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.
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.
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.