The fallacies of intellectual communism, continued

[Stranger]

Given that the ideologue moderators are intent on burying all arguments against intellectual communism, they have seen fit to lock another thread on the subject, into which I had put considerable effort, with no justification whatsoever.

For those who would like to continue the discussion, you may post replies in this thread. The original thread is here.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Stranger

Given that the ideologue moderators

Which mods specifically are ideologues?

@Stranger

are intent on burying all arguments against intellectual communism,

All?

@Stranger

they have seen fit to lock another thread on the subject, into which I had put considerable effort, with no justification whatsoever.

No justification?

@Stranger

For those who would like to continue the discussion, you may post replies in this thread. The original thread is here.

You could copy the OP from the other thread to this thread. For the record, I thought the discussion between you and nirgrahamUK was productive.

[Laughing_Man]

Honestly, are you trying to get in trouble?

[Lilburne]

The thread was locked because people on BOTH sides were throwing around ad hominems more than they were making arguments.

[JackCuyler]

@Stranger

@JackCuyler

This blatantly disregards the very libertarian principal of innocent until proven guilty, as in this scenario, the accused must prove his innocence. The owner of the stolen car must prove that the car is his.

This is actually rather trivial since information is a unique event in the lifetime of the universe. Any copy is necessarily rooted in the original recording.

My objection was more with your wording than with its message. If you want to present a valid argument, you probably shouldn’t say, “[A] counterfeiter would have to provide evidence of a miracle in order to escape an accusation of counterfeiting unique information.” This flies in the face of presumption of innocence. The counterfeiter should not have to offer any evidence to escape accusation. The burden of proof is always on the complaining party.

@Stranger

You have named a long list of producer goods here (browsers and cell phone OSes are producer goods). You have yet to name a video game, or medical account processing system, that is open source. The reason is that it is impossible to produce in common.

I’m actually confused by this. Cell phone operating systems and web browsers are most certainly consumer goods. They are used by consumers, not producers. Sure, they simply display content, but so do books. On the other hand, a medical account processing system is definitely a producer good.

This whole line of argument is fruitless however, until you realize that producer goods are also consumer goods. When the owner of a consumer goods warehouse purchases a forklift, he is a forklift consumer. When an airplane designer purchases support for the open source tools used to design an airplane, the designer is a consumer of that support. The fact that certain tools are generally produced to be used by other producers shows a strengthening of the division of labor. Rather than building their own forklifts, warehouse managers purchase them from other firms. Rather than designing an operating system to run aerodynamics tests, airplane designers purchase support for existing open source operating systems.

You are correct that there have been no “dominant” open source games. There have also been no dominant highway driving forklifts. On the other hand, there are no dominant closed source web servers. It seems that the market has strongly favored closed source games and strongly favored open source producer goods. The dominant closed source games were most likely compiled using an open source compiler, by the way. The division of labor wins again.

Your arguments against the GPL specifically are actually an argument against copyright, which is all the GPL is. Were copyright to be abolished, Apple would certainly be free to use a Linux rather than BSD base for their operating system.

[Stranger]

@JackCuyler

My objection was more with your wording than with its message. If you want to present a valid argument, you probably shouldn’t say, " counterfeiter would have to provide evidence of a miracle in order to escape an accusation of counterfeiting unique information." This flies in the face of presumption of innocence. The counterfeiter should not have to offer any evidence to escape accusation. The burden of proof is always on the complaining party.

But the possession of unique information that is the declared property of another party is that evidence. In order to escape that accusation therefore the accused must prove that a miracle occurred and that in this instance, the laws of physics did not apply and the same information became non-unique.

@JackCuyler

I’m actually confused by this. Cell phone operating systems and web browsers are most certainly consumer goods. They are used by consumers, not producers. Sure, they simply display content, but so do books. On the other hand, a medical account processing system is definitely a producer good.

You are not considering the whole argument. We are considering goods from the point of view of software producers, not other producers. Software producers enjoy web browsers, therefore they will invest effort in web browsers. On the other hand, software producers have no use for a medical account processing system. Unless there is monetary profit to realize from the production of such a system, it will not get produced. This is where the division of labor enters. There is no division of labor for web browsers, since the programmers produce it for their own use.

[JackCuyler]

@Stranger

@JackCuyler

I’m actually confused by this. Cell phone operating systems and web browsers are most certainly consumer goods. They are used by consumers, not producers. Sure, they simply display content, but so do books. On the other hand, a medical account processing system is definitely a producer good.

You are not considering the whole argument. We are considering goods from the point of view of software producers, not other producers. Software producers enjoy web browsers, therefore they will invest effort in web browsers. On the other hand, software producers have no use for a medical account processing system. Unless there is monetary profit to realize from the production of such a system, it will not get produced. This is where the division of labor enters. There is no division of labor for web browsers, since the programmers produce it for their own use.

As I mentioned before, many companies pay for support. Take Red Hat, for example. They bundle open source software into a a larger product, marketed as an operating system. They sell installation media and support. They also develop software. They refine and modify the code used in thousands of open source projects. These changes are made public, and of course offered “upstream” in accordance with the copyrights. While this may seem counter-productive, as it allows other Linux companies to incorporate those changes, nonetheless, Red Hat’s operating system is improved. While their main revenue stream is from selling support, software development is still a major part of their operations.

Google develops open source software for their Android operating system. This software is not simply for the programmer’s use, but for use in the mobile phones that they sell. TiVo develops open source software for their digital video recorder. This software is not simply for the programmer’s use, but for use by their customers. Amazon.com develops open source software for their Kindle e-book reader. This software is not simply for the programmer’s use, but for use by their customers. Nokia develops open source software for their internet tablet devices. This software is not simply for the programmer’s use, but for use by their customers. Sony and Panasonic develop open source software for use in some of their high definition televisions. This software is not simply for the programmer’s use, but for use by their customers.

Once again, I’d like to point out that your argument against certain open source licenses is an argument against copyright. Outside of copyright requirements, there is no obligation for any software producer to release source code along with their binaries. Apple opted to not go with an operating system incorporating GPL code specifically because of the copyright obligations that would come with the code’s use.

[Stranger]

@JackCuyler

As I mentioned before, many companies pay for support. Take Red Hat, for example. They bundle open source software into a a larger product, marketed as an operating system. They sell installation media and support. They also develop software. They refine and modify the code used in thousands of open source projects. These changes are made public, and of course offered “upstream” in accordance with the copyrights. While this may seem counter-productive, as it allows other Linux companies to incorporate those changes, nonetheless, Red Hat’s operating system is improved. While their main revenue stream is from selling support, software development is still a major part of their operations.

Still not addressing the point. These companies develop open-source software only to support their real business, which is either support or services. They need the software in order to operate their business, the software is not the product. They do not have a consumer software package, and do not attempt to compete with them, as to produce such a package requires capitalism.

@JackCuyler

Once again, I’d like to point out that your argument against certain open source licenses is an argument against copyright. Outside of copyright requirements, there is no obligation for any software producer to release source code along with their binaries. Apple opted to not go with an operating system incorporating GPL code specifically because of the copyright obligations that would come with the code’s use.

It seems to me that the widespread use of the GPL by open-source programmers as opposed to the BSD license is therefore an endorsement of intellectual property rights, much as is the creative commons license used by the Mises Institute.

[JackCuyler]

@Stranger

It seems to me that the widespread use of the GPL by open-source programmers as opposed to the BSD license is therefore an endorsement of intellectual property rights, much as is the creative commons license used by the Mises Institute.

I can’t comment on the creative commons license, but the GPL is most definitely based on copyright, even if people like Richard Stallman (the author of the GPL) prefer the term “copyleft”. Stallman is against the idea of lumping copyright, trademark and patent under the heading “Intellectual Property,” as each really has nothing to do with the other:

@Richard Stallman

If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or copyrights, or trademarks, the first step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics. The second step is to reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic picture the term “intellectual property” suggests. Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness, and you have a chance of considering them well.

Though he can be pretty out there, I think he makes a lot of sense, as far as the above goes.

EDIT: By the way, what are the substantive differences between the BSD and Creative Commons licenses? They both allow free use and require attribution, correct?

[Stranger]

@JackCuyler

I can’t comment on the creative commons license, but the GPL is most definitely based on copyright, even if people like Richard Stallman (the author of the GPL) prefer the term “copyleft”. Stallman is against the idea of lumping copyright, trademark and patent under the heading “Intellectual Property,” as each really has nothing to do with the other:

They all impose limits on the actions one may perform with information, hence they all go together as property rights.

@JackCuyler

EDIT: By the way, what are the substantive differences between the BSD and Creative Commons licenses? They both allow free use and require attribution, correct?

I’m not a lawyer, really, I couldn’t tell you.