Piracy and where it doesn't belong

Zomby Woof wrote:

David S. Wallens wrote: There was no sarcasm. Or maybe we just become communists--all working together for the common good. We'll deliver content for free, Zomby Wolf can stand at a machine for free

I do stand around a lot at work, but they do expect me to fix those machines occasionally. I also expect to get paid. What I don't expect, is to get paid again every time the machine starts and runs after I fix it.

You might change your tune if each repair job costs you $50,000 in hard costs (meaning before you even get a chance to pay for the labor or overhead involved). Or you might just say eff it, since nobody cares that you spent that money so 50,000 people could share the fix, and expecting all who benefited from it to pay their share. Even Henry Reardon expected people to pay every single time they rode on his rails.

The bitch of it is, groovy-share accounting is actually a two-way street, while straight Ayn Rand capitalism is one clear direction paved with cash. You can't mix and match as it suits your convenience.

Margie

I was in a few bands that couldnt give away our music for free.

In reply to aircooled: I was attempting to be PC in my verbiage, but you are correct. Even street dealers don't give out "candy" to kids anymore, double the time for dealing within 500 feet (yards?) of a school.

Marjorie Suddard wrote:

Zomby Woof wrote:

David S. Wallens wrote: There was no sarcasm. Or maybe we just become communists--all working together for the common good. We'll deliver content for free, Zomby Wolf can stand at a machine for free

I do stand around a lot at work, but they do expect me to fix those machines occasionally. I also expect to get paid. What I don't expect, is to get paid again every time the machine starts and runs after I fix it.

You might change your tune if each repair job costs you $50,000 in hard costs (meaning before you even get a chance to pay for the labor or overhead involved). Or you might just say eff it, since nobody cares that you spent that money so 50,000 people could share the fix, and expecting all who benefited from it to pay their share. Even Henry Reardon expected people to pay every single time they rode on his rails. The bitch of it is, groovy-share accounting is actually a two-way street, while straight Ayn Rand capitalism is one clear direction paved with cash. You can't mix and match as it suits your convenience. Margie

Dude you said you were over Ayn Rand.

I still love her stuff.

Anyway, there is a point. Hank Reardon was selling intellectual property, that metal and his patent. You guys are selling your IP, too. ZW, douchebaggish as he is said to be, does a great job fixing that machine as a service, not as an IP license. If he designed the machine and held patents on it such that it could not be duplicated the situation would be different.

IP vs services vs products. They are not the same. The pdf is IP as well as a product. They'd suffer from a theft of that the same way that someone could copy and paste the article under their name.

tuna55 wrote: Anyway, there is a point. Hank Reardon was selling intellectual property, that metal and his patent. You guys are selling your IP, too. ZW, douchebaggish as he is said to be, does a great job fixing that machine as a service, not as an IP license. If he designed the machine and held patents on it such that it could not be duplicated the situation would be different. IP vs services vs products. They are not the same. The pdf is IP as well as a product. They'd suffer from a theft of that the same way that someone could copy and paste the article under their name.

Thank you. So many people just refuse to grasp this point, because it's an "inconvenient truth".