Some thoughts on proprietary software

Just now I read Bradley Kuhn's recent blog post entitled Proprietary Software Licensing Produces No New Value In Society. The argument made is, in essence, that by receiving money for a proprietary license, a developer is paid without doing any work. This argument is, in its simplicity, quite pre-industrial in nature and fundamentally flawed. Let me explain:

Bradley, in your post, you compared software development to constructing houses. The problem with this is that houses aren't copied - they're singletons. We need a better analogy.

Think suits

Let's say you want to buy a new suit. You have a couple of fundamentally different options: you can either contact a tailor, and pay them to make one. This is a very simple model: the tailor works on a suit, knowing that they'll be paid. In the end, you pay them for the actual work involved. It makes a lot of sense. This is akin to custom software development, where one is paid by the hour.

However, there is a cheaper alternative: go to a store and buy a ready-to-wear, off-the-shelf product. It's probably good enough, and you'll pay a lot less. You're actually getting value for money, I'm sure you'll agree that it's perfectly reasonable to pay for this. However, the way the money flows is a lot less direct and obvious:

At the beginning, someone designed the suit you're buying, without being paid (or being paid by a company that isn't getting paid yet). Someone set up a production line, without being paid directly, on the mere speculation that someone might buy the suit. And now, you, the customer, are (in addition to the manufacturing and distribution costs, which don't exist in software development) retroactively paying the designer for the work they might have done years ago.

Instead of clothing, I could have used any number of other examples, such as any kind of engineered hardware, or even books. However, nobody buys custom-tailored books.

With software, in addition to financing speculative work done in the past without direct remuneration, you're usually paying for support, for bug-fixes, and for future upgrades: You are, actually, helping to finance continued work. Here, I'm mostly thinking of small software development shops, not so much big corporations like Oracle or Microsoft. For more of an insider's perspective (I myself am a student and have experience only with custom (web) software development and free software projects), I can recommend a nice article by Virgil Dupras of Hardcoded Software, recently linked on the python-dev list.

There is an ongoing micro-discussion on identi.ca that might interest you.

As a small clarification: I support free software, but I think that a strict interpretation of freedoms 2 and 3 can have its problems in a world governed by markets and money.

Is the CD doomed?

Questioning the future of something that is to be found all around us in everyday life needs some explaining. I think there's a good chance that we will, this decade, see a serious drop is CD sales and use. CDs are still common, and they're good at what they do, but they're no longer the best—they've been beaten in every way.

They call us the iPod generation, or, if they don't, they might as well. That's how we relate to music: everyone has some manner of MP3 player, everyone has an internet connection, everyone has a computer, and those tend to have large hard disks: When we listen to music, most of us listen to MP3s, not to CDs, and more and more people are discovering that it's possible to legally download them—on the one hand, there are those that have been pirating music for years, and on the other hand, there are those that used to buy CDs, and then started ripping them. With every iPod owner being an iTunes user and Amazon providing MP3 downloads alongside physical media, it'd be hard not to notice that the way music is being distributed is changing.

CD stands for “compact disc”. True, at 12 centimetres across, it really isn't a large medium, but, to put that into perspective, nowadays, you can store the MP3 equivalent of over a hundred of them on a chip smaller than a dime with normal consumer equipment. CDs aren't even that useful any more: the MP3 player and PC having become the tools of choice when it comes to listening to music, a new CD usually ends up being ripped, possibly passed around to friends, and then shelved with the other dust magnets.

True, CDs offer really high-quality sound that an MP3 can't. But, let's be honest: have you ever noticed the difference between a CD and a good rip or commercial download? I'll give you that your typical Napster file might not be that great, but most of us have no chance of telling compressed audio files from compact discs by listening. The true audiophile might prefer a CD over an MP3, but then, more often that not, we see audiophiles declaring that vinyl sounds better than CDs. I also think it's possible that, soon, some online music stores will be offering CD quality files for those that will satisfy those that once shunned MP3s in favour of shiny round 12cm plates.

Vinyl records have been having quite a renaissance in the last few years, and I think it's fair to say that this is part of essentially the same movement away from CDs—in a way, gramophone record beat CDs and don't so much as glance at the unworthy MP3. There is one thing that digitally distributed music does not have, cannot have: a physical form. We just like being able to touch things. Being able to physically and separately handle, display and admire a record appeals so much more to our collectors' instincts than simply fondling a tiny box that blasts photons at us from minute pixels. I find it adds a whole dimension of value to the music that it just doesn't have when I tell amaroK, winamp or rockbox to open a certain file. One could say a physical record honours the music and the artist a lot more.

In that area, however, it is not the CD that trumps, it is the gramophone record. Vinyl records are larger, there's more to look at, more to touch, not just that flimsy little booklet. You actually see it while the music is playing, and anyone can understand the basics of how it works: a lot more down-to-earth, appealing so much more to our senses, gramophone record are a lot more “real” than those tiny, silly CDs. I think that we are going to see, and seeing right now, a development away from them in two directions: the “mass market”, that gigantic group that runs around with iPod & Co., donning earbuds in the tube and connecting their trusty companion to their home and car stereos, will pay for more and more downloads, while that niche of audiophiles, music enthusiasts and collectors will develop their, or should I say our, preference for “the classic”, vinyl.

A great example of this development is the La Roux single Quicksand: in December of 2008, it was released as a digital download and as a 12 inch vinyl EP, not as a CD. (There has since been a re-release on CD—a year later)

What about you? How do you buy music?

The Right Thing

I'm a great fan of the British actor, writer, comedian and just generally tweedy person Stephen Fry. I recently came across a quite an interesting interview with Fry at Big Think, a web site I might want to have a closer look at. One part I find particularly worth underlining is the following:

The most important philosophy, I think, is that, even if it isn't true, you must absolutely assume there is no afterlife. You cannot for one second, I think, abrogate the responsibility of believing that this is it. Because if you think you're going to have an eternity in which you can talk to Mozart and Schopenhauer on a cloud and learn stuff and, you know, really get to grips with knowledge and understanding, and say you won't bother now — it's a terrible, terrible mistake. May be that there is an afterlife and that I'll look incredibly stupid, but at least I'm going to have had a crammed pre-afterlife, a crammed life. So, to me, the most important thing is, as Kipling to it, to (…) fill every unforgiving minute with sixty seconds' worth of distant run. So, that's all I'm saying, I suppose, it's that there's no point wasting time … being lazy

What's a geek ?

I am a geek, and this is my week.

I considered entering the Global Geek Week video contest, but, in the end, I came to the conclusion that I'm not that good at vlogging, the prize would probably be relatively useless to anyone living outside the US (like me), and that a nice lengthy blog post would do just as good a job at conveying the thoughts I would have presented in the video.

So, the obvious question is, what is a geek or nerd ? I think it is fair to consider these terms synonymous: some people see differences in the nuance of the terms, and the origins are, obviously, distinct, but nowadays, they mean essentially the same things. Originally, geek is an insult applied by non-geek teenagers to peers who are actually intelligent, know how to read, and get better grades at school. The term is most popularly applied to boys with no social life worth mentioning since these are that tiny bit more alien and scary to the kids that hang around at train stations and smoke all day. Nowadays, the term is most commonly associated with the type that spends all day in front of the computer.

Most of the kids insulted as geeks are actually, or at least potentially, geeks in the way that I'd use the word, which is, I believe, a way that most geeks, at least computer geeks, on the internet would agree to. Geeks are intelligent people that think for themselves and get excited about using their own intellect at the risk of venturing outside the social norm. Geeks are not only intelligent. They actually enjoy it.

As per this definition, quite a lot of people deserve the label “geek.” Let's start with the usual suspects:

Read more...

Philosophical idealism

In European philosophy, idealism is the counter-viewpoint to realism, which assumes the existence of a single “real world” that we all exist in, to an equal measure, at the same time. The way we actually perceive the world may, nonetheless, differ; nature and perception are not equal. Modern philosophy is mostly realistic; natural philosophy (a.k.a. physics, science) as we know it is based completely in realism.

Idealism, on the other hand, assumes reality to be formed by ideas, where an idea might be rock, flame, libervisco or death. We are presented with a projection of part of what one might call an “idea pool”. This would pretty much mean that every other person is also an idea, whereas it's thinkable that you yourself are an idea that can both perceive and be perceived, so to speak.

Of course, you can give ideas defining importance while believing in a single, solid universe. Take the sophist ?????????? (Protagoras), for example:

Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not.

We have no way of knowing what he meant, but that won't bother me, I'll just make some assumptions, because, in philosophy, I can.

Picture a red beetle. Man or no man, there is really a solid molecular substance containing quite a lot of carbon that, when hit by electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength between about 400 and 700 nm, will absorb quite a lot of waves with a wavelength not between about 625 and 740 nm. Realistic science tells us that that is the case. However, we're talking of a beetle, a red beetle even. We, humans, shape the reality we perceive by giving it character, by giving it spirit. We say something is red, and it's only red because we say so, because we have the idea that it's red.

Imagine a sound. Would there be a sound if no-one was there to hear it ? Of course, the air would still move, but air moves when there's wind as well. What makes it a sound ? Simple: Man does. Without human ideas, reality is nothing.

Oh, and I don't think ?????????? would really like the various ways in which we interpret what he may or may not have said :-)

What would copyright designed by artists look like ?

Copyright as we know it originated in the English printing industry of the 16^th century. Since then, British writers have monopoly copy-rights they can sell to printers, who are, as we all know, the only people capable of reproducing books. This applied to printed music, and today, it also applies to recorded music and all other expressions of creativity that can be bound to tangible media. This is a nice, working system as long as printers (record companies) are the only ones capable of reproducing a work, and pay the artist adequately for the multiplication, which they fully control.

It should be obvious to anyone with the technology to access this blog that record companies (and publishing companies...) are no longer the only people capable of copying music (or printed works). Since copyright law and copyright contracts are still stuck in the Cold War era, which is exactly where the record companies want them, this is kind of a problem.

All this is no new argument, and some people are fighting against the situation: Some independent artists are going the way of the GNU, but they are few. Some have founded Pirate Parties, but most of them aren't artists, and they are realistically almost irrelevant. Now, there might be a new player around: On Saturday, October 4, British musicians united to create the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC).

I'm not sure what to think of this. While the Süddeutsche Zeitung jokes about it being a union of super-rich non-working-class pop stars that want more money (like all unions) on the front page of today's paper, I'm sceptical mostly because I don't know what they'll actually do, and what will effectively happen.

Their charter is directed at artist-company deals: they don't want to sell their rights. I fully agree with this; I actually don't think artists should be able the legal construction that is copyright completely: IF there is copyright at all, the originator should always have it. This, along with the demands for transparency, is important, and the most prominent part of the campaign, but I think another part is a lot more important:

Copyright owners to be obliged to follow a ‘use it or lose it’ approach to the copyrights they control. Despite new technology, many copyright owners fail to release recordings to the public. As a result many artists lose out and fans can only access such material illegally. A ‘use it or lose it’ contractual provision should automatically apply so that an artists’ work is always available for legal purchase by the public, digitally and physically.

While the solution they half-propose might not change a lot (we might see some day), the train of thought is an important one (see Lessig, Free Culture, ch. 5 Piracy) Might this get the ball rolling ?

Literature Tip

Why Laissez-Faire Free Market wouldn't work out.

Danijel Orsolic has been argueing for a capitalist anarchy a lot. You might have gathered that I disagree with him on these subjects, so let's start taking apart his well-argued piece. First off, I cannot disagree that such a society could work for a while, but I don't believe that anarchy can ever sustain a long-term peace.

Danijel makes some reasonable definitions and explanations at the beginning. I won't dispute any of them, although I dislike the separation of human and nature, which is actually a useful device in his argument. However, human property n^o 4, “What one human sees as a value can differ from what another human sees.” is, in my eyes, a grand oversimplification. I'd rather say “What one human values can change rapidly and differ from or be in conflict with another human's values or their own values at another time.”. No matter how improbable society makes it, the combination of value conflict, strong human emotion, related instincts (like protection instincts) and possible drugs or mental illnesses will always result in some violence (of any sort), coercion or no coercion. Of course, we have been offered a solution which is, essentially, revenge. Let's take Danijel's coercion example: Assume that B (the victim) resists A (the aggressor) and, for some reason, gets killed. If B has friends and family, they will probably be angered and will want to “seek the aggressor and force him to pay the reparations” (sic, emphasis mine), where the force is, of course, non-destructive, since we all agree that violence is unnecessary and stupid. Well, Danijel and I agree on this, and nearly everyone in Danijel's utopia would have realized, but I believe we have already established that violence could still occur.

I think we can agree that A murdering B would probably result in a mental conflict between B's friends and A (and his friends/family). Add to such antipathy a situation of value conflict and a couple of glasses of wine and you have another opportunity for violence to occur. Mightn't B's thirteen-year-old son (yes, I'm adding adolescence as a complication) break A's twelve-year-old son's nose after losing a rugby match (emotions running high anyway) ? Young people have a habit of being rebellious anyway, and a second- or third-generation citizen of such an anarchic realm might disagree with some of the principles the founding people agreed on. I'm not saying that this would be commonplace, but can you dispute the possibility of A-ists seeing counteractions by B-ists as unjustified and retaliating, and vice versa ? Given time, this could escalate and get ugly.

If all humans acted logically and thought through the consequences of their actions, anarchy as Danijel describes so nicely would probably work well, though certain problems, such as long-term large-scale poverty, might easily stay unfixed forever like that (We're not really on any better way to fix them right now, though)

I'm not saying governments now are doing a good job at keeping some sort of peace and order. I'm only saying that peace and order can only be maintained for so long among humans without any authority.