Ran across an interesting by Nina Paley over on Techdirt, “Even ‘Free’ Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles”
Ms Paley is the directory of the awesome Sita Sings the Blues, and an enthusiastic Free Culture activist – so I am quite interested in her take on Free Software.
In her short article, Ms Paley makes two major points:
- In sponsoring a film, Patent Absurdity, that uses a -ND (no derivatives) clause, the FSF fails to uphold the Fourth Freedom (“freedom to improve and release improvements”)
- Software is culture, and so the distinction between “utility” (Software) and “aesthetics” (Culture) is false.
These are compelling points, although I recognize rms has addressed the need for certain restrictions on factual works to prevent misrepresentation. I’m not sure that the trade-off of attempting to maintain context is worth the sacrifice of preventing modification, so I tend to lean more toward Ms Paley’s position on this matter.
The second point is another issue where I tend to agree with Ms Paley: I don’t see a clear distinction between works of utility and works of aesthetics, because I think most works have elements of both.
I can also understand the argument that the FSF focuses on advocating software issues and not cultural matters in general, but that seems an unattractive distinction to make - especially considering how clearly “Free Culture” is modeled after “Free Software”.
I suppose it is possible to support Free Software and not Free Culture, but that seems an odd stance to take – it seems more natural to me that someone who understands the benefits and necessity of Free Software would map that thinking quite naturally to Free Culture as well.
In any case, I highly recommend Ms Paley’s works both creative and philosophical.
#1 by saulgoode on September 9, 2010 - 11:39 am
While I agree that greater benefit would subsist in permitting derivations of the “Patent Absurdity” video, from a more general standpoint software inheres a slightly different set of essential freedoms than does a “cultural work” such as music, a novel, or a film.
This is largely owing to the legal and cultural climate of current copyright law; but is also influenced by the effective value of the copyrighted work, and what needs to be protected to ensure that value. An artistic work can be enjoyed without the need of actually fixating “improvements” into a new medium, the human mind is where the value of the work is appreciated. Software is different in that its value accrues from what it accomplishes.
I can watch a movie and mentally make changes that, to my mind, makes the story better; or imagine a song being arranged differently to produce a more pleasant effect. I can even share with others my ideas for improving the work without actually fixating my changes. Those I share my ideas with may still enjoy the value of the original work, with or without my own ideations, and perform whatever mental interpretations they wish in appreciating the work.
Software gains no value from my imagining an improvement to it; it is only if I can modify the software in an executable form that its value can increase. No amount of mental gymnastics on my part will make enjoyable the idea that my editing program can communicate with my printer — value is only accrued if I am able to actually make it so. Likewise, no benefit is obtained by others if I share my ideas for improving the program. It is only by sharing a fixated, modified version (i.e., copies that fall under current copyright law) that the value obtained in the program is passed.
I stand opposed to copyright as currently enacted, for both software and cultural works. I applaud Ms Paley for her work in furthering this issue. Nonetheless, I consider software to be generally distinct from cultural works.
#2 by Jason on September 9, 2010 - 7:36 pm
Saul,
Thank you as always for the insightful comment!
I’m not sure I follow exactly the distinction you are drawing in terms of imagining and implementing an improvement in a cultural work vs. a software work. It seems to me – at least in the general sense – that both cases are very similar:
In this context, what is the difference between, say, a very talented programmer coming along to improve my program which is a great idea, but certainly could be implemented better, and Jimi Hendrix coming along to improve Bob Dylan’s “All Along the Watchtower”?
It seems to me in both cases the original work is both a mixture of creative and mechanical, there is “source code” of sorts available, and although the original is serviceable and clearly the initial product of one entity, it can be much improved upon – to the ultimate benefit of society. (If you ascribe that power to the arts.)
Is there something intrinsic in music that makes “Free Music” undesirable, in contrast to “Free Software” being desirable?
#3 by Nick Fortune on September 9, 2010 - 6:07 pm
Imagine a calculator application that evaluates 1+1 as equal to 3.
Aesthetically, that’s valid. The creator could be presenting the application as a surrealist work of art, for instance.
In terms of utility however, the application is faulty. It fails to provide the expected utilities of a calculator application.
So I don’t think the case that “utility == aesthetics” holds true. The criterion of “utility” is a far narrower one than that of “aesthetics” and necessarily so.
Looked at another way, if a bridge collapses because the design software was faulty, there will be scant consolation in the fact that a broken bridge makes an cultural and aesthetic statement all its own.
#4 by Jason on September 9, 2010 - 7:29 pm
Nick,
Thank you for the comment!
I’m not suggesting that “utility == aesthetics”. I’m suggesting that software isn’t pure utility, nor is art pure aesthetics. Indeed, virtually everything lies somewhere on a scale between extremes or has multiple components.
Because of this, it isn’t obvious to me that the underlying Four Freedoms should be applied “unequally”.
#5 by Nick Fortune on September 9, 2010 - 7:45 pm
Understood. I didn’t mean to suggest that you thought “utility == aesthetics”. I was just commenting on the Ms Paley seemed to be making.
That said, I think you can certainly make a case for art being pure aesthetics. Or at least that utility has no relevance to art, except for aesthetic purposes. It just doesn’t work in both directions.