13 comments

• 

  Adam Thierer

  2 years ago

  Tim... sounds like you drank a bit too much "DotCommunist" kool-aid at recent X-Mas party.
  
  http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dc...
• 

  Noel Le

  2 years ago

  Adam, I'm not sure if that helps. Tim is farther left than EFF, or any other *leftists* groups in tech policy.
  
  I've followed folks like von Loehman and Moglen for several years. They're talented guys, and their organizations have long been a part of the techn policy landscape. Still, neither EFF, nor even the FSF, are as left as TLF can be at times.
• 

  Steve R.

  2 years ago

  Our culture is a summation of individual efforts. At a certain point it becomes nearly impossible to attribute certain advances to a specific person or firm. In fact why should we even attempt to create "ownership" where ownership may not even be wanted. There is nothing wrong with collaboration and altruism. Furthermore, collaboration is not intrinsically anti-capitalistic nor is necessarily pro-communist.
  
  I would even propose that collaboration should be considered pro-capitalistic and anti communist, not "DotCommunist kool-aid". For example, I have been developing Microsoft Access database. The documentation provided by Microsoft is poor, Microsoft isn't into providing support, and the learning curve is steep. To fill this void, a variety of websites have been established where users can share information to develop solutions on an interactive and collaborative basis. Many of the users, such as myself, are developing these databases to improve the operation of the companies that employ us. A few of the people may even be developing databases with the hope of selling (commercializing) them. This collaborative process fosters technological innovation, improves economic progress, and improves competition since it allows companies to develop solutions for less money.
• 

  eric

  2 years ago

  I don't think even Ayn Rand would object to people voluntarily cooperating to produce a program or algorithm, and then voluntarily releasing it to everyone under conditions set by those who created the program. And she was virulently anti-Communist. She was all about ownership and freedom, doing what you will with the fruits of your own labor. If you (or a group) made the code, then you (or the group) can keep it to yourselves, sell it, give it away under any conditions you choose, or destroy it if you choose. Wouldn't that be her position? If someone else doesn't like it, nuts to them.
  
  To call this communist is another in a line of irrational outbursts. Is this what it has come to? Hurling absurd epithets?
  
  Some persons continue a perpetual commentary against TLF, and in some cases it is probably because no one is commenting at all on their own blogs. I figure they must be lonely. If the shoe fits...
• 

  Noel Le

  2 years ago

  Steve, you raise a good point about collaboration. I will note that collaboration occurs in the IP and *free* community.
  
  Eric, yes, I do often take issue with stuff on TLF (not TLF in general, and I do appreciate some of the writers on here like Adam, Braden and Hance).
  
  Since I've seen citations to work by me and my friends on TLF that I would call mischaracterizations, and the ensuing discussions ad hominem rants, I'll come here to discuss the issues. There is probably little guidance or accountability from those informed about tech policy supporting some of the work I disagree with.
• 

  Tim Lee

  2 years ago

  Adam, that's precisely my point. I think that Moglen is trying to shoehorn the successes of the free software community into his goofy left-wing politics when, in fact, it's far better explained by libertarian ideas of decentralized cooperation and spontaneous order.
  
  The fundamental disagreement between libertarians and leftists has always been that libertarians are opposed to coercion principle, whereas liberals believe that virtuous ends justify coercive means (at least if it's coercion against peoples' property). If Moglen now believes that his left-wing ends can be achieved by non-coercive means, that simply means that he's becoming a libertarian despite himself. We should welcome him into the libertarian tent and educate him about how non-coercion works in other areas of society, not reject him out of hand because some of his other beliefs are stupid.
• 

  Noel Le

  2 years ago

  Tim, Moglen and Stallman are terribly concerned with controlling how others about and speak. And their only standard is some fuzzy notion of community that is decided by Stallman's antisocial tendancies. Also tell us Tim, how does the *IP* business model not reflect decentralization (of small specialty firms) who cooperate (through licensing and development collaboration). And, are your views against IP concerned about innovation. It seems like you see decentralization and non-coercion as goods in themselves with no regard to economic growth, technologial progress nor anything else.
• 

  X. Trapnel

  2 years ago

  While Moglen's speech is nice and warm and fuzzy, it's important to remember that he was able to *get* compliance at least partly because he *could* have demanded money (coercively). When you bargain in the shadow of the law, the law helps determine bargaining power, even if neither person wants exactly what the law guarantees him as a matter of right.
  
  The GPL is a clever way to use the tools of copyright to subvert certain aspects of it, and I admire it in many ways, but its use is a distant 2nd best to a world without copyrights/patents.
  
  --
  
  And Noel, obviously copyright is a more decentralized system than getting permission to write a song from the Creativity Clearing Council or something. It's a LESS decentralized system than a world without copyright, though. This isn't that hard.
• 

  Tim Lee

  2 years ago

  X. Trapnel: That's obviously true to some extent, but as has been discussed in the context of the Novell/Microsoft controversy, it's not always obvious that people seeking to enforce the GPL would prevail in court. Obviously, it would depend on the specifics of each case, but in many cases, I suspect that peoples' ability to marshal informal forms of social pressure has a greater impact than the threat of a lawsuit in and of itself.
• 

  Noel Le

  2 years ago

  XT, my point was that more decentralization is not necessary good. Tim talks about decentralization, but somehow he only ocnsiders the most extreme form as the preferable state of things. So Tim, what do you consider factors that would cause us to consider whether more/less decentralization as good. Obviously, you don't, as you push fanatically for decentralizatoin as a good in itself.
  
  Also, Tim, what does it tell you that the FSF would have to resort to community pressure to enforce the GPL. Who decides whats right Stallman and Moglen? You advocate the views of 3 people over American legal standards?
  
  I'm skeptical of this new "social pressure" thing. Its a bit different from "market pressure" because usually a bunch of zealots have to paint the market as ineffective and unknowledgeable to make their point. For instance, Tim writes of users losing their *freedom* with DRM. That doesn't seem to be stopping folks from buying the iPod nor songs from iTunes. Are these consumers suffering from loss of freedom now that they'vd bought the tech products of choice?
• 

  Tim Lee

  2 years ago

  You push fanatically for decentralizatoin as a good in itself.
  
  What on Earth are you talking about? Does merely discussing free software in a positive light count as "pushing fanatically for decentralization?" What part of "free and proprietary software can peacefuly exist side by side" do you not understand?
• 

  Doug Lay

  2 years ago

  Regardless of what you label Moglen, for a career activist to recognize and embrace a path to social justice that doesn't involve state coercion, that's unquestionably a good thing. I wonder if he's familiar with any of De Soto's work?
• 

  Noel Le

  2 years ago

  Tim, when you see "decentralization" don't you mean the most extreme form of it, whether or not you're talking about free software? You're right, I don't understand how you can say that free and proprietary software can exist side by side, when you criticize every effort of IP firms to work with FOSS firms. What part of your own arguments on decentralization and IP do you not understand Tim.