5 ms·

Steve Wozniak and Stuart Brand Discuss Control of IP (1984) [video]

88 points by 1970-01-01 3y ago

mikewarot 3y ago
I find it ironic that such a free and flowing discussion about the nature of IP itself becomes the IP of a corporation.
- 1970-01-01 3y ago
  The irony was not lost on me! This piece of "information" seems to be free to link, view, and enjoy (with a big watermark).
  - legel 3y ago
    Love your username, the beginning of Unix Time — you’re like our Jesus
iteygib 3y ago
Paraphrasing, but I do agree with the "information should be free but someone's time should not be" statement. How to properly execute and balance that though is the hard part
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > I do agree with the "information should be free but someone's time should not be" statement. While it is a nice idea ("information should be free"), I don't know that the statement is rooted in practical reality. Information doesn't have autonomy so needs to be created, it can have time value, it certainly has relevance value, or entertainment value, has quality value (signal > noise); all these things require effort to produce, maintain, curate, distribute. Leaving the practical constraints behind, I also struggle to see moral or ethical reasons for information to be free. Which information should be free? All information? Why?
  - pjmorris 3y ago
    "What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can’t study or change. Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives." - Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman
    - dingnuts 3y ago
      "But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can’t study or change" I think a lot about how RMS's view on software freedom was warped by the highly intelligent and intellectual peer group that he must have been involved in at MIT. It strikes me as endearing, but naive, to believe that most people would be able to treat software as anything but a black box simply if the source code were available to them. Certainly, for most people using computers at MIT, when RMS was writing, this was true. But it is definitely not true that source code would have any use to most computer users (smart phone users, really) today. They simply would not have the ability to do anything with it.
      - Ardon 3y ago
        It doesn't really need to be them doing the studying, making the code viewable allows end-users to choose who to trust or to get second opinions, instead of only having the word of the company producing the software. One or multiple people who can study the software, even in small numbers, are still adding more information, and so more potential trust, than the alternative.
      - pjmorris 3y ago
        > But it is definitely not true that source code would have any use to most computer users (smart phone users, really) today. They simply would not have the ability to do anything with it. It seems like GitHub and other sources of open source software offer an opportunity to test your hypothesis empirically. I am biased to think that its existence demonstrates that source code is of use to at least many users.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  Don't spend your life producing information. Spend your life doing things derived from information. If information is Free, what you do with it becomes the only valuable aspect of it. Don't sell manuals. Write manuals, and sell labor (I will make your device behave in X way by doing Y, as described in my manual). Don't sell software. Write software, and sell labor (I will configure your computer to do X using Y software). We have been held back so much by the artifical scarcity of information... it's absurd. It's nice to have a nice, cushy ecosystem where you don't have to compete in your domain (ie hardware manufacturers bricking devices for "unauthorized" upgrades / fixes, software proprietors having a monopoly on maintenance), but imagine a world where you had to compete or fail. I think we ought to try that sometime.
resource_waste 3y ago
I have fears that the work I do today, will cause some sort of negative externality like Apple. I might be a hardware engineer, make something cool, but you have some psychopath take your work, manipulate people's emotions and make them feel status insecure, then sell to them. Think of how much pain low income people feel watching Apple's commercials knowing they have an old iPhone. Think of the Apple legal team, promoting themselves at consumers and developers expense. Close to a billion people had their neurotransmitters negatively affected because of Steve's hardware success. It just worries me that my good intentions today, can turn into immoral actions 10-20 years later.
- josfredo 3y ago
  I think this is a general rule. Everything we do today, regardless of the short-term benefits they may achieve, will eventually “turn to the other side”, effectively balancing things out. My take is that it is far more valuable to do things just for the joy of it.
- ecocentrik 3y ago
  The amplification of Apple's prestige brand status and it's influence on conspicuous consumption is a function of Apple's marketing and branding efforts and not related to any IP they developed. Sorry to break it to you but most people who can't afford the latest iPhone find alternatives that fit their budgets with very little emotional distress. It's only individuals that feel the desperation to gain the approval of peer groups that discriminate based on middle class luxury prestige brand markers that experience any kind of emotional distress from not being able to display those brands on their person.
  - resource_waste 3y ago
    >It's only individuals that feel the desperation to gain the approval of peer groups that discriminate based on middle class luxury prestige brand markers that experience any kind of emotional distress from not being able to display those brands on their person. They don't matter? Why do their brains and neurotransmitters mean less than others?
cpach 3y ago
It’s Stewart :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free
- corytheboyd 3y ago
  > Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive. ...That tension will not go away. Damn, that is very well said.
robg 3y ago
Pretty sweet sweater Woz is wearing, anyone know the story? Did early Apple custom make apparel?
- mistrial9 3y ago
  early Apple culture is unrecognizable compared to the modern versions IMHO source: 1987
  - apercu 3y ago
    I remember (as a mac owner from '92 on) getting a catalog in the early 90's of Apple apparel. I'm not dreaming right? A quick search definitely brings up an 87 catalog and clothes available from the website in 97, but I swear I got a paper catalog in like '93 with some corny clothes....
    - qgin 3y ago
      The original Apple Watch: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-apple-watch-from-1995 https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-apple-watch-from-1995
  - brcmthrowaway 3y ago
    It was Grateful Dead then turned into then turned into The Matrix
schappim 3y ago
It's ironic to watch a video about IP and information freedom constantly marred by the Getty watermark.

88 points by 1970-01-01 3y ago

mikewarot 3y ago

I find it ironic that such a free and flowing discussion about the nature of IP itself becomes the IP of a corporation.

1970-01-01 3y ago
The irony was not lost on me! This piece of "information" seems to be free to link, view, and enjoy (with a big watermark).
- legel 3y ago
  Love your username, the beginning of Unix Time — you’re like our Jesus

iteygib 3y ago

Paraphrasing, but I do agree with the "information should be free but someone's time should not be" statement. How to properly execute and balance that though is the hard part

andsoitis 3y ago
> I do agree with the "information should be free but someone's time should not be" statement. While it is a nice idea ("information should be free"), I don't know that the statement is rooted in practical reality. Information doesn't have autonomy so needs to be created, it can have time value, it certainly has relevance value, or entertainment value, has quality value (signal > noise); all these things require effort to produce, maintain, curate, distribute. Leaving the practical constraints behind, I also struggle to see moral or ethical reasons for information to be free. Which information should be free? All information? Why?
- pjmorris 3y ago
  "What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can’t study or change. Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives." - Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman
  - dingnuts 3y ago
    "But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can’t study or change" I think a lot about how RMS's view on software freedom was warped by the highly intelligent and intellectual peer group that he must have been involved in at MIT. It strikes me as endearing, but naive, to believe that most people would be able to treat software as anything but a black box simply if the source code were available to them. Certainly, for most people using computers at MIT, when RMS was writing, this was true. But it is definitely not true that source code would have any use to most computer users (smart phone users, really) today. They simply would not have the ability to do anything with it.
    - Ardon 3y ago
      It doesn't really need to be them doing the studying, making the code viewable allows end-users to choose who to trust or to get second opinions, instead of only having the word of the company producing the software. One or multiple people who can study the software, even in small numbers, are still adding more information, and so more potential trust, than the alternative.
    - pjmorris 3y ago
      > But it is definitely not true that source code would have any use to most computer users (smart phone users, really) today. They simply would not have the ability to do anything with it. It seems like GitHub and other sources of open source software offer an opportunity to test your hypothesis empirically. I am biased to think that its existence demonstrates that source code is of use to at least many users.
Zambyte 3y ago
Don't spend your life producing information. Spend your life doing things derived from information. If information is Free, what you do with it becomes the only valuable aspect of it. Don't sell manuals. Write manuals, and sell labor (I will make your device behave in X way by doing Y, as described in my manual). Don't sell software. Write software, and sell labor (I will configure your computer to do X using Y software). We have been held back so much by the artifical scarcity of information... it's absurd. It's nice to have a nice, cushy ecosystem where you don't have to compete in your domain (ie hardware manufacturers bricking devices for "unauthorized" upgrades / fixes, software proprietors having a monopoly on maintenance), but imagine a world where you had to compete or fail. I think we ought to try that sometime.

resource_waste 3y ago

I have fears that the work I do today, will cause some sort of negative externality like Apple. I might be a hardware engineer, make something cool, but you have some psychopath take your work, manipulate people's emotions and make them feel status insecure, then sell to them. Think of how much pain low income people feel watching Apple's commercials knowing they have an old iPhone. Think of the Apple legal team, promoting themselves at consumers and developers expense. Close to a billion people had their neurotransmitters negatively affected because of Steve's hardware success. It just worries me that my good intentions today, can turn into immoral actions 10-20 years later.

josfredo 3y ago
I think this is a general rule. Everything we do today, regardless of the short-term benefits they may achieve, will eventually “turn to the other side”, effectively balancing things out. My take is that it is far more valuable to do things just for the joy of it.
ecocentrik 3y ago
The amplification of Apple's prestige brand status and it's influence on conspicuous consumption is a function of Apple's marketing and branding efforts and not related to any IP they developed. Sorry to break it to you but most people who can't afford the latest iPhone find alternatives that fit their budgets with very little emotional distress. It's only individuals that feel the desperation to gain the approval of peer groups that discriminate based on middle class luxury prestige brand markers that experience any kind of emotional distress from not being able to display those brands on their person.
- resource_waste 3y ago
  >It's only individuals that feel the desperation to gain the approval of peer groups that discriminate based on middle class luxury prestige brand markers that experience any kind of emotional distress from not being able to display those brands on their person. They don't matter? Why do their brains and neurotransmitters mean less than others?

cpach 3y ago

It’s Stewart :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free

corytheboyd 3y ago
> Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive. ...That tension will not go away. Damn, that is very well said.

robg 3y ago

Pretty sweet sweater Woz is wearing, anyone know the story? Did early Apple custom make apparel?

mistrial9 3y ago
early Apple culture is unrecognizable compared to the modern versions IMHO source: 1987
- apercu 3y ago
  I remember (as a mac owner from '92 on) getting a catalog in the early 90's of Apple apparel. I'm not dreaming right? A quick search definitely brings up an 87 catalog and clothes available from the website in 97, but I swear I got a paper catalog in like '93 with some corny clothes....
  - qgin 3y ago
    The original Apple Watch: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-apple-watch-from-1995 https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-apple-watch-from-1995
- brcmthrowaway 3y ago
  It was Grateful Dead then turned into then turned into The Matrix

schappim 3y ago

It's ironic to watch a video about IP and information freedom constantly marred by the Getty watermark.