Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on August 27, 2003 01:28 AM
It is logically inconsistent to say that it's obvious people will choose OOo over MS Office because OOo is free, and then to say that maximizing access and control is the central issue. Most people are extremely cost-conscious, but the issues around vendor lock-in are a bit esoteric and require more detailed explanation to the average consumer. The analogy between software and entertainment is somewhat apropos, however, but not for the reasons elaborated in the article. People pirate software, and people pirate music. They do it for the same reason -- cost.
The place where the comparison breaks down is that there is no real large-scale offering of "Entertainment Libre" that is not owned by the oligopoly of the music and movie industry. Sure, you can watch street musicians, but where are the huge libraries of recordings of independent performers who work every day for a living and play for pay on the weekends?
Let's make up a crackpot scheme here: let's take the FOSS model and apply it to entertainment. If you want to listen to a song, download it for free or listen to the radio. If you want to hear it performed live, pay the performer. This is similar to the way FOSS vendors make money: give the software away, but if you want service or customization, you pay for that.
Nobody will get rich off a scheme like this, and that would probably condemn it to failure -- there are too many people who have become addicted to the cash that comes from IP. But I like the idea much better than the utility model: paying each time I listen to a song, or each time I open my word processor or web browser.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
I don't buy the central argument
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 27, 2003 01:28 AMThe place where the comparison breaks down is that there is no real large-scale offering of "Entertainment Libre" that is not owned by the oligopoly of the music and movie industry. Sure, you can watch street musicians, but where are the huge libraries of recordings of independent performers who work every day for a living and play for pay on the weekends?
Let's make up a crackpot scheme here: let's take the FOSS model and apply it to entertainment. If you want to listen to a song, download it for free or listen to the radio. If you want to hear it performed live, pay the performer. This is similar to the way FOSS vendors make money: give the software away, but if you want service or customization, you pay for that.
Nobody will get rich off a scheme like this, and that would probably condemn it to failure -- there are too many people who have become addicted to the cash that comes from IP. But I like the idea much better than the utility model: paying each time I listen to a song, or each time I open my word processor or web browser.
#