3 ms·

"Now we have incredible machines that can reproduce intellectual property almost infinitely" I think the main problem with this line of thinking is that it tak

"Now we have incredible machines that can reproduce intellectual property almost infinitely" I think the main problem with this line of thinking is that it takes nothing to reproduce IP, but creating it takes thousands (and sometimes more) man-hours. "A third: Many creative people are motivated to do great things withhout payment. Remember, all those FOSS creators, from RMS to Linus Torvalds to Tim Berners-Lee to every little FOSS project on Github." https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=linus+torvald+net+worth https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=linus+torvald+net+worth Linus has a net worth of ~$150 million. So I'm not sure if this is a good example of someone creating FOSS out of the kindness of his heart. RMS makes money through autographs, donations from big organizations, and winning prizes likes this: http://tech.mit.edu/V121/N59/59stallman.59n.html http://tech.mit.edu/V121/N59/59stallman.59n.html Again, he's making a very good living by pretty much anyone's standard. "Remember also Van Gogh and millions of other starving artists you have and haven't heard of (quick, name a poet who cashed in on their life's work). Perhaps financial renumeration, while fair, isn't entirely necessary (and perhaps we'd have less crap with less of it)." 10 years ago, I remember many people saying the exact same thing that you are saying now. The result has been less developers actually being hired. With so much free software out there, why would a business want to hire an actual engineer when they can hire a software mechanic (at a much lower wage)? Since the engineered parts are given away for free with so much free sofware, it makes the choice pretty easy. Intellectual property has made it so with basically a computer/tablet/phone/very little startup capital, anyone has a real chance at making a living. Why are we actively trying to take away a very good way for social mobility? It already happened in the music industry. Before the explosion of piracy, an indy artist could make a living selling music. Because of piracy, music is pretty much seen as worthless, which is what piracy does: It's not stealing, it's counterfeiting. Which completely devalues the item being counterfeited.

hackuser 11y ago
There are strong points, but I feel like they sharpen the details and don't address the main argument. For example, it's true there are exceptions regarding income but many haven't cashed in and I doubt Torvalds and Stallman did their creative work, at least initially, looking for a big payoff. And there are many more examples, most scientists for instance. > With so much free software out there, why would a business want to hire an actual engineer when they can hire a software mechanic (at a much lower wage)? ... Why are we actively trying to take away a very good way for social mobility? On one hand, that's a very good point. On the other, it's hypocritical for our industry to complain about jobs lost to efficiencies; much of what the IT industry does is replace human labor with computers or 'disrupt' whole industries. That's the 'creative destruction' of the free market, finding more productive solutions and shifting now-unneeded resources to something new. Should we maintain IP barriers so that engineers can be paid to create something that already exists? > It already happened in the music industry. Before the explosion of piracy, an indy artist could make a living selling music. Agreed, but before the explosion of recording technology, indie artists made money from performances. The technology changed then, now has changed again, and will change yet again. The business model built on last generation's tech isn't sacrosanct. I don't mean to be callous about people's jobs or suggest I have the answers, but I think we can do much better than graft the old IP system onto the new technology.

hackuser 11y ago

There are strong points, but I feel like they sharpen the details and don't address the main argument. For example, it's true there are exceptions regarding income but many haven't cashed in and I doubt Torvalds and Stallman did their creative work, at least initially, looking for a big payoff. And there are many more examples, most scientists for instance. > With so much free software out there, why would a business want to hire an actual engineer when they can hire a software mechanic (at a much lower wage)? ... Why are we actively trying to take away a very good way for social mobility? On one hand, that's a very good point. On the other, it's hypocritical for our industry to complain about jobs lost to efficiencies; much of what the IT industry does is replace human labor with computers or 'disrupt' whole industries. That's the 'creative destruction' of the free market, finding more productive solutions and shifting now-unneeded resources to something new. Should we maintain IP barriers so that engineers can be paid to create something that already exists? > It already happened in the music industry. Before the explosion of piracy, an indy artist could make a living selling music. Agreed, but before the explosion of recording technology, indie artists made money from performances. The technology changed then, now has changed again, and will change yet again. The business model built on last generation's tech isn't sacrosanct. I don't mean to be callous about people's jobs or suggest I have the answers, but I think we can do much better than graft the old IP system onto the new technology.