Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Re: [BLUG] insane software prices

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 02:10:40PM -0500, Joe Auty wrote:
> I don't condemn people that don't pay for all of the content they use,
> as I don't myself (particularly with movies). We each have our own
> comfort level and the "things that we do" that are based on personal
> decisions, whether it is downloading everything you can get your hands
> on for free, or simply taking copies of music you borrow from friends.
> However, I must say that I do sometimes have difficulty with the way
> some people phrase certain justifications about their rights and
> freedoms that often seem to be cloaked in quasi-intellectual babble.

Personally, I feel that as someone who supports free software, and wants
companies to comply with free software licensing terms, it is my *duty*
to obey the licensing terms of the products I use.

Unlike, say, software patents where it is virtually impossible *not*
to violate any number of patents at any given time, copyright is very
clear. Software patents must be stopped, but copyright is both good
and right. Were it not for the advent of almost free distribution of
large amounts of data, I doubt it would be feasable to even discuss free
licenses for works that fall under traditional copyright laws.

I support freedom because freedom is good. Once you start violating
licensing terms you become two-faced, obeying licensing terms only when
it suits your own interests. This is no better than commercial companies
that fail to abide by the GPL when it doesn't suit their own ends. It is
not supporting freedom, as it doesn't support the rights of the original
authors/artists freedom to choose the license of their works.

If you want to promote free licenses you *must* support the decisions
of people to choose *not* to use free licenses. The case must be
won with reason and logic -- because it is clearly better for the
author/artist and the consumer when there is freedom. If it can't be won
with reason and logic, then there is a fundamental flaw and it needs to
be rethought.

I do like the Creative Commons licenses as it gives the artists the
flexability to choose what they are comfortable allowing done with their
work. That being said, consumers must actually obey those licenses,
otherwise it negates the ability of the artists to choose.

--
Steven Black <blacks@indiana.edu> / KeyID: 8596FA8E
Fingerprint: 108C 089C EFA4 832C BF07 78C2 DE71 5433 8596 FA8E

Re: [BLUG] insane software prices

Steven Black wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 11:58:33AM -0500, Joe Auty wrote:
>>> I realized that fundamental tenants of freedom were seeping in to other
>>> areas of my life when I realized I was actually willing to not listen to
>>> music not licensed in a manner I was comfortable with.
>> Just what are your "fundamental tenants of freedom", Steven? Is it your
>> right to decide on behalf of the author how much their work is worth?
>
> No, no. I am quite opposed to violating copyright. It is the author's
> choice as to how they license the product. It is my choice as to whether
> I purchase the product. Nothing gives me the right to violate the
> copyright or the license. If I don't like the license, I have the choice
> as to whether to purchase it (and accept the license) or to pick another
> option.
>
> I was speaking of how the four tenants of free software have infiltrated
> the rest of my life:
>
> 1. The freedom to run the program for any purpose
> 2. The freedom to study and adapt the source code
> 3. The freedom to redistribute the program
> 4. The freedom to improve the program and release
>
> With regards to music, freedom #3 is the one that bothers people the
> most. The ability to share the music with friends, family and your other
> devices.
>
> However if the music industry was like the software industry, it would
> be illegal to adapt riffs or even chords from one song and use them in
> a song of your own. It would most certainly be illegal to practice a
> commercial song. (This would be freedom #2.)
>
> Freedom #1 also doesn't exist in the music industry with traditional
> copyright, as you need to pay careful attention to licensing of the
> music played at commercial establishments. This one doesn't impact me
> simply because I don't own a commercial establishment. While the RIAA
> have repeated tried to make it illegal to make mix tapes, it isn't
> realisticly possible. If such things became illegal, this freedom would
> also impact people more.
>
> Freedom #4 exists with some of the Creative Commons licenses. I've heard
> that NiN's "the slip" album is available in separate tracks so DJs (and
> other folks) can remix it. I've heard such things are available for some
> of the Magnatune artists, too. (Though I don't know how the NiN folks
> have done the licensing for that. It is an example of where that freedom
> becomes important to people.)
>

The whole mixing thing is where it gets interesting, isn't it? I like a
lot of Lawrence Lessig's ideas, but I wonder if these are generally more
applicable in a few specific areas?

The mixing/remixing stuff really seems like a phenomenon of the digital
era and so called "New Media". This whole idiom thrives around mixing
and remixing, and seems to be where these ideas fit the best. However, I
wonder if at times too much effort is made to sort of shoehorn them into
other artistic areas as well?

For instance, if I wrote this great commissioned piece of symphonic
music today, I don't think I'd want Joe Sixpack trying to remix it. Not
only would it probably not work very well, but I wouldn't want my music
being identifiable in any form but its original intended form. This
artwork is extremely precise and specific with how it is structured and
how it is intended to sound, as opposed to some music that is sort of
more conceptual and open-ended. I would be even more opposed if this
person managed to make a lot of money from my work in this context,
hypothetically speaking...

I know this is a very vague and lame example, but my point is that some
works just scream mixing and remixing, while others don't. I don't think
that we can just try to apply our ideological opinions about what works
for certain digital works to art in general. It varies, and ultimately I
feel that it should be at the discretion of the artist, like you said.
What I like about the CC licenses is that it gives artists the ability
to choose whether they want their art to be mixed, as I understand them.
Artists should be made aware of these sorts of options and made aware as
to the benefits of evolving and mutating ideas in the hands of the
world, but sometimes I feel that these ideas are meant to represent a
complete replacement for the old ways, where sometimes the old ways may
still be best.

> Cheers,
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug


--
Joe Auty
NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
http://www.netmusician.org
joe@netmusician.org
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] insane software prices

Ben Shewmaker wrote:
> This is more of a short rant than anything else, but I was reading an
> interesting book,
> http://www.amazon.com/Brain-That-Changes-Itself-Frontiers/dp/067003830X
> about brain plasticity. One of the people interviewed for the book was
> Michael Merzenich, a neuroscientist who among other things, started a
> company called Posit Science that produces brain training software. I
> thought I'd go take a look at what they had to offer. Their main
> offering Brain Fitness Program classic looked at least somewhat
> interesting until I found the pricing. It's $400! And their other
> offering, In Sight, is also $400. If you buy both, you can save a
> whopping $100 and get both programs for $700! The only demo of either
> product is a little flash demo of InSight and while the programs were
> developed after scientific research I can't help but think $400 is far
> too excessive. I want to try their software, but I am most certainly
> not plopping down $400 for that opportunity. Perhaps I am not the target
> audience for their company, maybe they aim to sell volume licenses to
> larger groups.

> But still, it begs the question, how much is too much
> when it comes to the price of software?

If enough people feel the same way as you do, then they won't sell
enough to recoup costs and make a profit. *That* will be what determines
the "how much" that's "too much".

I suspect the target market for this software is large corporate
training. In this economy, that's gonna be weak. My guess is you could
negotiate a much more favorable price directly.

--
Mark Warner
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] insane software prices

Simón Ruiz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Joe Auty <joe@netmusician.org> wrote:
>> Steven Black wrote:
>>> Heh.
>>>
>>> I realized that fundamental tenants of freedom were seeping in to other
>>> areas of my life when I realized I was actually willing to not listen to
>>> music not licensed in a manner I was comfortable with.
>>>
>>> What is the difference between charging $400 vs $40, when it is the
>>> fundamental practice that is flawed?
>>>
>> Just what are your "fundamental tenants of freedom", Steven? Is it your
>> right to decide on behalf of the author how much their work is worth?
>>
>> --
>> Joe Auty
>> NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
>> http://www.netmusician.org
>> joe@netmusician.org
>
> I won't speak for Steven, but I'll share what it means to me and thus
> what I believe he meant.
>
> The fundamental tenets of freedom are the freedoms to use, study,
> re-distribute and modify. See freedomdefined.org for a more thorough
> walk-through of how these apply to cultural works such as music.
>
> And yes, it's my right to decide how much an author's work is worth.
> When I don't buy a work I've decided it's worth nothing, when I do buy
> a work I've agreed with the seller that it's worth whatever I pay.
>

Exactly...

Look, I'll just be candid here (and I'm not only addressing Steven or
Simon here), I'm generally at least a little left leaning, so consider
what I'm about to say as not being overly Republican/Conservative
influenced, even though it will probably sound so in terms of economic
philosophy...

This sort of discussion about freedom in the context of intellectual
property adds an unnecessary layer of complexity here, I think, and this
is coming from a guy who generally enjoys complex and nuanced opinions
in general. All of this sort of language seems to me like a dressed up
way of basically acknowledging the power and benefits of a free market
system.

That is, like Simon has said, it's your right to decide how much
something is worth to you, and you vote with your own dollar. If
something is overpriced yet in demand, this invites competition. If
something is overpriced and not in demand, nobody is making you buy this
product. This is simple supply and demand economics.

Where things get rather murky is the exploitive relationships of the big
record labels and their musicians/bands, but it bothers me that some
would decide on behalf of the artist that the CD they produced is not
worth $15, and so therefore they are going to steal it instead. There
are any number of reasons why an artist will work with and/or stay with
record label x, but ultimately it is their choice to work with the label
under their contractual conditions. There are a lot of things I would
like to change about these relationships, but it is not my place as the
consumer to do so. It is my right to not buy this music for $15, but
that is as far as my rights go. With the increase of independent record
labels that are generally less heavy handed than the big ones, I grow
less and less patient with rational that relates to why it is okay to
steal music.

I don't condemn people that don't pay for all of the content they use,
as I don't myself (particularly with movies). We each have our own
comfort level and the "things that we do" that are based on personal
decisions, whether it is downloading everything you can get your hands
on for free, or simply taking copies of music you borrow from friends.
However, I must say that I do sometimes have difficulty with the way
some people phrase certain justifications about their rights and
freedoms that often seem to be cloaked in quasi-intellectual babble.

Just my two cents, and to be clear, I'm not making any accusations
relating to anything anybody has said here, I'm just speaking in very
general terms...


> Simón
>
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug


--
Joe Auty
NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
http://www.netmusician.org
joe@netmusician.org

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] insane software prices

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 11:58:33AM -0500, Joe Auty wrote:
> > I realized that fundamental tenants of freedom were seeping in to other
> > areas of my life when I realized I was actually willing to not listen to
> > music not licensed in a manner I was comfortable with.
>
> Just what are your "fundamental tenants of freedom", Steven? Is it your
> right to decide on behalf of the author how much their work is worth?

No, no. I am quite opposed to violating copyright. It is the author's
choice as to how they license the product. It is my choice as to whether
I purchase the product. Nothing gives me the right to violate the
copyright or the license. If I don't like the license, I have the choice
as to whether to purchase it (and accept the license) or to pick another
option.

I was speaking of how the four tenants of free software have infiltrated
the rest of my life:

1. The freedom to run the program for any purpose
2. The freedom to study and adapt the source code
3. The freedom to redistribute the program
4. The freedom to improve the program and release

With regards to music, freedom #3 is the one that bothers people the
most. The ability to share the music with friends, family and your other
devices.

However if the music industry was like the software industry, it would
be illegal to adapt riffs or even chords from one song and use them in
a song of your own. It would most certainly be illegal to practice a
commercial song. (This would be freedom #2.)

Freedom #1 also doesn't exist in the music industry with traditional
copyright, as you need to pay careful attention to licensing of the
music played at commercial establishments. This one doesn't impact me
simply because I don't own a commercial establishment. While the RIAA
have repeated tried to make it illegal to make mix tapes, it isn't
realisticly possible. If such things became illegal, this freedom would
also impact people more.

Freedom #4 exists with some of the Creative Commons licenses. I've heard
that NiN's "the slip" album is available in separate tracks so DJs (and
other folks) can remix it. I've heard such things are available for some
of the Magnatune artists, too. (Though I don't know how the NiN folks
have done the licensing for that. It is an example of where that freedom
becomes important to people.)

Cheers,

--
Steven Black <blacks@indiana.edu> / KeyID: 8596FA8E
Fingerprint: 108C 089C EFA4 832C BF07 78C2 DE71 5433 8596 FA8E

Re: [BLUG] insane software prices

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Joe Auty <joe@netmusician.org> wrote:
> Steven Black wrote:
>> Heh.
>>
>> I realized that fundamental tenants of freedom were seeping in to other
>> areas of my life when I realized I was actually willing to not listen to
>> music not licensed in a manner I was comfortable with.
>>
>> What is the difference between charging $400 vs $40, when it is the
>> fundamental practice that is flawed?
>>
>
> Just what are your "fundamental tenants of freedom", Steven? Is it your
> right to decide on behalf of the author how much their work is worth?
>
> --
> Joe Auty
> NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
> http://www.netmusician.org
> joe@netmusician.org

I won't speak for Steven, but I'll share what it means to me and thus
what I believe he meant.

The fundamental tenets of freedom are the freedoms to use, study,
re-distribute and modify. See freedomdefined.org for a more thorough
walk-through of how these apply to cultural works such as music.

And yes, it's my right to decide how much an author's work is worth.
When I don't buy a work I've decided it's worth nothing, when I do buy
a work I've agreed with the seller that it's worth whatever I pay.

Simón

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] insane software prices

Steven Black wrote:
> Heh.
>
> I realized that fundamental tenants of freedom were seeping in to other
> areas of my life when I realized I was actually willing to not listen to
> music not licensed in a manner I was comfortable with.
>
> What is the difference between charging $400 vs $40, when it is the
> fundamental practice that is flawed?
>

Just what are your "fundamental tenants of freedom", Steven? Is it your
right to decide on behalf of the author how much their work is worth?


> Cheers,
> Steven Black
>
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 11:10:16AM -0500, Ben Shewmaker wrote:
>> This is more of a short rant than anything else, but I was reading an
>> interesting book, http://www.amazon.com/Brain-That-Changes-Itself-Frontiers/dp/
>> 067003830X about brain plasticity. One of the people interviewed for the book
>> was Michael Merzenich, a neuroscientist who among other things, started a
>> company called Posit Science that produces brain training software. I thought
>> I'd go take a look at what they had to offer. Their main offering Brain
>> Fitness Program classic looked at least somewhat interesting until I found the
>> pricing. It's $400! And their other offering, In Sight, is also $400. If you
>> buy both, you can save a whopping $100 and get both programs for $700! The
>> only demo of either product is a little flash demo of InSight and while the
>> programs were developed after scientific research I can't help but think $400
>> is far too excessive. I want to try their software, but I am most certainly
>> not plopping down $400 for that opportunity. Perhaps I am not the target
>> audience for their company, maybe they aim to sell volume licenses to larger
>> groups. But still, it begs the question, how much is too much when it comes to
>> the price of software?
>>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BLUG mailing list
>> BLUG@linuxfan.com
>> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug


--
Joe Auty
NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
http://www.netmusician.org
joe@netmusician.org
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] insane software prices

Heh.

I realized that fundamental tenants of freedom were seeping in to other
areas of my life when I realized I was actually willing to not listen to
music not licensed in a manner I was comfortable with.

What is the difference between charging $400 vs $40, when it is the
fundamental practice that is flawed?

Cheers,
Steven Black

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 11:10:16AM -0500, Ben Shewmaker wrote:
> This is more of a short rant than anything else, but I was reading an
> interesting book, http://www.amazon.com/Brain-That-Changes-Itself-Frontiers/dp/
> 067003830X about brain plasticity. One of the people interviewed for the book
> was Michael Merzenich, a neuroscientist who among other things, started a
> company called Posit Science that produces brain training software. I thought
> I'd go take a look at what they had to offer. Their main offering Brain
> Fitness Program classic looked at least somewhat interesting until I found the
> pricing. It's $400! And their other offering, In Sight, is also $400. If you
> buy both, you can save a whopping $100 and get both programs for $700! The
> only demo of either product is a little flash demo of InSight and while the
> programs were developed after scientific research I can't help but think $400
> is far too excessive. I want to try their software, but I am most certainly
> not plopping down $400 for that opportunity. Perhaps I am not the target
> audience for their company, maybe they aim to sell volume licenses to larger
> groups. But still, it begs the question, how much is too much when it comes to
> the price of software?
>
>

> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug


--
Steven Black <blacks@indiana.edu> / KeyID: 8596FA8E
Fingerprint: 108C 089C EFA4 832C BF07 78C2 DE71 5433 8596 FA8E

[BLUG] insane software prices

This is more of a short rant than anything else, but I was reading an interesting book, http://www.amazon.com/Brain-That-Changes-Itself-Frontiers/dp/067003830X about brain plasticity.  One of the people interviewed for the book was Michael Merzenich, a neuroscientist who among other things, started a company called Posit Science that produces brain training software.  I thought I'd go take a look at what they had to offer.  Their main offering Brain Fitness Program classic looked at least somewhat interesting until I found the pricing.  It's $400!  And their other offering, In Sight, is also $400.  If you buy both, you can save a whopping $100 and get both programs for $700!  The only demo of either product is a little flash demo of InSight and while the programs were developed after scientific research I can't help but think $400 is far too excessive.  I want to try their software, but I am most certainly not plopping down $400 for that opportunity. Perhaps I am not the target audience for their company, maybe they aim to sell volume licenses to larger groups.  But still, it begs the question, how much is too much when it comes to the price of software?