Open source, Sopa, Google, Microsoft, apple, free, paid, pirated, copyright

Today, when talking about open-source issues in the group, Zhang Yuan and Yu Yuan encouraged me to write a search-type article. Today, women are absolutely unfriendly (so that you all have boyfriends ). Feng Jie is simply looking for it. I hope that you can have an introduction to your own opinions and comply with the media attributes of csdn. You can go to the homepage (vanity is harmful ).

I like open-source projects and have benefited a lot from open-source development. Jquery is the most typical benefit. It is really easy to use. Other related jquery components can simplify and improve my work efficiency, and I am grateful to the open source. The question includes open source, which is because many people disagree with open source as an attitude completely opposed to the traditional business model. In fact, I feel that open source is the same as that of technical blogs and forums, it is a specific contribution to technical details and should not be too related to the business model. Success and failure in the Open Source Business are not the topics I want to discuss today. What I want to talk about today is about content providers.

Generally, I divide Internet-related enterprises into two categories.

Content Providers: Hollywood film, recording, and entertainment services represented by DreamWorks. Software products represented by Apple, Oracle, and Adobe include game developers.

Content distributors: Internet content sharing industries represented by Google, such as Facebook, Sina, 163, QQ, and so on.

Well, the team is finished, and so on. There is Microsoft in the title. Well, Microsoft has been hesitant recently. I don't know whether I am in the content provider team or the content transmitter team.

Why do we say this? Let's take a look at Microsoft's position in SOPA. Many people expect Microsoft to stand in support of the anti-piracy act, but Microsoft eventually opposed SOPA, many people are surprised that SOPA is actually the standpoint of two operators. Just look at the business model to understand their respective positions.

The content team is full of hard work. They want to write scripts, build scenarios, write lyrics, train singers and actors, hire reporters, review, pay authors royalties, ask programmers to do what they need, write code ....

The advertising team is full of large funds. Their IPO, they buy a lot of servers, they laugh at Wall Street, they ask programmers to do their needs, write code ....

It seems that programmers are good at mixing, and any team can be mixed.

But in terms of industry, what I have been worried about is today's main topic. Should we protect their rights and interests for content providers? In China, piracy is a basic concept that is not publicly available but supported. Since programmers are in two different teams, they can understand and recognize different copyright protection attitudes. I hope that I can get monetary compensation for my hard work. The more cheap and free content, the better.

Although I'm not sure, I feel that Google advocates free sharing and free content. Other internet companies share the same concept. However, the problem is that, even if Google advocates to share some benefits with content providers, there is still little chance that content providers will get cash. On the Internet, we can obtain books, movies, software, and records at the lowest cost. These are different from amateur blogs and answers on forums, only fragments can be completed in time, but movies, data, products, and software require full-time investment. If there is no return, content providers will go bankrupt.

I believe that Internet companies also understand this simple truth. In terms of basic logic and law, Internet companies cannot say that we require free content providers. We support piracy, however, in practice, Internet companies bypass piracy through personal sharing and uploading. This is the focus of SOPA debate.

For more than 10 years, Google's invincible free software theory left many traditional software vendors or independent software vendors at a loss. In society, at least China is filled with this atmosphere. software is free, worthless, business models are ignored, and cool is attractive. But now the basis of this mythical theory has been shaken. E-commerce is the first wave of bad luck, which is free, low, and eye-catching. An enterprise without profit has no value. An industry without profit IDEA has no value. Group Buying is also coming soon.

Apple has proved that a reasonable exchange model can benefit both suppliers and consumers. Microsoft sees Apple's success and probably understands that it will not blindly imitate Google's free model. Production and consumption should have been mutually beneficial, and only one party's profit model cannot last for a long time.

Enterprises can give up the copyright of their products for free, but we have no right to require them to give up the copyright for free. If an enterprise insists on charging fees, we can not buy its products, but we should not piracy. This is our most basic philosophy.

If you insist on piracy, you should not say anything about open source. You are not qualified to discuss open source. Go home and wash and sleep.

Finally, let's make a supplement. If the current Internet operation model remains unchanged (the distribution operator relies on improper access to the content provider for survival), we will soon see the death of the content provider, the caster began to be forced to do the content on its own, and then the content supplier and the persistent streamer were in such a cycle.

Google's idea of vigorously supporting social networks is to treat everyone as a content provider. But I have already said that professional content requires professional personnel knowledge and time, I am afraid it is a distant dream to make everyone a content supplier.

For the grand literary ebook, the purchase of copyright for video websites should start from the Internet's friends.