Re: statement on freedom and network services
I think you're missing some practical points.
If I use a word processor, my goal is to produce a text document. The
data that is "mine" are the words I type into it. That "mine" is a
sticky issue philosophically. I'm not so much talking about copyright,
since no outside person is being coerced here, just the fact that I am
seeking to produce a document and the core of the document are the
words I type -- it is a physical act. A word processor adds markup to
that data, and that's it.
As a user, I should be able to get the core data back. It was the ONLY
reason I used a word processor, or almost any type of data-centered
software, to begin with. Most software is designed to be a two-way
exchange. I put data in, and I can get it out.
This is complicated when companies purposefully use the markup, the
file format, to prevent this two-way process. This is more about labor
than about copyright. The software, in these instances, hasn't done so
much "work" as "encoding" of my work.
Where companies have a right to refuse to give you back your data is
when they've done significant work on it. Facebook does quite a bit of
analysis with your favorite books and friends list. You don't have a
right to all the information they've got on you, their algorithms,
their PHP and database code, etc (the FSF would disagree). But you
certainly have a right to get back the list of favorite books that you
personally typed in.
If I couldn't be guaranteed that something I type into my computer
could be retrieved later, especially when it is patently easy for
software companies to implement, why would I use a computer at all?
To use your musician analogy, it's not that the musician has a right
to control what the LISTENER does with his work -- that is an issue of
copyright, since it coerces others. The musician has a right to get
his MP3 back from the AUDIO SOFTWARE he used to mix it. If he couldn't
be guaranteed to get his music out of the editing software, why would
he use it? This instance involves NO coercion. He's not forcing
another person to do anything. This type of feature is natural in most
data-centered software. Companies artificially restrict it for their
own gain.
In the same way, software that is web-based is still software, and if
I use Google's online spreadsheet or word processor, I expect to be
able to retrieve my document in a practical format just as I would
from MS Word.
Hope that makes my point clearer.
Ben.
On Jul 14, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Crosbie Fitch wrote:
>> From: bmazer1 <at> swarthmore.edu
>>
>> I think the most important aspect of network service-software is the
>> user's freedom with his data. This statement emphasizes the
>> user's ability
>> to modify the software he is using. This makes sense, as the
>> statement's
>> from the FSF, but the most immediate problems affecting users
>> are whether
>
> It sounds like you are talking about someone's freedom with their
> data, but
> you're not. It's not 'their' data, it's just about them. Just as a
> CD you
> have does not contain the musician's data, it's simply produced by
> them.
> 'Their' as in 'concerning' or 'produced by' should not be confused
> with
> 'their' as in denoting ownership.
>
> Some musicians say it is important that they have the 'freedom' to
> control
> recordings of 'their' music, i.e. not to let you perform or
> reproduce their
> music and especially not to let you commercially exploit it. I daresay
> they'd also be grateful for the 'freedom' to have their music given
> back to
> them when they ask for it.
>
> Notice how when 'freedom' is on the other foot it doesn't sound so
> good?
> It's easy to use 'freedom' as a petulant 'I want'.
>
> At some point you've got to stop bandying around this 'freedom' word
> and
> decide whether people can or can't own information after they have
> given it
> to someone. Either people continue to own information despite
> communicating
> it to someone else and copyright is fine and dandy, or they don't, and
> people can keep their little black book secret from you, even if
> they do
> have your telephone number in it that you've now forgotten. Which is
> it? I
> suggest that natural law provides the wisest arbitration.
>
> For example, let us imagine someone tells you that as a service they
> will
> let you communicate information to them, for them to record (in
> confidence),
> and for them to communicate back to you whenever you wish. Their
> reputation
> may be damaged if they break the terms of their service, but you
> have no
> right to violate their privacy to inspect their records in search of
> 'your'
> information, nor a right to constrain their liberty (freedom of
> speech) to
> further communicate 'your' information to anyone they fancy. These
> things
> are matters of trust. Trust and confidence may be broken without legal
> penalty, but liberty and privacy are inalienable.
>
> If you want to own information, keep it to yourself (in your private
> domain)
> - you can't own the copies you give to others or allow others to
> make. Of
> course, you could lobby the legislature to enact such privileges, but
> privileges aren't rights.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss <at> freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/ ~Nelson~
RSS Feed