[oclug] Linux kernel development loses BitKeeper

[Ross Jordan]

It would seem Adrian Irving-Beer, on Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 12:09:38AM -0400, wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 11:49:57PM -0400, miden wrote:
> 
> > >This is arguable. With no IP laws, there would be less reason
> > >to create (reduced economic incentive); and probably less
> > >creative works.
> 
> Less vs. fewer thing aside, I disagree.  See below.
> 
> [...]
> > Painters, sculptors, craftsmen of all kinds, dancers etc. etc. have
> > always worked without IP laws.
> 
> But they're different fields with different rules from the computer
> industry.  In the art world, a good original painting by a good artist
> will net tons of cash, while a replica won't. 
I signed lithograph (replica) can still net a good deal of money,
although it may be an order of magnitude lower than the original.
But signed lithographs by famous artists sell for thousands and
sometimes 10s of thousands of dollars.


> Further, you can't cut
> out a section of that painting, affix it to your own, and boost the
> value of your own painting.
> 
> With software, you can steal tons and make plenty of money.  Our
> favourite multi-billionaire's company proves that.
steal? I don't think they've ever stolen. Borrowed concepts, much
like artists borrow concepts.

> However, AFAICT, whoever does it *first* will get the initial market
> share, but whoever does it *right* (or convinces people they've done
> it right) will get the long-term market share.
> 
> Hence, there will always be some short-term economic incentive, but
> also some long-term benefit to the consumers... provided 'first'
> doesn't also mean 'only' (and 'last').
> 
> Competition helps consumers.  Artificial monopolies don't.
copyright, as an artificial monopoly, may not help consumers
get the cheapest possible price -- but it may help them to get
a creative work at all -- and so in that sense it helps them.

-Ross