Again and again with the bullshit.
A pile of bullshit. Copyright does not in any way prevent you from making the film you want to make.
Got any evidence against what I said? I doubt it.
Non sequitur? Got anything better than b*******?
Basic scientific truth: the absence of something cannot be proven. However, all you need to do is find one counter-example to invalidate my claim, which you are either too lazy to do or you are in fact bullshitting us and what you claim is not true.
Basic truth: All you would need to provide is one example of a “purely open” license.
Simple, take the creative commons license, remove the part about restricted attribution.
And you still got copyright to deal with.
Anyway, thanks for the entertainment. I now know to not take you seriously when it come to IP. Byeeeeee!
La fuite en avant, again?
Excluding labor not much capital at all. The only capital investment there is would be a computer? Software development is one of the easiest industries to get into simply because you DON’T need a heavy capital investment to get started.
I taught a whole class in Honduras python 2 years ago, they all had older Netburst P4 machines at home. They were developing at home for each other. The advantage of software development is they don’t necessarily have to be at any particular global location to contribute to that industry. So I saw it as an opportunity for people there…
So as far as capital investment goes, software development is like the bottom of the barrel. Anyone can do it at home with their own home computer, and most IDE’s now days are free via open source.
Yes, they would be called competitors. Would I worry? No.
In all the years I been in the business of providing content, I break even or profit from it. Now as far as “communal” entities goes, I invest a lot, the lionshare into my projects. We’re talking almost twenty thousand of edits, thousand of pages, and 700 articles over the past two years. In fact, I monopolized my niche. My site has shown up on the front page of Digg and Slashdot.
Now, I am employed to work on a game without any significant protection from “pirates” and competitors alike. That is my primary focus for now.
And you? You have the audacity to lecture me against my entrepreneurial knowledge regarding imagined threats to my operation.
That’s not what capital means. The programmers have to eat while they work on the code. A program isn’t useful right away.
The same is true for writers or actors. The publishing company or movie studio pays them an advance on their work so they will be able to survive while they produce the information. That is why it is a capitalist industry. Without IP, capitalism is no longer possible.
There’s also opportunity cost.
I’m talking in comparison to other industries. There is always opportunity cost and an individual always needs to pay for sustenance. This is no different and there is no special exception for programmers. The point I’m making, by comparison, capital investment in software development is actually very low in comparison to other industries.
Is that true? IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Netflix, Google, SAP, SUN on so forth. Are you actually saying that these companies have low capital investment compared to something else?
The more I think about it, the more i think that’s likely, It takes far less capital investment to create software than it does hardware.
What I think has not been considered in this debate as of yet is the fact that the free market can protect voluntary IP. The music industry has moved to downloadable songs via itunes, pandora and other sources. The consideration for advancement in technology has been thrown out the window.
Do you honestly think the greatest minds in history can not find a solution to solving a problem such as ‘making a profit on a cinema movie’ without the use of the state?
Your lack of understanding on how it can be done does not grant you the use of protectionist violence on others. You are utilizing the same argument as those who can not understand how roads can be private. Declaring that without the state providing roads, there would be chaos, and people would have no way to leave their homes.
The problem comes from not understanding the fact that the market has and will continue to find a solution to everything better than any state can- and without a gun.
Count me in as a programmer. I don’t work on mass-market consumer software, though. The value of my job isn’t about being able to copy other people’s work - it is to create programs to solve problems as they arise. To the extent I can more quickly find other legally usable code and implement it more quickly than writing my own, copying is not only acceptable but good. But at least 99% of my job could not operate efficiently on that premise. So you wouldn’t hurt me at all by copying my work.
Also, my co-workers can view and use my code, as can other businesses that perform similar work that we occasionally collaborate with. I have no problem with that. And you can reprint my blog however you wish.
That being said, I do enjoy video games and films, and I do believe Stranger has some good points about copyright, particularly in the case of commercial distribution of perfect copies to the eyes of the end consumer - ie. the consumer considers the official distribution and the illegal distribution equivalent market substitutes - watermarks or subtle alterations would be void.
I don’t believe his method of enforcement is correct, however. I don’t believe any distributor should be barred from making distributions, only that they be forced to fork over some share of their profits - this rate could be settled in court and I would presume take general considerations from past prices and sales figures. If the distributor prices his distributions too low, his entire profit is wiped out. I generally think, however, that without a free market in courts, this process could become corrupted.
I’m not 100% sold on the idea either. I do realize that video games and movies could still be created, only in a different manner and with a different business model. I’m simply not sure the commercial copyright violator is as ethically defensible as someone who taxes others that distribute perfect copies of his work.
Communists don’t believe in the legitimacy of capital. Don’t waste your breath.
So money counterfeiters are okay if they fork over some share of their profits to the note-issuing bank?
As compared to Ford? Or Boeing? Yes.
Look strawman aside, focusing specifically on software development, not services, hosted services, ect, what kinds of capital investments are we talking about?
A) a place to work
B) A computer
C) sustenance.
Now I challenge you to compare that to industries who create tangible goods, make a case that their capital investment is lower than just a $400 PC.