Use Open Source? Then You're a Pirate! 650
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.'"
If you use open source, you're a pirate... (Score:5, Interesting)
what happens if you write/contribute to open source?
Can I sue the IIPA for defamation? (Score:1, Interesting)
Since I encourage open source software, can I sue the IIPA for defamation?
Do they realize how bad an idea this is? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Seriously flawed logic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If you use open source, you're a pirate... (Score:5, Interesting)
In all seriousness, though, times like this are perfect example of the difference between free marketeers and scumsucking rent-seeking corporatists who don't deserve to live.
Anybody who makes, and in public no less, the argument that OSS software, voluntarily released by its owners under particular licences, is a "threat to intellectual property" is simply making the petulant demand that "intellectual property" be made to equal "Payments to me, in perpetuity". The intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking.
now they fight FOSS (Score:5, Interesting)
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Should be named... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If you use open source, you're a pirate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Canada's proposed legislation C-61 would have resulted in $20k fines for installing Linux since it would "circumvent" some DRM things.
Seriously though -- I use Linux, and I download music and movies, and sometimes I rip them from library-borrowed DVDs. At work, I do things to hurt actual, real life pirates, who are the scum of the earth, Johnny Depp's romanticized version aside. Some of the work I've done was breaking the communication pathway in a device in order to do a thing, and that end product is being used by people with guns who are engaged with real pirates. Apparently that makes ME the bad guy.
Big IP houses would love to find a model that's "pay per play, and a monthly fee, and we decide the prices, and anyone who breaks our rules should go to jail and be bankrupt" model. They are the ones that are as bad as real life pirates.
Re:I thought open source was communism? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:If you use open source, you're a pirate... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you use open source [whitehouse.gov], then you're a pirate? Ok, slap him [barackobama.com] in prison. go on, I'd love to see them try :)
Flawed Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
Re:If you use open source, you're a pirate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Make no mistake: we're in a propaganda war. You might call it "marketing" or "public relations" or "lobbying" or whatever else you want to call it, but the intention is the same. Publishers of games, books, movies, music, and software are all trying to convince you of a particular view of "intellectual property". They're not trying to convince you through honest rational arguments, but rather through logical fallacies and mass brainwashing.
They're trying to convince us all that they are, as industries, entitled to exist, and entitled to a governmental guarantee of profitability. They're trying to convince us that copyright was always considered an inalienable human right, and that authors of creative works have always been entitled to absolute control of their creations in perpetuity. Further, they're trying to convince us that they, the publishers, are the true authors of these works. The guy who wrote the song or the novel, the band who performed the song, the developer who actually wrote the code-- these people are just employees. They're assistants in the process, but the company who funded the work is the true author, and the only one entitled to protection.
That's the propaganda being sold to the public. Don't think for a second that we're involved in an honest debate.
Corporations are Inherently Amoral (Score:5, Interesting)
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 IIPA is genuinely scary though. (Score:5, Interesting)
Read their report on Indonesia [iipa.com] 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.
Re:I thought open source was communism? (Score:1, Interesting)
"Socialism is when the government forcefully confiscates someones time, money or resources and gives it to someone else."
Did the Bolsheviks get to you? You may be surprised to learn that they (and other government monopolists) were actually capitalists.
A capitalist is any individual or group which owns capital, a.k.a. productive equipment, and which profits off the labor of those who work the equipment. Capitalism is an economic system based on this relationship between laborers and owners. Capitalism is therefore characterized by top-down, hierarchical economic entities like corporations. State capitalism, which is capitalism dominated by the government, is exemplified by the USSR.
Socialism, in contrast, is based on social ownership of capital. Capital is owned or controlled primarily by the people who work it. Socialism is characterized by horizontal, democratic economic entities like workers's councils. State socialism is a contradiction in terms -- Rudolph Rocker wrote that "socialism will be free or it will not be at all." -- and "libertarian socialism" may be a term of interest to you.
The concept of a "free market" is not a solely capitalist one. For OSS to be capitalist, it would require a capitalist or capitalist group (Canonical? Red Hat?) to unilaterally control access to capital (computers) and the output thereof (the software) with regard to the proletariat (volunteers). However, OSS code is not controlled, and anyone can edit and add to OSS without running it through official channels. I can't comment as to hierarchy within the OSS field, but it seems fairly horizontal. This makes me think that it is, in fact, more socialist than capitalist.