Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
From: Bob Larter on 27 Oct 2009 01:59
sobriquet wrote:
[blah blah blah]

*Plonk!*

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Walter Banks on 27 Oct 2009 09:02


sobriquet wrote:

>
> > There are two flaws in this argument.
> >
> > 1) In the model you gave a few posts ago reward would come from
> > relative access. The goal then is to maximize access. Our goal
> > is to supply software to those who appreciate its value enough
> > that they are prepared to pay for teh right to use it.
>
> It doesn't have to be. Software could also be rated. So if you produce
> software that only a very small group is interested in, they can still
> give your software
> an excellent rating to indicate they value it very much and the tax
> scheme could take these ratings
> into account to avoid too much of a bias towards popular demand.

The more complex the rules the more opportunities to optimize the rules to win without achieving the desired goal. The modification is still a popularity contest. State your model in one sentence without the use of modifiers in a way that is not
ambiguous.

You could just market the software the old fashioned way, make presentations and promotional material on the internet actually go and talk to real potential customers. Price the software based competitive pricing and development budgets to match, use
customer feedback to incorporate new features that will solve there needs.

Then what do I know I have only made a living developing software packages for 30 years.

w..

From: sobriquet on 27 Oct 2009 08:19
On 27 okt, 04:21, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> [.. drivel ..]

Why don't you just crawl back under your rock, nazi cockroach?
From: sobriquet on 27 Oct 2009 08:27
On 27 okt, 14:02, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
>
> > > There are two flaws in this argument.
>
> > > 1) In the model you gave a few posts ago reward would come from
> > >     relative access. The goal then is to maximize access. Our goal
> > >     is to supply software to those who appreciate its value enough
> > >    that they are prepared to pay for teh right to use it.
>
> > It doesn't have to be. Software could also be rated. So if you produce
> > software that only a very small group is interested in, they can still
> > give your software
> > an excellent rating to indicate they value it very much and the tax
> > scheme could take these ratings
> > into account to avoid too much of a bias towards popular demand.
>
> The more complex the rules the more opportunities to optimize the rules to win without achieving the desired goal. The modification is still a popularity contest.  State your model in one sentence without the use of modifiers in a way that is not
> ambiguous.

The details are irrelevant. We can always adjust and optimize the
system, but it can't possibly be any worse and less fair that the
current system, where a few idiots pay for digital information, while
the vast majority obtains it for free online.


>
> You could just market the software the old fashioned way, make presentations and promotional material on the internet actually go and talk to real potential customers. Price the software based competitive pricing and development budgets to match, use
> customer feedback to incorporate new features that will solve there needs..
>
> Then what do I know I have only made a living developing software packages for 30 years.
>
> w..

Well, if it works for you, by all means, continue to work in the way
that suits you best as a software developer.

I'm approaching the whole copyright issue from a different angle,
where I'm concerned with a fair balance between the 'right' of
corporations to make a profit by exploiting intellectual property on
the one hand and the 'right' of individual people to share and
exchange information freely without corporations trying to impose
their rules to protect their interests wherever they conflict with the
interests of individual internet users like me.
From: Ray Fischer on 27 Oct 2009 13:57
sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 27 okt, 04:21, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> [.. drivel ..]
>
>Why don't you just crawl back under your rock, nazi cockroach?

Aww, the little thief is unhappy.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin