Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
"Eric Stevens"<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
| >So filesharing kind of levels the playing field and affords
| >everybody an equal opportunity to enjoy an abundance of
| >software/content, regardless of their socio-economic status.
| You are a contemptible leech upon society.
He's a utopian socialist. Probably doesn't have
to work for a living. The sad part is that the
socialists usually turn out to be the most selfish
capitalists once they get used to having a job.
He does have a point, though. Not everyone
agreed in the early days that software should
be copyrightable. I found it very inspiring, back
in the 90s, that so many people were setting
up websites and just offering whatever they
could to "chip in". Lots of free information and
software. I did the same thing. Set up a website
and gave away things that others might find
useful. I still do. And most of the software I use
is free, written by someone who does it for the
love of it. Also, I get free information almost daily,
often provided by some anonymous person who
was just trying to be helpful.
nospam called me a "mooch" for using wikimedia,
but that's what it's there for. Thousands of generous
people have made it possible. The same is true of
wikipedia. And Craigslist. They're all great examples
of sharing and improving peoples' lives with the Internet.
One could just as well say it's mooching to get free
info online. Yet we all do that.
Which is not to say I think PS should be free. The
GIMP and Linux are good examples of the limits of free.
Free products are not so likely to be polished and
user-friendly, because the authors don't need to