Subject: RE: [hackers-il] RE: Open-Source and Objectivism

From: Chen Shapira <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:41:23 +0200

> My familiarity with Objectivism comes from an extension of Objectivism
> called Neo-Tech. One of the central concepts in Neo-Tech is 
> that reality
> is dynamic and actually changes as time goes by. Philosophy 
> can't stand
> still and not change with it.

I agree. Ayn Rand killed her own philosophy with this statement. (Which she
repeated several times and emphesized!)

> We cannot claim that the Digital Revolution can have no effect on
> Intellectual Property. In a way, Open-Source/Open-Content was 
> an outcome
> of the new de-facto reality. There was no way to prevent it, 
> there is no
> way to stop it, and there is no use claiming it is immoral much less
> illegal. (hint, hint: Microsoft)
> 
> I will not go as long as Stallman to claim that properietary 
> software is
> immoral. As I may have said, both strategies are valid as long as all
> sides play in a fair and competitive way.

I agree with you. I like free software, it adds nice competition, fills some
forgoten niches, and makes the world a nicer place.
I also like much of the non-free software, I have no idea if we'd have
Solaris in a free-software only world.
But then again, I'm not an objectivist by any strech of imagination.

> So, unless Objectivism will be declared open for extensions 
> by someone, it
> will only be remembered as the predecessor of Neo-Tech, or 
> whatever else
> is based on it and acknowledges the fact that philosophy is 
> and should be
> dynamic.

I agree.

> I am not anti-IP in any way. However, Neo-Tech has an example 
> that said
> that buying gold on margin and waiting for an economic 
> collapse was a very
> bad way to live (believe it or not, but there were some 
> Libertarians who
> did it). 

I don't know enough Econimics to understand. Can you elaborate? (In private
if you think it may bore everyone else)

> In a similar way, trying to threaten people who violated or
> allegdly violated your IP, and/or trying to pass draconic 
> laws that try to
> somehow prevent it, is a bad way to live. Only mystics have 
> an inherent
> dis-trust of all people enough to do such a thing.

Its a problem. I don't like DMCA any more than you do. But if IP is to have
any meaning, it should be protected.
A balance should be made between the legitimate rights of the IP owners (who
usually own it because they made a financial investment, and therefore have
a right to it) and the legitimate rights of the users (who also paid,
although they didn't take the risks the owners took).
I believe our laws are aiming at such balance of rights, although in the
last few years it has badly tilted in favor of the copyright holders.

> Your IP is your property, but if you wish to distribute it in 
> a digital
> format, it can be copied and probably will be copied. You can try to
> prevent it, but the rules of logic themselves deduce that you cannot
> fully eliminate it.

I agree. A company that wishes to distribute music must take this into
account when doing risks calculations.
But if the risk is too high, those companies won't take it.
Whether this is good or bad, I can't decide.

> Note that I have produced some intellectual property which is not free
> content. (one particular piece is derived work, so I make no claim for
> it). I'm not aware of anybody who violated this IP (even 
> though I can't
> think of any way it can be violated that I won't agree to). 
> However, even
> if people did, I'll first ask them to stop doing it, before I 
> start waving
> the DMCA, etc. I trust people with my intellectual property, and I'm
> pretty sure that Ayn Rand never went far to claim that most people are
> bad.

I agree.

Chen.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:12:07 +0200 (IST)

[ I snipped a lot of "I agree"'s ]

> if you think it may bore everyone else)

I don't think so. Buying Gold on Margin means buying Gold when it's price
is very high. Naturally, during an economic collapse, Gold retains its
value, so someone who had a lot of Gold becomes very rich in relation to
other people.

But naturally, hoping for an economic collapse is a bad way to live one's
life, because one is hoping for bad things to happen.

> last few years it has badly tilted in favor of the copyright holders.

I agree here. But I believe that the assumption that "If copyrights were
not protected, no one will be willing to generate new and exciting
content" is not as true as it once was. It will take some time before it
is possible to produce movies with Holywood (technical) quality. But
there's already publicly available literature, Music and graphical art.

> Whether this is good or bad, I can't decide.

I can't decide either. All I know is I'd rather see mainstream commercial
Music disappear than see a lot of people go to jail for downloading
songs, even if they do not legitimately own the CDs. Much less, seeing a
law such as the SSSCA get passed.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        [email-masked]
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail:       [email-masked]

"Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."
"Wait a second - is n a natural number?"

---

From: Adi Stav <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:50:43 +0200

On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:41:23PM +0200, Chen Shapira wrote:
.
.
> But then again, I'm not an objectivist by any strech of imagination.
.
.

Why, there are two separate, totally different stands here. They
should not be confused. One (the "IP" stand) says, "morally, an 
author of a work has rights over it, since they were the ones to 
create it, and IP laws are meant to enforce that right", while the
other says "no one has any inherent rights over any kind of
information, but we might choose to limit distribution of works
to encourage its creation". 

Whether or not someone who takes the second stand supports copyright
on software or music or whatever is a purely a practicaly matter, 
and can be debated. The big difference is that someone who takes the
first stand can find it immoral if the copying is NOT limited in
certain circumenstances. Which is yours?

---

From: Omer Zak <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 23:37:38 +0200 (IST)

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Adi Stav wrote:

> > I also like much of the non-free software, I haveno idea if we'd have
> should not be confused. One (the "IP" stand)says, "morally, an 

The classical Objectivist position is that people have a property right in
the results of their labor.  If you work, say, 3 days creating something
(tangible or intangible), then you own all rights over it.

Thus, as long as you keep to yourself information (intellectual property)
which you created - you have all rights over it.  Even Stallman does not
dispute this (GPL explicitly allows people not to release to the world
software which they modified only for their own use).

Traditionally, this was implemented by means of trade secrets.

However, it was realized that science and arts would progress faster if
people are encouraged to publicize their intellectual creations.  This is
so because of the synergy effect - combination of two or more ideas to
create something new.

This was a case in which several people decided to enter an agreement to
share their intellectual properties, under certain terms.  The terms were
designed to encourage people to develop more intellectual properties and
share them with their fellows.  Hence, copyright and patent laws.

The details of such an agreement fall outside the scope of the Objectivist
principles, because philosophically the details are governed by a contract
into which several people voluntarily enter.  (I emphasize
philosophically, because I realize that practically people are born into
the law of their land; but laws can be changed if enough people want them
to be changed; so we have to consider the question which laws will work
the best.)

In other words, as long as you are the sole user of an idea which you
developed, you own it under your terms.

However, as soon as you want to share it with other people, and/or use the
ideas developed by other people, you are bound by an agreement.

Objectivism does not tell us what are the best terms of such an agreement. 
We have to work them out by ourselves.  Thus, the correct position is the
second one, which says "no one has any inherent rights over any kind of
information [not kept private to its creator], but we might choose to
limit distribution of works to encourage its creation" (the text in
angular brackets was added by me). 

Now, a good legal framework needs to be worked out.  I suggest that
several R&D projects from all walks of life be considered, and get a
feeling of the amount of protection of intellectual property rights, which
they needed in order to become economically viable (i.e. they do benefit
the inventor/s and the investor/s in proportion to the benefit to the
public at large).
                                             --- Omer
There is no IGLU Cabal.  People are wasting time arguing the holiness of
intellectual property rights.  Meanwhile real innovation is stifled, and
without real innovation, there is no need for an IGLU Cabal.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  see at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html

---

From: Omer Zak <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 23:09:54 +0200 (IST)

On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> I don't think so. Buying Gold onMargin means buying Gold when it's price
> But naturally, hoping for an economic collapse isa bad way to live one's

I have another reason why this is not the best way to live one's life.
This way of living does not produce real wealth.  No food is produced, no
capital (machinery, software, knowledge) is produced.  If everyone were to
live this way, then everyone would have perished by hunger.

> law such as the SSSCA get passed.

Better ask which approach would maximize the amount of real wealth, which
can be produced.  There are two extrema:

1. Intellectual property rights are jealously protected and guarded by
   legal and technological means.
   Innovation is stifled.  It is very expensive to create new ideas.

2. No protection for intellectual property rights whatsoever.  All ideas
   are free for all comers.
   Innovation will occur only if someone can justify investment in an idea
   by "selling" its benefits only to himself and to few partners.  This
   would not stifle all innovation (FSF projects, Linux and other Free
   Software projects are proof of this).  People would innovate to scratch
   their itches.
   But inventions, which require substantial investment and long payoff
   period, would be stifled.

The "sweet spot" is somewhere between those two extrema.
The existing patent and copyright laws are obviously not sufficiently near
to this "sweet spot".  Well, for medications and medical instruments -
yes.  But for software - no.
                                             --- Omer
There is no IGLU Cabal.  It will be founded once a good legal framework
covering intellectual property rights is built and accepted by the
legislatures of some forward-looking countries.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  see at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html

---

From: Adi Stav <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:41:05 +0200

> Traditionally, this was implemented by means of trade secrets.

True enough. But Stallman believes in rights for private information
not because of inherenet (although very limited) IP rights, but 
because of the right to privacy; the lack of IP laws does not force 
one to to share private software any more than it forces one to share 
a private diary or private correspondence. 

As I see it, this comes not from rights over the information, but 
from the principle of not being forced to do something (in this 
case, reveal something) against your will. But once your private 
correspondence got out of your control (say, the person with whom 
you were corresponding distributes the information) you cannot claim 
ownership over it without some additional legal protection, granted 
for a /practical/ reason.

> share them with their fellows.  Hence, copyright and patent laws.

I do not agree that, historically, this was the process that put IP 
laws into place. This, to me, is similar to Hobbes's theory on the 
creation of the state (or maybe religeous creation stories?); its 
tale of how what now exists came into being is actually false, but 
it can highlight why and how the current social constructs are 
maintained.

> to be changed; so we have to consider the question which laws will work

I disagree that this distinction is unimportant. Such a contract 
would have power were it signed by all of the citizens of the state,
but such a /law/ would have equivalent power were it only agreed to
by 50% of the citizens (and even that under optimal conditions).
The contract is /not/ entered willingly (not by me, at least), and
is therefore a dictatorship of the majority, taking away the rights 
of the minority in spite of the minority's disagreement and protest,
for the gain of majority, under the threat of using force. I cannot 
see how objectivists would /ever/ agree with it. I can see how more 
left-wing philosophies (that believe in practical rights rather than 
abstract rights) would agree to it in certain circumentstances, 
though.

> angular brackets was added by me). 

Thank you for bracketed addition, it is more correct this way. But 
I don't think that this how objectivism sees things, both for the 
reason I outlined above and because I think (as Chen pointed out) 
that objectivism does not distinguish between intellectual and 
physical property.

> the inventor/s and the investor/s in proportion to the benefit to the

Now that's talking. I'll join your party any day. We can have a great
slogan: "intellect is not a property" (sounds better in Hebrew, too).
I think that trade laws are the most appropriate medium for such
restrictions (which was where IP laws came from to start with), 
because when you reach the point you have to spy on /individuals/
the law is useless anyway.

---

From: Omer Zak <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:51:42 +0200 (EET)

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Adi Stav wrote:

> > people are encouraged to publicize their intellectualcreations.This is
> > share their intellectual properties, under certain terms.The terms were
> > share them with their fellows.Hence, copyright and patent laws.
>

See the American Constitution.  It grants the Congress the power to enact
intellectual protection laws in order to further the progerss of the arts
and the sciences.  I don't know what kind of lobbying actually caused the
writers of the Constitution to add this clause, and it does not matter.
Just as it doesn't matter how Pythagoras's predecessors actually found
Pythagoras' Theorem once we have a rigorous proof for this.

> > into which several people voluntarily enter.(I emphasize
> I disagree that this distinctionis unimportant. Such a contract
> The contract is/not/ entered willingly (not by me, at least), and

You forgot that people, who agree to follow laws enacted by legislatures -
agree by [conceptually] signing a contract stipulating that they agree to
observe laws enacted according to procedure so-and-so.  We continue to
sign this contract each day we choose to stay in Israel rather than
exercise our freedom to emigrate to another country.  Thus, what I said
above is still covered by the umbrealla of Objectivism.  If you don't like
the details of the agreement to follow laws enacted by simple majority of
a 120-people body, emigrate or suggest a better system. (Actually this is
an Open Source law - don't complain unless you can fix the code
yourself.:-) )

> > We have to work them out by ourselves.Thus, the correct position is the

I am not sure Objectivists really considered the following issue:
Robinson Crusoe is living alone in an island, out of contact with
everyone.
One day Mr. Edisonsohn invents a solar-powered night lamp, which can be
manufactured by hand from raw maeterials.  He registers a patent in all
countries of the world.
One year later, Robinson Crusoe independently makes the invention.  He
practices it by building such a lamp to light his islant at night.  He is
not aware of Edisonsohn's patent, neither is Edisonsohn aware of Crusoe's
violation of the patent.

In this case, Crusoe is legally in violation of Edisonsohn's property
rights.  But is Crusoe morally guilty according to Objectivist doctrine?
If yes - then you can be guilty without your knowledge, and in an
unpredictable way.
If not - then intellectual property rights ARE different from tangible
property rights.  Because tangible property rights automatically hold.
Intellectual property rights hold only when the parties in question are in
direct or indirect communication.

> > Now, a good legal framework needs to be worked out.I suggest that

I am not sure that precedents will do any good in this case.
Basically, the amount of legal protection needed is function of:
1. Investment the inventor+investors need to make in order to bring the
   idea to fruition.
2. Availability of natural barriers to protect against freeloaders, who
   would like to exploit the idea without payment.
                                             --- Omer
There is no IGLU Cabal.  The reformed IP laws allow people to declare IP
on anything in which they can demonstrate investment of more than 100K$.
So people are busy inflating their investment declarations rather than
build The Great IGLU Cabal.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html

---

From: Adi Stav <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 19:40:37 +0200

[Redundant recursive quotations snipped, as always, without mercy]

> Pythagoras' Theorem once we have a rigorous proof for this.

That's exactly what I meant.

> an Open Source law - don't complain unless you can fix the code

"America -- Love It Or Leave It".

I claim my right to live my life as a free and equal man in the 
country of my birth. I do not agree that my rights as an individual 
are constrained to negotiating with the dictatorial majority what 
rights am I allowed to practice. In other words, there is more to 
Democracy than "the rule of the majority".

But anyway, we are not talking about me here, but about objectivism.
I might agree to a certain limitation of some of my unpracticed 
rights by the state in exchanged for certain benefits. An 
objectivist /never/ would. Not in their lifetime. And that was my 
point. An objectivist-like philosophy that does not recognize IP
would /never/ agree to a forced contract like the one you are 
suggesting, nor to a forced contract of any other kind.

> direct or indirect communication.

A good question is what country is Crusoe's island a part of. 
Another question is whether Edisonsohn's lawyers sent a Cease-and-
Desist letter to Cruso.

But this is another great example of how IP is not really P.

>    would like to exploit the idea without payment.

I think such trade limitations should be declared for each industry
separately after it is decided to be beneficial. E.g., you might 
decide that medicines deserve a limitation of 10 years, plastics 5 
years, music 15 years (remember it's /trade/ limitation, you can
still napsterize the songs) and software none.

---

From: Omer Zak <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:28:41 +0200 (EET)

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Adi Stav wrote:

> > observe laws enacted according to procedure so-and-so.We continue to
> > exercise our freedom to emigrate to another country.Thus, what I said
> > above is still covered by the umbrealla of Objectivism.If you don't like

Every place where there is more than one person, people found it to be
necessary to establish a government (which is really a dictatorship,
because it is vested with power over the lives of the people).  This is
straight Objectivist doctrine that government should have the powers of
army, police and courts.  Courts imply procedures and laws for dealing
with disputes between people.

Your rights end when your neighbor's rights begin.  The big question is
how to determine, in a fair way, where to draw the line.
The present system of giving 120 people, who have been elected by a
certain procedure, the ultimate power to answer the above question - works
for better or worse.  For now, I accept this system.  If you can suggest a
better system, stand up.

> suggesting, nor to a forced contract of any other kind.

According to my lights, as long a country allows me to leave it with most
of my property, my contract with that country is not forced.  In the past,
my "contract" with the State of Israel was forced - while I could leave it
at will, my property couldn't.  But now this is not the situation (as far
as I know).

[... the tale of Robinson Crusoe and Edisonsohn was snipped ...]

> > rights.But is Crusoe morally guilty according to Objectivist doctrine?
> > property rights.Because tangible property rights automatically hold.

If Crusoe is not in communication with anyone, why should this matter?

> Another question is whether Edisonsohn's lawyers sent a Cease-and-

It was stipulated that Crusoe is not in communication with anyone, so by
definition, there was no such a cease-and-desist letter.

> still napsterize the songs) and software none.

This would create an unholy mess.  Imagine all the lobbying, bribing and
nagging which interest groups will bear upon the luckless members of the
Committee for Declaration of Trade Limitations.  This will be even worse
than the pressure which is applied to committees, which issue building
permits to buildings.
                                             --- Omer
There is no IGLU Cabal.  There is a small group of strong and beautiful
men and women, who discuss IGLU Cabal level issues, but without formal
authority or responsibility.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html

---

From: Adi Stav <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 12:06:53 +0200

> for better or worse.  For now, I accept this system.  If you can suggest a

The current system is fine. But I disagree that you can sum it up by
120 people making decisions. Their decisions are limited too, and 
they have to maintain the minority's rights too. The system is more
than letting everybody vote. Even in non-objectivism. I would say,
/especially/ in non-objectivism, since objectvisits do not recognize
that there could be ambiguity in interpreting individual rights to
start with like you described.

> at will, my property couldn't.  But now this is not the situation (as far

That's not enough. I don't think this analogy holds, for a number
of reasons. 

First of all, outside of Israel there are only other countries, which 
can have their own limitations of my freedom, and whose laws I will 
also have to implicitly accept as a forced contract despite not 
having signed it. There is no place on Earth that is law-free, and
therefore, even under ideal conditions, the best choice I have is 
between signing one of several contracts, but not whether to sign or 
not sign a contract to start with. If I cannot choose not to sign one, 
it is forced in any case.

Secondly, the state is well within its power to prevent me from 
leaving, say, if I am owing taxes or if they need me for the army or 
if I am wanted for distributing files through Napster.

Thirdly, no other country is obligated to accept me, and in my case 
no other country would, except on a temporary basis. So I don't 
really have the choice of not signing the social contract.

And lastly, what happens outside Israel is not really relevant. Under
current laws I am allowed to sell off my property and take the 
money with me, but even this allowance is new and not guaranteed. 
In any case, I cannot take with me the actual property itself, both
physical and not physical -- I cannot take my house, my job, my 
family, my friends and so on. You could say that my life is held
hostage, and I will be significantly harmed if I choose not to accept
the contract.

Note that I don't disagree with the concept of government. I just 
don't think it has anything to do with a voluntary contract, except
perhaps in the allegorial sense.

> If Crusoe is not in communication with anyone, why should this matter?

Maybe the island is not part of any country and therefore 
Edisonsohn's patent application does not apply. And why should any
country (according to the Lockean property theory, which IIRC
objectivism recognizes) have rights over Crusoe's island if its 
inhabitants do not live on the island?

> definition, there was no such a cease-and-desist letter.

Indeed. Patent law might rely on such a letter for enforcement, and 
in that case Crusoe is still in the clear. Although his significant
investment in producing the Edisonsohn lamp might be lost unfairly
once he receives the letter.

> than the pressure which is applied to committees, which issue building

Hey, better than the current situation. Deciding on your needed 
investments and availability of natural barriers is no less vague.
Or is it? Perhaps I misunderstood your suggestion.

> authority or responsibility.

Wonderful :) Was there ever a social theory that did /not/ describe,
as an ideal allegedly unique to it, a group of strong, powerful, 
proud and free people who discuss the issues and decide amongst 
themselves?