Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LINUX -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. Charters who wrote (1944)	12/14/1999 12:54:00 AM
From: JC Jaros	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2615

The answer is: The only reason M$ is making money is because the government hasn't remedied them yet. Prior to that, it's just an archaic tax law on the books (M$ tax). Seat licenses are for multi-level marketeers (and marketees). Bill Gates is going down - and so are the majors (record companies): brandnewday.mp3 (IMO) -JCJ Edit: E- Both the record companies and Bill Gates will be replaced by the telephone company.

To: E. Charters who wrote (1944)	12/14/1999 3:40:00 AM
From: Mitch Blevins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2615

how do you propose that shareware software writers get paid for their product? Why should I care how shareware software writers (or any software writers, for that matter) get paid for their product? I don't care how kite-flyers get paid for flying kites, so why should software be any different? If I advocated the use of mud-flaps on trucks to help minimize the amount of flying pebbles and other debris on the roadways, then would you ask me how I expect car-windshield-repairers to get paid? Don't car-windshield-repairers have to eat? What if all the car-windshield-repairers stopped working and retired from society in an Ayn Randian version of "AtGlass Shrugged"? They are a lazy lot after all... Should I be as worried about this scenario as I am of your own version that you paint of "Kernigan and Ritchie Shrugged"? I think copyright as applied to software is a "necessary evil". Software patents, on the other hand, are a totally unnecessary evil. I also believe that the world is changing to make software copyright a less-necessary evil... less necessary than it was in the past. So the question is: What makes it necessary? and What makes it evil? I'll start with what makes it evil (because that is more fun). Software copyright is evil because it limits the freedom of what a person can do with information. You can't give a copy to your friend and you can't load a copy of it on more than one machine (without paying up). A side effect of software copyright is that you usually cannot see or change the source code, and adapt it better to your needs, add to it, etc. As any good engineer will tell you, a synonym for evil is inefficient. Not being able to make multiple copies of your favorite program and give them to your friends is inefficient because: (1) it benefits your friends, and (2) it would not directly create anymore work for the people involved. Hmmm... more product without any extra work. This seems the most efficient to me. Likewise, having a piece of software that is useless to me because I cannot see the code to modify one line and make it work with my printer is also inefficient (aka evil). So, what makes it necessary? It is necessary because it is the only proven method we know of to produce enough software and distribute it to the people who need it. By "proven" I mean that it is the only way to make software production and distribution approximate our (highly successful) free-market used for the production and distribution of physical goods. If physical goods could be copied as easily as software, the capatalistic market as we know it would break down. One might argue that if physical goods could be copied as easily as software, then we wouldn't need money or markets anyway... if I want a car, then I'll just make a copy of my neighbors. But this begs the question of: Who created the car in the first place? Would your neighbor even have a car for you to copy if there wasn't a system in place to encourage the engineering and other hard work needed to produce the first car? What about newer models? Would we just keep copying the same car over and over? What about advertising and transportation? Would the manufacturer and dealer have any incentive to advertise so that you know which cars are available? Would the cars be transported to your local dealer? I think that the thought experiment of imagining a world where any physical good is easily copied can help shed light on just why Copyright might be necessary. Why is software copyrights less necessary now than in ancient history (6-15 years ago)? Two reasons: 1) The advertising and transportation issues are largely solved for software. There is basically a zero-cost to advertise and distribute a piece of software online. With search engines, users can find the software that they need without the need for the author/manufacturer to buy advertising. Copyright is used to generate money to pay for advertising and distribution (especially in shrink-wrap software). Since these problems are now solved, there is one less reason to need copyright (and all its evilness... err.. inefficiencies). 2) Engineering a car is a very difficult and labor-intensive task, with many barriers to entry. Software used to be the same, but not so much anymore. Now computers are abundant and the tools and knowledge to program them is freely available. More and more people know how to program (and enjoy it). Returning to our car analogy, it is easy to imagine that many interesting and useful cars would come into existence if society was filled with a bunch of gear-heads and plentiful tools. Even if the work of the gear-heads could be copied easily, thus denying them compensation for their tinkering and other hard work, they would still want to build, modify, and improve cars. In conclusion, if you HALT: POSTING LENGTH LIMIT REACHED