Allison Randal's "Philosophy of Free Software" (from DebConf 15)

[shirgall]

http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2015/debconf15/Philosophy_of_Free_Software.webm

 

A discussion of the emerge of "free software" as an opposite reaction to "software is copyrightable", with a survey of philosophical thought leading up to that. 

 

If you squint you might see me in the audience.

 

In 45 minutes it's not fair to characterize the philosophical contributions of so many people, but do folks agree with the characterizations of the contributions of the big thinkers she covers?

 

What do folks think of the veneration of Martha Nussbaum and the venom for Friedrich Nietzsche?

[A4E]

I don't really understand how this is an issue, or a topic at all. BTW, she lost me at around 29 minutes.

 

For example, how is software different from books? Books can be regarded as a utility as well, as they can tell you how to do things. And where does the line go in regards to what is regarded as a utility? I could use the movie The Matrix to build a religion to banish smart robots, so is that movie a utility and I can do whatever I want with it?

 

My philosophical perspective is that one individual do not want to be stolen from or harmed, which means everyone implicitly agree that we need a society that does not steal from or harm us. Which means that in order to have a peaceful society we need to ostracize people who act in a way that will steal from or harm people.

 

I have created lots of software and games, and some of it I have probably spent a 1000 hours on. The notion that everyone should perhaps be allowed to redistribute it however they want, if I want to sell it, is very unfair in my eyes. Though I am currently handing out a free game.

[jason_]

I don't think the speaker did a good job of tying the history of philosophy to development of the free software movement. She took a too broad approach for the time she had for her presentation. But it was clear enough so that the listener could connect many of the presented ideas with the free software.

 

I think Nietzsche is hard for a lot of people to sympathize with. Much of the aversion could come from denial or fear of what he points out, but in a society that does all it can to ignore suffering I think a lot of people just are not familiar enough with 'real' life to know what Nietzsche is going on about.

[Troubador]

I'm a gamer and yeah video game piracy is rife, I also don't choose to pirate. Although I don't buy many games atm as my backlog is too big and my time is increasingly taken up by other things. However I remember several points which I'd like your take on A4E.

 

- If someone pirates your game, but would not play it otherwise has anyone practically lost anything? If someone pirates but would have bought it if they had to, that scenario is indistinguishable from theft, but it seems that isn't always the case.

 

- I recall one developer coming on a forum making the point that piracy was in his eyes free marketing, ie those who pirate who really enjoy it and spread word of mouth lead to more sales.

 

- Conversly I recall the lead dev on Heavy Rain coming out and complaining about the preowned market, inasmuch he sees nothing from a sale where the product is sold on.

 

So are all instances of someone consuming media without paying its creator theft? Say I loan you a book or have friends over to watch a DVD has a theft (or at least something analogous to it) occurred?

[A4E]

- If someone pirates your game, but would not play it otherwise has anyone practically lost anything?

 

Do you mean a distributer, or a leecher? A distributer who do not play it would be affecting sales for sure.

 

I have not been selling much, I prefer to hand out things for free, so I'm not really the person you should ask.

 

 

 

- I recall one developer coming on a forum making the point that piracy was in his eyes free marketing, ie those who pirate who really enjoy it and spread word of mouth lead to more sales.

 

Interesting. Thanks. I have heard something similar. Though I have only heard about negative effects of piracy on the Amiga platform that I made mostly free stuff for. Maybe that developer was trying to discourage piracy by using reverse psychology.

 

 

 

- Conversly I recall the lead dev on Heavy Rain coming out and complaining about the preowned market, inasmuch he sees nothing from a sale where the product is sold on.

 

I did not understand this sentence.

 

 

 

So are all instances of someone consuming media without paying its creator theft? Say I loan you a book or have friends over to watch a DVD has a theft (or at least something analogous to it) occurred?

I'm no expert but my first impression is yes. The principle should be value for value. Makes you feel better as well, because we all implicitly agree that we need a peaceful society, and taking value without providing value in return is acting against a peaceful society, and will mess with your mind. So I am now thinking that piracy might actually harm people's mental health.

[Troubador]

Thanks for your reply! I'm not sure I would go quite as far as never loaning/borrowing a book or refusing to go over to a friends house because he/she might be playing a movie I don't own, but you're being consistent. I respect that. I suppose a quick word by way of response would be any game with local co-op is surely by definition supposed to be enjoyed with friends you have around? I mean if I go down the park to kick a ball around with some mates I don't feel the need to toss a buck in the direction of the football manufacturer for the use of their product.

 

Maybe the resolution is a sticker or label on something, say I write a novel and there is a label on it denoting I'm cool with you loaning it out to people, and such. Yet if you write one and it has a different mark representing your wish that everyone buys their own damn copy! If we're all being ethical, and people are by and large doing the right thing everybody wins!

 

On a separate note the only thing that would tempt me to pirate a game, (not that I've actually done so yet, but the thought has occured!), is if the game installs some particularly draconian drm that takes away some of the utility of my PC. I remember way back (last 10 years or so) there was a game that installed something godawful that stopped my DVD burner from working for some reason. If I recall correctly it caused me to do a complete reinstall, and I did toy with the idea I could avoid future problems by buying my games, but running cracked drm free versions. I didn't end up doing so because of the faff and attendant risk involved (viruses, Trojans and the like). The equation for me is simple I just want to to enjoy my precious leisure time, (as time is a resource I am loathe to waste), however if every game had shipped with something similar, and thus costing me time my cost benefit analysis might have caused me to rethink.

 

That's the main argument I tend to use against software piracy: the time you spent faffing making things work, if you just did a little overtime you'd probably make the damn money you needed in possibly less time, so in some cases software piracy is also costing the pirate certainly time and possibly money too!

[A4E]

For multiplayer games its normal for the game to promote with or say something like "play with a friend", so then that friend should not be forced to buy a copy, imo.

 

I've seen people make the argument that you are entitled to any pirated version if you already bought the game.

 

Many pirate distributers are good at sending a message that goes something like "If you like it, you should buy it." Especially in the earlier gaming days. Back then trial versions were scarce.