3 ms·

That's the patronage or tip jar model. It has also funded many people. But not as many as the copyright model. To flip your force model around, you cannot forc

by dalke 11y ago

That's the patronage or tip jar model. It has also funded many people. But not as many as the copyright model. To flip your force model around, you cannot force people to create for you. But the hope of future money does provide incentive to many of them. Robert Heinlein, for example, started writing in order to pay of his mortgage.

wolfgke 11y ago
> To flip your force model around, you cannot force people to create for you. But the hope of future money does provide incentive to many of them. But who says that this future money has to be enforced by copyright laws? It is also possible by either asking for donations (from which for example Tarn and Zach Adams, the creators of Dwarf Fortress, live) or something similar to Kickstarter/Indiegogo (the product won't be created/released until some money is donated). So in other words: Even this incentive wouldn't be killed if there were no copyright laws.
- dalke 11y ago
  >who says that this future money has to be enforced by copyright laws I certainly didn't. I don't think there's anyone who says that copyright laws make it illegal to commission an artist. > Even this incentive wouldn't be killed if there were no copyright laws Yes, there are at least three systems (patron, tip jar, and copyright monopoly) to make money as a writer or artist.
  - wolfgke 11y ago
    > I don't think there's anyone who says that copyright laws make it illegal to commission an artist. But it makes it illegal not to give money to the copyright holder - quite a kind of (data) highway robbery.
    - dalke 11y ago
      No one is forcing you to read their works in the first place. Nor is your example correct. The first sale doctrine still applies. If you own a legal copy then you do not need to give money to the copyright holder to sell the copy. If someone else has a copy, then you can buy it without sending any money to the copyright holder. Granted, we appear to have collectively and foolishly decided to reflexively click on "I agree", and switch to on-line rentals instead of actual purchases, making this harder. But it is only illegal if you make a copy. So don't do that. Then there's no (data) highway robbery. Problem solved!
      - wolfgke 11y ago
        > But it is only illegal if you make a copy. So don't do that. So in other words you argue against free speech (creating a copy) and pro censorship. Writing texts that obey the censorship laws (or in western countries copyright laws) is illegal about nowhere.
        dalke 11y ago
        Wow. Really? Be sure to tell Stallman that the Free Software Foundation, based as it is on strong copyright, is really against free speech and is pro censorship.
        wolfgke 11y ago
        First: The FSF just uses copyright as a means to an end. They would rather wish that their four freedoms were part of the law. Second: I'm no advocate of the FSF way. For some reasons I think that the idea that one has to share the source code is dubious (among these reasons: what, for example, if I share the source code but obfuscate it; or if I change the source code so that it from now on is generated from some metacode: Do I have to share source code that is on the same level as the original one or do I have to share the metacode?). Instead in my opinion the community should develop much better methods of reverse engineering so that sharing the source code will not make much of a difference anymore. So in this sense the way to go is some kind of BSD-like license which also allows universal reverse engineering of built binaries. Such a license would also work if there were no/very weak copyright laws (since one can always do this, it just might be that the laws disallow it) in opposite the the GPL/AGPL.

by dalke 11y ago

wolfgke 11y ago

> To flip your force model around, you cannot force people to create for you. But the hope of future money does provide incentive to many of them. But who says that this future money has to be enforced by copyright laws? It is also possible by either asking for donations (from which for example Tarn and Zach Adams, the creators of Dwarf Fortress, live) or something similar to Kickstarter/Indiegogo (the product won't be created/released until some money is donated). So in other words: Even this incentive wouldn't be killed if there were no copyright laws.

dalke 11y ago
>who says that this future money has to be enforced by copyright laws I certainly didn't. I don't think there's anyone who says that copyright laws make it illegal to commission an artist. > Even this incentive wouldn't be killed if there were no copyright laws Yes, there are at least three systems (patron, tip jar, and copyright monopoly) to make money as a writer or artist.
- wolfgke 11y ago
  > I don't think there's anyone who says that copyright laws make it illegal to commission an artist. But it makes it illegal not to give money to the copyright holder - quite a kind of (data) highway robbery.
  - dalke 11y ago
    No one is forcing you to read their works in the first place. Nor is your example correct. The first sale doctrine still applies. If you own a legal copy then you do not need to give money to the copyright holder to sell the copy. If someone else has a copy, then you can buy it without sending any money to the copyright holder. Granted, we appear to have collectively and foolishly decided to reflexively click on "I agree", and switch to on-line rentals instead of actual purchases, making this harder. But it is only illegal if you make a copy. So don't do that. Then there's no (data) highway robbery. Problem solved!
    - wolfgke 11y ago
      > But it is only illegal if you make a copy. So don't do that. So in other words you argue against free speech (creating a copy) and pro censorship. Writing texts that obey the censorship laws (or in western countries copyright laws) is illegal about nowhere.
      - dalke 11y ago
        Wow. Really? Be sure to tell Stallman that the Free Software Foundation, based as it is on strong copyright, is really against free speech and is pro censorship.
        wolfgke 11y ago
        First: The FSF just uses copyright as a means to an end. They would rather wish that their four freedoms were part of the law. Second: I'm no advocate of the FSF way. For some reasons I think that the idea that one has to share the source code is dubious (among these reasons: what, for example, if I share the source code but obfuscate it; or if I change the source code so that it from now on is generated from some metacode: Do I have to share source code that is on the same level as the original one or do I have to share the metacode?). Instead in my opinion the community should develop much better methods of reverse engineering so that sharing the source code will not make much of a difference anymore. So in this sense the way to go is some kind of BSD-like license which also allows universal reverse engineering of built binaries. Such a license would also work if there were no/very weak copyright laws (since one can always do this, it just might be that the laws disallow it) in opposite the the GPL/AGPL.