In article m, Rob
wrote:
On 27/03/2011 09:48, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com,

I also like the 'free' and 'open' ways of doing things for many
purposes. But I also think it is a matter for the individual author or
performer if they want to only provide their work in return for an
income. Up to them to state their terms, and for others to decide if
they want the result enough to agree, or go without.


Yes well. It all becomes utterly circular at this point. Don't people
have to engage with the industry to produce and distribute music (etc)
in the first place.

Nope. At present people can and do:

Go and perform for friends or in clubs or bars or other places. Either as
amateurs of for a whip around or for some payment.

Produce music and put it on the net and invite people to try it - either
for free or in exchange for some money.

etc.

As I said, we have a 'mixed' situation where people have options.

I like the idea of internet, unfettered, distribution for example, but
it's too disorganised for people like me - I don't have the time or
energy . . .

Your legal and moral choice to not use. Not (legally) your choice to simply
make a pirate copy of material *without* permission. If you interest is so
weak that you can't be bothered then don't bother. No-one else is
compelling you so far as I know.


Consider Linux. I like this partly because of how it works. But also I
like the free and open approach. I'd love to see more computer users
adopt this. But I don't want to ban Microsoft or Apple or change the
law so that anyone could copy and use their softwareware for free. I'm
happy for the two approaches to compete. My only concern is that
people have a fair view of what is on offer so they can decide on a
well-informed basis, and either contribute/pay and use on the basis
they decide suits them best.


I see your point, but don't agree. People use Microsoft because it's
ubiquitous, not because it's especially good or good value.

I agree. However what seems "wrong" about that to me is the situation where
they either don't know they have any choice, or are mislead, or are forced
by circumstances that remove their choice - e.g. by working in a place
where it is dictated to them that they can't choose anything else. It is
these factors that control or limit their ability to make a free and
well-informed choice that are the problem in my view. You can't have a
meaningful 'choice' if you are denied the relevant info, mislead, or forced
which option to take.

I have no doubt that Microsoft exploit this situation. I'd expect that as
their interest is making money. So to deal with it we require others to
change how these free market distortions, etc, arise.


I think
copyright has served to reinforce that position. And it's not a case of
'fair view' - students frequently invest obscene amounts of money (they
don't appear to have) on 'MS computers' because they feel they have to.

And I (and many others) keep having to pay a 'Microsoft Tax' since when we
buy a new set of hardware it comes 'bundled' with an operating system and
apps I don't want and don't use. Again, this lack of the simple option of
being able to always choose *not* to have that seems unreasonable.

In theory you can reclaim what you paid for the unwanted pre-installed OS,
etc. But try this and see how you get on. Has anyone *ever* succeeded? And
why should you have to be put thought this for something you didn't want in
the first place when they could easily be a choice at the start?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html