Giving control of information back to the RIAA in exchange for consumer convenience (in the form of sanctioned songs and full-length reduced-quality mp3 albums) sounds like a bad idea to me. Not only does it represent an agreement with the RIAA (that sharing "their" information is wrong), but it seems like the (extremely) short end of the stick, given our current (our and their) positions.
Of course, if the tables somehow turn (and I don't see how, given such technologies as Gnutella), we can only hope that the RIAA will evaluate such "compromises".
Boycott Metallica and Dr. Dre NOW! (Please redistribute this.sig.)
I disagree: that Napster does not encourage or condone "piracy" is another issue. While, by itself, this point should be enough to defend Napster in our current copyright/patent/intellectual-property rooted legal (moral?) framework, the real issue questions what you describe as "generally accepted".
Challenging what is "generally accepted" (that is, our current legal/moral framework) is actually the real issue, and we should not divert our attention from it. Larry Wall is correct in pointing out that confusion surrounds the notions of giving, taking, and (IMO) "stealing". It is a mistake, however, to attribute such "confusion" to "leisurly moral growth", and to thus dismiss it. This confusion exists, rather, as we cultivate a new legal/moral framework.
This new framework (that we are now cultivating) questions the notion of certain kinds of property. Of course, with the idea of property/ownership rejected, other ideas (like giving, taking, and "stealing") lose their meaning.
Thus any existing confusion is not the result of liesure, but rather the result of a ideological shift. We should not allow ourselves to be labelled immoral (or leisurely) because our morals do not fit within the current set of "generally accepted" ones.
Boycott Metallica and Dr. Dre NOW! (Please redistribute this.sig.)
Wow! That submit button is so close to preview (maybe you should get Jakob Nielsen to take a look at them, guys (g))! Anyway, why not disregard my first post, and read this instead:
Whoa. I just finished reading it all (except for the paragraphs I started skipping after 9. THE GREAT SATAN), and I found the intricate structure of manipulative/contradictory arguments based on invalid assumptions shocking. As a summary:
...ethics includes a universal component Last I checked, this was not a closed issue: there are people (myself included) who belong to the moral relativism camp. For those who would like to cite the lack of a society that advocates random killing as the final argument against such relativism: the lack of a concrete counter example does not mean that one cannot conceptually exist, or that one will never exist. So, this assumption is the first invalid one.
Not causing unjustified loss of human life is one of the universal moral imperatives. I originally thought this was invalid, but it's really just a tautology: we must admit that something that is unjustified is unjustified.
Not acquiring someone else's legitimate property against his will is yet another. This is an obvious setup for Meyer's attack on free software and is invalid. Note that while I do not think that "acquiring someone else's legitimate property against his will" "is one of the universal moral imperatives", the notion of "legitimate property" is required for a certain set of behaviour to be even considered unethical (stealing and vandalism belong to this set).
It should be pointed out, however, that the existence of a community of dedicated, well-intentioned and sincere defenders of a cause is unrelated to the ethical value of that cause. As an example, one of the tragedies of the twentieth centuries has been the diversion of the energy and passion of countless honest and idealistic volunteers towards support for Soviet-style communism, a regime that cause tens of millions of deaths, uncounted cases of human misery, and the destruction of civil society in entire countries. This is a manipulative argument based on an invalid assumption. The assumption is that actions are objectively ethical or unethical regardless of how the people performing or receiveing the actions feel about them. Note that the first sentence of this argument is a variation of Meyer's first invalid assumption, that...ethics includes a universal component. The argument becomes manipulative when it uses Communism as an example. It is well known that many people instinctively regard Communism as inherently unethical, and Meyer takes full advantage of this sentiment by promptly associating free software with Communism. Sure, he proclaims that he does not want to make such an association immediately after he makes it, but why did he use the example of Communism in the first place? Also note that Meyer relies on the Communist association multiple times in his essay.
The GNU and FSF view is that it is OK to sell anything except software. (To be precise, I have not found any example of something else whose selling they find immoral; satellite signals might seem a logical candidate.) This statement is contradictory (with the rest of the essay) because it recognizes the difference between not saying that X is wrong and saying that X is right, while the essay goes on as if they are actually the same thing! He repeatedly attacks RMS for not saying that X is wrong as if RMS is actually saying that X is right. Meyer also attacks the whole free-software community for not speaking out against guns as if we are advocating them (which, I realize, we may or may not be).
Their propaganda is a campaign of hatred against people whose only "crime" is to want to make a living out of the wares they produce. A recent encounter with Richard Stallman illustrates this attitude"... Okay, so Meyer has painted Stallman as a "hateful" jerk. So after I have been emotionally setup as such, is my thought proccess to go something like, "Hmmm... RMS is a proponent of Free Software, and RMS is a "hateful" jerk, so free software must be a bad idea."? Thanks, but no thanks. Also note that this tactic does not only rely on emotional manipulation, it also relies on confusing (Meyer's) free software with Free Software. Finally, also note that Meyer uses a similar emotional-manipulation tactic as he outlines ESR's (appalling) love of guns.
Product F is free software. It comes with the standard no-warranty warranty.
Product P is proprietary software. It costs $50 for the binary-only version. It uses the most advanced techniques of software engineering. It never crashes, or departs in any way from its (mathematically expressed) specification. The seller is, in fact, so sure of those qualities that he will commit in writing that any violation of the specification during execution will immediately lead to reimbursement of the purchase price and compensation for any damages incurred.
The question, which is left as an exercise for the reader, is: which one of these solutions do you consider the more ethical? Auxiliary question: does your answer change if the price of the product becomes $5000? $50,000? $5 million? I was amazed to see this tactic used twice. Of course there are actually four options to choose from, but Meyer decided to omit the two options that do not further his argument. And, yes, I realize that the intent was to divert attention away from free software and to compare it with the notion of quality; regardless, however, omitting these options affects the reader's opinion in unobvious ways (that are good for Meyer's argument).
I guess that's enough for now (I'm getting tired). Just one more thing:
Boycott Metallica and Dr. Dre NOW! (Please redistribute this.sig.)
Whoa. I read it all (except for the paragraphs I started skipping after 9. ), and intricate the structure of deceptive arguments based on invalid assumptions was shocking. As a summary:
Not causing unjustified loss of human life is one of the universal moral imperatives. I originally thought this was invalid, but it's really just a tautology: we must admit that something that is unjustified is unjustified.
Not acquiring someone else's legitimate property against his will is yet another. This is an obvious setup for Meyer's attack on free software and is invalid. Note that while I do not think that "acquiring someone else's legitimate property against his will" "is one of the universal moral imperatives", the notion of "legitimate property" is required for a whole set of behaviour that is often considered unethical (stealing, for example).
The (Commercial) software industry (and other information-based industries) artificially impose restrictions on its consumers, while the restrictions faced by the consumer in other industries is natural. As an example, the only reason I can't provide a friend with a copy of Windows (besides my desire to not inflict pain on my friend) is that Microsoft said so, while there are many reasons why it is not practical for me to provide a friend with a copy of my new Ford Focus (acquiring raw materials, for example). This is basically the familiar tangible/intangible distinction that you identify as apples and oranges. It is this distiction that allows me to say that restrictive software (information) producers are depriving people, while tangible producers (who have natural restrictions in place and do not have to impose their own) are not depriving people.
Meyer proposes that there is no such thing as free (beer) software due to such costs as bandwith and RAM. It should be pointed out, however, that free (beer) software does not necessarily require no resources to obtain (in fact, I would say that it must require resources to obtain (Like my physics prof. said, "There's no free lunch!")). A requirement of free (beer) software is, rather, that the transfer of resources from the consumer to the producer is optional.
That's about the whole $0.02. Oh yeah, and this: Boycott Metallica and Dr. Dre NOW! (Please redistribute this.sig.)
Hi RMS. First off, I'd like to say, "Thank you", on behalf of all Slashdot readers. We are all indebted to your contribution to the software world. With that said...
Since being introduced to Free Software (like GNU/Linux) and to other software that undermines the control of information (like Napster or DeCSS), I have found the notion of information control--not just of software, but of all information--increasingly frustrating. The popularity of Free Software echoes this frustration: it points to a rising resistance against the control of information. Users everywhere are acting against licenses that dictate how information can be used after it has been acquired (whether gratis or for a fee).
My question is, "Do you (or would you like to) see a future where all information is as Free as GPLed software?" Should I be able to change the ending of, and redistribute, a best-selling novel? Should I be able to include any sample in my band's next song, royalty-free? Do you think that any information creators (authors, musicians, researchers, hackers, etc.) should have the right to restrict our use of "their" information once we have acquired it (beyond those controls applied by the GPL), or should a GPL-like license be the only one available?
Slashdot Mirror
Giving control of information back to the RIAA in exchange for consumer convenience (in the form of sanctioned songs and full-length reduced-quality mp3 albums) sounds like a bad idea to me. Not only does it represent an agreement with the RIAA (that sharing "their" information is wrong), but it seems like the (extremely) short end of the stick, given our current (our and their) positions.
Of course, if the tables somehow turn (and I don't see how, given such technologies as Gnutella), we can only hope that the RIAA will evaluate such "compromises".
Boycott Metallica and Dr. Dre NOW! .sig.)
(Please redistribute this
I disagree: that Napster does not encourage or condone "piracy" is another issue. While, by itself, this point should be enough to defend Napster in our current copyright/patent/intellectual-property rooted legal (moral?) framework, the real issue questions what you describe as "generally accepted".
Challenging what is "generally accepted" (that is, our current legal/moral framework) is actually the real issue, and we should not divert our attention from it. Larry Wall is correct in pointing out that confusion surrounds the notions of giving, taking, and (IMO) "stealing". It is a mistake, however, to attribute such "confusion" to "leisurly moral growth", and to thus dismiss it. This confusion exists, rather, as we cultivate a new legal/moral framework.
This new framework (that we are now cultivating) questions the notion of certain kinds of property. Of course, with the idea of property/ownership rejected, other ideas (like giving, taking, and "stealing") lose their meaning.
Thus any existing confusion is not the result of liesure, but rather the result of a ideological shift. We should not allow ourselves to be labelled immoral (or leisurely) because our morals do not fit within the current set of "generally accepted" ones.
Boycott Metallica and Dr. Dre NOW! .sig.)
(Please redistribute this
Wow! That submit button is so close to preview (maybe you should get Jakob Nielsen to take a look at them, guys (g))! Anyway, why not disregard my first post, and read this instead:
Whoa. I just finished reading it all (except for the paragraphs I started skipping after 9. THE GREAT SATAN), and I found the intricate structure of manipulative/contradictory arguments based on invalid assumptions shocking. As a summary:
Last I checked, this was not a closed issue: there are people (myself included) who belong to the moral relativism camp. For those who would like to cite the lack of a society that advocates random killing as the final argument against such relativism: the lack of a concrete counter example does not mean that one cannot conceptually exist, or that one will never exist. So, this assumption is the first invalid one.
I originally thought this was invalid, but it's really just a tautology: we must admit that something that is unjustified is unjustified.
This is an obvious setup for Meyer's attack on free software and is invalid. Note that while I do not think that "acquiring someone else's legitimate property against his will" "is one of the universal moral imperatives", the notion of "legitimate property" is required for a certain set of behaviour to be even considered unethical (stealing and vandalism belong to this set).
This is a manipulative argument based on an invalid assumption. The assumption is that actions are objectively ethical or unethical regardless of how the people performing or receiveing the actions feel about them. Note that the first sentence of this argument is a variation of Meyer's first invalid assumption, that
The argument becomes manipulative when it uses Communism as an example. It is well known that many people instinctively regard Communism as inherently unethical, and Meyer takes full advantage of this sentiment by promptly associating free software with Communism. Sure, he proclaims that he does not want to make such an association immediately after he makes it, but why did he use the example of Communism in the first place? Also note that Meyer relies on the Communist association multiple times in his essay.
This statement is contradictory (with the rest of the essay) because it recognizes the difference between not saying that X is wrong and saying that X is right, while the essay goes on as if they are actually the same thing! He repeatedly attacks RMS for not saying that X is wrong as if RMS is actually saying that X is right. Meyer also attacks the whole free-software community for not speaking out against guns as if we are advocating them (which, I realize, we may or may not be).
Okay, so Meyer has painted Stallman as a "hateful" jerk. So after I have been emotionally setup as such, is my thought proccess to go something like, "Hmmm... RMS is a proponent of Free Software, and RMS is a "hateful" jerk, so free software must be a bad idea."? Thanks, but no thanks. Also note that this tactic does not only rely on emotional manipulation, it also relies on confusing (Meyer's) free software with Free Software. Finally, also note that Meyer uses a similar emotional-manipulation tactic as he outlines ESR's (appalling) love of guns.
- Product F is free software. It comes with the standard no-warranty warranty.
- Product P is proprietary software. It costs $50 for the binary-only version. It uses the most advanced techniques of software engineering. It never crashes, or departs in any way from its (mathematically expressed) specification. The seller is, in fact, so sure of those qualities that he will commit in writing that any violation of the specification during execution will immediately lead to reimbursement of the purchase price and compensation for any damages incurred.
The question, which is left as an exercise for the reader, is: which one of these solutions do you consider the more ethical? Auxiliary question: does your answer change if the price of the product becomes $5000? $50,000? $5 million?I was amazed to see this tactic used twice. Of course there are actually four options to choose from, but Meyer decided to omit the two options that do not further his argument.
And, yes, I realize that the intent was to divert attention away from free software and to compare it with the notion of quality; regardless, however, omitting these options affects the reader's opinion in unobvious ways (that are good for Meyer's argument).
I guess that's enough for now (I'm getting tired). Just one more thing:
Boycott Metallica and Dr. Dre NOW!(Please redistribute this
I originally thought this was invalid, but it's really just a tautology: we must admit that something that is unjustified is unjustified.
This is an obvious setup for Meyer's attack on free software and is invalid. Note that while I do not think that "acquiring someone else's legitimate property against his will" "is one of the universal moral imperatives", the notion of "legitimate property" is required for a whole set of behaviour that is often considered unethical (stealing, for example).
- The (Commercial) software industry (and other information-based industries) artificially impose restrictions on its consumers, while the restrictions faced by the consumer in other industries is natural. As an example, the only reason I can't provide a friend with a copy of Windows (besides my desire to not inflict pain on my friend) is that Microsoft said so, while there are many reasons why it is not practical for me to provide a friend with a copy of my new Ford Focus (acquiring raw materials, for example). This is basically the familiar tangible/intangible distinction that you identify as apples and oranges. It is this distiction that allows me to say that restrictive software (information) producers are depriving people, while tangible producers (who have natural restrictions in place and do not have to impose their own) are not depriving people.
- Meyer proposes that there is no such thing as free (beer) software due to such costs as bandwith and RAM. It should be pointed out, however, that free (beer) software does not necessarily require no resources to obtain (in fact, I would say that it must require resources to obtain (Like my physics prof. said, "There's no free lunch!")). A requirement of free (beer) software is, rather, that the transfer of resources from the consumer to the producer is optional.
That's about the whole $0.02. Oh yeah, and this:Boycott Metallica and Dr. Dre NOW!
(Please redistribute this
Hi RMS. First off, I'd like to say, "Thank you", on behalf of all Slashdot readers. We are all indebted to your contribution to the software world. With that said...
Since being introduced to Free Software (like GNU/Linux) and to other software that undermines the control of information (like Napster or DeCSS), I have found the notion of information control--not just of software, but of all information--increasingly frustrating. The popularity of Free Software echoes this frustration: it points to a rising resistance against the control of information. Users everywhere are acting against licenses that dictate how information can be used after it has been acquired (whether gratis or for a fee).
My question is, "Do you (or would you like to) see a future where all information is as Free as GPLed software?" Should I be able to change the ending of, and redistribute, a best-selling novel? Should I be able to include any sample in my band's next song, royalty-free? Do you think that any information creators (authors, musicians, researchers, hackers, etc.) should have the right to restrict our use of "their" information once we have acquired it (beyond those controls applied by the GPL), or should a GPL-like license be the only one available?