From a personal standpoint, I believe it is most important to focus efforts on dissuading people of the false notions they hold about copyrights and similarly obscure legal concepts, because society has, to a large extent, become ‘programmed’ ideologies that are fundamentally absurd.

The issue is not about economics (another area, incidentally, where ignorance reigns supreme) or even personal rights. The issues is about dealing with reality using terminology and communication techniques that are themselves realistic. Without these fundamental tenets, we cannot even expect to progress as a society. That is why I believe the GNU page is so great – read it all, and share it!!! =)

You can pay a programmer for the work he put into the program, without having to block that code for the rest of the world.

Without law suites between Apple and Samsung because of 9 lines of source code, or even because of smileys (This is really happening, these days).

—

And yes open source and free (not the money way, the real way) softwares are awesome. But you can’t give any software for free.
Some companies manage to create a product and give it away from free and still make money by helping people install it, by providing support etc.
But when you look at a software like, for example, guitar pro. What kind of help would people need? They wouldn’t need any. Were they giving it for free, they wouldn’t make a single penny and guitar pro would stop existing. Then what would be left? Tux guitar? I tried it once, it really isn’t on the same level.
For that kind of “complicated” software, if you want them to exists, you need someone very very motivated to make them (because there won’t be a community to help before you get the thing working and popular). And for some, the only possible motivation is money.
Plus some of these softwares need money to be created, even if people make them for free. E.g. guitar pro needed to record high-quality sound for many instruments and that is far from being free…

“You can’t think of the same way of physical object and virtual ones.”

Well, that’s the whole point. I agree. The point is: you should not try to sell virtual content the way you sell real stuff. It just doesn’t work.

In the 90’s the record labels had something special: they knew how to make and distribute content; we didn’t. They had added value.

Not any more. Today, recording, remixing and transporting content is almost free. We don’t need the content industry the way we did.

I don’t see any added value owning a cd.
You know what’s hot in Belgium these days?
The LP, the long play vinyl record.

The music industry is just a tool. It’s not about them, it’s about the artist. You buy a cd, 15€. Any idea how much goes to the artist? Well, it’s not a lot; rather just a fraction.
I would rather download the album and transfer the artist’s share directly.

A lot of middle men can be eliminated. They have to find some new way of making money. Like make LP’s. That’s fun; people are ready to pay, when the see added value.

I suggest a Copernican revolution. Turn the logic upside down.

The record labels should be consultants. An artist hires a record label to produce quality audio, instead of the record label owning the artists, the content and the distribution.

I do see other models that could work. In lots of branches.

It seems, it’s important to convince the artists it’s in their best interest.
And look … 3 billion people are only one mouse click away. How can anyone not see new possibilities?

We can find a way. Make the right people pay, make them pay for things we want to spend some money on.

Forget the cd model, embrace the new world.

———
But hey, enough about music.

Open source is built on the idea of frog leaping.
I can start where the other guy stopped.
I use the knowledge that was passed on; I remix it,
I use it to build something better.

If any one one can use some of my code, no problem, go ahead.

You do see how this can result in all parties evolving faster.

You also have a smaller footprint. You need fewer resources. Other programmers have spent time building secure login systems, anti injection filters, … Why waste time reinventing it?
You also know, if any leak is detected, you will find security updates fast.

In a non-open-source logic you would have to hire a security expert. That particular person might not find the solution to the problem. The community will.

Open source is not always free. Just Google Open source economy. Programmers are still being paid.

Put 1 dollar in an open source company. That dollar will be used to improve code.

That same dollar, in the hands of the copyright protected companies will be used to protect itself, to build a wall. It pays lawyers, advertising, anti copy technology, …
What’s left of that dollar, that is really used to improve the application, how much would that be?

“There are 3 star Michelin chefs; they put their recipies on their website, they even film the cooking and put it on youtube.
If you want to try copying their intellecual property … go ahaed, nobody is stopping you.
Putting the algorithm online for free does not harm their business. It raises interest; it’s free advertising.
You pay the chef for putting it all together. skill, knowlege, nice restaurant building, a network (of farmers, artisans…) that provides the best ingredients, …”
Because you cannot replicate it. With a music file, you can replicate it without knowing anything about how it was built etc.

“There is a whole new generation of musicians. They put all their songs on youtube. They get paid by filling concert halls.
Traveling around the world and playing live music is the way it should be. That’s what artists have been doing for thousands of years.”
They should be allowed to do that, not forced to.

“Playing a song once, recording it and expecting to be paid, for the rest of your life … that’s the new thing. That has only happend for a few decades. That is the indecent thing.
The 90′s are over, by the way.”
Are you suggesting they shouldn’t be paid AT ALL for recording the song? And if not, where is the limit? One month? One year? A given sum? That’s still copyright, even if it is limited.

“Another business: fashion. There is no intellectual property. See this TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
One quote: asked how they can still make money if anyone can copy: “The poeple buying copied clothes are not our customers”.”
You can’t think of the same way of physical object and virtual ones. Music files can be copied by anyone so people get it “for free” whereas when they buy clothes, they have to choose between the original and the copies. They have to pay in both cases and the products aren’t 100% similar.

“By the way, in the “WHAT TO WATCH NEXT” section, you’ll find good talks.”
Very nice talks indeed 🙂

“I’m just saying: there are a lot of examples to show intellectual property is not strictly needed to make money. There are several models that work.”
Yes but there are some fields where it is needed, or at least I can’t see any alternative. And one is music. You could compare making an album to the chiefs explaining how to cook their things but it really isn’t the same thing. Recording a song take a lot of time because you want it to be perfect and that work should be rewarded, even if rewarding for a lifetime is a bit long.

“And I haven’t even started talking about programming.
The guys who wrote Apache (80% of the servers!!) were not paid by Fidel Castro.”
But maybe they deserved and wanted to?
About software, there are two very different cases: people doing it in order to win money and people just doing it because they want it done and then sharing with others. The second case is really cool and some softwares made in such mind help many people BUT the authors CHOSE to do it that way, they weren’t forced into releasing their work for free.

This just isn’t true. It never has, it never will.
Mozart was doing just fine without ACTA and PIPA. And without communism.
Artists produce because of the art it self.

There are 3 star Michelin chefs; they put their recipies on their website, they even film the cooking and put it on youtube.
If you want to try copying their intellecual property … go ahaed, nobody is stopping you.
Putting the algorithm online for free does not harm their business. It raises interest; it’s free advertising.
You pay the chef for putting it all together. skill, knowlege, nice restaurant building, a network (of farmers, artisans…) that provides the best ingredients, …

There is a whole new generation of musicians. They put all their songs on youtube. They get paid by filling concert halls.
Traveling around the world and playing live music is the way it should be. That’s what artists have been doing for thousands of years.

Playing a song once, recording it and expecting to be paid, for the rest of your life … that’s the new thing. That has only happend for a few decades. That is the indecent thing.
The 90’s are over, by the way.

Another business: fashion. There is no intellectual property. See this TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
One quote: asked how they can still make money if anyone can copy: “The poeple buying copied clothes are not our customers”.

By the way, in the “WHAT TO WATCH NEXT” section, you’ll find good talks.

I’m just saying: there are a lot of examples to show intellectual property is not strictly needed to make money. There are several models that work.

And I haven’t even started talking about programming.
The guys who wrote Apache (80% of the servers!!) were not paid by Fidel Castro.

Some Belgian guy.

Great Post nonetheless!