
Make something and sell it - J3L2404
http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/01/22/make-something-and-sell-it/
======
actf
I think this article presents an interesting argument, even though much of it
is anecdotal. Some of the author's points are very interesting:

> He says he’s an empiricist and that data have convinced him he was dead
> wrong. He now says that the idea of giving away intellectual property as
> advertising bait is unsustainable and will have dire consequences.

It's too bad the author doesn't go into more detail about this. I'm curious to
see his "data".

>It’s OK for a potter to sell pots, but a musician should not sell music.

I think I agree with the author - why should a musician not be able to sell
their music if they choose. Those who choose to give their music away for free
can do so, but suggesting that it's morally wrong to sell music seems,
ironically, morally wrong itself.

Not that I necessarily agree, but just to play the devil's advocate - there a
really easy solution to the fact that it's so easy to copy intellectual
property. The solution is for our governments to disallow it. I'm willing to
bet that if the government began criminally prosecuting those who pirated
music, movies, and software the problem would significantly decrease.

I'd argue that the real problem isn't that it's too easy to copy intellectual
property, but that it's too easy to copy intellectual property over the
internet. Intellectual property has been copied for thousands of years, it's
only very recently that it became _so_ easy to do it though. 15 years ago
there would have been a lot more effort required to copy music than there is
today. The problem is that today anyone can copy intellectual property from
everyone else on the planet in a matter of seconds. In the past copying
intellectual property would have required a much more physical connection to
the source: For example exchanging cassette tapes with a friend, or going to
the library to checkout a book and photocopy it. These barriers were enough to
prevent casual piracy. The barriers today are so insignificant though that
casual piracy has become a real problem. I don't think piracy by those who are
motivated enough will ever be stopped (just like crime by those who are
sufficiently motivated will never be stopped), but I think that curtailing
this casual piracy would be enough to solve the problem.

After reading that article I'm very interested in checking out Jaron Lanier's
book. Has anyone read it yet - is it a worthwhile read?

~~~
thwarted
Pirating music, movies, and software is already illegal, and people do get
prosecuted for it.

------
jluxenberg
Physical objects that are handmade or manufactured have the advantage of not
being easily reproducible. Rights management is easy in the physical world; I
own an object if I posses it. The object can only be in one place at a time,
because it is unique.

Digital goods are inherently more difficult to sell because it is so cheap to
copy and distribute them. "Information wants to be free" has a kernel of truth
in it; "free" is the most natural state for information. It can be copied
easy, quickly, and cheaply.

DRM technologies feel draconian, but probably only because they restrict
legitimate fair-use in addition to protecting information from unauthorized
distribution. Ultimately, I think more DRM is going to be necessary to protect
IP. Fairly soon, all IP is probably going to be distributed online (books,
music, movies, etc). If piracy isn't kept to a minimum, it will eventually
cannibalize the IP market.

~~~
dustingetz
"If piracy isn't kept to a minimum, it will eventually cannibalize the IP
market"

meh, smart people will find a way to make money, even when economies shift.

~~~
actf
If that's the case then why haven't smart people figured out a way for game
developers to make money while releasing their software as open source? Point
me to an example that illustrates how this is possible and I will concede that
you're right.

~~~
kiba
I made a little bit of money writing open source game.

Some people, like Jason Rohrer, made his living based on donation from the
public and patronage. <http://libregamewiki.org/Jason_Rohrer>

Also, lot of people are probably buying Wesnoth on the iphone judging by tons
of iphone reviews that I have spotted using google alert.
<http://wesnoth.repositoryhosting.com/trac/wesnoth_wesnoth/>

Game developers DOES make money while releasing open source software. I just
hope you don't move the goalpost in your next comment.

~~~
actf
Can you provide a link to your games or more info? I'd be curious to see.

I'm still not entirely convinced. In both of your examples it's not clear that
it's possible to make a sustainable income, 10k is not imo a sustainable
income, admittedly that's partly my fault though for not making my original
question clear. I upvoted you for your examples though, since you did
technically meet the requirements I asked for.

~~~
kiba
* <http://wiki.kibabase.com/Codename_Subnem> \- a game development research project. Still ongoing. Second job.

* <http://wiki.kibabase.com/Ruby-Warrior> \- outfit the game with a graphical front-end. First job.

They are only small jobs with very little pay. However, I am just a high-
schooler with only a few years of programming experience.

------
kiba
_There’s an anti-intellectual thread running through these arguments. It’s a
primitive way of thinking, valuing only tangible artifacts and not ideas. It’s
OK for a potter to sell pots, but a musician should not sell musics._

It's a poor ad hominem that this thinking is "primitive" and "anti-
intellectual".

People like the economist, Mike Masnic explains and then build on freeminum
business model and the nature of non-scarce goods for years

* <http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php>

Two economists wrote an entire book on why intellectual property is flawed.
It's also quite a history lesson in itself since it cover century of IP
history.

*[http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

------
generalk
_Musicians should give away their music and make money off concerts and
T-shirts._

Why not give away the music onlne and also sell CDs?

 _Authors should give away their books and make money on the lecture circuit._

Or do like Doctorow and give away the actual contents of the books as well as
selling printed versions.

 _Programmers should give away their software and make money from consulting._

Alternatively, open source the software and charge for a hosted solution. At
this point you're not charging for the software, you're charging for the
server resources and bandwidth that a user consumes.

I'm not a fan of creating atificial scarcity, as in DRM on bits that cost
nothing to duplicate, but if you're also making available formats that cost to
produce, then why not charge for those? They're not artificially scarce.

~~~
mschy
_I'm not a fan of creating atificial scarcity, as in DRM on bits that cost
nothing to duplicate_

I'm a fan of creating artificial scarcity, if it is what the seller prefers.
I'm disturbed by the number of Hackers who would prefer to strip individuals
of their rights to do business as they please, selling products on their on
terms.

The marginal costs couldn't be more irrelevant to the discussion.

