Where exactly does he "bollock on a bit" ?
I just don't like his writing style, but this is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
Well if you agree that for MOST software the developers could produce an income without being pissed off when I copy their software (game) for a friend, then that's a step up.
I neither agree nor disagree, it just hasn't been proven, alright some developers can earn an income from free software but that doesn't mean evaryone can. I often think that some people are only making so much money from free software because they also develop non-free software that complements their free stuff, just look at Sun for example, I bet they wouldn't be able to sell so many copies of Star Office if they didn't have OpenOffice.org.
RE: game developers. If a revamp of copyright meant people can copy anything they want, always, - gamers would still need good games as much as they always have. If the developers need money, then someone will have to GIVE it to them. The gamers. If the gamers want good games, they gotta donate to the developers. Otherwise they just probably won't get them.
So you're talking about donorware, yes there is some of that about though I would hardly base a whole insudtry on it, there are also some good fangames about and there's the free games that come with Linux. I don't play many games myself though I think my brother would be pissed off if he
Same goes for movies and everything else.
And that's my point entirely, games, films and music are totally different to software.
IMO, if someone depends on an IDEA they had, maybe ten years ago, for income, that's just not good enough. If you have a brilliant idea, say you find a method to produce free energy, I don't think anyone should be obliged to give you money to use it. Anyone should be able to use that method all they want - people in poverty in Africa, should be allowd to use it to dig holes for wells etc.
But one the same line of thought, I wouldn't be very happy if I invested billions in the development of a gadget and another company comes a long and manages to produce it cheaper because they don't have any development costs + they get they use child labor in China.
A friend of mine had a cool idea to put breathilizers in cars, so if you're over the alcolol limit it won't let you drive. To think the law would allow him to become the "owner" of it for so long and only him and other people he decides on can use it to save a few lifes - bullshit.
I know this isn't the point here but no one would want it, it's kind of a nanny sate issue.
I see your point though, but drug companies pattent medicines all the time and they sell them very cheeply to developing countries (often at a loss), they only get their money back by making them more expensive for the developed world. Normally medicines are only so expensive because companies invest so much in developing them (it costs more to develop a new drug than it does to send a rocket into space), if pattents were abolished then they wouldn't invest so much in developing new drugs as they won't have any guarantee they'll be able to get their money back.
One thing I do like about patents is that all the copy-protection SHIT is being patented, and thus noone can use this SHIT without paying/asking/whatever.
The only thig I don't like about copy protection is it removes your rights of fair use which I think should become more defined as far as the law is concerned, and this is exactly what I was talking about
here (not that that many people actually gave a fuck). Perhapps if the copy protection crap could even remain legal just as long as you can exchange damaged media for a new copy providing they don't charge any more than is reasonable for distributing it.
There are people that can't AFFORD to pay into a cinema (cinema's are a complete rip-off IMO, at least here they are).
This interests me a lot, my parents often say how expensive the cinema is nowadays but I don't knoe if I agree since they're not taking decimalisation or average earnings into account.
