4 ms·

Would you support the same compulsory licensing for the software you write? Are shareware authors bad people? (I'm trying to push this argument to understand wh

Would you support the same compulsory licensing for the software you write? Are shareware authors bad people? (I'm trying to push this argument to understand why we need to treat music differently).

megaman821 16y ago
This really isn't an apt comparison at all. Music has a pretty limited set of uses than can be enumerated and license fees can be assigned to. This would allow for more competition and innovation in the music space if every new service didn't have to spend years upon years negotiating with the record labels. It would be even better if television and movies also had compulsory licenses. Maybe not for new releases but after a certain amount of time the value of certain types of videos becomes nearly equal.
j_baker 16y ago
Music isn't different, but it's treated that way presently. For instance, if I build a website using Windows, .Net, and SQL Server, I don't have to give Microsoft 50% of my revenue. Same with shareware. I don't have to rely on other big companies to negotiate deals with the shareware authors. I just buy the software directly from them.
- shizcakes 16y ago
  This is a poor analogy. Pandora isn't paying music fees once to listen to the songs in their office, they are paying recurring fees because they then redistribute that music to others in a streaming fashion.
  - j_baker 16y ago
    That's because I wasn't making an analogy. I'm showing how two similar business transactions (ie, they both involve being able to use content of some kind be it software or music) are artificially made different by laws and "leverage". I mean, there are very few software companies that can place the limitations on their software and charge the same way the music and movie industries do.
tomjen3 16y ago
Software authors are different from musicians - we don't go to the government and pay money to have our problems fixed by fiat. So thats why the price should be different too.

Would you support the same compulsory licensing for the software you write? Are shareware authors bad people? (I'm trying to push this argument to understand why we need to treat music differently).

megaman821 16y ago

This really isn't an apt comparison at all. Music has a pretty limited set of uses than can be enumerated and license fees can be assigned to. This would allow for more competition and innovation in the music space if every new service didn't have to spend years upon years negotiating with the record labels. It would be even better if television and movies also had compulsory licenses. Maybe not for new releases but after a certain amount of time the value of certain types of videos becomes nearly equal.

j_baker 16y ago

Music isn't different, but it's treated that way presently. For instance, if I build a website using Windows, .Net, and SQL Server, I don't have to give Microsoft 50% of my revenue. Same with shareware. I don't have to rely on other big companies to negotiate deals with the shareware authors. I just buy the software directly from them.

shizcakes 16y ago
This is a poor analogy. Pandora isn't paying music fees once to listen to the songs in their office, they are paying recurring fees because they then redistribute that music to others in a streaming fashion.
- j_baker 16y ago
  That's because I wasn't making an analogy. I'm showing how two similar business transactions (ie, they both involve being able to use content of some kind be it software or music) are artificially made different by laws and "leverage". I mean, there are very few software companies that can place the limitations on their software and charge the same way the music and movie industries do.

tomjen3 16y ago

Software authors are different from musicians - we don't go to the government and pay money to have our problems fixed by fiat. So thats why the price should be different too.