LimeWire Shuts Down After Losing Court Battle With The RIAA.

A lot of musician do, and give away their music for free. Actually, you will find that most people complaining about illegal sharing are not the musicians, but agents, producers and all these guys wearing suits. Musicians usually get a tiny percentage of the record sale profits. I used to work for a publishing company. Authors get paid around 10% of the money made by books. And we were some of the best payers in the market.

The concept of "how are musicians going to make money if files are freely shared" is another problem. We could discuss this but it would be going too much off topic. (Idea: make money out of concerts. Use free music sharing as promotion). The point is restricting free copy is immoral, and something should be done about that.

software piracy :

good if it's companies like MS and the likes
bad if it's a small company or a group of developpers

music piracy :

AWESOME !

@rahmu I disagree with your reasoning. Software and music and videos should not be copyrighted because they're ideas? They're not just ideas. There's work that goes into them, sometimes a lot of work.
And it is the right and prerogative of each author, artist, musician, programmer and moviemaker to charge for their work as they see fit. I don't see that as immoral.
I think it's great that many creators give away their work for free, and I've done the same in some cases, but I don't think that's a moral imperative.

It's not a one way or the other. It's not impossible to get paid and share your work at the same time. Living off an idea is an archaic way of thinking, dating back from the days where copying a file was still a tedious process.

I do not want to expand on the subject right here, a lot could be said. I'm simply going to give you a quick idea:

Let's take music for example. You probably know that music is one of the oldest art forms, existing way before the invention of writing (over 5000 years ago). For most of its history, music was a lucrative business. Bards and other minstrels would earn a living by performing for an audience. It wasn't until the invention of the recording process that musicians could now make money by ... staying at home, or go to the beach, while waiting for records to sell. Basically they put an idea on a disk, and waited for that idea to become lucrative.

Moreover here's a fucked up thing. They are allowed to sell their rights. Which means that some guy with a suit would go up to them give them a little bit of money and now HE would become rich on account of selling THEIR idea. I always found it very fucked up that Michael Jackson owned the rights on the sales of the Beatles CD (a billion+ album sold franchise).

I guess big majors got you thinking that protecting their "work" is the only way of getting artists paid. A worst thing is that they defined an industry as a production industry when it never was! By shifting back to a performance industry, artists could now embrace the technology instead of fight it. A musician would (and should) make a living off his real work which means getting off his ass and going on tour, making concerts, giving interviews, public/radio appearances. Their music would be shared to promote their songs and try to fill concert places.

However this kind of talking is very scary for every person working in the music industry today. It basically mean that a lot of people will lose their jobs, salaries will get a lot lower. But hey it bothers me that Justin Timberlake makes millions of dollars, simply because he "looks so darn manly when he dances". Not to mention the CEO of EMI who most probably is not an artist but still makes enough to go to Hawai every year on account of his "music" work.

The fact still remains:
In the information era, it is a delusion to think you can sell an idea..

Sorry for hijacking the thread with our discussion.

@rahmu I guess we have different views. But I'm interested in what you're saying.

Where does something cease to be an idea and become a product worth paying for, in your opinion?
By your logic, do you give away your software solutions for free to your clients? (I'm assuming you're a developer, I don't really know)

I give away my drawings for free, I like seeing people use them for their website, print them for their walls, tattoo them. Someone tattooed a drawing of mine! I thought that was so cool. I didn't mind.

Once I complete any games or music I'm working on, I'd like to give them away for free as well.
But I know that I'd also like to develop certain software, or games, and sell them at a price. People don't have to buy. That will be my problem, not theirs.

Do you think all software should be for free? All games, apps, Adobe suites, and so on and so forth?

Some people have a sweet setup where they volunteer their code to open source software, and make money from selling books, and giving lectures (to follow the singer/concert logic.) But aren't those ideas too?

Bassem wroteWhere does something cease to be an idea and become a product worth paying for, in your opinion?

- A product is material, tangible. It can break, get old, get repaired. For example a book is a product. Its content is not.
- A product can be used the way I want. Its use cannot be forced upon me by its creator. For example if I want to use a really fashionable cup like an ahstray, the cup maker cannot forbid me to do so.
- I can sell back a product I bought. If I bought it, I am allowed to resell it. It's not the case for DRM'd media.
- A product can be modified the way I want. That's not the case with intellectual property today (can you reproduce a song by changing a simple verse without dealing with copyright issues?)

By your logic, do you give away your software solutions for free to your clients? (I'm assuming you're a developer, I don't really know)

Yes I do. You probably heard of Open Source. Actually most of my code comes from code that IS given away by others for free. It only feels natural that I give my software back. I work for a bank, I maintain a software that is used internally. There's no selling process involved. If I were self-employed, I wouldn't sell the software, rather sell my time. That means providing services like install, maintenance, support, training, ... (Just like a musician sells his time by performing).

I give away my drawings for free, I like seeing people use them for their website, print them for their walls, tattoo them. Someone tattooed a drawing of mine! I thought that was so cool. I didn't mind.

Once I complete any games or music I'm working on, I'd like to give them away for free as well.
But I know that I'd also like to develop certain software, or games, and sell them at a price. People don't have to buy. That will be my problem, not theirs.

Allowing copy and modification of your idea does not mean that you couldn't make money out of it.

Do you think all software should be for free? All games, apps, Adobe suites, and so on and so forth?

Yes, and for a greater cause. Software is usually the result of lots of research, man hours put into building this. It would be great if anyone was allowed to modify it. Think about it this way:

Windows is a masterpiece of software development. The people who worked on it might very well be the best software scientists of the planet (actually Microsoft has one of the most selective hiring process in the industry, and they're known for it). Unfortunately today, the only people allowed to exploit this wealth and build upon it are Microsoft themselves. Wouldn't it be better if anyone could simply grab this wealth and add his own knowledge? Wouldn't it drive human knowledge forth?

Some people have a sweet setup where they volunteer their code to open source software, and make money from selling books, and giving lectures (to follow the singer/concert logic.) But aren't those ideas too?

Look at my definition of a product (vs an idea). A book is a product, its content is not. A lecture is a performance. The idea would be what was said in the conference. What would happen if the content of a conference was copyrighted and no one was allowed to reproduce it.


I don't know if I'm making myself clear enough. Simply put here it goes:
We reached today means of sharing ideas faster than ever before. It opens a door for global collaboration on human research. It's a pity that we are still limiting this process. Businesses who will try to fight it (by pushing copyright and patents issues) are doomed to lose in the end. It is up to every professional to understand the world we live in and how to take advantage of it.

I also want to fight the idea that if ideas were given away for free, people wouldn't work anymore. Copyright laws are here to motivate creativity. That is absolutely incorrect. The Open Source showed it again and again.

Finally, I'm sorry we're moving away from the original thread (although the deviation is not that great). I simply find the discussion interesting and worth discussing. If it's ok with the original poster, I would even encourage people to participate in our little "aparte".

@rahmu: I like your ideas, I really do. Unfortunately, those ideas do not apply to the world we're living in. They do not apply to the common human nature. I've taken a very interesting Consumer Behavior course which basically teaches you how people think, what motivates them, and how they behave before/during/after a purchase process. By reading your previous posts, it's obvious that you're the type of person who is a professional. Professionals usually care about the quality of their work, the good of humanity and solving problems much more than they care about money. They have very different motives from a business man whose main concern is to increase his income (and the income of the enterprise he's working for).

I've mentioned all this stuff to make things clear: the majority of humans are innately selfish and would do anything for money. You cannot expect someone to put hours and hours of work for the good of humanity. The idea appeals to me, alot! But then again I think of the fact that I'm still a young guy trying to make some money in order to provide myself with a bright future. Money is not my only concern, but it is one of the more important ones. I personally wish I could become one of the greatest programmers of all time, that's a huge motivation for me. But achieving that dream cannot stop me from making money out of the software/websites I intend to build, I have to live and survive after all.

Now let's not talk about ourselves for a moment. I'm sure you've worked with several clients before and you have a clear idea of their mindset. Do you really think a client would be generous enough to acknowledge your efforts to install the software, train the operator and maintain it? Yes it is true that those tasks are much worth than writing the code of the software itself, but does the client really know that? A client would go to some other developer who charges $5 less than you do. Trust me, it happens to me on a regular basis. You meet the client, you give him the lowest price you believe is actually worth your time, and yet they eventually resort to their incompetent "friend developer" who's willing do them a favor for $200-$300.

Kassem wrote@rahmu: I like your ideas, I really do. Unfortunately, those ideas do not apply to the world we're living in. They do not apply to the common human nature. I've taken a very interesting Consumer Behavior course which basically teaches you how people think, what motivates them, and how they behave before/during/after a purchase process. By reading your previous posts, it's obvious that you're the type of person who is a professional. Professionals usually care about the quality of their work, the good of humanity and solving problems much more than they care about money. They have very different motives from a business man whose main concern is to increase his income (and the income of the enterprise he's working for).

Here are some numbers, all done in working in open source:

- Linus Torvalds' salary in 2005 (has greatly increased since): 200 000$/year
- HP made 2 billion dollars on their Linux servers (not the total of their open source work) in 2009. That's 2 000 000 000$
- IBM made 18 billion dollars on their Linux business (servers + services) in 2008. That's 20% of their total revenue.
- Red Hat makes around 750 million dollars per year in revenues.
- Richard Stallman was paid 250$/hour for his services back in 1983. Considering he worked 7 hours a day (which is way too little) that would be 40 000$ a month. Back in 84.
- Andrew Morton is one of the top paid employees at Google (couldn't find any public data on his salary). His is basically paid a fortune to write open source software (he's one of the main coders of Linux).

For the last time, there's a LOT of money to be made in open source.

I've mentioned all this stuff to make things clear: the majority of humans are innately selfish and would do anything for money. You cannot expect someone to put hours and hours of work for the good of humanity. The idea appeals to me, alot! But then again I think of the fact that I'm still a young guy trying to make some money in order to provide myself with a bright future. Money is not my only concern, but it is one of the more important ones. I personally wish I could become one of the greatest programmers of all time, that's a huge motivation for me. But achieving that dream cannot stop me from making money out of the software/websites I intend to build, I have to live and survive after all.

The moral aspect is not the only one. There is money to be made. Why not ally both?

Now let's not talk about ourselves for a moment. I'm sure you've worked with several clients before and you have a clear idea of their mindset. Do you really think a client would be generous enough to acknowledge your efforts to install the software, train the operator and maintain it? Yes it is true that those tasks are much worth than writing the code of the software itself, but does the client really know that? A client would go to some other developer who charges $5 less than you do. Trust me, it happens to me on a regular basis. You meet the client, you give him the lowest price you believe is actually worth your time, and yet they eventually resort to their incompetent "friend developer" who's willing do them a favor for $200-$300.

What you're suffering from is normal. You've just started. You need to make a name for yourself. Here again, Open Source is a great way of doing so. Pick a project, any project. Become a regular contributor. It'll give you a great competitive edge. It's no surprise that the first question I was asked by Google during interview was whether I contribute to Open Source projects.

Moreover services are absolute vital part. YES, clients will pay for install, train and maintain. Banks for example don't know shit about IT. They are more than willing to pay a "consultant" to install and maintain a product, whether it's open source or proprietary. Actually, open source allow them to cut great costs on licenses.

REMINDER EVERYONE (I am the mod after all): This topic is not about how to make money in open source. Let's not deviate too much. We're talking about the RIAA, intellectual properties, and whether it should or should not be legal to share media files. Basically, we're talking about copyrights and what do you think about them.