5 ms·

I am curious. Can you be more specific? If I am making my living writing software, and if you buy a copy of it and make it available to potential customers, why

I am curious. Can you be more specific? If I am making my living writing software, and if you buy a copy of it and make it available to potential customers, why is it immoral to ask you not to do so?

teddyh 13y ago
If I have a copy of some information or software, and I can easily copy it to my friend, and my friend needs it, why should I deny him? Would I not be mean in denying him? If I would, then would you not be immoral for coercing me to be mean to my friend? That, in essence, is the argument. You could argue that your business model requires me, i.e. all your customers, to agree not to give their friends (or anyone else) copies. But the world does not owe you a living. If your business model requires you to ask people to behave badly towards their friends, then it is destroying the social fabric of society, and you could rightly be called immoral. Anyway, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html if you truly want to read more.
- gress 13y ago
  What's your definition of 'need'? If your belief system relies on not compensating other people's hard work, then it is destroying the social fabric of society. By not acknowledging software as property, you are entrenching the power of those who control other forms of property. We can make software through our own efforts, but we cannot make land, or other natural resources. You may wish to trade your time to provide support for free software to powerful corporations, but that seems like a grim vision of what's possible for humanity.
  - teddyh 13y ago
    > What's your definition of 'need'? You're being weird. I'm using the word in its normal sense. > If your belief system relies on not compensating other people's hard work, then it is destroying the social fabric of society. Work does not intrinsically need to be compensated. The world does not owe you a living. It is up to you to do work that actually deserves compensation. It will not do to complain that everyone is using your work in ways you did not intend; it is for you to find a business model which takes the actions of people into account. It is also your duty as a member of society to engage in actions which does not, on the whole, damage society. > By not acknowledging software as property, you are entrenching the power of those who control other forms of property Perhaps. But this does not leave you destitute; property is not the only form of wealth. You have the ability to work, which you can sell. You do not need to go the roundabout way of working to create software, and then create this constructed form of property so you can sell this new form of “property”. You can just as easily sell your labor directly.
    - gress 13y ago
      The normal sense of 'need' is that a person will die without something. You might be thiking of the word 'want'. You keep saying 'the world does not owe you a living' as though it means something relevant to this discussion. What gives you the right to decide what duties and actions damage society? I think you are damaging society by trying to destroy developers rights over the software they create.
      - teddyh 13y ago
        The normal sense of ‘need’ is as in “I’m going shopping, I need milk.”. What does and does not damage society is certainly open for discussion. But when you frame it as “developers’ rights over the software they create” you are presupposing the conclusion. Why should ideas and other non-rivalrous goods be considered property? If I “own” an idea that you have a copy of, why should this give me power over you?
        gress 13y ago
        So by need you mean "want". I said nothing about ideas. That is a straw man. I am not presupposing the conclusion. I recognize that developer's rights are artificial. I also recognize that money is artificial as are all property rights. The reason software as a non-rivalrous good should be considered property is because we value the creative output of individuals, and recognize that it takes individual time and investment to add value to the world through this art. In doing so, we are valuing and incentivizing creativity and ingenuity rather than clock hours of work. Price competition can take care of making the fruits of this creativity widely available to those who want it.
        teddyh 13y ago
        > we value the creative output of individuals This all sounds good, but it is very theoretical. Let’s look at the more practical effects. As noted by many, the fact that the creative output of individuals can currently be owned has rather large drawbacks. So what do we gain to potentially offset these drawbacks? Note that these gains would have to be things we would actually lose if creative output of individuals would cease to have property status. Finally, are these gains large enough to overcome the drawbacks? Furthermore, there are many who argue that, should the creative output of individuals cease to have limits on their dissemination and use, society would gain more than enough to offset any potential drawback of this. It could also be argued that the cost would be entirely transitional, i.e. people would have to get used to new business models and move to different ways of doing business, and there would be otherwise no actual continuous loss by making the creative output of individuals non-owned.
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  That would make perfect sense if software grew on trees. In the real world in which we live, people have to work hard to create new things. There is no magic software fairy. Software is not a right like air, water or food or speech. Remember, the world does not owe you free software. ("free" as in "free beer")
  - teddyh 13y ago
    Well, first, there are those who argue (although I’m not sure they are right) that all software the world would need would be written by people in their spare time; even many large complex software pieces have been made this way. I’m not sure if this will work, though. However, you are implying something more insidious: That one must forbid people to share software in order to make money writing it. This is obviously false, with many counterexamples. In particular, there is a company which is mostly writing the Gnu ADA compiler which is reportedly making money hand over fist. If one were to assume that this (or variants of it) is possible in all fields of software, then there is no good excuse for forbidding sharing of software, which does some demonstrable harm.
    - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
      Let us talk when things like Google search and Watson are built from scratch for free. If sharing the source code for Google does no harm, why have they not done it? Another radical example: Github. Why is the source for Github not open or free? Why are they not sharing that with us? Surely a company so invested in open (and to a large extent free) software must know better right?
      - teddyh 13y ago
        I would argue that some free software projects can be compared to Google search and Watson. Sharing the source to Google would be better for society, but a bit bad for Google, and since Google decides, they are deciding not to. The same goes for Github. It’s the collective action problem.
- sigzero 13y ago
  The World. It doesn't work that way and neither does the vast majority of commercial software despite what you "want".
  - teddyh 13y ago
    Your Words. They do not make sense and you are quoting things I did not write despite what you “believe”.
- mistermann 13y ago
  > If I have a copy of some information or software, and I can easily copy it to my friend, and my friend needs it, why should I deny him? How about if you promised not to do that in your acceptance of the license agreement? Your friends "need" isn't necessarily a valid claim on the fruits of the software authors labor. (A "need" for software? Come on.) It might make a very compelling argument that the author should choose to gift a copy to your friend, or offer an educational version (as many do), but I can't see the logic that a need is a valid claim, moral or otherwise, on someone else's work.
  - teddyh 13y ago
    > How about if you promised not to do that in your acceptance of the license agreement? I could do that, and then the ethical burden would fall on me to motivate why society would benefit more from my use of the software than it would benefit everyone I would potentially deny to receive a copy of it. But, the way you phrase it (“claim on the fruits of the software authors labor”) presupposes that it is property, and a rivalrous one at that. However, software is a non-rivalrous good, and whether it should be considered property is the question we are debating.
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      It's a club good (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_good).
      - teddyh 13y ago
        A club good is simply an excludable non-rivalrous good. In this Internet age it is increasingly hard to maintain the illusion of the excludability of bits.
        Houshalter 13y ago
        It is relatively effective. Most people don't pirate things because it's illegal. Especially corporations are less likely to pirate software because of the serious legal consequences.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  The world wouldn't magically be better off without copyright, in fact it would be much worse as there would be little investment in producing it. Bill Gates wrote software and other people voluntarily chose to use it instead of something free. If you can do a better job for free then nothing is preventing you.

I am curious. Can you be more specific? If I am making my living writing software, and if you buy a copy of it and make it available to potential customers, why is it immoral to ask you not to do so?

teddyh 13y ago

If I have a copy of some information or software, and I can easily copy it to my friend, and my friend needs it, why should I deny him? Would I not be mean in denying him? If I would, then would you not be immoral for coercing me to be mean to my friend? That, in essence, is the argument. You could argue that your business model requires me, i.e. all your customers, to agree not to give their friends (or anyone else) copies. But the world does not owe you a living. If your business model requires you to ask people to behave badly towards their friends, then it is destroying the social fabric of society, and you could rightly be called immoral. Anyway, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html if you truly want to read more.

gress 13y ago
What's your definition of 'need'? If your belief system relies on not compensating other people's hard work, then it is destroying the social fabric of society. By not acknowledging software as property, you are entrenching the power of those who control other forms of property. We can make software through our own efforts, but we cannot make land, or other natural resources. You may wish to trade your time to provide support for free software to powerful corporations, but that seems like a grim vision of what's possible for humanity.
- teddyh 13y ago
  > What's your definition of 'need'? You're being weird. I'm using the word in its normal sense. > If your belief system relies on not compensating other people's hard work, then it is destroying the social fabric of society. Work does not intrinsically need to be compensated. The world does not owe you a living. It is up to you to do work that actually deserves compensation. It will not do to complain that everyone is using your work in ways you did not intend; it is for you to find a business model which takes the actions of people into account. It is also your duty as a member of society to engage in actions which does not, on the whole, damage society. > By not acknowledging software as property, you are entrenching the power of those who control other forms of property Perhaps. But this does not leave you destitute; property is not the only form of wealth. You have the ability to work, which you can sell. You do not need to go the roundabout way of working to create software, and then create this constructed form of property so you can sell this new form of “property”. You can just as easily sell your labor directly.
  - gress 13y ago
    The normal sense of 'need' is that a person will die without something. You might be thiking of the word 'want'. You keep saying 'the world does not owe you a living' as though it means something relevant to this discussion. What gives you the right to decide what duties and actions damage society? I think you are damaging society by trying to destroy developers rights over the software they create.
    - teddyh 13y ago
      The normal sense of ‘need’ is as in “I’m going shopping, I need milk.”. What does and does not damage society is certainly open for discussion. But when you frame it as “developers’ rights over the software they create” you are presupposing the conclusion. Why should ideas and other non-rivalrous goods be considered property? If I “own” an idea that you have a copy of, why should this give me power over you?
      - gress 13y ago
        So by need you mean "want". I said nothing about ideas. That is a straw man. I am not presupposing the conclusion. I recognize that developer's rights are artificial. I also recognize that money is artificial as are all property rights. The reason software as a non-rivalrous good should be considered property is because we value the creative output of individuals, and recognize that it takes individual time and investment to add value to the world through this art. In doing so, we are valuing and incentivizing creativity and ingenuity rather than clock hours of work. Price competition can take care of making the fruits of this creativity widely available to those who want it.
        teddyh 13y ago
        > we value the creative output of individuals This all sounds good, but it is very theoretical. Let’s look at the more practical effects. As noted by many, the fact that the creative output of individuals can currently be owned has rather large drawbacks. So what do we gain to potentially offset these drawbacks? Note that these gains would have to be things we would actually lose if creative output of individuals would cease to have property status. Finally, are these gains large enough to overcome the drawbacks? Furthermore, there are many who argue that, should the creative output of individuals cease to have limits on their dissemination and use, society would gain more than enough to offset any potential drawback of this. It could also be argued that the cost would be entirely transitional, i.e. people would have to get used to new business models and move to different ways of doing business, and there would be otherwise no actual continuous loss by making the creative output of individuals non-owned.
cscurmudgeon 13y ago
That would make perfect sense if software grew on trees. In the real world in which we live, people have to work hard to create new things. There is no magic software fairy. Software is not a right like air, water or food or speech. Remember, the world does not owe you free software. ("free" as in "free beer")
- teddyh 13y ago
  Well, first, there are those who argue (although I’m not sure they are right) that all software the world would need would be written by people in their spare time; even many large complex software pieces have been made this way. I’m not sure if this will work, though. However, you are implying something more insidious: That one must forbid people to share software in order to make money writing it. This is obviously false, with many counterexamples. In particular, there is a company which is mostly writing the Gnu ADA compiler which is reportedly making money hand over fist. If one were to assume that this (or variants of it) is possible in all fields of software, then there is no good excuse for forbidding sharing of software, which does some demonstrable harm.
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    Let us talk when things like Google search and Watson are built from scratch for free. If sharing the source code for Google does no harm, why have they not done it? Another radical example: Github. Why is the source for Github not open or free? Why are they not sharing that with us? Surely a company so invested in open (and to a large extent free) software must know better right?
    - teddyh 13y ago
      I would argue that some free software projects can be compared to Google search and Watson. Sharing the source to Google would be better for society, but a bit bad for Google, and since Google decides, they are deciding not to. The same goes for Github. It’s the collective action problem.
sigzero 13y ago
The World. It doesn't work that way and neither does the vast majority of commercial software despite what you "want".
- teddyh 13y ago
  Your Words. They do not make sense and you are quoting things I did not write despite what you “believe”.
mistermann 13y ago
> If I have a copy of some information or software, and I can easily copy it to my friend, and my friend needs it, why should I deny him? How about if you promised not to do that in your acceptance of the license agreement? Your friends "need" isn't necessarily a valid claim on the fruits of the software authors labor. (A "need" for software? Come on.) It might make a very compelling argument that the author should choose to gift a copy to your friend, or offer an educational version (as many do), but I can't see the logic that a need is a valid claim, moral or otherwise, on someone else's work.
- teddyh 13y ago
  > How about if you promised not to do that in your acceptance of the license agreement? I could do that, and then the ethical burden would fall on me to motivate why society would benefit more from my use of the software than it would benefit everyone I would potentially deny to receive a copy of it. But, the way you phrase it (“claim on the fruits of the software authors labor”) presupposes that it is property, and a rivalrous one at that. However, software is a non-rivalrous good, and whether it should be considered property is the question we are debating.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    It's a club good (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_good).
    - teddyh 13y ago
      A club good is simply an excludable non-rivalrous good. In this Internet age it is increasingly hard to maintain the illusion of the excludability of bits.
      - Houshalter 13y ago
        It is relatively effective. Most people don't pirate things because it's illegal. Especially corporations are less likely to pirate software because of the serious legal consequences.
Houshalter 13y ago
The world wouldn't magically be better off without copyright, in fact it would be much worse as there would be little investment in producing it. Bill Gates wrote software and other people voluntarily chose to use it instead of something free. If you can do a better job for free then nothing is preventing you.