The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Jb]

"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g88lc3$hgc$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Mike Parker wrote:
>>
>> No, I'm not. My assertion is that the creator of a thing has a right to
>> determine if and how that thing will be distributed to others. The rest
>> of the world doesn't suddenly get to decide that they can distribute the
>> thing freely just because they can. If I create a PC game, I dictate if
>> it's freeware or commercial -- not the users.
>
> your train of thought here is going backwards. No one "suddenly" decided
> to take away the right to control distribution from the creator.
> That right never existed in the first place.

No rights exist a priori, and it adds nothing to this discusion to point 
that out.

We can only talk about rights in the context of what society decides we 
have, or what we think those rights should be.

So if society decided we have the right to control distribution of our work, 
then we do have those rights.


>> At the end of the day, everyone has to make a living. Contrary to some
>> assertions, I don't see that as an emotional argument. There's nothing
>> illogical about the need to put food on the table. No one disputes the
>> right of a carpenter to be paid for his work, nor for a doctor to be
>> paid for his (though some would dispute the amount). Why, then, is it so
>> difficult to accept that a software developer should be compensated for
>> his work as well? Or a musician?
>
> no one disputes that the artist/software developer should be able to
> earn a living.

But you do seem to want to dictate how they do so. And you seem to want to 
dictate that they make their living in a way that best benefits you.


> what I'm trying to say here is that allowing free distribution of music
> online makes it easier for a young new artist (or software developer) to
> achieve his goals (becoming a known artist). I claim that we'll find
> our selves in a world where the independent creators, the garage bands
> and bedroom software developers, have _NOT_ gone the way of the dodo but
> rather flourish.

You obviously dont know many people who do this or else you'd know that the 
vast majority of bands / artist online, still SELL their music. They dont 
give it away for free, yes sometimes they give some tracks for free, or have 
listen online thingmebobs, for promotional reasons, but they dont give all 
their music away for free.

And in fact the real benefit of the internet for these people is free and 
cheap access to distribution / the public, not distribution of their work 
for free.

Small software developers in the pro audio industry have flourished because 
of easy entry to the market. They havn't flourished by giving their software 
away for free and hoping somone will drop a few pennies in the honesty box.


> Another example - current state of the legal system makes it harder for
> two teams of OSS to work together since they are afraid of legal
> consequences. (phobos and tango)
> in a more free legal system we wouldn't find ourselves waiting for more
> than a year since one author is afraid of taint and possibly getting
> sued in the future duo to it. the absurd is that both projects provide
> freely redistributable code and yet there are still fears of taint.

In a more free legal system there might never have been a phobos, or a 
digital mars. If Walter and the company he worked for couldnt have protected 
their investment its likely none of us would be here chatting now.

Capitalism, and property rights, are what has made western societys so 
prosperous, they encourage investment and enterprise.

Just because such laws / rights sometimes have negative effects doesnt mean 
they are all bad, and should be scrapped.


> If you ever watched "sliders" than you'd probably seen the episode where
> they slid to a world with 85% of the population having law degrees. in
> that world you had to provide a full health record and a signed and
> legally approved note that you wouldn't sue just to buy a hamburger.

Have you heard of the USSR? Of China? Of North Korea?

There's some real world examples, not sci fi jibberish, of why having weak
property rights is bad for enterprise and economy. Just look at how China
has flourished since it embraced capatalism.