[p2p-research] Historical anti-materialism

[Stan Rhodes]

Ryan, I can't find much to agree with in the email thread, but wanted to
comment regarding Stallman:

First, Stallman usually does not comment on "intellectual property" outside
of software patents and copyright.  On occasion he makes general statements,
but we should consider his perspectives about other areas "loose," while his
perspectives on software are quite focused.

Second, this statement is unclear, if not incorrect: "He suggests that
anyone should be able to be paid so long as the borders and boundaries they
create are not destructive."  In this context "should be able to be paid"
suggests some sort of obligation others have to the creator, or idealistic
scenario.  Stallman says nothing about being "able to be paid," only asking
to be paid, wanting to be paid, and wanting to maximize income; an important
distinction.  Again, this is within the explicit context of programming.

Third, since Stallman's statement was offered in the context of programming,
your statements about rival goods and services such as universities, eating
and sleeping, and so on, are outside the scope of his comment.

Fourth, Stallman's software philosophy is fairly simple and consistent:
people should be free to share and use software.  Since others disagree, and
possess the legal means to exclude, Stallman created a legal wrapper to
apply his philosophy to all software he writes by securing the freedom to
use and share that software.  He strongly encourages everyone to consider
his philosophy of software freedom, and use the legal tools created to
secure that freedom, whether user or programmer.

To accuse Stallman of "nihilism" should be a huge red flag indicating
hyperbole.  Stallman is the father of P2P software production, with very
clear and outspoken P2P values of voluntary contribution and software
commons-safeguarding.  He put his labor where his mouth was, and continues
to do so, with significant results.

-- Stan

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Stallman also wrote the following before them...
> **
>
> *“Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?”*
>
> There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize
> one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But
> the means customary in the field of software today are based on destruction.
>
> Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is
> destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the
> program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives
> from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict, the harmful
> consequences are deliberate destruction.
> The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become
> wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the
> mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule. Since I
> do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards information, I
> am required to consider it wrong for one to do so. Specifically, the desire
> to be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world in
> general of all or part of that creativity.
>
> _____
>
> He suggests that anyone should be able to be paid so long as the borders
> and boundaries they create are not destructive.  But then isn't all
> admissions to universities destructive by such logic?  Isn't any barrier to
> any given use by anyone destructive in the same thread?  Shouldn't we all be
> able to sleep where we want and eat whatever is grown?  If maximum use is
> the criteria of value, then any restriction on any property is
> absurd--intellectual or not.  Surely professors don't own their research
> notes, their journal articles, their books or their lectures.  And the idea
> of security on all machines should be given over to simply a write-only
> problem--everything everywhere should be readable so that it can be used!
> And no one need cite another author because that limits value!
>
> Aren't all books and journals that are not open to any publication or
> viewing destructive?  Isn't the failure to share any thought or idea that
> might have value to anyone a failure by such standards?  Stallman's writing
> suggests the absence of intellectual property--not the freedom to share.
>
> Once again, nihilism and fantasy instead of logic, responsibility and
> sharing.  P2P deserves better.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090622/40243a00/attachment.html>