Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:45:27 +0300
Andrei POPESCU <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mi, 01 aug 12, 00:59:29, Yaro Kasear wrote:
> > On 07/31/2012 01:42 PM, Celejar wrote:
> > >On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:30:50 +0300
> > >Andrei POPESCU<firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
> > >Is this a moral claim, a business one, a legal one, or just plain dogma?
[The line to which you are responding is mine, not Yaro's.]
> None of the above. I just think that such a business model will collapse
> as soon as the consumers:
> - realize the stupidity (they are starting to, probably that's why not
You still have not given any reason for the alleged 'stupidity' - as I
keep pointing out to you, the producers (may) have invested
considerable resources to produce the original product, so just because
the marginal cost of duplication is zero, why is is unreasonable for it
to charge per copy?
> many people care so much about illegal copies of music and movies
> - have comparable alternatives