Weblog:   Dragging the Butter
Subject:   Why we need a range of licensing models
Date:   2001-11-28 18:22:39
From:   timoreilly
Response to: BountyQuest founder, is this opinion inconsistent?

Some people definitely create art, and literature, and programs, without the need for any IP protection whatsoever. We talk all the time about people writing open source software to "scratch their own itch." But it's also clear that many people write programs, and create works of art (books, movies, paintings, music) specifically to make money, and over time, a system of "intellectual property" protection has evolved to enhance the ability of these folks to maximize their return on their effort. Sometimes "maximize" goes too far. But it's also clear that there are some works that just don't get done when anyone can benefit as much (or more) than the creator. If you are creating something of value, and a freeloader can get it for nothing, they actually have a marketplace advantage over the creator, who has to incur the cost of development. Copyright and other forms of IP protection were originally designed to address this imbalance.


In an ideal world this wouldn't be necessary. But I don't think we live in an ideal world. As Lao Tzu said, "Losing the way of life, men rely on goodness. Losing goodness, men rely on laws."


As to your point that you can't see how anyone could assert that the desire of the individual to have power over their creations could be stronger than the desire of others to ensure that users have free access to those creations...well, I have an equally hard time seeing the opposite point of view. I have great respect for Richard's desire to have that outcome for his own work. But when he starts telling other people that they have no right to seek other outcomes, and to persuade users to accept restrictions in exchange for some value, we have to part ways.


But this all digresses from my original point. Whether or not companies use IP restrictions to cause harm is moot. We know they do. But I argue that it's the excesses (e.g. the abuse of monopoly power to distort what would otherwise be a free exchange between buyer and seller) that are the problem, and not the fundamental choice of a creator to put some restrictions on the use of his or her work. And what's more, I argue that the GPL relies on this very right, this most fundamental right, as the basis for its own assertions about what users MUST do if they accept the terms on the use of GPLd software.

Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.

  • Please don't muddy the waters
    2001-11-28 21:44:26  fredsmoothie [View]

    Hmmm.

    I thought we were nearing consensus on some essential points, but perhaps I was mistaken.

    First off, I never said anything to the effect that I "can't see how anyone could assert that the desire of the individual to have power over their creations could be stronger than the desire of others to ensure that users have free access to those creations." We were talking about the moral weight attached to different desires, NOT the strength of the desires themselves.

    We had agreed, I thought, on the following points:

    1) That the argument is *primarily* a moral, ethical, and philosophical one;

    2) That the main practical consideration (the possibility that the promise of the benefits associated with exploiting an unnatural monopoly would spur creative output) rests on assumptions -- that this mechanism works or is neccessary -- that are currently unproven and possibly unprovable.

    Are you saying that the strength of one's desires is the sole determinant of moral value? That seems frighteningly relativistic; Hitler's desire to eliminate the Jews of Europe was extremely strong and I hope you and I both share a worldview which does not correlate the strength of that desire with a corresponding moral value.

    What I said was (and this is specifically in regard, remember, to your core concept of "freedom zero" and Kuhn and Stallman's response that freedom zero is not about freedom, but power), that I don't see how someone can attach greater MORAL WEIGHT to the desire of one individual to control what others do with information they've been given (with or without compensation) than to the right of those users to know what the software does, to fix it themselves if need be, and to help others fix it.

    I don't believe that there's any proof that proprietary software licensing is *needed* to spur creative output; you have not provided any such proof (though you still keep repeating that the assumption is valid without supporting it). In fact, it seems to me there is more evidence to the contrary in the long stream of creative effort throughout human history prior to the 300 or so years since copyright came into being.

    So if we agree that the idea that monopoly protection of IP in the form of copyright spurs innovation is a faith position, HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY ASSIGNING A GREATER MORAL VALUE TO THE CREATOR'S DESIRE TO CONTROL HIS CREATION AFTER IT'S CHANGED HANDS THAN TO THE RECIPIENT'S DESIRE NOT TO BE CAPTIVE TO THE WHIM OF THE CREATOR IN THE FACE OF THE NEED FOR CHANGES OR THE DESIRE TO ENRICH OTHER RECIPIENTS WITH A GIFT OF THE CREATION? Especially with regard to software, which, please remember, sometimes controls airplanes and nuclear reactors which have the power to take human life, AND OFTEN THE END CONSUMER HAS NO FREEDOM TO CHOOSE OTHER SOFTWARE. I can't choose what software is in my car or my cellphone; I should be able to fix it. The air travel authorities should be able to inspect and fix the software which runs out air traffic control system because NO SANE PERSON THINKS THE LIVES OF TRAVELERS IS WORTH LESS THAN THE LEISURE OF SOFTWARE AUTHORS.

Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.