4 ms·

> How would you feel if someone decrees you charging a monthly subscription for your SaaS is evil and they're going to outlaw it. Or, dunno, declare that after

> How would you feel if someone decrees you charging a monthly subscription for your SaaS is evil and they're going to outlaw it. Or, dunno, declare that after 7 years of using it they get it perpetually for free... This isn't a relevant example because server space on SaaSes are scarce, so it makes sense to use capitalism to deal with this. Data, on the other hand, is not scarce, so it requires a more communal way to deal with it. For example, > I don't understand the hostility to the idea that, say, a writer can control their work, other than maybe people would rather not pay and feel good about it. The hostility comes from the fact that the writer is trying to control and restrict what other people do with their work. It is very anti-social. The only excuse for this is financial (as you say, investments), but even that can be debated as there are alternative ways to fund such works. Essentially, copyright is like a world full of private toll roads. It's a way to encourage companies to invest in private roads and raise funds. But it also degrades the road, and we're better off having public roads instead.

rich_sasha 3y ago
> This isn't a relevant example because server space on SaaSes are scarce, so it makes sense to use capitalism to deal with this I'm not convinced. For a typical semi-successful SaaS hosting costs will be small compared to dev salaries that went into creating it. Also you pay licensing fees for self-hosted products too. Also it's not like there's a moral duty for price to only reflect the marginal cost. Reportedly SpaceX launches are now quite cheap, but are priced relative to the competition. Nothing wrong with it IMHO. Ditto for charging whatever for creative work. > The hostility comes from the fact that the writer is trying to control and restrict what other people do with their work. It is very anti-social. Again, software licensing is the same. Renting a home, or a car, is the same. Also let's not get too carried away. If I buy a book, I can resell that book freely. It's just that I can't write my own sequel to it, or turn it into a film without the author's permission. This strikes me as a very good thing.
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  > Again, software licensing is the same. Yes, which is why I'm a free software supporter. > Renting a home, or a car, is the same. No, because that is scarce. > If I buy a book, I can resell that book freely. Not if it's an e-book. > It's just that I can't write my own sequel to it, or turn it into a film without the author's permission. This strikes me as a very good thing. I disagree. Why shouldn't people be able to adapt and reuse previous works, if the author has already been compensated for their time for the original book? Of course, the author still has the ability to write an "official sequel" or make an "official adaption". This ignores fan-art and fan-fics as well (which is not always non-commercial, by the way). We shouldn't need the permission [1] of previous creators to build on top of their works, because culture does not end with them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permission_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permission_culture
  - rich_sasha 3y ago
    Right. So you have the option to go for free software. And that's great, I'm all up for it. But it's actually the same thing. The software creator gets to choose how you use the software. It's their right. I think if you take away strong copyright, it will be replaced by DRM and legally binding license fees for even trivial things like books. And I think, to some extent, fair enough. I think if you make something, you can freely choose what terms people get it on - and they can always refuse. If anything, copyright is more permissive than the alternative.
    - CaptainFever 3y ago
      No, the whole point of TFA is that it is not their right to choose to restrict how others want to use their work. In fact, it is unethical, and so simply having the option to use FOSS is not enough. It is, at most, an economic incentive. In a post-copyright world, DRM will be legal to break, and such licenses will be unenforceable. If producers try to restrict us, we can and will simply ignore them. Because it is not their right.

rich_sasha 3y ago

> This isn't a relevant example because server space on SaaSes are scarce, so it makes sense to use capitalism to deal with this I'm not convinced. For a typical semi-successful SaaS hosting costs will be small compared to dev salaries that went into creating it. Also you pay licensing fees for self-hosted products too. Also it's not like there's a moral duty for price to only reflect the marginal cost. Reportedly SpaceX launches are now quite cheap, but are priced relative to the competition. Nothing wrong with it IMHO. Ditto for charging whatever for creative work. > The hostility comes from the fact that the writer is trying to control and restrict what other people do with their work. It is very anti-social. Again, software licensing is the same. Renting a home, or a car, is the same. Also let's not get too carried away. If I buy a book, I can resell that book freely. It's just that I can't write my own sequel to it, or turn it into a film without the author's permission. This strikes me as a very good thing.

CaptainFever 3y ago
> Again, software licensing is the same. Yes, which is why I'm a free software supporter. > Renting a home, or a car, is the same. No, because that is scarce. > If I buy a book, I can resell that book freely. Not if it's an e-book. > It's just that I can't write my own sequel to it, or turn it into a film without the author's permission. This strikes me as a very good thing. I disagree. Why shouldn't people be able to adapt and reuse previous works, if the author has already been compensated for their time for the original book? Of course, the author still has the ability to write an "official sequel" or make an "official adaption". This ignores fan-art and fan-fics as well (which is not always non-commercial, by the way). We shouldn't need the permission [1] of previous creators to build on top of their works, because culture does not end with them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permission_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permission_culture
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  Right. So you have the option to go for free software. And that's great, I'm all up for it. But it's actually the same thing. The software creator gets to choose how you use the software. It's their right. I think if you take away strong copyright, it will be replaced by DRM and legally binding license fees for even trivial things like books. And I think, to some extent, fair enough. I think if you make something, you can freely choose what terms people get it on - and they can always refuse. If anything, copyright is more permissive than the alternative.
  - CaptainFever 3y ago
    No, the whole point of TFA is that it is not their right to choose to restrict how others want to use their work. In fact, it is unethical, and so simply having the option to use FOSS is not enough. It is, at most, an economic incentive. In a post-copyright world, DRM will be legal to break, and such licenses will be unenforceable. If producers try to restrict us, we can and will simply ignore them. Because it is not their right.