[Rainer Deyke]

Although the money I use to pay for advertising doesn't disappear, the labor that went into advertising does. Advertising is a prime example of the tragedy of the commons. It creates no new value, it just annoys people.

And remember, the money that people save money in my scenarios 2 and 3 doesn't disappear into the ether either. People who would have purchased product X can now spend that money on other products. People who would not have purchased product X can still use it, benefit from it, even grow a business around it. If a lower price puts a niche product into the mainstream, then a free product will be even more widely distributed and used.

If company A goes out of business, scenario 2 is potentially more beneficial to society than scenario 3, because the open source product in scenario 2 can be improved while the pirated product X cannot. On the other hand, the open source product is actually more likely to drive company A out of business than the pirated product X, because many people who refuse to use pirated software are willing to use open source alternatives.

[RampantCoyote]

Hmm - then by your definition, is the labor that goes into a stage play, rock concert, or giving aid to an elderly woman soon to die therefore of less worth because it "disappears?" Not sure I grok your value system.

I guess before we go around in circles too much, we might have a fundamental disconnect in belief systems. I believe necessity is the mother of invention, and therefore progress and innovation most frequently evolve from competition.

If the ability to be compensated in a field is rendered null (as would be the case if piracy was allowed to run fully unchecked), I would expect very little growth, innovation, or even work being done in that field. You'd get a few exceptions, of course, but most of what advances you'd get in that field would be done under lock and key as proprietary technology.

It'd be a pretty dismal place to be, IMO.

And I find that impossible to justify in my mind as being for "the greater good."

I see Open Source as legitimate competition. It drives the more commercial (or, I guess I should say, "traditionally commercial," as much open source is VERY commercial - just in a less direct manner) competition to improve the value of whatever they offer, which is (potentially) of benefit to all. Open Source creates something of value.

Piracy, like warfare, merely consumes value and gives nothing back.
_________________
Tales of the Rampant Coyote - Old-School Game Developer talks Indie Games, RPGs, and the Games Biz

[tcaudilllg]

I agree on some points with RampantCoyote, and on others with Rainer Deyke. On the one hand, open source is more effective than piracy. On the other, talent is limited and it's an awful hard sell to an innovator in any field to forgo what is essentially a blank check. It would be like asking the (lead) creators of Final Fantasy to forgo their paycheck. It's the simple fact that there aren't that many people who enjoy innovating with all their heart and soul, and for those that do such lucrative options as becoming a movie star, or an in-demand writer... that's hard to pass up. I don't really see those people as ever going open source under the current system. Yes open source works for software engineering, but not for entertainment or in any other field where "belief in yourself" is a prerequisite for success.

Wow, engineering and entertainment really are that different, aren't they?

It seems to me like piracy is the only way to evenly distribute a non-software information medium. Ever heard of open source books? No, because there are none! Nor are there open source movies; hell refer to the ROM hacking thread where an attempt to force an open source of the CT franchise was legally blocked. I get the impression that capitalism is proving more trouble than it's worth with respect to content-producing disciplines. I mean in theory you could pay people to create an entertainment medium, but when the entertainer can capitalize on their own ego there's no incentive for them to go along, is there?

[tcaudilllg]

I agree on some points with RampantCoyote, and on others with Rainer Deyke. On the one hand, open source is more effective than piracy. On the other, talent is limited and it's an awful hard sell to an innovator in any field to forgo what is essentially a blank check. It would be like asking the (lead) creators of Final Fantasy to forgo their paycheck. It's the simple fact that there aren't that many people who enjoy innovating with all their heart and soul, and for those that do such lucrative options as becoming a movie star, or an in-demand writer... that's hard to pass up. I don't really see those people as ever going open source under the current system. Yes open source works for software engineering, but not for entertainment or in any other field where "belief in yourself" is a prerequisite for success.

Wow, engineering and entertainment really are that different, aren't they?

It seems to me like piracy is the only way to evenly distribute a non-software information medium. Ever heard of open source books? No, because there are none! Nor are there open source movies; hell refer to the ROM hacking thread where an attempt to force an open source of the CT franchise was legally blocked. I get the impression that capitalism is proving more trouble than it's worth with respect to content-producing disciplines. I mean in theory you could pay people to create an entertainment medium, but when the entertainer can capitalize on their own ego there's no incentive for them to go along, is there?

[Ninkazu]

There are "open source" movies and books. See movies by Alex Jones and other such documentaries that explicitly say, "copy this movie and give it to others". A simple search for "creative commons books" gives the second.

Don't state things as fact simply because you haven't seen it for yourself (especially if you haven't even looked).

[tcaudilllg]

[tcaudilllg]

Let me put it this way: when we see fan pages going up for open sourced characters, as an expression of legitimate interest and not to make an explicit statement, then open source media will have arrived. We're not there yet.

[RampantCoyote]

The lack of Open Source works "of note" may be more of telling of Open Source than of capitalism.

Actually, the first "open source" book of significant note that I really enjoyed (and I bought the hardcover edition) was Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown", which was released to the public in the mid 90's. But it's not really open source - it's just free. You can't change it and republish it for profit.

Eric S Raymond himself has admitted that Open Source doesn't work for all kinds of software (he's noted, in particular, games). It works well for tools. I don't think it works so well for entertainment.

I'm a lot less religious about it than he is, obviously. I consider myself a rampant capitalist, and I view Open Source as a kick-butt expression of capitalism. I mean, one of the big purposes of the GPL is to allow commercial exploitation of open-source software. Eric S. Raymond describes himself as an "Anarcho-Capitalist" - sort of a free-market capitalism on steroids in my view... which makes me sound like I'm spouting Karl Marx by comparison.
_________________
Tales of the Rampant Coyote - Old-School Game Developer talks Indie Games, RPGs, and the Games Biz

[Rainer Deyke]

[tcaudilllg]

I sorta hold to the "honor system" with regard to piracy. Even if I were to pirate something, then I would very likely buy it when given the financial opportunity. That said except with regard to media there is no reason to pirate anything.

If you think about it, public performances are kinda like open source media. In that case you have a group footing the bill for the performance. Nothing wrong with that.

As I see it, the real problem is the content creators' inability to offer anything of value outside of their performance, meaning that they MUST rely on it for their livelihood.

[RampantCoyote]

I kinda smacked myself in the head when I thought of an example of an analog in books or other media, LG:

The D20 / Open Gaming License that came out around 2000 from Wizards of the Coast. They opened up most of the mechanics of the third edition of Dungeons & Dragons.

Like many successful open source projects, this was not done just out of a spirit of altruism. Surely that was a benefit. But the surge of interest and support by third parties helped make 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons a stunning success by any calculation. While I'm sure it could be argued either way, most people seem to agree that the "open sourcing" of Dungeons & Dragons was of commercial benefit to its creators.

*AND* to the community / customers. The pen & paper RPG hobby enjoyed a surge of popularity it hadn't seen in years.

4th edition, which is more of a "closed" system (though not nearly as closed as pre-3rd edition versions of the game) hasn't seemed to enjoy nearly that level of success. Now, there could be a lot of causes for that, so it's not easy to find blame. But it's interesting to note.
_________________
Tales of the Rampant Coyote - Old-School Game Developer talks Indie Games, RPGs, and the Games Biz

[Nodtveidt]

The ironic thing about piracy is that it is becoming a business in and of itself...many torrent sites, for example, are now charging membership fees for downloading torrent files, ISO sites charge for big downloads, etc.

In any event, as to the original topic: I do not believe that OSS impedes economic growth at all, and I agree with the concept that it creates legitimate competition and therefore drives commercial companies to develop better products. That is the very opposite of impediment.
_________________
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows. - wallace

[Mattias Gustavsson]

The following is not so much my own opinions, as it is a summary of what I've read on the subject over the past year (studying for a bachelors in economics at the moment - and it's incredibly dull)

Technological advancement is the foundation for continual economical growth - this is something that is generally agreed upon by economists, it seems. The reason being, that is makes it possible to produce more using the same resources.

When technological advancement is made publicly available to everyone, the benefits for society as a whole are higher than it would be if the inventor of the advancement kept it to himself (the total GDP will be higher as more companies can produce more using the same resources). This is also generally agreed on by the economy academics.

(on a side note, that's what patents are for - they ensure that the inventor/developer of something will have reasonable time to make back their investments and profit from it, before the patent expires and the invention can be used freely, thus giving the benefit to society. Without patents, there'd be little incentive to invent, and with perpertual patents, there'd be no extra benefit for society as a whole. )

If we accept the generally accepted models for economic growth, and if we consider Open source software to be a form of technological advancement made publicly available, then it is clear that open source software will increase the GDP, which means higher economic growth.

Now, I think it would be a bit silly to start questioning the current economic models. Unless one knows all about the theories of Solow, Keynes and the likes, and then some, I think it's fair to say one doesn't really have enough grounds to doubt those things.

But, it could be argued that OSS is not a form of technological advancement - that it does not allow for things to be produced faster and cheaper. And in that case, it won't increase the economic growth, but it's hard to see how it could inhibit it.

If, however, we recognize OSS as being able to improve productivity, we can't draw any other conclusion than this: it will increase economic growth.
_________________
www.mattiasgustavsson.com - My blog
www.rivtind.com - My Fantasy world and isometric RPG engine
www.pixieuniversity.com - Software 2D Game Engine

[RampantCoyote]

A few years ago I accepted a game job where part of my compensation was a certain amount of professional art time from their pool of artists. That was written into my contract. It was a trade. I mean, I ended up taking a hit to my income as a result (which got to be a bit of a pain when I was doing salary negotiation for my next job when I moved on), but I got a pretty big bang for my buck. So did my company, I hope. :)

You could argue that I was giving away some of my efforts for "free," and that my company was likewise giving me "free" art time. But really, it was a contractually arranged barter of skills.

Some OSS projects amount to the same thing, basically sharing the code in exchange for hoped-upon improvements by other programmers. Some instead try to monetize books, skills, customizations, or enhancements to the code.

I really just see it as an alternative form of monetization / distribution / exchange. The free market growing as free markets do. Not really an advancement in technology.
_________________
Tales of the Rampant Coyote - Old-School Game Developer talks Indie Games, RPGs, and the Games Biz

[tcaudilllg]