> For instance, Popcorn time is more convenient than using a Web browser and
a regular BitTorrent client (that downloads the pieces in any order) or than
renting a DVD in a local store.
I don't think popcorn time is a good example. Popcorn time offer movies
gratis (non-commercial) and that's the primarily reason why people in general
use it. I know of two good examples of this fact where I live, this two guys
don't use it because Netflix is a complete bastard who lobbied to implement
DRM in HMTL5 or because it requires you to run proprietary software. In fact,
if this two guys were something more than mere pigs who avoid the price
whenever they can, I know they will be using Netflix instead because I heard
them considering the possibility before they knew of popcorn time. But as
soon as they found popcorn time thanks to a third party who wasn't neither
interest in libre software at all, they started using it all day without even
knowing how it works and that they where relying on other people's bandwidth.
I truly hate people as this two, but I know that they act like that because
of their ignorance, if only I where better with the language maybe I could
make them a little more wise. But even if I can't still prefer that rather
than Netflix.
In any case, popcorn time is non-comercial, so it's not a good example
because I said I'm in pro of that, neither the farmers and supermarkets since
supermarkets has to buy or ask for permission at the very last from farmers
before the supermarkets can sell their food.
Let's put and hypothetical scenario that is more adequate in my opinion:
Suppose that there's a copying machine for statues that almost everyone has
in their house, but not for food. Sculptors still need to buy food if they
want to live and has strength so they can continue sculpting.
This are my questions for this scenario (that is very similar to videogames
actually):
Why should the sculptor allow everyone to sell his sculptures without paying
him anything? Why if only the sculptor actually did and effort to imagine,
sculpt and in the processes he also had to buy to food?
> My main point in my initial post was this one:
Enabling or disabling business models does not make a license more or less
ethical.
I now see what you mean. And yes, you're right. It was foolish to say that
"it's right because otherwise you can't do PWYW". I apologise for that. It's
just that this seemed like a good system that actually work, so it was one of
the firsts things that pop up in my mind. What I was trying to express from
the beginning is:
As I said before the author put his effort to produce the product. So as a
reward I think he deserves to sell it. Whether he actually profit or not is a
different issue. Now, why should other be allowed to sell the product and
profit without asking or giving anything to the author? Just because they
have a copy? Why if the author was the one who actually put his effort?
