RE: [OS:N:] RE: Open Source as a form of Anarcho-Communism?

["Paul Fitz" <pfitz dodo com au>]

Hi Brendan,

You SAID:
"You still don't get it.  No one denies that legislative monopolies exist.
That doesn't make them *property*. Not being
property doesn't mean they're invalid or don't have legal force. In the US
people have the legal right to free speech,
but that right is not their "property". People have rights to fair trials
etc that doesn't make that right their
property. If you disobey an order of the court you can be put in jail.  That
doesn't make the court orders into property
etc etc etc.  You need to understand these concepts in order for you to have
something meaningful to say in your essay."
------------------------------------------

I do get it, I just don't agree (neither does the united states legislative
assembly).
Legislative mononpolies are a social construct, which I believe stem from
capitalist/locke theory.  They (US legal fraternity) has taken the concept
of what actually constitutes property one step further - beyond a hammer to
phenomenological creations - that is - what you create in your head, you
have ownership of.  That is individualism taken to the next step.

I agree with you that intellectual property is probably bad news for
society, you can deny it's existence, but it exists in the legal framework
of the capitalist nation of the USA.  It may be false property, but for all
intents and purposes, the system treats it like real property and that
validates my using it as a premise (a social construct of a capitalistic
nation)
When intelectual property ie. a song or a book is sold it makes as much
money as a hammer, and shares many of the dynamics that a physical object
such as a hammer has in a marketplace (just ships easier :).

People generally like to make money from their creations.  A hammer or a
book.

YOU SAID:
"What I am saying is that you are using the term "intellectual property" as
if it has meaning.  I am saying that term is
meaningless, at least to the extent it impliedly imports notions from the
real property sphere. You talk about
programmers "giving away" their "intellectual property".  If you make this
assumption then you're effectively assuming
the conclusion of your paper. To take the liquor licensing example you would
argue that moonshiners are actually anarcho
communist because they oppose "liquor property" laws which restrict their
sale of alchohol."
-------------------------------------------

As I said above, I think that intellectual property - "when in the context
of a marketplace" does exhibit the same dynamics as other more tangible
products.  Making that assumption effectively does effectively mean I am
assuming my conclusion, but that is true of any legal, moral or theological
argument.  There is an assumption somewhere along the way.  Ie the
assumption that humnas even deserve rights is behind all of lockes theories,
what if they don't really deserve rights?  Sounds nonsensical I know, but
only because we have been educated in social constructs which have endorsed
those beliefs as universal truths.  The assumption is based in legal
reality, not the way it should be or what common law 'really' means.  To the
majority it is valid.

The moonshine example isn't really valid, I don't know my US history too
well, but the laws were brought in for social reasons, and the moonshiners
were creating hammer like objects (but drinkable)

YOU SAID:
At least some open source programmers have an expectation of being paid (eg
Red Hat is not a charity), they just don't
base that expectation on a government backed monopoly over the software they
write. The sale of open source software is
the sale of programming as a service, not of software (the output of that
service) as a product. How do you explain IBM,
Sun and Hewlett Packard's endorsement of open source?  Are you suggesting
that they are anarcho communist? Lawyers don't
have monopoly rights over the advices they give.  Does this make them
anarcho communist?

-----------------------------------------------
Here I stand corrected :), a long while ago I should have changed the term
to Free Software which is also open source LOL.  Sorry about that :).  But
here you are missing many of the points in what I am saying.  HP and IBM are
indeed selling physical products which have taken from the open source
community various technologies.  They are actively involved in the
capitalist market place, they have nothing to do with open source except
making use of it.  Of course they are not anarcho or communist.

Are you a lawyer btw, you seem to know a lot about the law?

YOU SAID:
What you're effectively saying is that a software (or indeed any other)
industry model based on the sale of services is
anarcho communist and a model based on the sale of a product is capitalist.
I don't believe you can make that distinction.
-------------------------------------------------

No thats not what I'm effectively saying.  I haven't even discussed the
services industry attached to OS/FW.

YOU SAID:
"Why don't you look at open source as a form of investment, where
programmers invest incremental amounts of their
programming time in the expectation of a greater return in the long run (of
a finished program from their and other
people's investments). Sometimes it pays off handsomely, sometimes the
investors lose their investment.  I don't see
this as all that different from any other investment scheme other than that
the investment is non monetary."
-----------------------------------------------

When you give away the product, the benefits may return in other forms, you
are absolutely correct here.  I'm not sure exactly what Linus Torvald was
expecting back from Linux if anything.  I guess he saw it as an investment?

YOU SAID:
"Basically, you can't go around saying that open source is opposed to (or
confirmatory of or anything else in relation
to) intellectual property until you understand both what "open source" and
"intellectual property" are, let alone
whether "intellectual property" is derived from a Lockean theory of
property."

Yes I can, that is what free speech is all about.  :) You can deny
intellectual property all you like, and if thats your cup of tea, I don't
think cuba acknowledges intellectual property...  ah who runs that country
again? :)  Perhaps that helps my case?  Of course the United States brought
the notion of Intellectual property yto the soviet union after comunism,
they didn't want cheap ruskie nike symbols flooding LA. :)

YOU SAID:
"My guess is that the point of your thesis is to make you think about these
issues."

Yep, but you still have in no way convinced me that intellectual property
doesn't exist in the US legal system and is a product of the capitalist
power structure! :)  I'll investigate it more though, I really appreciate
your input.

YOU SAID:
>> PS: I would call the internet a means of distribution, not of production.

Yeah, I think they do both.
Thanks for the info.


_______________________________________________
Subscription and Archive:
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-source-now-list/
-
For K12OS technical help join K12OSN:
<https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn>