Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing
flap:
quote:Let's add on to that door thing. What if the carpenter was not paid when he put up the door, but instead charged people a small fee each time they use it in order to pay for it's original cost. That's a bit more correct.
--- End quote ---
Well with a road that may be the case; a toll is charged to pay for its being built or for its maintenance. It's not charged due to a notion that the road builders should be paid every time someone drives along it. In the case of music, that's not true. It wouldn't be such a problem if the copyright on music was relinquished once the production had been paid for, and the artist had made a reasonable amount of money.
quote:Wrong analogy. This example would be better compared to being charged each time you listen to a song, which of course is absurd (though some may try that approach). Even this example is not adequate. You are trying to compare a totally new concept with old stuff. Music isn't a door you install.
--- End quote ---
No, the only difference between the two situations is that people each pay multiple times in the road/door scenario. Ok, let's change it so an individual only pays once, then they can use the road or the door as many times as they like. The situation is exactly analagous, as with this situation the carpenter still doesn't have the right to be paid for every person who walks through the door. Putting aside for a second the practical arguments of how artists would actually be paid under the system I'm proposing, surely you must agree that if someone provides a one-off service, such as installing a door or recording some music, while they have a right to be paid for that service, the amount of effort that went into it is constant and so there is no reason why they should be paid more if more people use the resultant product?
quote:A restaurant invents a new secret recipe that saves it from bankrupcy, only to be put out of business the day after when flap scatters the recipe around;
--- End quote ---
Now you're getting closer to free software. If this situation happens, and the restaurant goes out of business, but other restaurants and society in general benefits from the free availability of a recipe that yields better food, then tough shit to the original restaurant I'm afraid. A business not making any money is not an excuse to give them a monopoly on a useful idea.
quote:Communism, blah blah blah
--- End quote ---
What about it?
Laukev7:
quote: the amount of effort that went into it is constant and so there is no reason why they should be paid more if more people use the resultant product?
--- End quote ---
Well, the number of people available is constant, so, as I explained, if they pay only once (as I think they should), then the total revenue is constant. Of course, they could be regrouped by affinities with RMS' polling system. We can use an equation (example):
# of people * rating of song * price = total revenue
This is the price the artiste gets paid to release his song to the public. So, one price is being paid to the artiste, and each person pays once for a song.
Remember that some artistes can sell their paintings for millions.
Oh, and the three other metaphores I gave were not meant to be taken seriously. I was just fooling around.
HibbeeBoy:
quote:Originally posted by emh:
Just a quick correction. Napster never actually made any money. Napster was not a paid subscription service.
This is a good discussion. Great points are being made on both sides. But I just wanted to point out that Napster never made any money during its time.
--- End quote ---
Their revenue was coming from advertising, not subscription. Their business model was built around the work, talent and efforts of recording artists who they had no intention of paying. They did make money, they just spent it quicker than they made it.
Laukev7:
quote: give them a monopoly on a useful idea.
--- End quote ---
Exclusivity, or differenciation, not monopoly. This is an essential factor in competition, and its lack is a fundamental weakness in your business model.
quote: What about it?
--- End quote ---
That was a JOKE. You should have noticed this from the tone I took in that post.
flap:
quote:This is the price the artiste gets paid to release his song to the public. So, one price is being paid to the artiste, and each person pays once for a song.
--- End quote ---
So why shouldn't a carpenter be paid for the number of people who are going to walk through his door?
Surely the equation should be
Price_per_person = constant_reasonable_revenue / #_of_people
quote:That was a JOKE. You should have noticed this from the tone I took in that post.
--- End quote ---
How was it a joke? Are you suggesting that what I'm suggesting is not a socialistic/communist system?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version