From ce6dbbdb2714b8a00d7e612f02f3b2409a112147 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Perro Tuerto Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 15:17:24 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Continuamos=20con=20la=20revisi=C3=B3n=20de=206?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- content/md/006_copyleft-pandemic.md | 95 ++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/md/006_copyleft-pandemic.md b/content/md/006_copyleft-pandemic.md index 659b1e0..04d2fa0 100644 --- a/content/md/006_copyleft-pandemic.md +++ b/content/md/006_copyleft-pandemic.md @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ distinctive relationship with her own work. Without some metaphysics or theological conceptions about cultural production, this special relation is difficult to prove---but that is another story. +![Locke and Hegel drinking tea while discussing about several topics on Nothingland… Except +++IP+++, that is a contemporary topic far different to what they talked about.](../../../img/p006_i001.png) + From copyfight, copyleft and copyfarleft movements, a lot of people have argued that this argument hides the fact that most authors can't make a living, whereas publishers and distributors profit a lot. @@ -45,27 +47,24 @@ The disagreement comes with how this overview about cultural production is or should translate into policies and legislation. In times of emergency and crisis we are seeing how easily it is -to “pause” those discussions and laws---or fast track other ones. +to “pause” those discussions and laws---or fast track [other ones](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/06/us-internet-bill-seen-as-opening-shot-against-end-to-end-encryption). On the side of governments this again shows how copyright and authors' rights aren't natural laws nor are they grounded beyond our political and economic systems. From the side of copyright defenders, this phenomena makes it clear that authorship is an argument -that doesn't rely on the actual producers. +that doesn't rely on the actual producers, cultural phenomena or world issues… +And it also shows that there are [librarians](https://blog.archive.org/2020/03/30/internet-archive-responds-why-we-released-the-national-emergency-library) +and [researchers](https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-03/covid-19-open-science) +fighting in favor of public interests; +++AKA+++, how important +are libraries and open access today and how they can't be replaced +by (online) bookstores or subscription-based research. -There isn't a bureaucratic or constitutional way to ignore copyright -law so quickly and so broadly without at least one of two elements. -Publishers and distributors were already the copyright holders -of all those books---even though they defend +++IP+++ “in favor -of” the authors---so it doesn't matter what authors think about -it; or these “reproducers” don't really care about authors -interests---as they so vehemently defend. - -Yeah, I would find it very pretentious if some author didn't agree -with this temporal openness of her work. But let's not miss the -point: either way authors don't have any rights over their own -work and this global pandemic has shown how easily it is for publishers -and distributors to opt for openness or paywalls… So next time -you defend copyright as authors' rights to make a living, think +I find it very pretentious if [some authors](https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-archives-uncontrolled-digital-lending) +and [some publishers](https://publishers.org/news/comment-from-aap-president-and-ceo-maria-pallante-on-the-internet-archives-national-emergency-library) +didn't agree with this _temporal_ openness of their work. But let's not miss the +point: this global pandemic has shown how easily it is for publishers +and distributors to opt for openness or paywalls---who cares about the authors?… +So next time you defend copyright as authors' rights to make a living, think twice, only few have been able to earn a livelihood, and while you think you are helping them, you are actually making third parties richer. @@ -121,7 +120,7 @@ is actually an array of worlds and if people sometimes behave one way or the other, of course the notion of freedom is gonna vary. -With freedom's different meanings we could try to reduce its diversity ? +With freedom's different meanings we could try to reduce its diversity ? > The diversity of freedom definitions. so it could be embedded in any context or we could try something else. I dunno, maybe we could make software freedom an interoperable concept that fits each of our worlds or we could just stop trying @@ -151,24 +150,23 @@ learning. that makes people think that writing documentation and praising self-taught learning is enough. From my point of view it is more about the production of a self-image in how a hacker or a pirate -_should be_. Plus, it's fucking scary when you realize how ? +_should be_. Plus, it's fucking scary when you realize how ? > It is scary to see that copyleft movement is manly, hierarchical and so on. manly, hierarchical and meritocratic this movement tends to be.) According to copyleft folks, my notion of software freedom isn't -free because copyfarleft licenses cautions/prevents (?) _people_ to use software. ? +free because copyfarleft licenses prevents _people_ to use software. ? > Prevents, yep! This is a very common criticism of any copyfarleft license. And it is also a very paradoxical one. Between the free software movement and open source initiative there -has been a disagreement about the ought to inherit the same type ? +has been a disagreement about the ought to inherit the same type ? > Free software implies to use the same license in your software that the free software you are using for its development. of license, like the General Public License. For the free software movement this clause ensures that software will always be free. According to the open source initiative this clause is actually a counter-freedom because it doesn't allow people to decide which license to use and it also isn't very attractive for enterprise entrepreneurship. Let's not forget that both sides agree that -the market and its corporations are essential for technology -development. +the market is are essential for technology development. Free software supporters tend to vanish the discussion by declaring that open source defenders don't understand the social implication @@ -199,7 +197,7 @@ to see how free the freedom is that the copyleft institutions are preaching According to _Open Source Software & The Department of Defense_ -(+++DoD+++), The +++U.S.+++ +++DoD+++ is one of the biggest consumers +(+++DoD+++), The +++U.S. DoD+++ is one of the biggest consumers of open source. To put it in perspective, all tactical vehicles of the +++U.S.+++ Army employs at least one piece of open source software in its programming. Other examples are _the use_ of @@ -207,6 +205,8 @@ Android to direct airstrikes or _the use_ of Linux for the ground stations that operates military drones like the Predator and Reaper. +![A Reaper drone [incorrectly bombarding](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/nov/18/killer-drones-how-many-uav-predator-reaper) civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria or Yemen in order to deliver +++U.S. DoD+++ notion of freedom.](../../../img/p006_i002.png) + Before you argue that this is a problem about open source software and not free software, you should check out the +++DoD+++ [+++FAQ+++ section](https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ). @@ -273,17 +273,19 @@ and its economic models. Those copyleft institutions that care so much about “user freedoms” actually haven't been explicit about how +++FOSS+++ is helping shape a world where a lot of us don't fit in. It -had to be a right-wing think tank, one that declares the relevance -of +++FOSS+++ for warfare and authoritarian regimes, while these -institutions have been making many efforts in justifying +had to be right-wing think tanks, the ones that declares the relevance +of +++FOSS+++ for warfare, intelligence, security and authoritarian regimes, +while these institutions have been making many efforts in justifying its way of understanding cultural production as a commodification of its political capacity. They have shown that in their pursuit of -government and corporate adoption of +++FOSS+++ whereas when they talk ? -about users, their policies are designed to defend _the use_: -objects before subjects. +government and corporate adoption of +++FOSS+++, they talk ? > They talk about “software user freedoms” but they actually refer to “freedom of use software”, no matter the objective. +about users whereas their policies are designed to defend _use_. +They aren't defending “software user freedom” but “freedom of use software”, +no matter who is the user and for what it is been used, if it +favors their interests. There is some sort of cognitive dissonance that influences many copyleft -supporters to treat others harshly, those who just want some kind ? +supporters to treat others harshly, those who just want some kind ? > They treat other users like shit if they don't use of fit in their conception of freedom. of aid over the argument about which license or product is free or not. But in the meantime, they don't defy and some of them even embrace the adoption of +++FOSS+++ for any kind of corporation, @@ -311,14 +313,14 @@ mechanism that improves welfare and democracy. But because these four freedoms don't relate to any user interest and instead talk about the interest of using software and the adoption of an “open” cultural production, it hides the fact that sometimes -the freedom of use goes against subjects. +the freedom of use goes against and uses subjects. So the argument that copyfarleft denies people the use of software -only makes sense between two confusions. First, the personification ? -of institutions which restricts access for some---like ? +only makes sense between two confusions. First, the personification ? > They say they defend people freedom, but institutions aren't people. +of institutions---like ? > I really fucked it up here, right? I rewrote this shit. the ones that feed authoritarian regimes, perpetuate labor exploitation -or surveil its users---translates to a restricted access _to -people_. Second, the assumption that freedoms over software +or surveil its users---which sometimes their policies restrict freedom +or access _to people_. Second, the assumption that freedoms over software use cases is equal to the freedom of its users. Actually, if your “open” economic model requires software use @@ -326,7 +328,7 @@ cases freedoms over users freedoms, we are far beyond the typical discussions about cultural production. I find it very hard to defend my support of freedom if my work enables some uses that could go against others' freedoms. This is of course the freedom -dilemma about the paradox of tolerance. But my main conflict is when +dilemma about the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). But my main conflict is when copyleft supporters boast about their defense of users freedoms while they micromanage others' software freedom definitions and, in the meantime, they turn their backs to the gray, dark @@ -360,14 +362,21 @@ but now against the structures of power that surveils, exploits and kills people. These institutions need our “brainpower,” we can try by refusing their use. Some explorations could be software licenses that explicitly ban surveillance, exploitation -or murder. We could also make it difficult for them to thieve -our technology development---nowadays +++FOSS+++ distribution -models have confused open economy with gift economy---or the -access to our communication networks---end-to-end encryption -is important, we should extend its use instead of allowing governments -to ban it. +or murder. + +We could also make it difficult for them to thieve our technology +development and deny access to our communication networks. Nowadays ++++FOSS+++ distribution models have confused open economy with +gift economy. Another think tank---Centre of Economics and Foreign +Policy Studies---published a report---_Digital Open Source Intelligence +Security: A Primer_---where it states that open sources constitutes +“at least 90%” of all intelligence activities. That includes our +published open production and the open standards we develop for +transparency. It is why end-to-end encryption is important and +why we should extend its use instead of allowing governments to +ban it. Copyleft could be a global pandemic if we don't go against its incorporation inside virulent technologies of destruction. -We need more organization. However, the software we are developing +We need more organization so that the software we are developing is free as in “social freedom,” not only as in “free individual.”