Laws (and such)

[phazer11]

Someone mind snipping the OT stuff into another thread please?

[exploiteddna]

im all for open-source and the free use of softwares, but i struggle trying to reconcile that with the fact that devs and programmers are dependent on product sales to compensate their work (or, they are dependent on their employer, who in turn is dependent on sales). If everything is free, then all programming will have to be done voluntarily and the programming profession is no longer a viable career option..it's just a hobby.

So, how do we reconcile the two?

 

(sorry for perpetuating the off-topic discussion -- maybe a mod can open a new thread and transplant our conversation into it)

[deathneko11]

Someone mind snipping the OT stuff into another thread please?

Done :)

[WilliamImm]

im all for open-source and the free use of softwares, but i struggle trying to reconcile that with the fact that devs and programmers are dependent on product sales to compensate their work (or, they are dependent on their employer, who in turn is dependent on sales). If everything is free, then all programming will have to be done voluntarily and the programming profession is no longer a viable career option..it's just a hobby.

So, how do we reconcile the two?

I admit, that is the major stumbling block for the free software movement. If there isn't a satisfying solution, no business would adopt it. However, there are solutions for this. Probably the best for general software (games excluded) is Red Hat's. Each and every one of their software has a free software counterpart (Fedora to RHEL, WildFly to JBoss Enterprise Server, etc.) - but, while the software between the two versions is essentially the same, you are paying for professional-level support, maintenance, and other such goodies. They also use a subscription based model, so that they are able to get consistent income that they can use to further develop free software projects. This should at least fix the income problem for free software-based companies.

 

For games, however, a different approach would be required. Subscriptions for games don't work (unless the game is a MMO). Instead, I'd look more towards what I'd like to term "neo-Shareware". Like the old Shareware busisness model (and what the current game market seems to be heading back towards), the first part of the game will be free, but the rest of the content you'd have to pay for. The difference: the engine of the game will be released as free software along with the actual game. That way, game companies will still get money, but it will let people play around with the internal engine. Plus, as a side bonus, it may actually reduce piracy.

[phazer11]

There's also the sort of model that Riot uses for League of Legends. You CAN buy champions with the stuff you get after each match but you can also get it through cash for the champions as well as champion and ward skins.

[Aiyen]

William:

The main problem for games with what you propose is that game engines are mostly developed by independent companies who then licence the engine to other companies.

However most do have really fair business models, that entirely depend on how good a game you make. The better it sells, the better royalties agreements you can make.

ofc. you can then also pay for modifications, and full support etc. to make sure you can make the game you want.

[shockz]

I don't quite understand laws, reply is going out based on the title of the topic.

 

One of the laws that has always had me baffled is... hmmmm maybe i should explain in story mode.

 

 

My friend was the kindest person you could meet, he would not hurt a fly although he did do some stupid things in life., he was protesting against them cutting trees down near his back yard.

What started off as 3 people ended up being about 50 to 100 people protesting. he wrote this is war on the wall, an empty building got burnt down and a lot of letters got sent out. apart from those and seeing the cops beat him up on the news have no idea why they said he was an invirnmental  terrorist and a eco terrorist and threw a life sentance at him... some murderers was due out before him... he was going to get permissions to release a documentary about it but committed suicide last year.

 

Is there something they are not showing on the news or is this just another cruel sensless law... life sentance seems a bit harsh for wall spraying, tying yourself to trees etc.

[Uhuru]

The real underlying issue is we are part of a corrupt society where a very select few control the majority through two fundamental systems.

 

Heirarchies

All hierarchical systems concentrate the power into the hands of the few.

Put simply power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

A commonly used saying but true. It is also a generalisation and exceptions do exist, like Mandela, b

ut if the exceptions don't change the system (very difficult when it's worldwide) the corrupt and ruthless will dominate in the end.

A telling statistic, quoted from memory, is that 60% of all hierarchical systems top people are psychopaths! That doesn't mean murderers axe wielding or not, a psychopath has no empathy and can't care how they're actions affect others.This makes them ruthless and

This willing to do anything t

hey wishh with no consideration for another viewpoint.

 

A society where a mental illness is an advantage is a sick society and needs during.

 

Money

This is the main controlling tool.There are two commonly held views on

[z929669]

Well, laws are unfortunately necessary --just as forum moderation is necessary-- but the problem is that we have too many and most of them are protective of the interests of corporate entities (did you hear? They have the same rights as individuals in the US :/ ). I am speaking mostly of media and creative 'art' (programming does fall into this area, I'd say). If you create something, you should keep it to yourself or be willing to give it away freely. Selling it for monetary profit is just wrong, IMO. Trade & barter ... skill for skill. Of course, that cannot work unless we all agree to begin doing it at the same moment (and dismantle the Corporation at the same time).

 

Oh, and stealing is different than the media/software piracy I refer to. If you pay for a digital asset, this is not a physical thing. It is and can be cloned all over the place. It cannot be uniquely possessed, and is therefore more like water or air. A car is a unique physical thing that someone pays for and possesses physically. It cannot exist anywhere else. Taking the former does not remove it from anyone's possession (but for unnecessary sanctions imposed by the corporate 'owner'), but taking the latter does (i.e., stealing). When they say that piracy is not a victimless crime, they are ultimately correct ... but only because the 'owner' imposes penalties on their 'market' to offset dents in their 'profit' for fear of being liquidated by their 'board of directors'.

 

What nonsense it all is. I suppose that I am an impractical dreamer, because the utopia I envision requires everyone to refrain from being a selfish jag-off in unison ... { V }

[TheWatcher]

That's just it, laws are as you exemplify; moderation. As the laws progress from their origination and become 'antiquated' or 'past', the reason for them is forgotten. The Concord Hymn comes to mind. While the current laws are unfortunately the necessity of the governments' need for 'micromanaging the people', it is not necessarily the laws' fault. Rather, call it the nature of the people behind the laws. What was once for the sake of 'moderation' is no longer so. :) Don't blame the messenger that is law. Blame human nature being the human's natural state of being.

 

I completely agree with your assessment of media and art. Think of it from the perspective of the word media. It is to store and distribute the information, so to say that the creation of something is given freely to the masses only to be sold for monetary profit is theoretically incorrect. However, the solution do not quite make sense. If you trade/barter skill for skill, the willingness to give a work of art freely defeats the concept of bartering (Which you've mentioned). In this age it is inevitable that reproduction will occur, so long as the original exists. Think of the painter Thomas Kindade as an example. Money, unfortunately, rules. This time the philosopher Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" pops into my mind and reminds me of how you are conceptualizing yourself. It also seems like an explanation behind the 'non-stealing' you refer to. While I do not think I agree with the 'air' being no less steal-able as the physical soil, I think the idea of the time put into the 'air' can be steal worthy in the creator's mind. (The creator not being the corporation...Though as I proofread this before posting, the idea that a person can own the property but not the mineral rights below it comes to mind as an explanation. *Shrugs*)

 

A quote by Theodor Adorno speaks, "This flight into a new order, however flimsy, is a reflection of the fact that absolute freedom in art - which is a particular - contradicts the abiding unfreedom of the social whole." I'm lead to think that "Unless we all agree to begin doing it at the same moment" is a little hard to accomplish. :P

 

///////////////// (Sorry, I didn't have the mind to remove my cat's absolute freedom of walking across my keyboard)

 

While you are the dreamer, I'm the impractical thinker. So please forgive me if my sentences splay themselves everywhere and follow no common sense. My utopia requires the recognition that there isn't an attainable utopia. This coming from the ever so sarcastic optimist. My optomistic self believes in balance. Which as existed...May as well be my dystopia. I'll go back to my watching now. Don't mind me. :)

[exploiteddna]

can we change the thread title to "open-source vs. paid software", or something similar, as this was the original discussion?

 

getting back on topic (in the thread that was born from being off topic, ironically), to me it doesn't make any difference if licenses are granted via one-time fee or recurring subscription. paying is paying.

i think the open-source movement is necessary in an age where having access to these tools is increasingly critical to success in life. it's also nice that some companies will grant significant discounts to students and/or academic institutions and their affiliates. i bought MS Office Pro for about $100 a few years back and was able to do so using my academic information. i cant imagine having to go through college without having Word, PowerPoint, and Excel on my own PC. Sure some computer labs on campus are open late, sometimes 24 hours/day during the regular semester, but having to travel to campus and do all of my work on a computer other than my own would have been terrible. In grad school we have to use SPSS (statistics software) a lot, and luckily my girlfriend's major professor has volume license i was able to use, but software like that is very pricey.

On the other side of things, not all companies offer these good discounts. Adobe technically does, but the discount is not very good. I bought Acrobat (full version, not the Reader) from them last year and it cost the same as the entire MS Office suite. I can't imagine if I was a design student and needing something like Adobe Master Suite .. i think the student license for that is still around $500 or $600.. preposterous.

Now, if someone needs to buy Master Suite for a business they own or for freelance work they're doing for income, then it's entirely reasonable to charge $1000 for that license, as it is then a "business expense" that you only have to pay once. As of late, Adobe has started to use a subscription setup, which would then be a monthly business expense to use the software as a means of income.

For recreational use of software, that's where i begin to wonder how we can reconcile the often outrageously large license fees with the non-professional hobbyist. Or for academic use.. students who are paying thousands on tuition and, depending on their course of study, are essentially forced to purchase relevant software. I think volume licenses should be given out to academic institutions and then to the students for free. When you're a professional working in your career field, then you can buy and pay for all of the software you need, at full price. I also think more companies should show more of a distinction between professional/business use and hobbyist use, reflected in their pricing.

Anyways, these are some of my thoughts..

 

EDIT: As far as games are concerned, I will always expect to pay $50-60 on a newly released popular game. That's just the way it is. It's been that way for as long as i can remember, going all the way back to my first NES (nintendo) when I was 5 or 6 years old. If developers want to package their PC games differently, separate the assets from the engine, etc., then that's just fine with me. At the end of the day, if I can buy a complete game for 50 bucks, i dont really care how it's packaged. I have grown up expecting to pay this cost for any and all new games that come out that i choose to play.

This is why I think games should be considered/discussed separate from all other software.

[TheWatcher]

I'm sorry if I was off topic. I've been following this discussion for the past week and it seemed intermittent with law and media handling. I could be wrong however. Oh the irony~

 

Anyway, I agree with you. an open-source environment would be the best option. Interestingly, as a student teacher in education, he or she does tend to receive decent discounts with certain programs and such...but I feel they're just as biased as the companies that only half-minded do it for show. Sometimes the discounted programs are 'available' to only the student teachers and not the teachers. At other times it would seem a program would only pertain to a elementary or secondary educator, not higher-level educator. Not exactly the fairest of ideas but there it is. Bought the student version of Microsoft office 2010 though. :3 I had to due after I had to replace the hard drive on this laptop when it gave out..I couldn't exactly work with Office.

 

I guess my problem that I keep returning to in my rambling thoughts is the acceptance of an open-source. Take for example the Theodor Adorno quote in my previous post. The idea of the open-source is wonderful and a wholesome good, but throwing it at a mostly capitalistic society that runs on money would sent the idea into a firepit. I also think of the people within the society would baulk at the idea of sharing so...equally. But I concede that I like to advocate balance and neither open-source or unfair pay is my solid answer to the problem.

 

Oh and while I agree on buying games, packaged differently or not. I dislike the movement into whatever Steam is suppose to be. I tend to be think like z929669 but with games. I want my physical copy because they can't take that away from me....Like I seriously think Steam can; freak accident or intentional. If this remains off-topic then tell me and I'll fix it...And probably stay away from this thread. It tends to be difficult to remove a simple matter like software due to the massive influences that infringe upon it.

[mothergoose729]

Well, laws are unfortunately necessary --just as forum moderation is necessary-- but the problem is that we have too many and most of them are protective of the interests of corporate entities (did you hear? They have the same rights as individuals in the US :/ ). I am speaking mostly of media and creative 'art' (programming does fall into this area, I'd say). If you create something, you should keep it to yourself or be willing to give it away freely. Selling it for monetary profit is just wrong, IMO. Trade & barter ... skill for skill. Of course, that cannot work unless we all agree to begin doing it at the same moment (and dismantle the Corporation at the same time).

 

Oh, and stealing is different than the media/software piracy I refer to. If you pay for a digital asset, this is not a physical thing. It is and can be cloned all over the place. It cannot be uniquely possessed, and is therefore more like water or air. A car is a unique physical thing that someone pays for and possesses physically. It cannot exist anywhere else. Taking the former does not remove it from anyone's possession (but for unnecessary sanctions imposed by the corporate 'owner'), but taking the latter does (i.e., stealing). When they say that piracy is not a victimless crime, they are ultimately correct ... but only because the 'owner' imposes penalties on their 'market' to offset dents in their 'profit' for fear of being liquidated by their 'board of directors'.

 

What nonsense it all is. I suppose that I am an impractical dreamer, because the utopia I envision requires everyone to refrain from being a selfish jag-off in unison ... { V }

I can hear John Lennons "Imagine" playing in the background as I read your post lol <3

 

I think any attempts by the government to control or curb the flow of information is a doomed and misguided effort. Not to mention more than a little bit ironic, given the the US governments double standard about intellectual property and privacy :p. Its impossible to stand in the way of progress. Like it or not the world is becoming more and more "data free", with all the consequences there in. I see it as a good thing. Creativity won't die because of thepiratebay, and people will continue to write software even if nobody pays for them (although I do agree with william that piracy is not a good thing). 

 

I don't know the specifics of the UK law, but in general I can't understand a ban on peer2peer websitse. It has perfectly legitimate uses, and the technology itself it no deviant, merely the common application of it. 

 

I personally believe that coporations can do an awful lot to protect themselves, and take advantage of new technologies at the same time. Netflix and Hulu plus are so convenient and cheap, that I would much rather pay for them than pirate movies. Just easier, I can stream it to my playstation or tablet, can't do that on thepiratebay. 

[WilliamImm]

Although piracy is bad for business, you can't eliminate it all together. Someone will always find ways to bypass your anti-piracy measures. The best anti-piracy technique is, well, just maintaining good customer relations. If people see you as a good corporation, they will be more likely to buy from you. Don't put insane measures on your products, because a) they will be defeated, and b) you'll anger consumers who would want to buy your products legitimately - even encouraging them to pirate your products. Just look at the fiasco surrounding Spore, for instance.

 

Personally, for anti-piracy techniques, I'd say that binding your purchases to your account (Steam) is "the line". Anything more will anger consumers and make you loose business. I'd be happy in a world where nearly everything is bind-to-account or subscription based, but not one where you can only install a product a specified amount of times. Additionally, demos should become a mandate for all games. They are fairly simple to make (just put together several of the first few levels in a game and there ya go). While trailers and such help, some people really just want to get a taste of the game in order to really see if they like it or not. Also, don't release demos using a beta version of the game, use the same engine as the full version.