> 1) If *the right to distribute* (copies of) a program/music > piece/whatever is bound to paying money to the original author, > this piece of music/software/... is not free in the free speech > sense. I don't think that's true. You could make a political but highly commercial record that was subject to censorship in certain countries. But I was talking specifically about commercial distribution. I envisage a scenario where non-tangible digital culture can be freely redistributed by end users - call it free speech or viral marketing - but that culture in a physical format, such as CD or DVD, is sold commercially to pay for the costs of production and artist income. That's what's happening anyway - it's just that the media giants have to get real about building a business model out of selling binary numbers. iTunes might work for Apple, but I can't see many artists making a living out of that kind of commercial distribution. (Apple users are well known for being mugs that will buy anything that Apple offers, anyway. I've listened to music on an iPod, and I thought it sounded crap.) I blame it on the dot-com boom. The major labels were sold on the idea that 'digital goods' would provide massive profit ratios, due to the near-zero cost of duplication and distribution. But what they hadn't considered is that while this is true for labels, it is also true for end users. > If the > right is bound to giving money to the creator it is not a free > good, with free as in speech, because it would violate the "free > distribution of copies" clause. Ah - but you're using the 'free beer' sense in 'free distribution'. > This does not mean, and I never > intended to say this, that you cannot take money for your work. Practically, you can't charge money for your work if it is able to be commercially distributed by a third party without paying you anything. That third party can always undercut you on retail price, because they aren't putting any money into development. Cheers Daniel
