12 ms·

"Why is money the sole metric of wealth. How much value does open source provide - take linux for eg. which is used in pretty much every aspect of computing the

"Why is money the sole metric of wealth. How much value does open source provide - take linux for eg. which is used in pretty much every aspect of computing these days - from cell phones to super computers - how much value has it provided to the consumers and allowed developers/researchers/manufacturers to produce ?" What unit would you use to measure the value it provides, if not money? "Apply that to every major opensource software effort, things like IDE's, servers, programming languages/compilers. If you were granted a monopoly (like some software companies are, eg. Microsoft with Android patents) would it allow you to make money ? Sure. Would it create extra value ? Nope. " I don't understand the point you're making. Obviously somebody thinks Microsoft's Android patents are valuable, or they wouldn't pay to use them. What do you mean by "would it create extra value?" "Government should never protect the producer." At least we agree on something... "Will the demand go away if you eliminate the IP laws ? No. So the producers will have to figure out how to create new business models that work in a new environment. " That makes no sense. Demand existing isn't enough for something to spring into existence. You make it sound like other people slaving away to create music, movies, and software is your birth right or something.

moonchrome 15y ago
>What unit would you use to measure the value it provides, if not money? I'm against quantifying it at all because, while useful, price is a very limited metric. There are numerous cases where you can increase the transaction sum and achieve 0 value increase, eg. monopolistic pricing in a market with inelastic demand or bad investing (destroying capital) or externalities, etc. >I don't understand the point you're making. Obviously somebody thinks Microsoft's Android patents are valuable, or they wouldn't pay to use them. What do you mean by "would it create extra value?" Nobody is "using them", in fact nobody knows what patents are in question, all that's known is that Microsoft forced different Android manufacturers to pay up for Linux kernel or they take them to court. That's textbook rent seeking. It's likely that Linux devs arrived at the solution independently (since IIRC it's unknown what patents are in question), or would have done so - so you can't make the point that without granting Microsoft a monopoly you wouldn't have Linux kernel. >That makes no sense. Demand existing isn't enough for something to spring into existence. You make it sound like other people slaving away to create music, movies, and software is your birth right or something. People choose to share their creations, once it's copied the copy is no longer their property. They can do whatever they want with their property but knowledge is a non-rivalrous non-excludable good (without infringing on excludable property of others) and creating artificial scarcities to sustain someones business model is ridiculous. Software can translate nicely to a no IP environment by SaaS, NDAs and open-source development financed by consulting. There are various routes for other industries, and many more can be created. I'm not sure about things like pharmaceuticals and maybe other industries have different conditions that would lead to catastrophic results, but that doesn't apply to software and entertainment, bankrupting Disney and Microsoft != bankrupting a company with 10 years of R&D in cancer treatment research.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  creating artificial scarcities to sustain someones business model is ridiculous I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media". Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced?
  - moonchrome 15y ago
    >I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media". All the media I consume nowdays is free, news, learning resources, youtube vids etc. Apart from going to cinema (but even that started to suck), and music from local bands that I pay for to support the artist. So nope, I don't want any media. >Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced? Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Same thing with software, I don't mind paying for it, but if you expect people not to copy it - keep it on a private server and expose it as a service, or find some other model.
    - setrofim_ 15y ago
      >Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Actually, in the UK, we do pay for it (BBC broadcasts, at least) through a TV license.
      - moonchrome 15y ago
        But you have private channels that are funded by advertising ?
        setrofim_ 15y ago
        Yes, pretty much everything other than BBC.
    - shoham 15y ago
      Yeah, as an independent, 'starving' artist myself, I take exception to all this happy talk about making information free. It's already hard enough to make a living off of music, or any art, and I'm no fan of the monopolies, but it's incredibly obnoxious when I hear all this stuff about just give all of your work away for free with no path to eventual prosperity, and how "It's the producers problem, why don't they make a new business model". As for the monopolies, that's what they've done with litigation and IP protection measures, albeit more and more draconian ones...
bwarp 15y ago
Does value need a standard or a measure? No. Value is a different thing to different people. Money is not required for value to exist. There should be no intellectual property. There should be fair reward for positive contributions to society. Reward not protect. Provide an incentive rather than a pay off. At the moment, society is based on money not value. It's founded on providing as little value for as much money as possible.
- davidw 15y ago
  > There should be fair reward for positive contributions to society. That's hand waving. Specify how you propose to achieve this.
  - bwarp 15y ago
    That depends on how the person wishes to be rewarded (within reason) hence my previous comment about how "value" differs per person.
    - davidw 15y ago
      At a concrete, legal level, suppose that I as a software developer wish to be paid in money for my time working on software, and not on client projects, what do you propose? And if I write books? What is the legal framework you are proposing that would ensure that I would be paid a "fair" price for my work? What if my work is brilliant and millions love it? What if it's shit, and no one would pay me a dime for it? Who judges?
      - bwarp 15y ago
        Remove money from the picture entirely and ask yourself what you'd like to recieve in exchange for your work. If there is not a "fair value" then it probably shouldn't be being done. If it's for personal interest, don't expect a fair value for it. People expect and somehow manage to get money at the moment for shit which is the problem. When you put something on the free market, you are opening it to opinion and other people deciding the value. Think carefully first.
shoham 15y ago
"Government should never protect the producer." At least we agree on something... What is this madness??? I'm no Supply sider, but government does should and always will support producers. The question to me is only whether or not they'll just support monopolistic ones, or small ones and startups as well...

moonchrome 15y ago

>What unit would you use to measure the value it provides, if not money? I'm against quantifying it at all because, while useful, price is a very limited metric. There are numerous cases where you can increase the transaction sum and achieve 0 value increase, eg. monopolistic pricing in a market with inelastic demand or bad investing (destroying capital) or externalities, etc. >I don't understand the point you're making. Obviously somebody thinks Microsoft's Android patents are valuable, or they wouldn't pay to use them. What do you mean by "would it create extra value?" Nobody is "using them", in fact nobody knows what patents are in question, all that's known is that Microsoft forced different Android manufacturers to pay up for Linux kernel or they take them to court. That's textbook rent seeking. It's likely that Linux devs arrived at the solution independently (since IIRC it's unknown what patents are in question), or would have done so - so you can't make the point that without granting Microsoft a monopoly you wouldn't have Linux kernel. >That makes no sense. Demand existing isn't enough for something to spring into existence. You make it sound like other people slaving away to create music, movies, and software is your birth right or something. People choose to share their creations, once it's copied the copy is no longer their property. They can do whatever they want with their property but knowledge is a non-rivalrous non-excludable good (without infringing on excludable property of others) and creating artificial scarcities to sustain someones business model is ridiculous. Software can translate nicely to a no IP environment by SaaS, NDAs and open-source development financed by consulting. There are various routes for other industries, and many more can be created. I'm not sure about things like pharmaceuticals and maybe other industries have different conditions that would lead to catastrophic results, but that doesn't apply to software and entertainment, bankrupting Disney and Microsoft != bankrupting a company with 10 years of R&D in cancer treatment research.

sliverstorm 15y ago
creating artificial scarcities to sustain someones business model is ridiculous I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media". Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced?
- moonchrome 15y ago
  >I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media". All the media I consume nowdays is free, news, learning resources, youtube vids etc. Apart from going to cinema (but even that started to suck), and music from local bands that I pay for to support the artist. So nope, I don't want any media. >Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced? Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Same thing with software, I don't mind paying for it, but if you expect people not to copy it - keep it on a private server and expose it as a service, or find some other model.
  - setrofim_ 15y ago
    >Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Actually, in the UK, we do pay for it (BBC broadcasts, at least) through a TV license.
    - moonchrome 15y ago
      But you have private channels that are funded by advertising ?
      - setrofim_ 15y ago
        Yes, pretty much everything other than BBC.
  - shoham 15y ago
    Yeah, as an independent, 'starving' artist myself, I take exception to all this happy talk about making information free. It's already hard enough to make a living off of music, or any art, and I'm no fan of the monopolies, but it's incredibly obnoxious when I hear all this stuff about just give all of your work away for free with no path to eventual prosperity, and how "It's the producers problem, why don't they make a new business model". As for the monopolies, that's what they've done with litigation and IP protection measures, albeit more and more draconian ones...

bwarp 15y ago

Does value need a standard or a measure? No. Value is a different thing to different people. Money is not required for value to exist. There should be no intellectual property. There should be fair reward for positive contributions to society. Reward not protect. Provide an incentive rather than a pay off. At the moment, society is based on money not value. It's founded on providing as little value for as much money as possible.

davidw 15y ago
> There should be fair reward for positive contributions to society. That's hand waving. Specify how you propose to achieve this.
- bwarp 15y ago
  That depends on how the person wishes to be rewarded (within reason) hence my previous comment about how "value" differs per person.
  - davidw 15y ago
    At a concrete, legal level, suppose that I as a software developer wish to be paid in money for my time working on software, and not on client projects, what do you propose? And if I write books? What is the legal framework you are proposing that would ensure that I would be paid a "fair" price for my work? What if my work is brilliant and millions love it? What if it's shit, and no one would pay me a dime for it? Who judges?
    - bwarp 15y ago
      Remove money from the picture entirely and ask yourself what you'd like to recieve in exchange for your work. If there is not a "fair value" then it probably shouldn't be being done. If it's for personal interest, don't expect a fair value for it. People expect and somehow manage to get money at the moment for shit which is the problem. When you put something on the free market, you are opening it to opinion and other people deciding the value. Think carefully first.

shoham 15y ago

"Government should never protect the producer." At least we agree on something... What is this madness??? I'm no Supply sider, but government does should and always will support producers. The question to me is only whether or not they'll just support monopolistic ones, or small ones and startups as well...