Stallman's Case Against Software Ownership (or "Down with Microsoft!") Adam Moore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJi2rkHiNqg

Group Work http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJi2rkHiNqg Form groups of 3 or 4 students. Write your names at the top of a piece of paper. Pick a group spokesperson. Reconstruct Stallman’s argument for free software found in the video Present and explain two problems for Stallman’s argument. Turn in your work. . .at the end of class

Overview Stallman argues that software ownership and hoarding is "one form of our general willingness to disregard the welfare of society for personal gain." Stallman claims the fencing (ownership) of software has led to a number of harms, which include the restricted use of programs, the inability to adapt or fix programs, the loss of educational benefits for programmers, and what he calls "psychosocial" harm. The latter kind of harm refers to the loss of social cohesion and altruistic spirit that would prevail if ownership were eliminated. He concludes by arguing that the free software movement will contribute to sending the right message — that a good individual is one who cooperates, "not one who is successful in taking from others."

I. Stallman's Attack on the Emotional Argument and the Economic Argument A. The Emotional Argument for Software Ownership: It wouldn't have existed but for me. I put my sweat, my heart, my soul into this program. It comes from me, so it is mine. Stallman's Reply: This hardly justifies ownership, and seems irrelevant. Some software producers give all their code to a company in exchange for a salary - "the attachment mysteriously vanishes." Moreover, attachment is not a necessary part of creating intellectual works - many artists create works anonymously.

B. The Economic Argument: 1. We should adopt those policies that lead to the best long term benefits for everyone. 2. Not giving software creators rights to what they produce will lead to bad consequences because rights are necessary as incentive, —i.e. most programmers will not program without incentives (without ownership rights guaranteed) 3. It follows that we should grant programmers ownership rights over what they produce so that we ensure that they will keep producing. Reply: Stallman promises to show how Premise 2 is a bluff (it is false).

II. The Argument Against Having Owners 1. We should adopt those policies that lead to the best long term benefits for everyone. 2. Allowing programmers and software producers ownership rights over software leads to bad consequences. 3. So it follows that we ought to greatly limit or eliminate software ownership.

A. Support for Premise 2: The Harm Done by Obstructing Software -- Assuming that a program has been developed and the costs of development have been covered, Stallman asks if there is any harm done by allowing ownership.

The Harm Done by Obstructing Software 1. Fewer People Use the Program Copying a program, once created, and distributing it is relatively cheap -- it would cost the price of a computer disk or it could be downloaded from the net. Allowing owners drives the prices of software up because owners want to make a profit. (IP is non-rivalrous and it is not zero-sum) a. Is it true that ownership causes fewer people to use a program? b. Does allowing owners drive up the prices of software? (competition?)

The Harm Done by Obstructing Software 2. Damaging Social Cohesion Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your neighbors: "I promise to be unfriendly, I promise to tell my neighbors to get stuffed. To heck with everyone else—just give me a copy!“ This also causes what Stallman calls "psychosocial harm." Programmers know that their software will be restricted and many users will not be able to use it at all. This causes psychic harm to programmers. a. Is this a good point -- does having software owners damage social cohesion?

The Harm Done by Obstructing Software 3. Obstruction of Custom Adaptation Since source code is kept secret and many software agreements require that no alterations be made to the program there is no legal way to modify a program for optimal efficiency. This kind of "no alteration" policy also prohibits fixing flaws in programs. This, in turn, causes more psychosocial harm and fosters a feeling of helplessness among programmers and users. a. What do you think of this problem -- does ownership obstruct custom adaptation? Is obstructing custom adaptation necessarily a bad thing?

The Harm Done by Obstructing Software 4. Obstruction to Further Advances Stallman also charges that owning software and restricting what can be done with it obstructs advances in programming technology and education. If there were no restrictions, programmers could build upon the shoulders of others and students could learn by experimenting with the source code of complex programs. The ownership of software eliminates theses goods and thus causes more psychosocial harm. a. Once again -- does obstruction to further advances necessarily lead to bad consequences? Maybe it merely creates lazy programmers.

The Harm Done by Obstructing Software ** Stallman concludes this section: “I have shown how ownership of a program — the power to restrict changing or copying it — is obstructive. The negative effects are widespread and important.” It follows that society shouldn't have owners for programs, —i.e. premise 1 in the Argument Against Having Owners is correct and premise 2 has been supported by points 1-4.

III. Why People Will Develop Software In this section Stallman is trying to answer the incentives problem — If programmers are not guaranteed rights to their programs, then they will not develop or produce these intellectual works. Under a policy of no ownership, programmers will produce a lot less software and this will damage the usefulness of computers, etc. Note: Stallman has to make good on this claim because if his policy would cause a massive decrease in software production, then this bad consequence may overbalance the goods that would result from no ownership, —i.e. even though points 1-4 may be correct, they may be necessary evils that are endured because of the overall gains in social utility that result from massive software production guaranteed by ownership.

Why People Will Develop Software A. Programming is Fun: Here Stallman claims that programming is fun and people would produce software even if there were no promises of wealth. (mathematical logic, classical music, archaeology, philosophers, iSchool professors)

Why People Will Develop Software B. Funding Free Software: Once the "big money" aspect of software production is eliminated the question becomes one of how to pay programmers for costs while giving them money to live on. government money, charity, university research, tax the hardware. nominal fees could be charged. What is owed to programmers is support not massive profits.

IV. Problems For Stallman's Argument What do you think about Stallman's view? Has he adequately answered the incentives problem -- with a policy of no-ownership, do you think that programmers will continue to "burn the midnight oil?" Is programming that much fun? (incentives?) Brain-drain worry Tax avoidance What’s wrong with being selfish? (invisible hands and all that…)

Problems For Stallman's Argument Do you think that Stallman's suggestions would work for other kinds of intellectual property like movies, novels, and songs? What about physical property -- for example, cars, computers, and VCR's?

Problems For Stallman's Argument What about Microsoft's near monopoly on operating systems -- should the government step in and regulate Microsoft? Is it a good thing when one company controls an entire industry? Would Stallman's "no ownership" policy solve the Microsoft problem? ….is there a Microsoft problem these days?

Problems For Stallman's Argument Accountability: software ownership more easily allows for accountability….if something goes wrong, there is someone to take to court…. Privacy, security Is prohibiting restrictive downstream contracts a form of ownership?