Slashdot Mirror
Use Open Source? Then You're a Pirate!
superapecommando writes "There's a fantastic little story in the Guardian today that says a US lobby group is trying to get the US government to consider open source as the equivalent to piracy. The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), an umbrella group for American publishing, software, film, television and music associations, has asked the US Trade Representative (USTR) to consider countries like Indonesia, Brazil, and India for its 'Special 301 watchlist' because they encourage the use of open source software. A Special 301, according to Guardian's Bobbie Johnson is: 'a report that examines the "adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property rights" around the planet — effectively the list of countries that the US government considers enemies of capitalism. It often gets wheeled out as a form of trading pressure — often around pharmaceuticals and counterfeited goods — to try and force governments to change their behaviors.'"
I think this is is seriously flawed logic. It appears to falsely equate "value" and "intellectual creation" with a proprietary, commercial development model. Proprietary IP rights are a way to exploit the value of intellectual creations. But proprietary rights are not the source of their value. We can give "due consideration to the value of intellectual creations" without discriminating against open source. Maybe buy the developer a beer or send them a thank you note, or better yet, a bug report or patch?
We used to laud those benevolent spirits who contributed to the public good with no thought of remuneration. Now it seems we try to outlaw them. There might be a movie idea here.... The Police unions get together and sue Batman for doing pro bono work...
The GPL is, arguably, the most popular and most well-known open source license. Without strong copyright law protecting the rights of creators, the GPL could not exist, depending as it does on copyright enforcement to effect its clauses. So I'm not sure what world this lobbying group lives in where FOSS is incompatible with copyright.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
The NSA's SELinux, anybody? Obama administration Drupal sites? Forge.mil?
These morons can ask all they like but I don't think they're going to get anywhere.
Only ignore the quacks if they lack influence. Otherwise, it's important to fight them.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Quite the contrary. Copyrights, patents, etc are monopolies created and granted by government to selected individuals and companies and therefor are the very antithesis of capitalism (which is orthogonal to the question of whether or not they should exist). In a totally free market anyone would be free to manufacture and sell any object even if it was a copy of an object first made by someone else. The express purpose of copyright and patent laws is to prevent competition.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
what happens if you write/contribute to open source?
As everyone else is pointing out, that makes you a Communist.
Having said that, I would love to see a world where all the OSS contributors gets added to the "watchlists" of the world and all hell break lose every time there's a geeky conference in California or Florida. A "geeks of the world" vs. homeland security grudge match would be a thing of beauty.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Well piracy wouldn't exist without copyright law either!
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
this is an appalling indicator of how bad an environment corporatism and unregulated capitalism can create.
If you think that the US has unregulated capitalism, or even just plain capitalism, then you need to come visit the US sometime so you can see how wrong you are.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
If you can get the government to make consumption of your product mandatory, then you're set for life. This is just like the single company in the US that manufactured catalytic converters lobbying congress not to mandate emissions standards, but to mandate that all cars be equipped with a catalytic converter -- regardless of their emissions. They've been mandatory since 1975 despite the fact that they reduce horse power and fuel economy
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
What do you think the concept of IP is, except protectionism?
The problem is, there aren't many free marketers.
On one side of the aisle you have the scummy rent-seeking corporatists. And on the other side you have the anti-corporate socialist 'progressives.' Neither side of the political debate want a free market. Both sides want the government to set rules to benefit special interests. The only difference is which. And so the free market is strangled to death. Crushed under the weight of regulations, subsidies, fat government contracts and handouts.
The only times the free market has ever truly reigned is when it explodes and outpaces, for a short time, the long arm of political meddling.
Have gnu, will travel.
Actually you'll find that what you're talking about isn't capitalism, but protectionism. Protecting revenue by banning cheaper products is inherently anti-capitalist.
FOSS is 100% compatible with capitalism, as it is simply implements a different business model, and chooses to compete on acquisition price and openness factors of the TCO, i.e. making those its competitive advantages.
http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
Crushed under the weight of regulations,
The problem is that companies do unscrupulous things in the absence of regulation. Monsanto and PCPs for instance. Do we really want companies pumping toxic crap into our ground water? What about pumping black soot into the sky? How about using melamine in milk to maximize profits? What about all the snake oil stuff that got sold to the public in the 1920s? with the lack of regulation. back then people had all kinds of radioactive products back then. No regulation. Look at china today. Look at Bejing. Where they had to take drastic measures to cut smog for the Olympics. The don't use catalytic converters over there. Look at all the companies that know they are selling unsafe products due to internal research yet still chose to sell the product because profits come first. I think its the sleazy players in the marketplace that forces regulators to step in. If the market players had any ethics there would be no need to regulate.
You're right--no on can point that out to you...because it's not true. No claim has been made that open source users are pirates. The organization's complaint is exactly as you summarized--that policies requiring or expressly favoring open source solutions are trade barriers that IIPA members would like to see go away. They've asked the USTR to look at some trading partners with a frowny-face for a while in the hopes of shaming them to change their policy.
It's obviously advocacy, but it's not even particularly zealous advocacy. The same kinds of complaints are made by open source advocacy groups regarding corporate and government policies that prohibit open source consideration in bidding and/or deployment. I doubt IIPA is going to get much traction on their argument, and they shouldn't, because their members have benefited from agreements and policies going the other way for years. OSS trade groups complain, usually rightly so, about the "no open source" policies all the time.
It's certainly a far cry from the IIPA calling anyone pirates, and the telephone game of sensationalism starts in the article. The IIPA says that product evaluation should be based on the best solution, not the development model. That's a correct statement, and one used by both sides. Each issues that statement when they're on the losing end, and say nothing when they're benefiting. That's just politics.
It says that failure to do so "encourages a mindset that does not give due consideration to the value to intellectual creations." This doesn't mean piracy--it means that it removes from consideration a value argument. They're saying that commercial licensing can't compete with free unless they can make a better overall value proposition, something that they can't do if they're not allowed to bid on an equal basis.
They're certainly not saying that OSS products aren't intellectual creations or that the developers or users are pirates. The letter isn't even about the competitors. It's about bidding and implementation policies at the user/customer level, including local and national governments.
The Slashdot summary just amps up the Guardian's usual sensationalism by a factor of ten, trolling for incensed Slashdotters, page views, and pirate jokes.
On the contrary. I consider the very concept of private property to be fundamentally evil.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're willing to own stuff anyway, with some convoluted explanation of how convenience trumps not being evil.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
This subthread reminds me of Ursula K. LeGuinn in "The Dispossessed".
"The toothbrush that I use."
I'd just as soon it by MY toothbrush, thank you very much.
Capitalism is capable of great evil, and must be held in check. The same can be said of Socialism. WhyOhWhyOhWhy does it seem like everyone is on some sort of "economic system purity" rampage?!? Can't we pick what is good, and what works, erring on the side of caution?
Oh yeah, Socialism denies/curses greed. Capitalism worships it. In reality, greed is a strong motivator. So are a lot of other things. Why can't we treat it like other motivations, Good AND Evil instead of Good OR Evil?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Who mods this crap up?
This definition could apply to communism, despotism or even environmentalism because it does not define what capitalism is.
Capitalism is where assets (good and services) are traded in a marketplace (note for Capitalism, it does not need to be an open marketplace, capitalism survives and even thrives in many types of controlled markets E.G. Protectionism). No part of FOSS is incompatible with this, FOSS does not restrict other goods or services from being traded, FOSS can be traded with other goods and services (as explicitly stated in the GPL). So in actual fact it's more compatible with a free market then proprietary software or even capitalism in many cases.
Terrible strawman.
A FOSS (GPL) developer gives you their work on one condition, if you distribute this work, you must distribute it and any variations of this work under the same license, that's it. You are not obliged to distribute it even if you change it but if you do it must be under the GPL. With BSD this is completely different. I don't see how you can call this is a dictatorship.
Now with proprietary software I am not permitted to distribute nor change the software in any fashion, in many cases the way I use the software is also controlled. This is enforced with a legal and failing that literal gun to my head. This sounds a lot more like a dictatorship then FOSS.
This implies a person has no choice, this is wrong. So the child throws down the sword and picks up a lute, you have dictated nothing.
No, that is the definition of a serf, not an employee. Employment is a contract between a person (employee) and another entity (employer) in which the employer agrees to enumerate an employee in exchange for a reasonable and limited service being provided by the employee for the benefit of the employer. It is a mutual contract, not a one sided purchase as you have described. An employee is in no way comparable to a tractor.
Now your true statement comes out, FOSS is wrong because FOSS costs nothing in terms of upfront expenditure. This is the same BS as the article is using and flat out wrong.
Your definition of capitalism is more akin to that of dictatorship. You also have terrible ideas on how to treat other people, including your own children. Right now I agree with one of my bosses sayings, "this company goes down the elevator every night" which means employee's aren't just assets.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
You've forgotten that government is a monopoly, and it's the worst kind of monopoly because it has the power to FORCE obedience. It is why we have a Constitution to shackle the government with only a few select powers, and for you to suggest giving this dangerous monopoly unlimited power seems rather foolish.
And "capitalism" need not be complicated. It's one neighbor helping another neighbor. I want a shed, so I ask the carpenter down the street to build one for me. In exchange I give him money. Or maybe he has a broken computer and asks me to fix it. In either case, we both win in this exchange.
The problem comes when the neighbor uses government to *force* me to buy a shed... or worse: just takes the money without giving me anything. Again, this is the purpose of a Constitution so that government does not have that power.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall