Hello Simon, On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:40:42 +0100 GMT (27/Jul/09, 15:40 PM +0700 GMT), Simon wrote:
S>>> "Let people..." is a curious turn of phrase. Interesting, capitalism S>>> masquerading as an ideology. >> It is the same philosophy with which people say that everything on the >> internet should be free. S> I don't see how that can be the same. Well, we were talking about free downloads, or was I mistaken? >> Heck, they want all software to be free and will not pay any money, for >> example, for an email client. S> I think that is a vast oversimplification....and not just necessarily so! OK, I'll listen. S> A distinction was made very early on between commercial, shareware, S> freeware, donationware, cardware...blah-ware software. This was S> necessary because not every software author sat down at their S> computer to spend inordinate amounts of time tapping away at their S> keyboards simply because they saw the potential financial rewards S> ahead. I agree. In the beginning, many people wrote software for free. Then some of them realised that it is a full-time job they are doing, and they should be rewarded for it. They needed to buy some rice (or bread or potato(e)s or pasta). S> Aside the above, you have everyone from Ahab who is 10, to S> Desidimona who is 80, And Mary, who is 82! S> with access to a computer, and they, and everyone else, want S> various softwares to run on their computers, otherwise computers S> would be useless. Is that so. A computer without Adobe Photoshop is not useless to me. If it is to you, maybe you want to share in the development cost of that software? S> The term 'software' obviously covers a huge spectrum, such as S> Operating Systems, web browsers, email clients, bitmap editors, S> graph paper printers, automation software, media players, PDF S> viewers, privacy software, (continue on ad infinitum) etc. Just S> count the number of programs sitting on your computer and then S> calculate the cost if every single one of those was a piece of S> commercial software, You mean a piece of software into which the developers put their time, knowledge, and energy, and have a family to feed. S> with regular, almost yearly pay-for updates, and you realise just S> how ludicrous this model is. It's a nonsense. You are not serious, are you? It really does sound as if you want the developers to donate their time and knowledge for free to those who have a feeling they want to use that software. Why would you think you have a right to enslave these people to program for free for you? S> "They" don't want all software to be free because "they" are evil, S> "they" haven't just got deep enough pockets to pay for every bit of S> software and every update. If you cannot afford it, you cannot use it. Same goes for expensive food or expensive cars. If you want it but cannot afford it, you have no implicit right to steal it or demand to get it for free. Sorry 'bout that, mate. S> Even within the so-called developed wealthier countries you have S> incredibly unequal distribution of wealth, with most of the wealth S> belonging to the top 7% to 12% of the population. Pareto says 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth. Anyway, there are different percentages around, depends on who you believe. I do agree with the idea of what of you are saying, though. S> A lot of people within these same countries live on or below S> subsistence levels, and then you look across the globe to other S> countries that are even worse off I live in a developing country, I know what you are talking about. S> and you see that the 'you-must-pay-for-everything' model of S> software distrubition is just madness. It does't work, it cannot S> work. It is called the "digital divide". Sadly enough, it exists. However, there are freeware products for everything. Some programmers choose to produce freeware and donate their time, others need to make a living and need that income from shareware. Tell me what it is that doesn't work. Living in a developing country in which the Windows OS costs as much as a monthly salary, the digital divide was certainly more than just mentioned in my MSc in Computing. S> A few hundred pieces of software on one PC is really not an S> uncommon figure for many people, now calculate a total purchase S> price, and they a yearly fee to keep every one up to date. Far too S> many people don't even earn those sort of amounts each month (or S> even much longer) So they cannot afford that software and the next update. S> so my heart does not immediately bleed for software authors who are S> looking to get rich out of volume distribution LOL! There are several software authors reading this list, and I would not think any one of them has gotten rich. S> and then getting angry at the bad people for not wanting to S> play....instead of accepting that the whole model is flawed and S> perhaps the whole idea needs rethinking. The model is fine. The thinking that anybody has a right to free software (or any other man-made product, for that matter) is flawed. If anybody gives his product away, donates his time and produces freeware, that it is a laudable attitude. Nobody has a right to demand that somebody else has to donate their time. Slavery is over. S>>> I'll remember to tell the altruist that gives up their free time and S>>> money that they should desist with their beneficent activities because S>>> they should be paid for their troubles, because they are the rules, and S>>> fairness demands it. >> Exactly. You will not believe how many heated arguments we had, I think >> the 90s were the time when users just demanded to get all software and >> even online time for free. They thought they had a right to be provided >> with free services and software. S> Again, an oversimplifcation. At those times 'Free' didn't actually mean S> 'free'. 'Free' hasn't meant gratis for a very long time. The tenner-a-month S> ISPs in the UK back then (the 90's) advertised their services as unlimited S> free access for only £10 per month :-/ People were jumping onboard because S> their telecoms companies were exploiting this new source of revenue from S> Interent access and phone bills had soared out of control. People were S> finding themselves with bills for hundreds of pounds a month just for S> connecting to the Internet to collect email and chat. A completely different issue. Your example is about false marketing, not about anybody who has to work for free. S> When there is limited access to a money pot (which is all of the S> time IOW) 'people' will naturally and fairly be looking for S> cheaper, if not gratis, solutions for most things, and quite S> rightly. No, I look for value for money. You usually get what you pay for. Anything cheap might prove to be more expensive in the long run. S> I support them in their efforts 100%. And it is nothing to do with S> valuing the efforts of others...not in the slightest. Just because S> you decide to create something doesn't automatically give you the S> right to have an income gain from it. Well, it does, IMHO. Just because *I* create something, it doesn't automatically mean that *you* can use it for free. That would be parasitic. S> Blimey, all the great art in the world, and all the musical S> masterpieces written, would never have been created if that was the S> way it really worked! I am not aware of any major piece of music that wasn't written with the intent to feed the composer. Please enlighten us. May I ask how you make your living? Can I demand that you work for me for free? -- Cheers, Thomas. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 4.2.9 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 ________________________________________________ Current version is 4.2.9.1 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
