On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 08:14, Juan Garofalo wrote: > > Look, scarcity is not created. It's always there. It's a fact of > life and economics, not an artificial construction. What really IS > artificial is 'free' software. > Scarcity in the software world simply means that there are only a few who understand/have seen/can modify the source code. True physical scarcity is a myth in this instance, as software can be copied without cost and without diminishing the usefulness of the original holder's property. This is where software differs from actual physical property. Copying the software does not diminish the value of the original, EXCEPT when the only value in the original is in keeping it secret/scarce. My copy of Open Office does not do anything do diminish your use of Open Office, no matter how many times I copy it or distribute it. In fact, the people at OpenOffice.org would say that I'm INCREASING the value by passing it around and making it more widespread. > What you are saying is that profit is magically created by copyright > laws. Profit is created because some individual (or firm) provides the > solution to some other individual's problem. This value may be protected by > the law but is *definitely* not created by it. > Correct, closed source software and traditional copyright allows the developer to extract MAXIMUM value from the software. The vendor can continue to raise the price until the consumer no longer feels the product meets their cost/performance needs. Traditional software copyright/marketing is based upon "how much is this worth to you?" rather than "this is how much effort it took me to create." This is primarily where the Open Source movement is driving software....to the service arena. There will always be PLENTY of jobs for programmers, the shift is away from profit extraction through artificial scarcity to profit generation through provisioning of service. This is a good thing for everyone EXCEPT Bill Gates and the other propriatary vendors. As a small business owner, I see this as a welcome thing. I can now solicit vendors to help me create/modify code for my business without being extorted for the maximum I'm willing to pay. If I want to develop something, I'm paying for brain power, NOT royalties. > Also, using copyright laws to enforce free distribution of some > good/service is really a contradiction in terms. Copyright laws are there to > protect profit. If you choose to give away your profit, What kind of > copyright protection can you claim ? > Absolutely wrong. Copyright laws are NOT designed to protect profit, they are a mechanism to allow the creator of a work to specify what conditions his/her work may be copied. Period. Nothing in the constitution guarantees the right to profit. Further, as Linus Torvalds points out in regards to SCO's suit, copyright law attaches value to software, and the expectation of future modifications being released back to the original creator is considered payment for the initial release of code. There is an actual transaction being performed here, that IS based upon copyright law. It's simply not the traditional exchange of money. The transaction here is in exchange of services, "I give to you..so you give back to me in kind." > On a strict individual rights basis, you are free to do what you > like with your property and you are free to enter into an open source > license scheme if you want to. All right. As long as you don't interfere > with somebody else's property rights. > I'll agree with that, so long as you respect the GPL or whatever licensing scheme the creator uses. Using the GPL is exactly like any licensing agreement with MS / SUN / SCO / whoever. By receiving the code and distributing it, you agree to the terms....simple contract. I would argue that free software is NOT dumping as well, because as I pointed out above, there IS a value attached to it....the value is in receipt of modifications made to his/her code. > This open source 'idea' is based on a flawed premise. If you include > a free spare in your car, does that imply that your whole car is now free ? > And why such an absurd thought should hold true for software ? If you > include open source code in your proprietary algorithms, you must disclose > them ? Nonsense. The end result is that nobody working in the real economy > will purposedly include open source code in his products. > This is a bad analogy, a car is a physical item with physical production costs. Each tire has a physical value. Software has a physical production cost too, this is allowed for under the OSS model as vendors ARE allowed to charge for services. As a customer, I receive the source when the contract is done, and I'm allowed to use/modify to my heart's content. Again, this is a real (and fair) transaction. What is not allowed under the OSS model is a royalty payment to the tire creator!... Imagine if you had to make royalty payment to Ford for every 1/4-20 bolt or tire you purchased! Imagine if you HAD to purchase tires from Ford, because they've made it impossible to mount other types? Imagine Ford using the DMCA against others who would try to make an interoperable tire. In a sense, the tires in your model ARE free, as anyone with proper equipment can make a tire and compete with Firestone without being sued for copyright or "Intellectual Property" violations. Cars ARE essentially open, as the vibrancy of the after-market car part business can show! People are allowed to open the hoods, tinker, put parts from other vendors together, etc. The "fee for service" model keeps things fair. This example just shows where the software industry is headed....fee for service! You make me a better tire, or provide a better backup tool for my Apache server, and I'll stick with you as long as your price/service ratio seems fair. The OSS model simply makes it impossible to start extorting the customers when service goes down and price goes up.....this is exactly like physical products which do not employ "lock-in" type strategies. > It's ironic that the people who are for 'sharing' and not 'profit' > end up hiring lawerys to enforce their copyright free copyrights... > I'm not running FOR any lawyers, I'm running AWAY from them.... Lawyers provide an example of a self perpetuating and expanding business model with no tangible product!... As a business owner, I generally try not to spend money where I don't receive any actual good in return for my payment. Lawyers exemplify this. Dan D -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu