Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The BBC commissioned a study that claims the Charles Dicken's brand brings in about £280m/year to the UK's economy. But who cares how much it "brings in" ? Why is money the sole metric of wealth. How much value does open source provide - take linux for eg. which is used in pretty much every aspect of computing these days - from cell phones to super computers - how much value has it provided to the consumers and allo…
I think you raise a very good point with "how much value does open source provide", but this question: "Why is money the sole metric of wealth." is a) ungrammatical and b) basically a tautology. money is the sole metric of wealth because wealth, quantified, is money. not trying to detract from the point you raise, just getting a bit OCD about logic and grammar.
I have a bad feeling about this
71–80 of 184 posts
Re: I have a bad feeling about this
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Why is money the sole metric of wealth. How much value does open source provide - take linux for eg. which is used in pretty much every aspect of computing these days - from cell phones to super computers - how much value has it provided to the consumers and allowed developers/researchers/manufacturers to produce ?" What unit would you use to measure the value it provides, if not money? "Apply that to every major op…
>What unit would you use to measure the value it provides, if not money? I'm against quantifying it at all because, while useful, price is a very limited metric. There are numerous cases where you can increase the transaction sum and achieve 0 value increase, eg. monopolistic pricing in a market with inelastic demand or bad investing (destroying capital) or externalities, etc. >I don't understand the point you're mak…
>I'm against quantifying it at all because, while useful, price is a very limited metric. There are numerous cases where you can increase the transaction sum and achieve 0 value increase, eg. monopolistic pricing in a market with inelastic demand or bad investing (destroying capital) or externalities, etc.
I'm pretty confused as to how you first define that you don't want to quantify it but then one sentence later make a quantitative declaration ("achieve 0 value increase..."). How does this work?
Re: I have a bad feeling about this
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What unit would you use to measure the value it provides, if not money? I'm against quantifying it at all because, while useful, price is a very limited metric. There are numerous cases where you can increase the transaction sum and achieve 0 value increase, eg. monopolistic pricing in a market with inelastic demand or bad investing (destroying capital) or externalities, etc. >I don't understand the point you're mak…
>I'm against quantifying it at all because, while useful, price is a very limited metric. There are numerous cases where you can increase the transaction sum and achieve 0 value increase, eg. monopolistic pricing in a market with inelastic demand or bad investing (destroying capital) or externalities, etc. I'm pretty confused as to how you first define that you don't want to quantify it but then one sentence later ma…
Zero means nothing, absence of extra value, that can be established on qualitative grounds - but true it doesn't have to be strictly 0 it just means there is no proportional value added.
Re: I have a bad feeling about this
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
creating artificial scarcities to sustain someones business model is ridiculous I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media". Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced?
>I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media". All the media I consume nowdays is free, news, learning resources, youtube vids etc. Apart from going to cinema (but even that started to suck), and music from local bands that I pay for to support the artist. So nope, I don't want any media. >Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced…
>Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising.
Actually, in the UK, we do pay for it (BBC broadcasts, at least) through a TV license.
Re: I have a bad feeling about this
#75The BBC commissioned a study [1] that claims the Charles Dicken's brand brings in about £280m/year to the UK's economy. This from a public domain "brand". Meanwhile companies like Disney lobby for perpetual copyright to protect their own interest at the cost of all the lost opportunities that will never exist. I don't understand how politicians in the free enterprise countries, especially American republicans with th…
Your mistake is thinking about brands like Charles Dickens and Disney. Of course they make money, and of course they would continue producing work if copyright was only 20 years. What you have to think about is the author who is not famous, but who makes his living off of selling books. Not the millionaires, the ones with a regular salary. They often sell old stories to short-story collections, for example, for a few…
No. I don't buy it. This is exactly the sob story that's served up to us by corporations like Disney and conglomerates like the RIAA. People create art for reasons other than making money. We're never going to end up with a world that's devoid of musicians, artists or authors.
However we could plausibly find ourselves living in a world without these multinational corporations.
Re: I have a bad feeling about this
#76The BBC commissioned a study [1] that claims the Charles Dicken's brand brings in about £280m/year to the UK's economy. This from a public domain "brand". Meanwhile companies like Disney lobby for perpetual copyright to protect their own interest at the cost of all the lost opportunities that will never exist. I don't understand how politicians in the free enterprise countries, especially American republicans with th…
Your mistake is thinking about brands like Charles Dickens and Disney. Of course they make money, and of course they would continue producing work if copyright was only 20 years. What you have to think about is the author who is not famous, but who makes his living off of selling books. Not the millionaires, the ones with a regular salary. They often sell old stories to short-story collections, for example, for a few…
I don't think your considering enough variables here. At face value, assuming all other things are equal, you are correct. But all other things are not equal.
I'm far more likely to give my money to the individual artist or collective group of artists for a piece of work than I am a 'Disney'. The Louis CK situation is a great example of this dynamic en-mass.
People DO appreciate artists, people ARE willing to pay artists for their work. People are NOT willing to pay ridiculously top heavy, bureaucratic corporations that do nothing but get in the way of the purchaser experiencing the work of artists.
Re: I have a bad feeling about this
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media". All the media I consume nowdays is free, news, learning resources, youtube vids etc. Apart from going to cinema (but even that started to suck), and music from local bands that I pay for to support the artist. So nope, I don't want any media. >Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced…
>Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Actually, in the UK, we do pay for it (BBC broadcasts, at least) through a TV license.
But you have private channels that are funded by advertising ?
Re: I have a bad feeling about this
#78The BBC commissioned a study [1] that claims the Charles Dicken's brand brings in about £280m/year to the UK's economy. This from a public domain "brand". Meanwhile companies like Disney lobby for perpetual copyright to protect their own interest at the cost of all the lost opportunities that will never exist. I don't understand how politicians in the free enterprise countries, especially American republicans with th…
>The BBC commissioned a study that claims the Charles Dicken's brand brings in about £280m/year to the UK's economy. But who cares how much it "brings in" ? Why is money the sole metric of wealth. How much value does open source provide - take linux for eg. which is used in pretty much every aspect of computing these days - from cell phones to super computers - how much value has it provided to the consumers and allo…
Why is money the sole metric of wealth. How much value does open source provide
Why are feet and miles the metric of distance, can't we just have near and far?
More seriously: value has to have a common unit of exchange. The grocery store clerk isn't going to give you your shopping for free because you happened to write some piece of software he isn't even aware of. Money allows value to be stored and transferred. Anything else is just warm fuzzies.
Re: I have a bad feeling about this
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your mistake is thinking about brands like Charles Dickens and Disney. Of course they make money, and of course they would continue producing work if copyright was only 20 years. What you have to think about is the author who is not famous, but who makes his living off of selling books. Not the millionaires, the ones with a regular salary. They often sell old stories to short-story collections, for example, for a few…
No. I don't buy it. This is exactly the sob story that's served up to us by corporations like Disney and conglomerates like the RIAA. People create art for reasons other than making money. We're never going to end up with a world that's devoid of musicians, artists or authors. However we could plausibly find ourselves living in a world without these multinational corporations.
It's not a sob story. It's basic logic. You haven't refuted anything I've said, except for claiming that the story is one given by the likes of Disney and the RIAA, which is irrelevant and untrue.
The only valid argument you've said is that people create art for reasons other than making money. Which is of course partially true. But obviously, to a lesser extent. I'm sure many people on HN would still program without getting paid for it, but there should be no doubt in a reasonable person's mind that overall less good software will be created, and many of those individual people, artists though they are, will create less software because of lack of time due to having a day job.
Re: I have a bad feeling about this
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Actually, in the UK, we do pay for it (BBC broadcasts, at least) through a TV license.
But you have private channels that are funded by advertising ?
Yes, pretty much everything other than BBC.