Comments on: Benkler’s book is out http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/ Blog, news, books Thu, 02 Feb 2017 18:43:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: Shouffboobmus http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-30517 Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:21:09 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-30517 If the lender refuses the application or it may be there is some technical error, your application goes to the type of next lender. You can avail the financial loan at minimal or no paper effort. Think of the following as access instant cash loans and paying it back when it comes to the event the credit card bill arrives. Perhaps you answer Yes or No, keep reading as there ‘s a lot more to uncover in this article that most certainly excite you. pay day loans uk payday loans online uk , !v6Y

]]>
By: lotto winning tips http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-27600 Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:00:04 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-27600 You really make it appear really easy along with your presentation however I in finding this topic to be actually one thing that I believe I might never understand. It seems too complex and very broad for me. I’m looking forward to your subsequent put up, I’ll attempt to get the grasp of it!

]]>
By: ACS http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17137 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:30:42 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17137 Peter

Besides, I know full well that the “point” of copyright is to benefit the public, not those that provide works. The point is noble but misguided. It paints human beings on the behaviorist canvas. It assumes that rewards and punishments are necessary to accomplish a human goal.

Although I do agree there is some public policy in copyright I think the economic platform of protection of easily reproducible works is ultimately two steps: 1 – protect the authors rights to control thier works in the public. 2 – the author is more willing to share his works if he has protection. We only have to view the copy protection measures of Da Vinci or Michelangelo or thier predecessors to understand the importance of intellectual property rights on the individual.

Mice

Open Source’s – the wealth of network’s – opposition to intellectual property is based on a one-size-fits all model for development where everyone is “free” to use the inventions and innovations of anyone else. OS wants to “kill the goose” and promises to deliver a larger golden egg.

This is absolutely correct. Although there may be a flourish of new products there is no guarantee those products will have any real quality. Furthermore, in the case of large Open Source projects like an O/S there is no guarantee of a planned outcome. Deficiencies may grow like a cancer without any real oversight to prevent systemic problems. The success of Red Hat and others is partly attributable to a professional workforce acting behind the scenes to manipulate the code created by the Open Source labour force. If it werent for the transfer fee the system would probably have fallen over by now. Yet now the open source community wants to remove any semblence of reward. Spoilt is one word that comes to mind.

Poptones

The value isn’t locked away in some golden vault of “intellectual property” and contracts and lawyers and torts.

Torts?? huh. Ok I know I come into your world and discuss the digital stuff so I can forgive this one.

And

they pay for it every time they contribute their own code to an open source project; they pay for it every time they hire a programmer to work on one of those free projects. You seem to be of the view it’s the commons or the corporation, when in fact the commons is attracting ever more corporations to its borders.

I think you have nipped the Open Source issue in the bud here. That is the economic advantage of open source for the community. I agree that it is a legally valid scheme and will retain a place in the greater computing industry in the future. Still my fear is for the programmers and companies that give away thier time and code in addition to paying the transfer fee. The viral licence can be insipid in that regard.

It also seems self defeating in one sense – Why should a company develop another persons product instead of creating thier own? Why should they pay IBM for a product and then be slaves to IBM in terms of thier intellectual output.

Its all very good and well to argue that we should all jump into one pond but thats where the big fish get the biggest advantage.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17136 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:54:35 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17136 in certain limited circumstances it makes sense to give away intellectual property. (profit motivated) companies like IBM, Nokia, and SUN have famously made various commitments to different Open Source projects. they ain’t doing it out of altruism. for IBM et al, Open Source is the Best. Outsourcing. Ever. all those fingers typing away for free alongside the regular laborforce. all that free – or non-existent – intellectual property that they don’t have to pay to license. no software licensing costs.

No software licensing costs, and free outsourcing – of course, that’s the value. It was meant to be the value. But that same value is brought to every programmer for hire. The value isn’t locked away in some golden vault of “intellectual property” and contracts and lawyers and torts.

But in that same context, we have (for example) IBM paying their own developers to port linux to the s390, then dumping that code into the “free” realm. Sure, IBM could pick up more sales of the 390, but those don’t exactly sell at the corner compumart, and there are damn few indie developers who could even use the code. And what value is brought by even making it free? The 390 is a virtualized machine already, all they needed to “port” linux was to create a proprietary sandbox where linux could live – and yet, they didn’t stop at that. Why?

I’ve never argued one size fits all. You and I agree here much more than we disagree, and I trust you know this. My disagreement with you here is not in defending a one size fits all application of ethic, but I object to the proverbial line in the sand which you seem to have drawn between “business” and “opennness,” ignoring at every turn the fact that open source is business. More impoirtantly, it is (or was) business as usual in the IT industry until only very recently.

“All those fingers typiing away outside the regular labor force” is a completely oblivious view – oblivious to the fact a great many of those fingers are a vast part of that “regular labor force.” Companies do “pay” for that “free or non existent” property – they pay for it every time they contribute their own code to an open source project; they pay for it every time they hire a programmer to work on one of those free projects. You seem to be of the view it’s the commons or the corporation, when in fact the commons is attracting ever more corporations to its borders.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17135 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:11:35 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17135 You still don’t get it, do you? They’re the same.

no kidding. collaborative development is nothing new. sharing of ideas is nothing new. industrial cooperation long pre-dates anything called Open Source.

in certain limited circumstances it makes sense to give away intellectual property. (profit motivated) companies like IBM, Nokia, and SUN have famously made various commitments to different Open Source projects. they ain’t doing it out of altruism. for IBM et al, Open Source is the Best. Outsourcing. Ever. all those fingers typing away for free alongside the regular laborforce. all that free – or non-existent – intellectual property that they don’t have to pay to license. no software licensing costs.

but the OS model doesn’t work for everything. you would not have created a cellular radio network with OS techniques – although you did have a lot of industrial collaboration.

Open Source’s – the wealth of network’s – opposition to intellectual property is based on a one-size-fits all model for development where everyone is “free” to use the inventions and innovations of anyone else. OS wants to “kill the goose” and promises to deliver a larger golden egg.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17134 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:05:58 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17134 without the investments made by commercial collaborative competitors, the F/OSS community….

You still don’t get it, do you?

They’re the same.

Intel uses “free” cores in their chips; Microsoft uses “free” technology in their gaming platform – hell, had it not been for BSD Microsoft wouldn’t even have had a network stack in Windows 98, or it would have been Windows 99 or Windows 2000 because they would have had to innovate that bit on their own instead of just lifting the free code and algorithms from BSD. Novell, long every bit as proprietary as Microsoft, is now one of the largest commercial providers of free software around, even funding development of gnome and mono, the free implimentation of Microsoft’s .NET technology (which is, itself, basically just Microsoft’s attempt at creating a “non free” competitor to java).

The F/OSS “community” is “the commercial community.” Redhat and Mandriva and Ubuntu and Novell are only the most obvious; there is also Tivo, which builds a “proprietary” home user product around commodity parts and a free operating system. Thee is also Linksys, Zoom, and untold others selling consumer oriented network products by the truckload – all built around free software.

By the way: F/OSS is a clunky expression not commonly used. Since we’re whipping them out and comparing sizes here, I’ll point out that “open source innovation” results in 159.000 results. What does it prove? Nothing. But since we seem to be playing that game…

Here is a very interesting result from that search:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7644

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17133 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:35:36 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17133 your research methods are interesting, Peter Rock.

a google search of “F/OSS innovations” returns 6 hits.

a google search of “microsoft innovations” returns over 38,000 hits.

not scientific. but still.

]]>
By: Peter Rock http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17132 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:18:40 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17132 3 Blind Mice:

the benefits of proprietary [software] competitive advantage

Please teach me. I suggest you write an article expounding your points. The proprietary software world needs it. They are well behind in terms of published articles/books that defend the practice of hoarding software.

Compare result 1 – with result 2.

There are also dozens of fine books out there defending free software and speaking on its behalf. Can you name a book that defends published proprietary software?

The only “advantage” I see anyone arguing for is “close contact with real-world customers”. I have been trying to figure out what that means for over 2 years now and how it relates to software. I don’t need “close-contact”. I just need communication for I am dealing with an intangible, virtual product. I don’t care if the person helping me is half-way around the globe using VoIP to talk me through a process or sitting right next to me.

]]>
By: Peter Rock http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17131 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:56:46 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17131 Adrian Lopez says:

It’s likely that I misunderstood you, but the statement I was referring to is: “It seems to me that people miss the essential point of copyright which is to provide a benefit to those that produce works

You have definitely confused me with – I think – ACS. Besides, I know full well that the “point” of copyright is to benefit the public, not those that provide works. The point is noble but misguided. It paints human beings on the behaviorist canvas. It assumes that rewards and punishments are necessary to accomplish a human goal. It’s actually a rather sick and twisted view of human nature though the goal of benefitting the public is noble and just.

]]>
By: Peter Rock http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17130 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:49:38 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17130 3 Blind Mice say:

free software exists because – according to the history we don’t know – richard stallman became upset with the fact he could not obtain a new printer driver

Free Software as an organized movement exists primarily because of RMS. However, free software actually existed long before that. Software was freely passed around by computer scientists to other computer scientists long before anyone came up with the absurd idea of placing source code under All Rights Reserved copyright.

Basically, the entire world of prorpietary software is riding on the back of the work of scientists who never claimed ownership on their work. The GPL and other free software licenses are simply pragmatic measures intended to combat the insanity of copyrighted software which destroyed the free software community. Such licenses did not come about to ride on the work of the proprietary world. They are a hearkening to the days when cooperation reigned.

As far as I can tell, the entire proprietary software world owes its existence to the work that computer scientists did simply for the love of it. Those who shared freely were the innovators. It’s ironically sad that many in the proprietary world now see free software as an organized movement as the enemy.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17129 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:14:58 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17129 The “pull” of the non free software industry? So now you are claiming the existence of gnome is still all due to microsoft and apple?

we know it’s not kewl for linux users to give any credit to apple or microsoft. but it’s not just microsoft and apple, poptones, but all the commercial investment: ibm, apple, intel, microsoft, and many other “collaborative competitors” are largely responsible for the ubiquity of industrial and personal computing. collabortive competition, poptones, has always been necessary to achieve the network effects offered by the computing industry. the 8ms flat screen LCDs, the blazing fast dual-core micros, flash memory, etc. they just materialized from nothing? without the investments made by commercial collaborative competitors, the F/OSS community would still be re-writing the pong code on the heathkit with the amber CRT.

the state of the art today is the result of commercial risk taking: the making of massive investments in marketing, sales, support, production, development, and the big “R” Reserarch – all of those failed ideas that never saw the light of day or failed to gained commercial traction.

the simple fact that you can tout the advantages of gnome is in part because the collaborators who made it had among other things the experience of microsoft and apple to know what not to do.

now all this is well and good. gnome developers and users all power to you. but don’t confuse the benefits of networked development – the sharing of ideas – with commercial network effects.

from “wealth of nations” to the now oft-maligned schumpeter it is understood that competitive advantage is what creates success in a free market. we submit that the proprietary advantages arising from technical innovation and protected by IPRs are the essence of commercial success in the 21st century knowledge economy: not kum-bah-yah, not sharing, not collectivisation, not nationalisation, not commons-isation, but plain, old-fashioned, white-bread, free-market competition.

in such an environment, if technical innovations resulting from commercial investment are deemed as belonging to a “commons” and freely-shared among everyone, commercial investors loose their competitive advantages. the unavoidable result: commercial investment – the primary engine of economic growth and progress – is made less attractive.

F/OSS is great. for some things. we never said it wasn’t. it just isn’t, in most cases, a replacement for the benefits of proprietary competitive advantage and free-market competition.

we’ll say it again: weakening the intellectual property protection of the commercial investment to feed and water sharing is not prudent public policy.

]]>
By: ACS http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17128 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:08:39 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17128 Sorry you have me confused with someone else. I don’t believe I said that.

It’s likely that I misunderstood you, but the statement I was referring to is: “It seems to me that people miss the essential point of copyright which is to provide a benefit to those that produce works which are wholly suited to reproduction. It started out in patent law becuase a physical invention could be copied rather easily with a little bit of technical know how. The invention of the printing press meant that words were subject to the same aspect of simple and effective reproduction, hence copyright.”

Adrian, you are confusing Peter with me.

I also note your previous pm re the development of copyright from patent law. although I agree that today patents and copyright are different monopolies I must note (ad nauseum it would seem) that on the decree of 1637 the monopolies would have been indistinguishable except for the media to which they related. In reality all the junk about artists rights and respect for creators of works did not evolve until long after the monopoly was in place. The monopoly was put in place because it provided solid economic boundaries for competition of products that could be easily reproduced. The initial point was that when the media can be more readily reproduced the law will take a stronger line – originally the printing press was inefficient and would take a long time to copy a work wheras an invention (using 15th century technology) could be readily copied. Hence patent grew up first. It wasnt until the stationers guilds monopoly was broken by cheap and efficient printing presses that copyright came into full swing. The point is rather simple. The relevance of the point is that digital networks represent another breakthrough in the speed and spread of information and for the same reason as the decree in 1637 that breakthrough must be considered and addressed by the law. While our venerable host and others on this thread consider the law should be relaxed I would argue that the economic implications of relaxing the laws are a matter of historical precedent and there is no doubt they will and would have a negative result for the community labouring away to create works in the first place. For these reasons and others that are available through this thread I make the point that the law must be strengthened to withstand the assaults of infringement and not weakened. *puff puff*

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17127 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:50:46 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17127 Anonymous, just scroll down the page to “WHo owns culture” and click on the video link of your choice. It’s a fantastic presentation, but as I said in the comments to that post, I fear his plea may have been too subtle – too tempered by polite correctness (note I avoided the PC adjective) – to truly direct this point at those who most need to hear it.

They need to tell us: how is jazz made? Was there a lawyer sitting next to the jazz artist as he sampled from the works of those that he built on? How was hiphop inspired? Was it inspired with a catalog of work that one called up permission to seek, to use, to remake, to express a new form of creativity?
.
How is art made?
.
Tell us
.
Tell us who uise the tools of law to regulate you.
.
Because unless you start showing us – you authors; you, creators; unless you start showing us how you create, and how you have always created – unless you show us how this technology can create, then this potential which is being realized by kids using technology today, will be taken away.
.
Because the only way to silence this extraordinarily destructive rhetoric of war is for artists to sing to us in a way that distracts us from the craziness that enthralls this nation, right now.

I seek out Free works as much as I am able – and I am quite able, and put forth a good bit of effort at it, so in this I represent the most favorable of audiences to this market – and yet I have found very little free work that embodies all the ideals most of the “commons-ists” espouse in this forum. I shop often at magnatune, I enjoy the streams of content flowing from many free publishers, but rarely find works which are truly made free in the manner that even hiphop artists would require: to remix and republish. Many very good programs exist, and a great deal of music, but the vast majority of it is under a license that says I am free to republish and share the works only in unaltered form – I am free to be their advertising and publishing agent, but I am not free to build on their creative works any more than I could with Madonna or Coldplay.

About the only place one commonly finds works published in this truly free manner is techno – and that has been the case for eons, even before there was a cc license. Where are the new artists providing their work freely to the creative community to remix? Many authors have embraced this, but I have found very little music, and virtually no video of notable quality published under such license.

Hmmmm…

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17126 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:07:54 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17126 and on what processor(s)/machine(s) does Gnome run?

because it is open source, it runs on pretty much anything capable of shift and add.

don’t overlook the fact poptones that without the pull of the non-free software industry – the result of the proprietary non-sharing toilings of many – none of the basic elements on which free software lives would exist.

The “pull” of the non free software industry? So now you are claiming the existence of gnome is still all due to microsoft and apple?

Sorry, that don’t fly. The “non free” world provided added incentive for rfee software to exist, but before there was non free there was free, even if we have to go all the way back to looms, automatons and music boxes to find it.

Except we don’t – the “non free” unix was essentially “free” before AT&T started tightening the noose, and it was this pressure that drove the folks in Berkley to spin off the berkley standard derivative that has led to the completely free core which apple conscripted to produce its non free desktop.

If free softeware owes anything to proprietary software, proprietary software owes as much in return. Microsoft’s lax enforcement of their rights helped drive a business industry into the home, but it was equally that often proprietary but free as in beer software that actually built the home market – before there was a plethora of shareware and freeware it was nothing but Lotus and Word Perfect, and most potential home users balked at the notion of spending the price of a new car on a sophisticated typewriter to balance their checkbook.

Without intel and AMD there would still be the very free SPARC and RISC as well as several other free cores, most of which I cannot recall at the moment save for ARM. These cores have ended up in all sorts of “non free” computing platforms even from at least one of those legacy manufacturers, intel – and, I believe, provides the engine for Microsoft’s latest home gaming system. It was merely a coinidence of fate and timing that Windows was married to the non-free x86 instead of the “free” cores.

RISC and SPARC both started as college projects, funded by research dollars sure, but fundamentally as nothing but academic exercises in machine design.

But none of this has a thing to do with funding, which I was addressing in the comments you replied to – that “F/OSS exists largely on the back of the commercial market.” What you don’t seem to grasp is that it is not either/or, nor was it ever intended to be. Free software is a toolbox that gives programmers added value and allows “us” to compete with the proprietary market. There are plenty of non proprietary businesses serving the market, Mandriva and Redhar and Ubuntu being those already mentioned… but there are many more. Apache is free in a non proprietary context, as is Firefox. They are both F/OSS and commercial. Novell is ever narrowing the gap between Netware and Linux, and Novell is one of the oldest of those proprietary players.

It’s a collaborative competition, and I think one fact you fail to realize is that in the computing world as it exists now (as opposed to a decade ago), those previously poprietary corporations owe a hell of a lot more to the “free” world than the free world owes to them. Even Microsoft has a linux group focusing on greater interoperability between their sealed off system and the “free” desktop world – because they see the writing on the wall: that virtualization of these systems means it will no longer be an either/or decision for anyone. Microsoft is already trying to seed the field with doubt via their numerous “rootkit” demonstrations applied to virtualized machines – the shift is already happening, and they know it. The proof is in their own words.

This all means when Adobe gets fed up with the Quicktime legacy and the constantly shifting Windows groundwork, there will be little to stop them from just shipping Premiere and Afterffects on a CD that includes its own operating system. This is no pie in the sky, decades off dreaming – this is technology that exists now in sophisticated software form and is already commited to new silicon from both AMD and intel. When that silicon hits the desktop market (and especially the server market) Microsoft is going to have to compete on an entirely new level, because they will no longer have a captive audience. They will have no choice but – like intel and novell and countless others of that generation – to become even freer.

]]>
By: Adrian Lopez http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17125 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:15:43 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17125 and on what processor(s)/machine(s) does Gnome run? don’t overlook the fact poptones that without the pull of the non-free software industry – the result of the proprietary non-sharing toilings of many – none of the basic elements on which free software lives would exist

I’m not at all convinced by this argument. Even if it weren’t possible to make money from computer software there would still be a lot of money to be made from selling computer hardware. The software would naturally follow from the fact that you need it to use your computer. Software would evolve from simple creations by geeks out of necessity into more advanced software that could be used by the general public.

]]>
By: Adrian Lopez http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17124 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:59:25 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17124 Sorry you have me confused with someone else. I don’t believe I said that.

It’s likely that I misunderstood you, but the statement I was referring to is: “It seems to me that people miss the essential point of copyright which is to provide a benefit to those that produce works which are wholly suited to reproduction. It started out in patent law becuase a physical invention could be copied rather easily with a little bit of technical know how. The invention of the printing press meant that words were subject to the same aspect of simple and effective reproduction, hence copyright.”

]]>
By: anonymous http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17123 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:49:14 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17123 Did you not watch the presentation the prof posted here a couple weeks back? The one where he basically pleaded with the creative community to start producing free works in a manner that lives up to the lip service this “community” has been giving to “creative freedom” since its inception?

Could someone point me to this?

Thanks.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17122 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:06:03 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17122 One gets the strong impression that you are not at all active in this community of “commons-ists” at a developmental level or even a cultural level, so that narrow view is somewhat forgivable, but your arguments would be better served if you put forth some effort toward understanding both the history and current trends in this segment of the industry.

we learn more, poptones, when you use your crayons to color within the lines.

Gnome, for example, was not built on anything except someone’s ideas about how a linux desktop should look and act. It’s neither a clone of windows nor of Apple’s desktop, though it is necessarily similar simply because it’s a desktop – just as most all cars have four wheels. This is not due to lack of innovation, but simple efficiency of design.

and on what processor(s)/machine(s) does Gnome run? don’t overlook the fact poptones that without the pull of the non-free software industry – the result of the proprietary non-sharing toilings of many – none of the basic elements on which free software lives would exist.

free software exists because – according to the history we don’t know – richard stallman became upset with the fact he could not obtain a new printer driver – nor could he write a new one for it without violating copyright laws. it stuck him as fundamentally wrong that he could not re-program his machine to operate with his printer. fair enough, but if the printer didn’t exist, if whatever O/S he was using did not exist, if the driver software he didn’t write didn’t exist, all of this free software business would be moot. it is instructive, we think, to observe that stallman wasn’t motivated by innovation, he just wanted to modify a driver someone else wrote.

F/OSS barebacks on the commercial development and then gets upset when they cannot COPY the innovations resulting from commercial development.

we concede and have recognized that there are circumstances and instances where F/OSS (and yes we are mixing Free and Open Source when they are not the same thing in detail) produces useful and efficient results. the creation of the Apache HTTP server has been massively successful F/OSS and commercial endeavour. F/OSS methods have resulted in a number of innovative programs that could not be produced in any other way.

but poptones GNOME is used by how many people?

ignorance is one thing. blindness to cold hard fact is another.
F/OSS can only ever meekly complement greedy, commercial innovation. they are both important, but far from in equal measure. to weaken the protections essential for the latter, in order to feed and water the former is not prudent public policy.

but we don’t use GNOME so what do we know?

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17121 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:13:16 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17121 Mice, methinks your view of the “open” community is substantially clouded by… to put it blunty, ignorance. One gets the strong impression that you are not at all active in this community of “commons-ists” at a developmental level or even a cultural level, so that narrow view is somewhat forgivable, but your arguments would be better served if you put forth some effort toward understanding both the history and current trends in this segment of the industry.

Free software is not simply about replacing corporate software with non-corporate software. Mandriva, Red Hat, Suse – even the very hippie-fied Ubuntu all exist in the corporate realm. It is how these corporations came ot be, and the ideals they embrace, that separates them from the “legacy” publishers.

Gnome, for example, was not built on anything except someone’s ideas about how a linux desktop should look and act. It’s neither a clone of windows nor of Apple’s desktop, though it is necessarily similar simply because it’s a desktop – just as most all cars have four wheels. This is not due to lack of innovation, but simple efficiency of design.

In the windows world, there is a program called VirtualDub, a simple video editing application that was created and remains free, and is free completely outside the corporate realm. Avery created the program, defended it from predators who tried to hack his code into proprietary products, and provided an incredible level of support for a single person. On more than one occasion I was interacting with him one on one as he would try out a new (requested) bit of functionality, send it along for me to try out and provide feedback – then along would come, in just a few minutes, yet another revision. This may all sound very “hobbyist” in nature and nothing unexpected among friends – except VirtualDub was, at that time (and still probably is today) one of the most widely used pieces of free software out there for the windows platform. Just about everyone I know has used it, and it simplicity and power make it that way. If it had been “innovative” in the user interface it would have been alien to most people and difficult to use – how does this help anyone? Innovation for the sake of innovation is pointless.

And that software, free in virtually every sense except to proprietary conscription, is very likely every bit as responsible for the rapid increase in “rip” trading as decss itself – for once decss made dvds “rippable” the community needed a means to recompress them into something that could be exchanged in practical fashion over the narrower channels of the time. VirtualDub, and the multitude of tools that sprang from its codebase, virtually drove that underground publishing channel, perhaps as much as the internet itself. That one piece of code has had a phenomenal impact on the world we live in today, and it most definitely not the creation of some corporatized machine.

There is a phenomenal amount of software out there that was innovated and created completely “for free.” That some of it gets widely adopted and spawns new companies, paying programmers to do what they do, is not a rebuttal of the ideals espoused in this community – the GNU project was inteded, from the start, to provide a free toolbox of tools anyone could use and adapt as they see fit. Not everyone is going to be a programmer, or want to devote time to programming – so how do they “adapt” these tools? They hire programmers to do it for them. This is no accident, and no conflict with the ideals – it’s now it was meant to be from the start.

Open Document is a standard for creating documents, not a program. Microsoft initially said they will not support ODF in their desktop suite, but customers (like Mass.) declaring “we are going to standardize on ODF” means MS at that point must decide to support it, or risk losing customers. This is entirely a free market manner of doing things, no different than MS including tools in windows for many years that allow their operating system to interoperate with Novell networks and file systems, or Apple networks and file systems.

So far as innovation – this is a system for buisnesses to exchange documents; there is far less need for “innovation” here than for a stable, robust and accessible standard for interoperating. When a great portion of a development teams effort must go simply to deciphering proprietary standards and hacking and rewriting code to support a “standard” that is as stable and transparent as quicksand they have far fewer resources left to devote to the task of innovating.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17120 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:29:52 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17120 OpenDocument is not a program.

sorry Peter Rock, we confused it with OpenOffice. perhaps you would be so kind as to explain a little about OpenDocument for us – now that we are so off-topic anyway.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17119 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:28:57 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17119 “if you want new industrial and commercial ideas – new flames – then you must create the free market incentives that encourage them.”

Unsubstantiated belief.

Really? Then where is all the Free media content now? we are many yeas into this whole “free license” phenomena and yet there is a notable lack of content from the artists in comparison to the multitude of tools from the geek camp. I’m not saying there’s no content out there, or that it all sucks, but the vast majority of programming available is “free” only like beer – most of it is published under a noncommercial agreement, and a good bit of it is published under a license that does not even allow for “remix and reburn.” If linux had been published under such terms we’d all be living in a world with no apache, no php or perl or gnome or kde – we’d still be stuck in the 1980′s world where the “alternative” meant only choosing between one giant, greedy corporation or another giant, greedy corporation.

Did you not watch the presentation the prof posted here a couple weeks back? The one where he basically pleaded with the creative community to start producing free works in a manner that lives up to the lip service this “community” has been giving to “creative freedom” since its inception?

Hmmmm.. maybe most artists still don’t really believe all that as much as they claim? Everyone wants to get paid for their work – and no one is more possessive of their creation than the one who created it.

]]>
By: Peter Rock http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17118 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:20:38 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17118 3 Blind Mice say:

massachusetts dumping MSFT for linux and open document?

Linux has nothing to do with the decision. As well, massachusetts did not dump anything. They have agreed to use a publicly accessible standard. MSFT is more than free to use the standard and compete on merit for the government’s business.

it is simply replacing program A with program B.

It has nothing directly to do with programs. OpenDocument is not a program.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17117 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:19:03 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17117 In a sense I agree with what is said which is one reason why Free Software works so well. It creates a free market.

with some exceptions, the Apache HTTP server for example, the only market the F/OSS community creates is free copies of already existing commercial products. F/OSS exists largely on the back of the commercial market – it is easy to develop programs like Firefox, Opera, Open Office, etc. when there is an existing baseline of widely used commercial software to copy. it is not a model that encourages risk taking.

massachusetts dumping MSFT for linux and open document? it’s not innovative. it is simply replacing program A with program B. program B does more or less what program A does with the advantage that B is free. there’s no obvious advance in technology and one thing is certain, “competing” qwith free doesn’t do much to encourage programmers to create A+.

Peter Rock you seem to not accept the fact that most programmers “do it for the money.” we have worked with engineers and computer scientists for many years and nearly all of them have had bills to pay and familes to feed. it is understanable that idealistic MIT students living on their student loans and ramen can’t really relate to this.

]]>
By: Peter Rock http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17116 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:56:55 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17116 3 Blind Mice say:

if you want new industrial and commercial ideas – new flames – then you must create the free market incentives that encourage them.

PS

And given the context I know what you believe is a free market. In a sense I agree with what is said which is one reason why Free Software works so well. It creates a free market. So to does OpenDocument. But from what you’ve said in the past, I’d imagine you perceive both of these to be enemies of “incentive.” The “incentives” you imagine (embodied by ARR copyright) simply lead to monopolization and meritless competition.

By the way Mice, what do you think of the Massachusetts proposal to move to OpenDocument?

]]>
By: Peter Rock http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/benklers-book-is-out/#comment-17115 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:46:11 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/benklers_book_is_out.html#comment-17115 Adrian Lopez says:

Peter Rock’s claim that copyright emerged out of the patent system

Sorry you have me confused with someone else. I don’t believe I said that.

]]>