<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Christian Hufgard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pp@christian-hufgard.de">pp@christian-hufgard.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Richard,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Richard Stallman wrote:<br>
>> And you really believe, that visiting a single concert can fully<br>
>> compensate downloading the whole discography?<br>
><br>
> The term "compensate" refers to making up for a loss that you caused.<br>
> Also, by extension, it refers to pay people who do work for you (your<br>
> employees and contractors).<br>
<br>
</div>If somebody says "instead of buying copies of music, I visit the<br>
concerts", "compensate" is the right word, I tink.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Compensate is not the right word. I may have more than 50Gb of music and hundreds of artists, but I've only seen live a veery small fraction of them, so I'm not saying that I visit the concerts of every band I listen to. I just say that they shouldn't hope to make money on records, the money normally comes from live concerts. Records should be thought as a means of promotion: if you're lucky enough to make money out of records, good for you, but you should be happy if people listens to your records for free.<br>
<br>Basically, what you are saying is that if someone says "instead of paying for listening to ads, I buy the product", then "compensate" is the right word.<br></div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">
> When people share copies, it does take anything away from anyone, so<br>
> there is no loss. Also, the artists are not doing work specifically<br>
> for these people. So there is no occasion to "compensate" anyone.<br>
<br>
</div>Technically not. But you use something without compensating the creator.<br>
What would you say, if someone uses your code without releasing the new<br>
software under GPL again? You have no loss in money, there ist just less<br>
free code than if he had released it under GPL again.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>If you modify a GPL software and you don't release the code nor the executable, to anyone but you, that's fine under the GPL license. This is similar to an artirst that creates a version of a song but doesn't release to anyone. In that case the one "losing money" is the author that modifies the song: no one is listening to it.<br>
<br>Felix Robles<br></div></div><br>