Michael Fötsch wrote: > Russ Karlberg wrote: >>> That's why most people who develop free (as in freedom) >>> software commercially usually primarily use other methods of making money >>> from it, such as selling support services and making paid-for >>> customisations. >> Well, OK, I can see that business model working for some types of software. >> But for things like games and packaged software, I'm not sure most people >> really care about support or customizations. > > Maybe "software as a product" (packaged software) is a business model of the > past. (Just like packaged music isn't as profitable for the music industry > anymore as they wish it was.) > > Is the software part of games really so much different from other types of > software? I could imagine that if game engines are a commodity and are > available as free software, that there's a lot of money to save during > development. Even fewer units sold, or sold at lower prizes, would turn this > into a profitable business. > > Or think about online games: Again, there's a lot of money to save by using > free software on the server side. What the company that hosts the game has to > offer are services that cannot be easily duplicated, like storage space, > bandwith, regular updates, a community, etc. > > And then, who says that the artwork in a game must be under the same license > terms as the software? > > What if you are free to copy the code, but you still cannot copy the graphics > and music *for commercial purposes*? Before anyone jumps at me, let me quote > Richard Stallman (again, from "Misinterpreting Copyright--A Series of > Errors"): > > "So perhaps novels, dictionaries, computer programs, songs, symphonies, and > movies should have different durations of copyright, so that we can reduce the > duration for each kind of work to what is necessary for many such works to be > published. Perhaps movies over one hour long could have a twenty-year > copyright, > because of the expense of producing them. [...]" > "For novels, and in general for works that are used for entertainment, > noncommer- > cial verbatim redistribution may be sufficient freedom for the readers." > > I don't think that games would need a twenty-year copyright (or how many > games from 1987 do you know that still make a profit for their publishers?); > maybe 5, 6, 7 years is enough. If this incentive is needed for games to be > produced, so be it. That's what copyright was meant for, in the first place. > > If you don't allow commercial distribution of the artwork, this would prevent > competitors from turning your work into a profit, before you had a chance to > recoup your expenses. I'd assume that ad-sponsored "warez" sites would > qualify as commercial as well, even though they don't charge for the > downloads. > > What is important is that non-commercial distribution would be allowed. First > of all, it seems it can't be stopped anyway, so why bother. Secondly, there's > not need to criminalize kids who swap games on the schoolyard. > > (Is it controversial on this list to suggest that artwork should be treated > differently than software? I'd really like to hear other people's thoughts on > this.) > >>> you can modify it if you wish, resell it or give it away for free, you can >>> contract other people to modify it if you don't have the time or the >>> experience.. [...] >> To me this seems to contradict the previous business model, if you can >> modify that software, give it away, hire someone else to maintain it, then >> you don't need a support contract and the company that spent years >> developing the software does not get compensated for their efforts. > > That's the usual thing to do, even without free software! If a company > outsources software development to another company, the *customer* usually > wants to keep the copyrights. Then they're free to hire a *different* company > than the one that did the original development for support and maintenance > work. > > What the free software mode changes is that the initial development becomes > less expensive, as it probably builds on existing free software. > > Kind Regards, > M.F. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for earth-friendly autos? > Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. > http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ > > _______________________________________________ > Advocate mailing list > [email protected] > http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
My viewpoint is that at least non-commercial, unmodified copying of all creative works should be allowed, because that's so easy to do with today's technology, and so many people want to do that. I think allowing other uses to be restricted probably still benefits the public (as it's generally officially supposed to do, and should do) as it allows more works to be made available. I also think the length of copyright should be reduced to 10 years maximum, as the vast majority of the profits are generally made in that time, and that would allow unrestricted use for everyone much more quickly than it does now. It's definitely true that software and artwork can be treated differently. Software is functional as it serves a purpose, whereas artwork is aesthetic. I think people should be allowed to modify all functional works, and distribute modified versions. Otherwise they can't control a part of their lives. For aesthetic artistic works, people often want to make derivative works, but that's less essential, so I think allowing the author/publisher to restrict the distribution of derivative works for a short time is probably still good for the public. I think restricting commercial distribution is a good distinction to make, as it doesn't interfer with people's general lives and their interactions with their friends, but it restricts a lot of large-scale distribution so it still gives a good incentive to authors (or more realistically, publishers). I think Richard's Stallman's article Misinterpreting Copyright is really good, and the approach that he advocates for copyright reform is the best way to go. I definitely recommend reading it. He also gives a speech with similar points called Copyright Versus Community. However, I completely disagree with him that modifying works of opinion is unethical, as long as you don't present the modified version as the original. Simply including a quote of someone's article involves distributing a modified version, and people sometimes want to modify works of opinion to use them in artistic works, such as sampling a speech in a piece of music. -- Please avoid sending me Microsoft Office files - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html. Don't get Windows Vista, get GNU/Linux - http://www.getgnulinux.org. _______________________________________________ Advocate mailing list [email protected] http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
