There is a big difference between an item that a reasonable purchaser expects to have value for as long as they own it versus an item that only will have value until a fixed point in time after which it will be worthless.
I think it's wonderful that Amanda Palmer raised $100k, but it's by using a super paywall called Kickstarter. How do you think the Kickstarter funders are going to feel if one of them just makes a zillion copies for their friends? Someone will feel ripped off.
Actually so far Amanda Palmer has raised ~$700K.
I am one of the backers of that project, and I fully expect that the album she's planning on producing will be available on the internet for free, and you know what? I don't care. I didn't back the project solely to get the album and artwork. I backed it because I really like what Amanda Palmer does and I wanted to support this next creation of hers.
The fact that tons of other people will get to experience what she creates because I helped fund her is a positive for me, it doesn't make me feel ripped off.
Actually, I think that postage stamps sell at a loss otherwise the post office wouldn't be losing money. So perhaps the percentage of the profits is a loss and Frank Gaylord owes the Post Office some money?
After all the price you pay for the stamp is for the stamp itself plus the delivery of a piece of mail.
The argument I frequently make when discussing this with friends and family is that the culture of your childhood should be in the public domain for you to use to create new culture when you're in your 20's and most likely to be creating new culture.
Re: Re: Re: License: CC by NC SA(aka Creative Commons, Non-Commercial Sharealike)
Thanks that was very informative.
Having read through that page, I think it should explicitly state something it implied about commercial use.
If one of the big traditional media producers wants to use your content commercially, say in a Hollywood movie or TV commercial, they will not just use it with a BY-SA licence any more than they would use it with a NC license.
Instead if they want to use it and not release their containing content with a BY-SA (which we know they don't) then they will still contact the creator of the content to arrange for different licensing terms (probably with some financial agreement).
This is why the BY-SA is just as effective as the BY-SA-NC at preventing the exploitative use the people selecting the NC license probably wanted to prevent.
I have to say that patronage is useful for new video producers, but once you've got fans, you've got potential patrons.
I really believe that there are some canceled shows that could use something like kickstarter to get $10 million for 5 new shows. That's only $10/fan if there are a million fans.
I'd pledge $25 for 5 new episodes of Firefly!
As long as they get produced and I can obtain them (on DVD or download) for my patronage, it doesn't matter to me if the producers can get more money from those episodes. Actually that can only benefit me by creating more fans and lowering my needed contribution to additional episodes.
I have to disagree with this stated purpose of patents.
The function of the patent system isn't to maximize the profits of inventors. Rather, it's to provide inventors with sufficient incentives to ensure they continue innovating.
While the purpose of patents is not maximize the profits of inventors it also is not to provide inventors with incentives to invent.
The purpose of patents is to encourage inventors to PUBLISH the details needed for someone else to recreate their non-obvious invention.
The idea is that in return for a limited time monopoly, the details of the invention are made public for everyone to use and build upon after a time. Otherwise inventions would always be closely guarded trade secrets, and many would be (in the past, probably not as much now) when the person guarding the secret dies without passing it on.
This is why patents should only be granted for tangible non-obvious inventions. (and this is where our current system has become incredibly broken).
Except pretty much no one has ever had to pay to read a book, they could borrow it from a library, or they could borrow it from a friend.
I tend to buy books for 2 reasons, first I like to own a copy of a book I enjoyed so I know it is available for me to read it again and lend it to others, and second, I want to support the author so they'll write more books that I can enjoy.
In that 2nd case, I don't actually look at it as recompense for the book already created, but more as support and encouragement for a future creation.
I don't think anyone here feels that Amazon shouldn't be allowed to decide which books it wants to sell and which ones it doesn't.
The issue most people here have w/ this story is that it is yet another example of DRM causing issues. In this case allowing Amazon to "come into your house and take back a book that they don't think you should have".
That isn't to say that people don't agree with fogbugzd (above) that a company is restricting its customer base and thereby losing potential profits by acting as the "Morality Police".
I agree with him and with you. For example I was very happy to hear about Google deciding that they would no longer censor results for the Chinese government. That could be considered a moral stand that would cost the company money. (I'm not sure I know how that has played out in the end.)
OTOH, I don't like Amazon censoring what books it sells (although I believe it is totally their right to do so). But that is mostly because I liked to think that if I wanted to buy any book, it would available at Amazon. Censoring books like this means that is less likely. It also means I may look elsewhere first when looking for a book, even if they do carry it.
Other large companies censor what they sell. I don't believe that either Netflix or Blockbuster offer any "adult" titles.