4 ms·

You think books having a cost is a restriction of your freedom? Why? And why books, but not your work?

IggleSniggle 4y ago
The apple tree gives away its fruit so that its seeds might spread. When a fence is built around the apple tree, it is a restriction on the ability of the apple tree to spread its seeds and on those that desire the apples, both. I don’t personally have a strong stance on this particular issue, but perhaps this analogy will help you understand the view of people who believe that knowledge should be free.
- tene80i 4y ago
  It’s a good analogy and I do understand the perspective. But I think it is very convenient that it applies to the work these people want to consume (which should be free), and not to the work they perform (which should be paid). Why should the software engineer be paid but the author not? Why is the written word information but not the code? I would trust the motives more if there was a general coherence to it all, beyond the consumption of media. Information comes in many forms.
  - IggleSniggle 4y ago
    I generally assume that when people talk like that, that they believe that software engineers should not be paid, and that they get over their cognitive dissonance by saying something on the order of, “but since they are paid there’s no point in me working for free,” without noticing that there’s still a disconnect there. There’s a very big Open Source / Free as in Freedom / AND Free as in Beer contingent on HN.
    - kybernetikos 4y ago
      Usually these kinds of views come along with ideas about other models that can recompense creators (including software engineers). For example, the Lawyer example is used often - once the lawyer makes the argument, it's in the public domain and can be used by others, but you still pay the lawyer to compose the argument. There are also models where the durable software artifacts are free, but you pay people to support your use of them. Then there are the older models that used to be used a lot in the music and art world. A wealthy benefactor (or in this day and age, crowd) pays for a trusted artist / musican / architect / coder to create something, both for their enjoyment but also for their fame and renown.
bheadmaster 4y ago
Because copying information from one computer to another costs nothing (except for the electricity and internet access). Any attempt to restrict that capability is restricting your freedom. The moment my work (I assume you mean work as in "labor") becomes that easy to replicate, it will become worthless. But there are certain laws of physics which make it quite improbable to happen.
- kgwgk 4y ago
  Will you kindly share with us a copy of all your computers, devices and digital records or are you going to continue to restrict our freedom?
  - kybernetikos 4y ago
    I don't think that works - the freedom he's talking about is the freedom of the person who owns the computers, devices and digital records. In the world of IP and copyright law, the ownership rights that go with owning a piece of media with particular patterns are restricted. You are not allowed to dispose of the patterns on a DVD as you might wish despite supposedly 'owning' it. This is clearly a difference from previously understood models of what ownership was. > The ordinary subjects of property are well known, and easily conceived . . . But property, when applied to ideas, or literary and intellectual compositions, is perfectly new and surprising . . . by far the most comprehensive denomination of it would be a property in nonsense - Lord Gardenston 1773
    - kgwgk 4y ago
      "You think books having a cost is a restriction of your freedom? Why? And why books, but not your work?" "Because copying information from one computer to another costs nothing (except for the electricity and internet access). Any attempt to restrict that capability is restricting your freedom." Why books, and not his work?
      - kybernetikos 4y ago
kybernetikos 4y ago
Copyright law is a very clear restriction on freedom of speech. That's not to argue that it might not be a valid restriction, or justified or something, but I don't really see how it could be argued not to be a restriction of freedom. And it becomes very obvious that if people can share stuff for free, someone somewhere will. That combination of freedom to share speech and ability to do so at 0 marginal cost results in books being shared for no cost.

The apple tree gives away its fruit so that its seeds might spread. When a fence is built around the apple tree, it is a restriction on the ability of the apple tree to spread its seeds and on those that desire the apples, both. I don’t personally have a strong stance on this particular issue, but perhaps this analogy will help you understand the view of people who believe that knowledge should be free.

tene80i 4y ago
It’s a good analogy and I do understand the perspective. But I think it is very convenient that it applies to the work these people want to consume (which should be free), and not to the work they perform (which should be paid). Why should the software engineer be paid but the author not? Why is the written word information but not the code? I would trust the motives more if there was a general coherence to it all, beyond the consumption of media. Information comes in many forms.
- IggleSniggle 4y ago
  I generally assume that when people talk like that, that they believe that software engineers should not be paid, and that they get over their cognitive dissonance by saying something on the order of, “but since they are paid there’s no point in me working for free,” without noticing that there’s still a disconnect there. There’s a very big Open Source / Free as in Freedom / AND Free as in Beer contingent on HN.
  - kybernetikos 4y ago
    Usually these kinds of views come along with ideas about other models that can recompense creators (including software engineers). For example, the Lawyer example is used often - once the lawyer makes the argument, it's in the public domain and can be used by others, but you still pay the lawyer to compose the argument. There are also models where the durable software artifacts are free, but you pay people to support your use of them. Then there are the older models that used to be used a lot in the music and art world. A wealthy benefactor (or in this day and age, crowd) pays for a trusted artist / musican / architect / coder to create something, both for their enjoyment but also for their fame and renown.

bheadmaster 4y ago

Because copying information from one computer to another costs nothing (except for the electricity and internet access). Any attempt to restrict that capability is restricting your freedom. The moment my work (I assume you mean work as in "labor") becomes that easy to replicate, it will become worthless. But there are certain laws of physics which make it quite improbable to happen.

kgwgk 4y ago
Will you kindly share with us a copy of all your computers, devices and digital records or are you going to continue to restrict our freedom?
- kybernetikos 4y ago
  I don't think that works - the freedom he's talking about is the freedom of the person who owns the computers, devices and digital records. In the world of IP and copyright law, the ownership rights that go with owning a piece of media with particular patterns are restricted. You are not allowed to dispose of the patterns on a DVD as you might wish despite supposedly 'owning' it. This is clearly a difference from previously understood models of what ownership was. > The ordinary subjects of property are well known, and easily conceived . . . But property, when applied to ideas, or literary and intellectual compositions, is perfectly new and surprising . . . by far the most comprehensive denomination of it would be a property in nonsense - Lord Gardenston 1773
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    "You think books having a cost is a restriction of your freedom? Why? And why books, but not your work?" "Because copying information from one computer to another costs nothing (except for the electricity and internet access). Any attempt to restrict that capability is restricting your freedom." Why books, and not his work?
    - kybernetikos 4y ago

kybernetikos 4y ago

Copyright law is a very clear restriction on freedom of speech. That's not to argue that it might not be a valid restriction, or justified or something, but I don't really see how it could be argued not to be a restriction of freedom. And it becomes very obvious that if people can share stuff for free, someone somewhere will. That combination of freedom to share speech and ability to do so at 0 marginal cost results in books being shared for no cost.