This is all nice nerd stuff, but none of it is consumer-friendly. Has there ever been a consumer-friendly open source product?
Heh you just ninja’d the discussion from Linux to open source? What exactly are you trying to argue here?
Perhaps your confused on the structure of production in open source firms. Many Open source firms blow it because they try and tackle things in a utopian community structure which falls in on itself. Not all open-source solutions are so naive. How would the open-source industry have grown during the recession if not by pleasing the consumer?
For a specific consumer grade product I’d point you to any google app. However Linux’s most valuable contributions have been in the form of enterprise class tools and consumer grade electronics. Do you have a cell phone?
and BSD is what?
I’m confused, are you trying to argue against linux or open source?
Software prices would go down, probably. People don’t always copy software just because; a lot of times it’s that they feel the software isn’t worth the price. The MafRIAA and MPAA are finding out that people don’t want to pay $20 for a crappy movie on DVD or $15 for a CD that has only one good song. The software industry is finding out similar ideas.
So far I haven’t seen the evidence of this industry growth, just nerds making tools for themselves and other nerds. It is autarky writ large, not a true division of labor. That requires true capital investment and private ownership of software.
Privatizable open source software.
I would imagine that a kind of “street performer protocol” business model would arise, whereby the software would only be released after a certain amount of money had been pledged. More information:
- Kelsey and Schneier outline the basic cryptographic procedures involved.
- The Rational Street Performer Protocol attempts to make it possible to set conditions on the pledges in such a way as to overcome the free-rider problem.
- The Wall Street Performer Protocol describes how, once the money has been raised, it can be put to its best use through the free market.
Then you should read a newspaper. Many major Commercial Open Source companies expanded substantially in 2007 and 2008 as reflected in their earnings and revenue.. I haven’t the energy to look up the articles for you. Just do a google search for “open source revenue growth”. A few of the ones that grew are ones I employ for several clients being, SugarCRM, and Mindtouch. I specifically remember Microsoft laying off 1500 employee’s about a year ago or so, and mindtouch picking developers up.
Most commercial grade open-source solutions do. 
Thanks. [:)]
There is nothing stopping this model from emerging today. In fact, speculating on the emergence of such a model after the destruction of the commercial software industry means that consumers would be greatly hurt by the disappearance of that industry, and would have to turn towards the next best alternative.
And if intellectual property was done away with completely, they could no longer be in business.
They sell services, not software. The only reason why they would go out of business is if they did not provide something of value to the consumer. At which case I’d bid them a hasty farewell.
The value of the service is provided because of a large capital investment in the software. Even if the company hides the software behind enough physical security, a successful hack could release the software to all other companies, who would be free to put a service in production of equal quality with no investment whatsoever. If the software company is not entitled to some compensation for such an egregious act of trespass, then no capital investment will ever be made in consumer-accessible software.
What I don’t understand about the “information wants to be free” crowd is that they generally insist on hard security for computer access, looking down upon those whose systems are easily compromised, but when it comes to software they won’t allow the justice system to provide any such security. It is like blaming someone whose home was robbed for not having a heavy enough door, and encouraging everyone to rob homes at the same time.
Of course, in a world where property is secured, one does not even need to lock the door of his home because all trespassers are caught and brought to justice. It may be that in a world with a market for justice, we will not even need passwords on our computer accounts.
Define “consumer-friendly”
It seems like your argument is less objective and more objective. I think that if you’re looking to get people to switch sides and agree with the enforcement of intellectual monopoly, you won’t get far.
I suppose the purpose of IP is entirely utilitarian. I’d have to say that even then, it fails to deliver for society in comparison to lack of enforcement for IP.
for goodness sakes…can you two stop arguing about Windows vs Linux…
What I want to know is, if IP laws were done away with, could people make copies and start selling other people’s music?
Could people setup shop, make copies and sell DVD’s?
Could people setup shop , make copies and software and PC games?
yes, like pirates do now except it would be fully legal.
Quoted for truth. As far as I know, Google does not sell any software to consumers, but instead provides it free of charge. Their business model is structured almost solely around advertising.
Many open source firms will offer their software free of charge but without support. If a business wants a customized solution or one with features that cater to their business specifically they will need to formally purchase support. This model does work. The investment the developers have is having the expertise of their software model that no one else can have.
One way to protect your software from being copied is placing it on the cloud. Not only is it now in-house into your controlled systems but you can offer even more features by using cloud computing. The market will create ways to protect capital and investment. IP advocates seem to think that without IP laws software innovation would stop. This a silly conclusion to come to and shows the lack of understanding in the IP argument.
Stranger earlier seemed to argue that anti-IP advocates condone hacking or trespassing on networks. They do not.
I think it’s unfair that creators of intangible products (novels, songs, software, etc.) should be negatively incentivized into oblivion by allowing anyone to profit from their creation. It ultimately depends on what kind of society we prefer to live in. One that incentivizes (thus supports) creation of intangibles or one that doesn’t. Why would a writer write a novel if he cannot earn anything from the sale proceeds? Would we prefer if all talented authors became waiters instead? Personally, I think if labor and creativity was applied into creating something (both tangible and intangible) for which the market is prepared to pay a price, the creator should be entitled to a share of those sales.
Z.