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.'"
Then the world would be a better place. Although, I kinda like the idea of being a pirate. I've always wanted to sail the open seas, plundering vessels, going ashore and plundering the village's wenches. AARRGGG.
Sent from your iPad.
what happens if you write/contribute to open source?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
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.
I suspect that to some extent the IIPA sees the US policy as an extension of their own economic interests. For much of history that's exactly how things have worked with colonial powers forcing things on colonies and subservient or conquered countries to serve their own economic interests. However, the end result of this will be pretty clear: If this does go through then people will simply take the 301 Watchlist much less seriously, which will actually hurt the copyright holders and others because the list contains examples of countries that really are abusing copyright in very serious fashions that actually should be dealt with.
William "Bloody" Gates III, Aaargh.
I preferred to called a privateer...
...that you're a thief if you drink from a public water fountain?
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.
Well piracy wouldn't exist without copyright law either!
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I'm probably the Nth person to quote this, but it's so fitting:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
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.
Institution of International Pathetic Asshats. Here is what that haven of piracy Canada has to say about it when they were put on the list: "Canada does not recognize the Special 301 process due to its lacking of reliable and objective analysis, and we have raised this issue regularly with the U.S. in our bilateral discussions." Even our mild mannered neighborino to the North told them to go suck an egg. I have yet to see any reason why being on that list should bother a country in the slightest.
"I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
A few notes:
On the article, the main qualm for the author of the main article seems to be with Indonesia's inclusion into the Special 301 list. For those that didn't read the article but don't know what that list is, the Special 301 list monitors countries that are known for infringing IP rights on a wide-scale (or at least that's the jist I got from reading the articles).
If one reads at least the Executive Summary for Indonesia's report, it is made pretty clear that the analyzed paragraph is not the reason why Indonesia was included on that list. Their issues are, like many second- and third-world countries, much more far-reaching that.
Firstly, it is important to recognize that these are not governmental mandates. These are requests. While there is some legitimacy in claiming that the exclusive use of (free and) open-source software imbalances the playing field for companies looking to make a profit, it is very weak. Nobody complained when Germany or France switched over to OpenDocument format and Linux on government desktops, even though that both of those actions, according to the IIPA, would be guilty of the same thing. It should be a government's decision to determine whether they want to adopt a purely free and open-source computing environment; in fact, it is actually a pretty good decision for them since it would help them deter privacy at-home (which is ultimately what these folks want) while saving them massive dollars. I highly doubt that this will be followed through; too many questions would be raised.
Secondly, one the real reasons why Indonesia is on that list is clearly stated if one reads a bit further down into the report. They are reported as ranking in the world's top 12 countries for business software piracy. That more than likely means they get lots and lots of copies of Office from TPB or wherever. I'm not against piracy, but that would definitely be a legitimate cause for landing up on that list. They are also reported to have lots of other issues with illegal copying/selling/et al.
I am not against piracy (at least on a personal level), but I am against sensational journalism that only blows up a few pixels out of the bigger picture instead of looking at the whole image. This is hardly an attack on open-source; it's just a "thing they noticed."
What do you think the concept of IP is, except protectionism?
What I believe the IIPA is saying that mandates to use open source without considering other alternatives is something they see as a barrier to market access and what they consider to be a non-illegal but misguided solution to the problem of piracy. They're not saying that using OSS users are pirates.
spanish_main( int arrrrrgc, char *arrrrrgv[] )
OSS is free market enterprise and has nothing to do with socialism.
Socialism is when the government forcefully confiscates someones time, money or resources and gives it to someone else.
OSS is 100% voluntary and thus is free market enterprise. Voluntary associations are essential to any capitalist society because individuals and corporations can not fill the needs of everyone.
The kind of society we are living in now is Piracy, where large corporations can keep their profits and then plunder the public treasury when things go bad. Piracy is what this IIPA organization is advocating, not capitalism.
As funny as it may sound, when you freely give away your time and money to a cause, such as OSS you are being a capitalist and when you pay any non-voluntary taxes you are participating in socialism.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
I am getting confused here. I thought pirates shuttled old men and their boy toys to Alderaan? But now you are saying we are like Che Guevara?
Either way, our chances of getting laid any time soon just sky-rocketed. We are now officially "bad boys". Rebel with a compile.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Have gnu, will travel.
Could someone please point me to the section of the article which substantiates the claim that open-source is equivalent to piracy?
I've read the entire article, and the only thing I can find is the *article author's interpretation* that the document says encouraging the use of open-source software is in the same category ("Special 301 watchlist") as piracy. For one thing, saying they're in the same category is not the same as saying they are the same - just like shoplifting and murder are in the category of "criminal behavior" but that doesn't mean "they are the same thing".
As far as I can see, the article says that companies are complaining that countries that encourage the use of open-source are interfering with the market forces by producing a bias against closed-source competitors. While I don't agree that this is a legitimate complaint, I can accept the argument that undo preference for open-source software could cause countries to use less capable (free) software over more capable (purchased) software - if an open-source equivalent is inferior to some closed-sourced software. No doubt, open-source advocates would absolutely consider this kind of bias to be evil if those same countries reversed their position and said that they favored closed-source software over open-source competitors.
At this point, I'm considering Slashdot's interpretation of events to be unfair and biased. Why am I getting used to seeing news stories misinterpreted when I visit Slashdot? The fundamental thrust of this article seems to be: companies producing closed-source software are evil, and piracy isn't bad - it's just inaccurately labeled as bad by the same people who hate open-source; i.e. anti-piracy/anti-open-source is merely an attempt by money-grubbing companies to control the market. Both of those "lessons" are flawed.
Goodwill and Salvation Army have made serious efforts to put each other out of business. One of them (I forget which) sued the other, back in, oh, the late eighties, over the right to sell rags to China. If I recall correctly, I read this in the Wall Street Journal.
Several years ago, some of the second-hand stores here in Minneapolis/Saint Paul shut down. The way I heard it (anecdotal word-of-mouth), larger local business interests pressured the city to impose reporting requirements too burdensome for the second-hand places to bear. Similarly, years ago, you could volunteer at a food co-op and get a discount. Now there's not a single co-op left in the Twin Cities that accepts volunteers. Same (anecdotal) story: bigger business interests (Whole Foods?) pressured regulators to impose reporting requirements too burdensome for the co-ops to justify using volunteers (you had to treat "volunteers" as real employees and do all the paperwork that goes with it.)
-kgj
By their nature - a focus on increasing profits at all costs - the corporation is inherently amoral. Oh, they may choose to act in a moral or responsible manner for sure, but there is nothing inherent in the concept of a corporation that actually encourages that attitude.
If a company discovers its product is a health hazard, its in their best interest to cover it up, try to fix the problem as quietly and quickly as possible - and carry on, all the while hoping no one notices or sues them. Anything else will reduce sales, open them up to lawsuits and consequent penalties, and decrease profits.
As I see it (and IANAL), the chief problem is that we allow corporations to act as individuals. If the presidents & officers of corporations were personally (and financiallly) liable for the actions of a corporation, then we might get less objectionable actions from companies and more responsibilities. OTOH who would want to be a corporate head?
Currently a corporation has *more* rights than a private individual, and less liability in many ways (they can be fined etc, but don't go to jail).
I don't support Communism, it hasn't worked, but that fact doesn't mean that its opposite, Capitalism, is inherently perfect either.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Read their report on Indonesia for example.
They start off by condemning the amount of piracy that happens in Indonesia. That part is probably accurate and fair.
However, then things go from sane to really, really screwy. They start the puzzling paragraph with
What can one take away from this letter? That the BSA would rather have you pirate Microsoft products than use Linux? That we should use trade embargoes (and given history, probably even military force) to enforce sales of Adobe, Microsoft, and Oracle products?
This is just crazy. It would be one thing but for the RIAA, the MPAA, and the BSA to sign off on that is pretty darned scary.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Boobies!
You know there is such a thing as market socialism, right?
People get the concepts of capitalism, free markets, socialism, and communism far too confused.
So if we presume that a hunk of information like software constitutes a form of capital, then open source of any variety most definitely is socialist (it's seeking to distribute said capital broadly instead of concentrating it in the hands of a few), and thus not capitalist in the loose sense, but most certainly not communist in the modern sense (its distribution is anything but centrally controlled), and thus it is most certainly compatible with three free-market.
Of course those like me who deny the legitimacy of copyright entirely (thus undermining the premise that something like software constitutes capital) would look like communists in the original sense to those who disagree, but we in turn see the very presumption of copyright to be contrary to the free market on scarce physical goods (by legislating what can and cannot be done with peoples' own equipment), which certainly takes precedent over the market on infinitely reproducible intangible goods.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The article summary (and the Guardian articles) mis-state that countries are being cited "because they encourage the use of open source software." In fact, in reading IIPA's Special 301 recommendations for Indonesia and Brasil, those countries are being cited because they are trying to require by law the use of open source (in government usage). That's very different from simply encouraging FOSS use as the summary suggests.
What would one expect the position of an intellectual property trade organization to be regarding countries that are trying to outlaw the use of commercial intellectual property?
Further, as indicated in the linked briefs, the issue of open source treatment is only a small one in the context of much larger intellectual property issues. To suggest that countries would be put on a watchlist simply "because they encourage the use of open source software" is to ignore the many other and weightier intellectual property concerns that have nothing to do with open source software. (Just because we're an open source community doesn't mean everything is an open source issue.)
There's nothing significant here.