4 ms·

Copying is not wrong, your business model was wrong. Shame on you for causing feelings of shame amongst your users while you try to condition them against what

by nfoz 13y ago

Copying is not wrong, your business model was wrong. Shame on you for causing feelings of shame amongst your users while you try to condition them against what should be an acceptable and moral action: sharing software and sharing their religious texts. Copyright should be abolished, and this is a moral issue.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
Shame on you for judging. This was their business model. The software didn't exist; open source didn't create it. Wrong or not, there they were, like millions before them, creating value and wanting to be paid for it. I know you are trolling, but you made it a moral issue not me.
- nfoz 13y ago
  I'm not trolling, it is a harmful business model that antagonizes their users. We will disagree, and that's fine.
  - nicolethenerd 13y ago
    You disagree with people creating value and selling it for money? Genuinely curious, what is immoral about that?
    - nfoz 13y ago
      Not at all. I consider it wholly inappropriate for people to be restricted from copying and sharing data, and believe copyright should be abolished for human good. Of course I'm ok with some speech restrictions for, say, privacy reasons. Nothing about creating value and selling it for money requires that I be prohibited in my rights about what I'm allowed to do with digital works, be they considered property or thought. Unfortunately copyright holds us back in this regard and builds an economic environment predicated on this offense.
  - cglace 13y ago
    Selling things is harmful?
    - dwaltrip 13y ago
      Look at this beautiful statue I've made! I have put it in a public area for everyone to enjoy. You may even take pictures, however you must pay me $5 for each picture you take. If your print out multiple copies of your picture, you must send a check to my address with the payment for each additional copy. Picture of statue = copy of software Public area = internet $5 per print fee = software license fee I am not even sure if I fully believe my own analogy, but I find it interesting to think about.

by nfoz 13y ago

JoeAltmaier 13y ago

Shame on you for judging. This was their business model. The software didn't exist; open source didn't create it. Wrong or not, there they were, like millions before them, creating value and wanting to be paid for it. I know you are trolling, but you made it a moral issue not me.

nfoz 13y ago
I'm not trolling, it is a harmful business model that antagonizes their users. We will disagree, and that's fine.
- nicolethenerd 13y ago
  You disagree with people creating value and selling it for money? Genuinely curious, what is immoral about that?
  - nfoz 13y ago
    Not at all. I consider it wholly inappropriate for people to be restricted from copying and sharing data, and believe copyright should be abolished for human good. Of course I'm ok with some speech restrictions for, say, privacy reasons. Nothing about creating value and selling it for money requires that I be prohibited in my rights about what I'm allowed to do with digital works, be they considered property or thought. Unfortunately copyright holds us back in this regard and builds an economic environment predicated on this offense.
- cglace 13y ago
  Selling things is harmful?
  - dwaltrip 13y ago
    Look at this beautiful statue I've made! I have put it in a public area for everyone to enjoy. You may even take pictures, however you must pay me $5 for each picture you take. If your print out multiple copies of your picture, you must send a check to my address with the payment for each additional copy. Picture of statue = copy of software Public area = internet $5 per print fee = software license fee I am not even sure if I fully believe my own analogy, but I find it interesting to think about.