16 Mar
2006
16 Mar
'06
6:46 p.m.
Maluvia wrote:
I assume, (perhaps erroneously), the following
things:
1. Everyone, unless they are independently wealthy, living on a pension, or
a hobo, has a job or self-employment income by means of which they are
enabled to pay their bills and purchase the goods and services they either
require or simply desire.
2. All said individuals are actually being *paid* a wage, salary, or
receiving some form of income for this work - else they could not pay the
rent with it, so to speak.
3. All these same individuals believe they *deserve* to be paid for
whatever work they do for their employer - or if self-employed - for
whatever goods or services they offer for sale.
This being the case, how on earth can such individuals make the case that
they deserve to be paid for what they do for a living, while an artist,
programmer, or individual in some line of work other than their own - does
not?
Just asking.
I find the degree of hypocrisy underlying such a premise utterly
dumbfounding - not to mention the conceit.
*Sigh*, yes.
I think hypocrisy and conceit is a little rough. Few of us really have
much of an idea what each other goes through in order to be able to make
a contribution to this community. I think there is an assumption that we
all come from relatively affluent backgrounds and a lot of very worthy
and well thought-out idealism going on here, however dreams need
grounding if they are to become a reality and this is where we have to
do our first reality check:
We all gotta eat, pay rent, bills whatever. I think there's an
underlying assumption that people are going to be making music, art,
programming etc. in their spare time, unfortunately, if you want to get
good at something, you have to do it every day, often to the exclusion
of other money-making activities. Releasing _everything_ for free might
be OK if you already have a pile of money from funding, programming for
some big Internet company, you just inherited it or whatever, however
even these funds are not infinite. Most people on this list at one time
or other have faced the conundrum of 'How am I going to eat this week?'.
The tools to Do It Yourself should be Free, or at least, I am eternally
grateful to be able to get hold of them for free, there is a trade-off -
no guarantees, if it breaks you get to keep the pieces.
If Free Software and Free Licensing is going to work, we need to take
regular reality checks and build some kind of workable business model.
OK you and I may be happy living on a wing and a prayer, but our Bank
Managers aren't. It is becoming common practise for most Free Software
'houses' to have a commercial front-end - like Progeny, Fervent
software, 64studio - to name but a few, essentially to try and bring in
the money so that their developers don't have to get day-jobs. Notice
how development of Rosegarden4's sequencer has slowed down recently?
Hmm. ... I'd like to see people being a little more supportive of
developers' attempts to continue writing free software and please don't
slag people off for asking for donations, really, it's hard enough as it
is. !:|
The trip is the same with music, I shall continue to do free single
releases, out-takes and live recordings etc., but the studio albums go
out for fifteen quid, with a nice printed cover and everything and I
still charge for live performances, unless it's a _very_ good cause. I
want to make lots of money so I can make some sizeable donations to the
developers of the software I love, so they can carry on making better
and better software. Don't you?-) I don't intend to go and work for some
corporate nightmare in order to do this either.
In the case that sparked this - it's a drum library. Does it prevent you
from using Free Tools, no it doesn't. Case closed. Good grief!
Many thanks to anyone who has ever released their code freely with the
hope I may be able to do more to support you in the coming months/years.
cheers,
tim hall