________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of vijay chopra Sent: Tue 11/27/2007 4:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage On 27/11/2007, Nick Reynolds-A&Mi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Making more things free and open only benefits a small group of technologists who are clever enough to know how to use the results. I see no problem with this, in fact it's a good thing, it incentiveises intelligence. A technocracy is much better than the idiocracy that we currently live in. We already live in a technocracy - and look where that has got us - the amount of idiocy has if anything increased The general mass of the population still want finely crafted mass entertainment and other products of a high quality and gloss. Making everything free and open destroys the funding model that makes this happen, which includes copyright and other intellectual property rights. The general public like fast food too, that doesn't mean that a McDonalds a day is good for them, most people (myself included) are stupid and don't know what's good for them in areas outside of their expertise. I let nutritionists and dietitians recommend what I should eat, I don't see why software engineers, IT consultants etc. shouldn't be able to recommend free software as the best alternative (where and when it is) regardless of the wider consequences to various funding models. That's not their problem, they're being paid to deliver $project on time not worry about copyright law reform. "mass entertainment" is not the same as "Macdonalds". its patronising and elitist to dismiss popular tastes. so software engineers don't have to obey the law of the land? - when any group thinks they are above the law problems start There's a trade off between making everything open and quality and reach. Why? Take Firefox for example, it's open, it has reach and it's a quality product. there's no "trade off" in fact I can think of quite a few quality open products, reach is a problem to be solved not something that has to to be traded away. All I will say about Firefox is that I had it on my desktop - it was a pain in the arse - it kept blocking sites and I had to get it deinstalled - I know you lot love it but to an ordinary joe like me it's just another obstacle You could argue that news for example should adopt a completely free and open model. But who is going to make the investment to ensure that some stories are still told? Investigative journalism is expensive and often dangerous. Money needs to be spent to do it. Free and open doesn't necessarily mean that there is no cash involved, look at the companies that sell support for free products or the way Firefox gets money from Google. as examples. I'm sure news organisations will continue. I read plenty of news on the web every day for free it's mostly ad funded. And i don't see anyone stopping buying newspapers just because they can read it online either. Investigative journalism is not an attractive proposition for advertisers - especially as they may be the ones being investigated While in my heart I'm much taken by the idea of making everything open, I smell a whiff of elitism about some of these arguments (i.e. "I want everything free because that's convenient for me and I don't care about anybody else") elite -noun the choice or *best of anything* considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.[1] I see no problem with elitism if it means we get the "best of anything". [1]paraphrased from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=elite&x=0&y=0 Strange definition of elitism - one I have never heard before - if the result of what you want really meant that everyone got "the best of everything" then I would support it - but if all that happens is a small group of people like yourselves benefit and everybody else loses out then we will be no further forward
<<winmail.dat>>
