to, and should have the right to, recoup the investment
and profit from it (insofar as people find the stuff worth paying for).
If there's equivalent material available gratis, fine. But if not, why
isn't it reasonable to pay for it?

Celejar