Software, Freedom and The World Beyond Computer Programs --------------------------------------------------------- :Author: Benjamin Mako Hill :Organization: `MIT Media Lab `__ :Contact: mako@atdot.cc :Date: Friday, 28 Oct 2005 Introduction ============= .. Note:: Slide 1: Intro Slide Introduce myself: * free Software hobbyist * IP researcher Introduce my talk: * Describe the problems that the current information environment (and its inhabitants) has found itself in. * Break down the solutions being offered roughly into four classes. Quickly review the first three which should be familiar to most. * Focus on the fourth model which is most famously represented by the FOSS movement. * Talk about the promise and the limitations of using free software as a model upon which to make conclusions about other types of information goods. The Problem ============ .. Note:: 4 Minutes elapsed .. Note:: Slide 2 The reason we are here: * Expression is facilitated and framed by copyright in today's world * Meanwhile, copyright is in crisis * Information: - a quickly growing class of goods, has been transformed itself into a good with zero marginal cost by a series of technologies: Eben Moglen, "Everyone can have everything everywhere at the same price that anyone can anything." Control of information is centralized (through copyright) in distribution companies who are finding themselves increasingly irrelevant except perhaps in the creation of celebrity. And the cost approaches zero every time there is a better compression algorithm, a faster DSL connection, a more efficient copying machine -- er, a more powerful computer -- installed onto our desks. The results, of course, are obvious: A gap between legal the reality as the people creating the information feel it, the realities as the consumers feel it and, the realities as the distribution companies (and their lobbyists) feel it. * Expansion to copyright (Happy Birthday is copyrighted and signing it with friends is infringement) * DRM technology designed with the idea of the user as an enemy in mind, * Lawsuits: - Children and their parents sued by Time Warner - Russian programmers put in jail in the US - Norwegian teenagers arrested. The bottom line seems to be that doing *nothing* is not an option. Solutions ========== .. Note:: 10 minutes elapsed Strengthen Copyright --------------------- .. Note:: Slide 3 Copyright (2 minutes) Argument courtesy of the Recording Industry Association of American et al. * 11 extensions of copyright in the last century * TRIPS * Digital Millennium Copyright Act (and copycat acts) * Bi-lateral trade agreements * DRM, copy protection The self interest of the people making this argument colors these description and the arguments, when examined, seem specious. I find these arguments unconvincing. Reform Copyright ------------------ .. Note:: Slide 4 Copyright (4 minutes) There are two major groups I can see of people who want to reform copyright. 1. People who think copyright *used* to be fine. They argue for reverting the extensions of copyright. Examples of this include - Eldred Act, Eldred v. Ashcroft These arguments ignore *profound* technological changes in the way that we create and distribute information. I find these arguments unconvincing. 2. Compulsories Define. The argument in favor of compulsories is more nuanced. However, compulsories boil down to both a tax on the Internet and a compromise that stops the suits by allowing the distribution companies to secure their own futures. I don't think it's fair to the independent producers who stand to gain from the presence of a system where being a big boy isn't worth anything. I find these arguments unconvincing. Transgressive --------------- .. Note:: 16 minutes elapsed .. Note:: Slide 5 Piracy The transgressive argument is relatively easy to understand: We'll keep consuming media until we kick the legs out from under the industry. Yes: If we ignore them, they *will* go away eventually. But: Ignoring them means more than just ignoring them when it comes to fee. It means *ignoring them* and piracy misses this key element. As a result, I find the result unconvincing. Create Alternative Ecosystems ------------------------------- .. Note:: Slide 6 Free Software (2 minutes) The final alternative is to *really* ignore the old system that are creating the problem. Basically: Let's create information and distribute them freely and outside the system. Let's use voluntary licensing schemes to create communities that allows freedom from all of those above and that, *actually work.* As those become compelling, they demonstrate how the old systems are neither necessary nor efficient. Free Software is the most visible example of a group following this model and it's what I will talk about for the remainder of my time. The Free Software Model ======================== .. Note:: 20 minutes elapsed The free software model is an example of an alternative. Overview/History ----------------- .. Note:: Slide 7 Free Software Definition Free Software was created by Richard Stallman more than 20 years ago. It was a "movement" that aimed to create (or recreate) an era of free sharing where he though he could do what was ethical. * Richard thought that to deprive people of information unnecessary was unjust. * Richard thought that there were four essential freedoms when it came to software: - The freedom to use for any purpose (this means commercial!) - The freedom to give a copy for a friend - The freedom to modify a copy for your own use - The freedom to give that fixed copy to someone else. He later expanded this definition to cover all primarily functional works. Now, a bit of terminology: "Free software" versus "open source" It turned out, Richard's model also created *really* good software. More collaboration made better works. When works are primarily functional, we can make this argument. These pragmatic benefits became so important that some people tried to create a new movement focus *only* on the pragmatic benefits and they called that open source. The definitions of "open source" though is *identical* to the definition of free software. Free Software's Success ------------------------ .. Note:: 26 minutes elapsed Free Software's has been an unqualified success. * Linux: Already dominating on the server systems. * Apache: More than 3/4 of web pages are served by free software -- often on entirely free stacks. * Big Boys: Google, Sun, IBM, HP, Intel, AMD, Novell and many others are putting them money behind Free Software movement. * New powerful companies who entire focus is on open source and free software. * Portables and Phones (Nokia, Sharp, etc) * Consumer Electronics * The $100 Laptop Project How Free Software Worked -------------------------- .. Note:: 30 minutes elapsed 1. It is radically non-discriminatory and goal oriented Basically, the only thing it discriminates against is discrimination. Beyond "do what you like" the only widely used additions within the free software world are: - so called "advertising clauses" that aim to maintain attribution - "copyleft bits" Goal orientedness. **The Point** FS was a movement *toward* a goal of freedom. RMS saw it as a social movement. Others saw it as a movement for more efficient business. *But it was a movement toward an invariable set of goals.* 2. FS is *totally* voluntary and can work along side the current system. FOSS worked by using licenses (the GNU GPL) **The point** One benefit of the free software model is that to succeed, we need only *ignore* the existing situation. Free software creates communities, "competing" against proprietary software. But not in a way that even the best business schools train you to compete. If you want to be condescending, you can call free software "info hippies" but do so remembering that the most powerful social movements were, early on, dismissed using such terms. We have legal tools to keep us insulated and we have lawyers and law firms which protect them. But all we need to do is ignore the producers. Conclusion ============ Non-Functional Works ---------------------- .. Note:: Slide 8 Beyond Software .. Note:: 35 minutes elapsed It make sense to try to end on what is most relevant to *this* community which is primarily non-functional works. What are the differences: * There are differences in the evaluation of the success of primary creative or artistic goods. * There are differences in the creative processes * There are sometimes differences in compensation schemes for creative works. * There's a long history for creative works that does not exist for hardware. Most notable among people who have learned from free software and tried to apply it other works is Creative Commons which takes a very incomplete view of the free software movement. CC sees the success as free software as one based on "private ordering" or licensing. Free software did not succeed because of licenses. It existed *before* licenses. (software sharing commune) What standard: * Some people have argued that bits are bits and should all be held to the same standard of freedom. People in my community. I'm not entirely convinced. * Some people (like RMS) have argued that we should treat artistic, opinionated, and functional works differently and should be held to different standard of freedom. The tricky issues seems to be around commercial use and derivative works. Perhaps what we can learn from FS is that by setting some definition of freedom, we can begin to build a social movement for real freedom. So far, programmers and lawyers have been defining freedom for the production of other types of artistic works. You all should start thinking of these issues..