STDIN

October 1st

Our class spent much of September looking at early hackers and underground hackers. As we move to discuss free and open source software hackers, we needed to spend a little time learning the basics of copyright and other forms of so-called "intellectual property" that undergird the discourse of these hackers. (Hacker-activist Richard Stallman explains in the GNU Manifesto and elsewhere how the term "intellectual property" contains bias and causes confusion.)

Before jumping into definitions, we watched a rich video (included below) that connected for our class the free software public with other publics facing related issues. By tracing the history of “the world’s most important” six-second drum loop (the Amen break), this video raised the issue of music sampling and its intertwined relationship with authorship, copyright, appropriation, and the way in which new culture builds on existing culture. The narrator, Nate Harrison, showed how leeway in copyright enforcement led to innovative cultural production in the form of hip-hop and electronica. He explained how recent judicial decisions and legislative changes to copyright law are eliminating that leeway while making legal sampling all but impossible for artists without ample financial backing.

The video also demonstrated how the separation between law and practice causes confusion. According to Harrison, musicians freely appropriated samples "perhaps under the assumption [that they could] be freely used in the spirit of a pledge to new forms." The Amen break, by virtue of its ubiquitous use, "had entered into a type of public domain, if not legally, then certainly culturally." This comment illustrates the divide between an intuitive understanding of public domain and and the legal definition. Furthermore, companies later appropriated and passed the Amen break off as their own work, both in terms of authorship and copyright, thus confusing artists wishing to license the sample.

After watching this video, we moved on to the basics of — and differences between — United States copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret law.

Copyright:

Copyright "is a form of protection provided... to the authors of 'original works of authorship,' including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works."^[1] It protects the expression of ideas — works fixed in a tangible medium — but not the ideas themselves, though the line is often hazy between form and idea. Despite the name, copyright affects more than just the right to copy. It gives the copyright owner exclusive rights to "reproduce, distribute, adapt, publicly perform and display" the copyrighted work.^[2] Since copyrights can be bought and sold, the protections often apply to corporations rather than the original creators.

The premise for copyright (and patent) protection is a part of the U.S. Constitution that gave congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." When first enacted in 1790, copyright law protected books, maps, and charts for a period of 14 years, renewable once for an additional 14 years of coverage. Authors registered works for which they wished to receive protection. Over time, Congress repeatedly increased the scope and duration of copyright protection. Of particular relevance to our class, Congress added protection for software in 1980. Because registration is no longer required, all software — along with basically every utterance and scribble — now falls within the scope of copyright protection. That protection currently lasts for the life of the author + 70 years or, for corporations, 95 years.

The fair use doctrine, codified in 1976, allows limited use of copyrighted material, without requiring permission from the copyright holder, "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching,... scholarship, or research." Fair use is determined by courts based on a four factor balancing test. The hazy nature of the fair use test means that a creator is often unable to tell whether or not her intended use would qualify as a fair use.

Patent:
While copyrights cover works fixed in tangible form, patents cover invented products or processes that are non-obvious advances over "prior art." A patent gives an inventor for 20 years "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling" their invention. In exchange, inventors must share details of their invention with the public. The scope of patents has increased over time so that it now covers software algorithms and business methods. It remained unclear for some time exactly what software was eligible for patents, but the 1981 Supreme Court case of Diamond v. Diehr led to a flood of applications for the patenting of software algorithms. Many programmers question whether software algorithms can be considered non-obvious. Regardless, it is clear that many obvious software algorithms and business methods have been approved by the patent office.

Trademark:
Trademark law protects in perpetuity words, symbols, slogans, logos, product names, and other marks that "identify a particular manufacturer or seller's products and distinguish them from the products of another."^[3] The law attempts to prevent use of trademarks that would cause consumer confusion.

Trade Secret:
Specifics of trade secret law vary by state, but the laws protect companies' confidential information from misappropriation. Reverse engineering is not considered misappropriation.

(Incidentally, the talk page for OpenCola's wikipedia entry includes a good example of the computer geek public engaging in discussion and "figuring out" of licenses.)

Software today is protected through multiple means — primarily copyright and patent. This leads to at least some confusion and difficulty for programmers.

After our discussion of the law, we talked in class about Carla Hesse's paper, "The rise of intellectual property, 700 B.C. – A.D. 2000: an idea in the balance". (Daedalus, Spring 2002: 26-45) Hesse's history shows, in the words of classmate Tiffany Chang, that "the development of intellectual property was not only sparked by Enlightenment thinking in which humans are creators and owners of ideas, but has been defined by this quid pro quo assumption with the universe where an individual can say, 'I create, therefore I own.'" For as long as ideas were considered the creation of God, it was unthinkable to treat ideas as property. However, following the rapid expansion of commercial printing in the eighteenth century, authors and printers went ahead and began treating creations as property. Two models competed to explain this newly discovered intellectual property. John Locke and Edward Young asserted that authors have a natural property right in their ideas. (Hesse, 33) This "property" should be protected forever and be transferable just like tangible property. Condorcet argued that ideas come out of a collective process of experience. (Hesse, 36) If society chooses to treat ideas as property, it must do so based on social utility rather than because of a natural right.

The English parliament, through the Statute of Anne and the Donaldson v. Becket decision, came down on the utilitarian side. Authors could obtain copyrights on creations (but not ideas) for a limited time before works were released into the public domain for the encouragement of learning. The relevant clause in the U.S. Constitution was based on the Statute of Anne. In practice, nations' positions on this debate have hewn to their commercial interests. Net exporters of content have moved toward the natural rights view, while net importers have advanced the utilitarian view. Recently, the United States and other highly developed nations have used trade treaties to impose their position — which increasingly resembles the natural rights stance — on developing nations. As a consequence, most content worldwide is now, in effect, protected by copyright forever. This is particularly true for software, given that no benefit will accrue to the public when today's software enters the public domain sometime in the 22nd century.

Classmate James Hodges noted that our "assumption that intellectual works should produce capital for creators who need to make a living is contrary to the far longer-standing notion that intellectual work belongs '...not to the artist exclusively, but to man.'" (James Hodges, with quote from Hesse, 29) He went on to connect the Hesse paper with our readings of Richard Stallman's GNU Manifesto and the epilogue of journalist Steven Levy's Hackers. (Levy, S., 1984. Hackers. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.) (Levy's epilogue describes the decline of the hacker ethic at MIT, despite Stallman's attempts to keep it alive. The GNU Manifesto was Stallman's explanation for why he was setting out to write a free computer operating system that anyone could use and modify.)

"The issue of intellectual property is one conjured by capitalism—without a notion of property or ownership, the debate is rendered meaningless. Famed hacker Richard Stallman noted this keenly, realizing that most discussions about intellectual property (in this case, code) were actually about their ability to generate capital. 'I have resigned from the AI lab in order to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent me from giving GNU away' he wrote in his GNU Manifesto. With the GNU project, Stallman hoped to advance computing through cooperation. 'Many programmers are unhappy with the commercialization of system software,' he wrote. 'It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them to feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel as comrades.' He believed that mutual aid would advance computing further than competition—in the case of MIT hackers, cooperation had yielded amazing results." (Hodges)

Richard Stallman (aka RMS)

Classmates raised philosophical and practical questions about knowledge, creators' rights, and the public good. Katie Anderson asked, "What is knowledge? Is knowledge property, and if so, who owns it?" She concluded that today's changed social context means that we should "once again (just as it has been done throughout history) re-examine the ownership of knowledge in the larger context of public good." Chelsea Noll linked hackers' obsession with the free flow of information to the utilitarian view of intellectual property. "Stallman supports the utilitarian notion, that what is better for the greater masses is the free flow of knowledge...." It should be noted though that Stallman is opposed to any use of software copyright that takes away user freedoms. Other adherents to the utilitarian view may support limited term copyrights as long as the public eventually gets some benefit.

So I just sent my students this question, which they have about a week to answer, though of course it is such a Large Question that it is not answerable in any definitive sense. But I bet it will provoke some pretty interesting arguments about the world of hacking by discussing those elements and commitments that unite and divide hackers.

In the last number of weeks, we have read and talked about hackers, hacking, and the ethics of hacking. Even though we have only completed the first five weeks of class, it is already clear that hacking not only resists definition but that there is a great degree of diversity among hackers. This diversity is due to differences in ethical stances and political motivations as well as differences that arise from the material acts of tinkering/hacking, among many other factors. There are also centrifugal forces that sociologically pull hackers apart as well as centripetal forces that push them together.

Given this heterogeneity, are the differences or similarities more important to highlight for our general understanding of computer hacking. Why?

To craft a plausible argument, you will need to narrow down the focus on the essay in some fashion. You might, for example, just focus on the question of free speech, which was raised in a number of places, or alternatively on what hackers do with and how they relate to technology. You could also narrow it down by defining what "understanding" even means. There are quite a number of themes, questions and methods you can use to narrow down your essay and in this regard creativity will be rewarded.

Whatever you chose to do, draw on at least two of the following three theoretical texts (Warner, Peters, and Hebdige). You will be expected to discuss Kelty's work on Free Software as well as the Sterling and Thomas on the “hacker underground.” You should also address at least three of the following six the authors (Pfaffenberger, Levy, Rosenbaum, Hesse, Sennet, Hitt & Tough).

Counter Publics, Hackers, and Punks

What is a Public?

As stated by Michael Warner in Publics and Counterpublics, and reiterated in class on September 29, 2008, a public has the following characteristics:

1. “A public is self-organized… It exists by virtue of being addressed” (67).
2. “A public is a relation among strangers” (74).
For example, as in the notion of Nationhood, there is a bond of commonality, though everyone does not know each other.
3. “The address of public speech is both personal and impersonal” (76).
While a speech is addressed to us (personal), it is also addressed to the strangers round us, anyone else listening (impersonal).
4. “A public is constituted through mere attention” (87).
Some kind of attention/ “active uptake” must happen for a public to exist.
5. “A public is the social space created by the reflexive circulation of discourse” (90).
Both known and unknown discourses are essential to the process of constituting a public.
6. “Publics act historically according to the temporality of their circulation” (96).

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban1195l.jpg

A question that was raised in class was whether hackers are public or counter-public? According to Warner, counter publics share the discursive nature of publics, but the counter-public’s discourse is generally in opposition of what the public believes. Also, “a counterpublic maintains at some level, conscious or not, an awareness of its subordinate status” (Warner, 119). In those respects, hackers belong not to a dominant public, but to a counter-public, being aware that they are not the mainstream, and sharing the discourse that opposed certain mainstream beliefs, for example the belief in “the free exchange of information (which) goes against the perceived public perception since many people believe in the value of intellectual property and copyright” (Richard Rodriguez).

We also discussed Dick Hebdige’s article “Posing…Threats, Striking…Poses”. In the article, Hebdige discusses the subculture, as related to youth. A brief history lets us know that the conditions that set the creation of the “youth-as-trouble” (Hebdige 400) and “trouble-as-fun” (401) cultures was industrialization and capitalism. More time and more money meant the kids could develop their style, organize into clicks, and wreck havoc while parents were at work. With the development of photography, the delinquent youth allowed themselves to be documented. Hebdige states that “unlike the powerful who opt for anonymity, these people make a pretty picture, make a ‘spectacle’ of themselves, respond to surveillance as if they were expecting it, as if it were perfectly natural” (398).
“The voyeuristic notion of youth subcultures, know that they are indeed being watched and ultimately cornered by society as a whole, drives them to strike out a difference between us and them” (Maxwell Salzberg).

http://quizfarm.com/images/1104013925London_Punks.jpg

In our October 14th class we watched the first few minutes of the JTS More documentary on Linux and the Free Software movement, "Revolution OS".

What I enjoyed most was gaining a sense of the personalities of the characters that I've read so much about, including Eric Raymond, Linux Torvalds, and Richard Stallman. Listening to Stallman revel in the glory of his password "hack" and hearing Torvalds try to conceal his glee while referring to himself as "the engineer" along with Richard Stallman's "great philosopher" was a lot of fun. For a copy-left advocate accustomed to referring to these guys as a heroes and intellectual powerhouses, it’s ironic to see how they fail to represent normative images of masculine power and heroics.

I also got a kick out of the narrator’s excitement as she explained that "day and night a loose federation of computer programmers zip bits of information around the world". Post Wikipedia, her astonishment is quaintly humorous.

After watching the video, Professor Coleman gave an interactive lecture recapping a broad history of the early copyleft movement. In short:

1983 – Stallman announces his project to develop the GNU operating system.

1985 – Stallman publishes the GNU manifesto.

The Free Software movement doesn't extend much past Stallman's Free Software Foundation and the GNU manifesto is packaged with the End User License Agreement (EULA) of GNU components.

1989 – Stallman writes the GPL (Gnu Public License) and uses it to license GNU components. The GPL allows users to modify source code, but requires that they license their modifications via the GPL. Thus, anyone benefiting from Free Software in their projects must also allow their projects to benefit the free software community. Stallman’s GPL amounts to a hack that completely repurposes copyright.

1991 – Torvalds begins working on Linux, and open source operating system leveraging much of the work of the GNU project. Unlike GNU, Linux includes an OS Kernel, and therefore allows users to completely escape proprietary software. (Stallman advocates calling it GNU/Linux).

At the time, Torvalds isn’t aware of just how important his little project is going to become. (Professor Alan Black from Carnegie Mellon’s computer science department has preserved some of the history of Linux here.)

Torvald’s first post about his operating system read:

Hello everybody out there using minix -

I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since April, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things).

I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work. This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)

1992 – Stallman convinces Torvalds to license the Linux kernel under the GPL.

1991 - 1998 – Linux continues to grow in scope and in user-base, spreading Stallman’s ideas to an exponentially larger audience.

1998 –The term “Open Source” is coined by Christine Peterson in reference to the release of the Netscape navigator source code.

Open Source emphasizes the practical application and usefulness of free/open software over the moral ideology of Stallman’s “Free Software”. In practice, Open Source and Free Software look exactly the same.

by 1998 – Linux is widely considered a practical alternative to proprietary operating systems and partially displaces Windows NT.
Many companies build business models out of supporting Linux. Linux & Apache are a standard web server configuration.

Conventional wisdom recognizes the utility of free/open software, and free/open software enthusiasts are no longer thought of as fringe Marxist utopianists.

We explored Stallman's ideology vs. Torvalds’ practical application, and established that both were necessary for the movement to gain traction. By proving that free/open software development actually works, and proving that free/open software has economic impact and effects the computer industry (and the world) at large, Torvald’s project gave Stallman’s ideas a sustainability that no longer required a Stallman/Moses figure to shepard them.

We explored the differing discourses within the hacker community that, in application, amount to two halves of the same coin. As classmate Mike Goren noted:

As free software forks into [separate] “free software” and “open source” movements, Kelty emphasizes the identical practices that constitute both halves of the recursive public. Free software advocates’ rational-critical discourse focuses on a version of liberalism containing a positive notion of freedom. Freedoms of creativity and expression are necessary for self-determination. Meanwhile, open source evangelists maintain an “ideological resistance to being ideological.” (Kelty, paragraph 34) They focus on new forms of coordination, and they emphasize inclusiveness by embracing business. Nevertheless, both parts of the recursive public engage in the same “alternative” discourse of hacking code and licenses.

Mike is referencing Chris Kelty’s “2008 Two Bits the Cultural Significance of Free Software. (The class was assigned the introduction and chapter 6.

In “Two Bits” Kelty illuminates the actual situation that lead to Stallman’s writing of the GPL in 1989:

In 1983 James Gosling decided to sell his version of EMACS—a version written in C for UNIX called GOSMACS—to a commercial software vendor called Unipress… Gosling had explicitly asked people not to redistribute the program, but to come back to him (or send interested parties to him directly) for new versions, making GOSMACS more of a benevolent dictatorship than a commune. Gosling maintained his authority, but graciously accepted revisions and bug-fixes and extensions from users, incorporating them into new releases. Stallman’s system, by contrast, allowed users to distribute their extensions themselves, as well as have them included in the “official” EMACS. By 1983, Gosling had decided he was unable to effectively maintain and support GOSMACS—a task he considered the proper role of a corporation.

…[Stallman] was irked that no noncommercial UNIX version of EMACS existed. So Stallman wrote one himself… …Stallman used… a small piece of Gosling’s code in his new version of EMACS… Recriminations and legal threats ensued and the controversy was eventually resolved when Stallman rewrote the offending code, thus creating an entirely “Gosling-free” version that went on to become the standard UNIX version of EMACS.

The story raises several questions with respect to the changing legal context. In particular, it raises questions about the difference between “law on the books” and “law in action,” that is, the difference between the actions of hackers and commercial entities, advised by lawyers and legally minded friends, and the text and interpretation of statutes as they are written by legislators and interpreted by courts and lawyers. …While the controversy did not resolve any of these issues …, it did clarify the legal issues for Stallman sufficiently that he could leave behind the informal EMACS commune and create the first version of a Free Software license, the GNU General Public License, which first started appearing in 1985.

In tracking the history of the open source movement, we considered whether or not the movement would have arisen independently of Stallman. Some thought it was an inevitable development. Although we didn't come to a clear consensus, everyone agreed that the vacuum of appropriate copyright legislation and the chasm between law and practice cried out for a solution, which Stallman provided in the form of a hack re-purposing the existing copyright system with his GPL license. As classmate Anique Hardt Schachner states:

"With all the red tape Stallman had to go through one has to wonder if copyrights are hurting the development of technology, would computers have developed into anything more then giant room filling machines in the basements of universities if the MIT hackers were worried about copyright infringement instead of hacking and bettering the system[?]

Classmate Mike Goren sums it up well: "the beliefs about policy and the proper ordering of technology follow from the public’s desire to maintain the conditions that make its practices possible"

Classmate Maxwell Salzberg's writing reflectively questions the conclusion Goren arrived at. Salzberg writes:

To an outsider, this may seem like a singular solution to a specific issue. Many people (logically) ask that why would one need open source software, going through all the trials and tribulations which come with reforming and retrofitting capitalist laws in order to protect its very existence, when plenty of companies serve up completely functional alternatives which work well enough with little or no ideological fuss, and created within our societal norms? What is the need?

As software has matured as an industry, software became required to fit the masses, sometimes paring it down to the lowest common denominator. The technical prowess required to operate a computer has been reduced to an optimized point and click environment. At a certain point, we may say that people make computer choices based on the status quo and familiarity, rather than educated decisions.

We didn't discuss Mark Helprin's Op Ed advocating extending copyright indefinitely very much in class, but it was the focus of some of our writing. Personally, I quickly dismissed it as close-minded corporate propaganda. Salzberg was far more contemplative:

Considering the positions of … Mark Helprin’s Op Ed … and when copyright is considered to be property of the creator, why should it be any less ephemeral than a physical object? This is an important response not to simply give the party line response, but to grapple with it as if it is was the first time this argument has been posed. Too many times Free Software hackers and the surrounding “recursive public” consider their need to exist as a given. In the vein of flirting with evil, open source needs to address these concerns at every turn if it hopes to truly become a universal commons, and need to grapple with proprietary ideas on equivalent footing.

I agree with Salzberg completely. He went on to assert that:

[Hackers], need to make sure this meta conversation, which is increasingly refined and limited to niche circles, continues to resonate with people outside this space. While programmers may program open source software for themselves, the individuals around them need to assure that these advancements are understood as highly significant to things they do every day.

...Which brings me back to my earlier comments about the film, "Revolution OS". It delighted me to see these Hacker heroes’ utterly geeky personalities. But as a free-culture advocate, it also terrified me. How could free culture ideas ever reach mainstream acceptance with the high-pitched voices of these geeky man-children (my heroes) as their sole advocates?"

My reaction underscores the challenges the free software fringe faced in making its case to mainstream culture and legal institutions in its early days. It's interesting to see how the Free Culture movement has grown– in part by extending outside of computer hacking and making code, to a better understood arena– cultural hacking, making Art.

This is why Professor Coleman, when introducing these intellectual property issues to our diverse class, chose to present the video about the Ahmen Break. The analogy between free culture and free software is a strong one.

And now, in response to Max Salzberg’s challenge, I’ll climb the copy-left soapbox and explain where I think the copyleft movement is going. We haven’t covered much of this in class, but here goes…

The success of Creative Commons is no accident. By reaching out past the computer hacker to the artist, the musician, the culture creator, and making parallel arguments in less esoteric arenas, the copy-left movement has gained capacity to win the support of many. Rather than explaining the nature of computer hardware and software, and the fuzzy distinction between an operating system kernel and a computer application, copyleft arguments can now point out that music requires sound, rhythm, notes, and chords, none of which are copyrightable, and that the distinction between a melody and a song is a dubious one. In fact, since all music is reverse engineered easily enough, it can be considered open source. A musical genre becomes nothing more than a group of creators building upon each other’s work just like Stallman’s commune of coders creating EMACS.

Advocacy via the cultural commons forces acknowledgment that software, music, and even ideas themselves are not that different. And ideas, when formalized in a written discourse, quote and cite each other left and right, and that copyright allows this through fair use- it would be insane not to. And after all, isn’t fair use really just another clever hack, refining the copyright system to better accomplish its utilitarian aims?

Using the cultural commons model rather than a narrow free software model is the copyleft movement’s path out of the recursive public of the hacker community. Stallman’s ideas, when applied to artistic endeavors, make it clear that the distinctions between what is copyrightable and what is not, are arbitrary. Thus copyright is nothing more than an artificial system to foster economic incentive for creation, decoupled from any “natural rights” of ownership.

–John Randall

(Max Salzberg, Mike Goren, and I are active members of Students for Free Culture.)

As you know, our class explores hacker culture and hacker politics. An important part of understanding a hacker, is understanding the methods in which they use a computer. With the introduction of the operating system, computing was taken to a completely different level. Unix is an operating system that is different from others in not only it's history, but also in its form.

The class began with the viewing of two clips:

The first is a parody of Apple.
http://ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=54

The second is a funny clip of computer users, one who knows what he's doing, and the other, not at all.

To explore Unix, our class read "Sharing Source Code" by Christopher Kelty, and Neal Stephenson's book, "In the Beginning was the Command Line".

Kelty's article describes Unix in terms of its history. It was created by the AT&T corporation which was a telecommunications company, so they were unable to distribute Unix, so they licensed it for a small fee to users. They licensed it out under the condition that it would remain relatively secret. This is important to the development of Unix as it became a system that was taught and learned. Literature was written about how to use Unix and the source code needed to make it work. As this became a problem for AT&T, others produced Unix-like operating systems. They were essentially the same system, except they used different source code.

Christopher Kelty discusses Unix in his article, and there are three elements of Unix that make it unique.

First, it’s PORTIBILITY. Unix can go from machine to machine, unlike any operating system before it. It can go from machine to machine and work on these different pieces of hardware. This creates a SHARED CULTURE. We related this to Phrack, as both created a certain kind of public.

Second, LITERATURE was produced about Unix. John Lions’ “Lions’ Commentary on UNIX with Source Code” informed those who wanted to learn about Unix and shared the source code information necessary to use Unix. People were able to educate themselves on how to use Unix.

Third, Unix allowed for FORKING. Forking allowed users to make changes to the system and bring it back to the source, and still use the same name. Terms like “Flavors of Unix” and the “Gilgamesh Epic” were discussed in terms of Unix’s ability to be changed and manipulated.

Unix's ability to allow for the aforementioned was what made Unix so innovative. It also was responsible for many users to rally for free software and sharing. There was long distance collaboration with Unix. “It was like having rumors of a group of model enthusiast had created a completely functional Saturn V by exchanging blue prints on the Net and making values and flanges to each other.” (page 89) Because Unix's owner, AT&T wouldn't allow for it, copies of the format were made. One of the most well-known today is Linux.

In class we discussed some of the key differences between Unix and Linux:

Unix
Made by AT&T (corporation)
Very slow pace of development as a disk had to be physically delivered

Linux
Created by one man
No corporate stamp
Shared very quickly

We also discussed the effects of Unix on FREE SOFTWARE
Would free software exist without Unix?
Was it inevitable that people would want free software?

Some say that this was INEVITABLE. If the controversy over Unix didn’t lead to people wanting free software, something else would have.
This process led to caring about information freedom.

Free software is a topic that many disagree upon.
Some say software should absolutely not be free; that there is too much work that is put into it.
Others say we should share and there should be no price.

To help the classes understanding, some analogies were used.
We discussed clothing as a commodity, but pointed out the very basic differences between clothing and software. Software is a commodity, like clothing; but, tangible objects often have monetary value because it takes resources (that are paid for) to create the product.

Sharing becomes the issue because one cannot share a t-shirt (“economically exclusive”), but one can share software and source code and retain what they had.

LAND as the main example of a tangible commodity.
Land can be shared, does that mean it should have no monetary value?

The economy of software is specific to software—it is unlike land or clothing.

In Neal Stephenson's book, he touches upon many topics relating to not only hardware and software, but also their social implications. He evaluates the many options users have when choosing an operating system. There are many OSs and the user really just has to choose what works for them. Stephenson argues that there should be the option of seeing the command line, but explains how much American's love mediation. GUIs are graphical user interfaces. He explains GUIs as they mediate between the user and the computer, permitting users to have essentially no idea about what is really taking place at the command line level. Although it is the users choice, Stephenson believes that access to the command line should be available.

In class we discussed Neal Stephenson and his description of INTERFACE CULTURE.

There is extreme mediation between the user and the computer
GUIs (Graphical User Interfaces)
Larger Cultural Implications—Disney represents one big GUI because one is at a theme park walking down the main street of a fake town.

But Stephenson states that Americans love being mediated, and rely on mediation because there is too much information to process otherwise.

“Stephenson is the literary genius of hackerdom” (Gabriella Coleman)

Stephenson’s elitist attitude was discussed, as well as how he makes those who are unaware of the mediation or knowledge of these systems feel somewhat uneducated.

I see a value to not knowing this, sometimes “Ignorance is bliss.”

We utilized a car analogy, exploring the idea of those who just drive to get to point A to point B, versus those who know how to fix the engine, and see value in building and fixing cars.

Similarly, some use computers, and prefer the mediation of a simple operating system, rather than having to learn to speak with the COMMAND LINE, which allows you to modify.

But, there is the argument that the command line should be available if the user chooses to manipulate the system they utilize.

Accessing the command line could be like opening the hood of the car in our analogy.

Linux has the option of using a GUI to hide the command line, but the command line can also be easily accessed, making Linux a good option for the user who wants to have the best of both worlds.

When choosing an operating system, a user must be aware of what is available, and what the manufacturer takes responsibility for. Linux and Unix do not promote themselves as bug-free. They take responsibility for their system that can have bugs.

Corporate systems tend to not acknowledge their mistakes, as they prefer to present a confidence, with sales as their driving force. This is a fundamental problem because these are the companies that are marketing to the masses. A classmate suggested that maybe if we put a computer in the hands of a child (who learn languages very easily), and taught them the language of the command line, they would be able to utilize a system that offers both command of the command line, and use to the mediated GUI system.

Later in the semester we are going to spend a class on the Old and New Net wars concerning Scientology (and now Anonymous); wars that one must ask, why do they appear over and over again?

The Boston Phoenix has just published a lengthy piece on the subject that explores some of the free speech issues (and whether they are really just thin facades hiding other motives and pleasures. Looks like a good read.

A British man accused of hacking into US military computers will be extradited after losing his appeal to the Law Lords.

Gary McKinnon faces a possible life sentence, but he insists he was looking for information on UFOs. Jon Brain reports.

"An intellectual is a man who says a simple thing in a difficult way. An artist is a man who says a difficult thing in a simple way."

In Monday's lecture and class, we drove into the bit of gray area concerning code and programmers: Can code have aesthetics? If so, what are some the important implementations of said aesthetics, and what does it say about for a) the programmers themselves and b) the end user of the code. Near the end of class, we were able to come up with a sort of joke-ish way of understanding how hacker aesthetics work, which I like to refer to as the "trifecta," which I will explain in the rest of this post:

(again, thanks tuxpaint)

We read two texts for the day's class, one from Maurice Black entitled, "At the Edge of Language: The Art of Code" and another by Samir Chopra and Scott Dexter entitled "Free Software and Aesthetics of Code." Blacks's primary argument revolves around looking at various aspects of the craft of code, referencing the 10,000 lines of UNIX, and the surrounding public. John Lyons self crafted book on UNIX, famously copied, discussed, and shared marks an important basis for understanding the "craft" aspect of code. This was an important aspect in creating a community of programmers who were coming together and actually looking and admiring the style and creativity found within one of the most heralded operating systems of all time.

Black continued his exploration of hacking craft, by exploring the idea that code is not like poetry, but it IS poetry, and should be treated as more than a mechanical representation of computer instructions. (Wordpress.org, the site for the popular open-source blog software, adopts Black's motto "CODE IS POETRY") Black gives o concrete example of Perl poetry, that is, code written in the Perl programing language which is both a human readable poem and executable by a computer, is a principle example of how the craft of coding can venture into reputable art. He argues that these representations should make clear that code is an acceptable form of expression, and should be treated with the same liberties as expressive works.

Here is an example of a Perl Poem:

' Love was’

&& ‘love will be’ if
(I, ever-faithful),
do wait, patiently;

“negative”, “wordly”, values disappear,

@last, ‘love triumphs’;

join (hands, checkbooks),
pop champagne-corks,

“live happily-ever-after”.

“not so” ?
tell me: “I listen”,
(do-not-hear);

push (rush, hurry) && die lonely if not-careful;

“I will wait.”

&wait

# Sharon Hopkins, June 26th, 1991
# rush (a perl poem)
"

via http://www.digitalcraft.org/iloveyou/catalogue_jutta_steidel_if.htm

While certainly "perl poetry" is an expressive work, it is an extremely specific example of how code could be used as a vehicle for expression. Lions work on UNIX and Perl Poetry showcase how code can be a craft, something which is done with a passion for a constructive purpose, and valuing something seen as a chore to some. These aesthetics make up the first pillar of the Trifecta.
With that being said, during class we focused more on the arguments of a Chopra and Dexter, and outlining what they considered to be crucial elements of what makes the aesthetics of code.
These authors primarily focus on a few key elements when comparing programming aesthetics to more traditional art forms. These aspects, while not completely exhaustive, include:

1. Condensed, non bloated code.
2. Free and Open Code
3. High level code and programming languages
4. Never ending production, (programs are always evolving, they have no completion) date
5. Libraries of sharing, peer review, negotiation of code, and constant competition ("ready-mades")
6. Embracing restraints as an impetus for creativity
7. Improvisational nature of coding
8. “In the end is an “esoteric art” that can really only be appreciated by its makers

Discussing each of these parts ended up being the most spirited part of the class, as people continued to justify how and if these conditions were satisfied in code.

John Randall questioned the definitions of Chopra and Dexter, asking where the desire for "power of simplicity" exists within their definition, and why this is not included as an aesthetic?

"• Simplicity and elegance in code and coding tools is a valued aesthetic because it gets the mechanics out of the way, allowing the programmer to deal in the realm if the pure idea, or pure logic, in a less encumbered fashion.
• Simplicity and elegance in code is a valued aesthetic because it represents simplicity and elegance in an abstract logical machine.
• An abstract logical machines operates very close to, and is restrained by, the nature of logic and math, as derived from the nature of the universe, These machines therefore (un?)consciously resonates with the deepest of mysteries of consciousness and existence, and therefore, simplicity and elegance in the logic of abstract machines, as expressed in the logic of code, are valued aesthetic with nothing less than a spiritual draw."

Personally, while I do feel that simplicity and mathematical rigor is something which is valued and idolized by many programmers, I don't necessarily feel that it is a required impetus for code to embody an aesthetic, due to the fact that many programs are extremely complicated to understand, however brilliant; nor do all programmers value this element above all others One of the interesting facts of nature is how many of her “codes” can be understood in a just few simple variables which define much of science. On the other hand, computer algorithms, even in their most elegant, are still most times complex, unapproachable, and constructed Additionally, these authors did not discuss particular programming structure and styles: ever hacker and programmer has different styles and methods which they deem "the right thing" for a certain job, and trends and ideas in how to program become fashionable and then die out in time. However, these individualized stylistics help us see how programs embody an aesthetics, and therefore so do the programmers which code them. That gives us another pillar of the Trifecta of the Aesthetics of Code, the romantic programmer, where we see fanaticism to text editors and tools, and flame wars about styles of programming languages (such as Perl vs Python) , and other statements of purpose in their code.

less wtfs/minute = better code! but wtfs still exists!

The final aspect of the hacker aesthetic revolves around what Fred Brooks called "the thought stuff," the materials hackers use to create their art. The math and algorithms behind their programs remains the most important aspect of hacker aesthetic.
The love of restraints (hardware, software, memory time, money, language) and nontraditional notions of authorship for entire projects gives this math power an interesting twist on hacker aesthetics (it is interesting to note that FOSS hackers use "ownership" to say they are responsible for maintian a project). Their clever hacks and programs make them respected within the community, but they don't keep these things close to their heart, they let good math defuse across the community as a whole.

And that is what is so interesting about code and hackers. Never in the world has there been something in which doing what you are doing both progresses your own concept of what is right (technically), in addition to serving as a primary text for expression. Certainly other art can comment on its condition of inception, but can only can code actually adjust the landscape and address an issue at hand so tangibly. While self modifying code may be an ancient faus-pas amongst computer programmers, the programs they create with the aesthetics they have serve to self modify their own existence.

Then again, hackers just want code that works, and work well!

The first part of class was devoted to a lecture about DeCSS, CSS and the arguments of hacker cleverness, free speech and the Big Bad Wolf, aka the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). A Norwegian teenager, Jon Johansen, became famous for his involvement with the release of the DeCSS software, a program that reverse engineered the CSS algorithm, thus allowing decryption of DVDs without paying CSS licensing fees. When the MPAA found out about Johansen, they ordered cease and desist letters to remove the DeCSS codes, and contacted Norway to have Johansen and his father arrested.

Fellow hackers were infuriated by this, but only saw it as a scare tactic rather than a true threat, and in turn started the Free Jon Johansen Campaign and recreated DeCSS software in a new language, from C programming to Perl. These efforts were taken primarily because these hackers were furious for being called pirates, since this “war” was more about interoperability than about piracy.

Seth Schoen’s 456 stanza haiku (which was a usable code written in plain English) was written to Judge Kaplan, essentially accusing Kaplan of his absurd position that source code can be legally differentiated from other forms of written expression. He wrote the haiku for a number of reasons: to express fear of censorship directly and repeatedly, to show that form and function do match, to change cultural perceptions of hackers, F/OSS code, and programmers, and to highlight that those who can’t see the argument (i.e. Kaplan) simply lack any understanding of codes and have preconceived notions of coders/hackers as pirates and thieves.

So between 2001 and 2003, there were massive protests, continued claims that code equals speech, DeCSS lawsuits and the release of Dmitry (hacker arrested at DEFCON hacker convention).

After the powerpoint presentation, the discussion was turned to the matter of regulation vs. F/OSS, creative commons, ways of production, human nature/social norms, and full rights of ownership (personal and corporate) - all the topics from that day's readings, Lessig's "Open Code and Open Societies" and Grimmelmann's "Regulation by Software".

A number of students mentioned that they could easily see both sides of this argument; of course corporations/individuals want to stay in business and continue profiting from their products/craft, while at the same time, it would be ideal to have a creative commons where we could share things openly and freely without worrying about such things as loss of value/originality, theft, plagiarism, or lawsuits.

We discussed various ways that industries run their production. Max brought up in class that he worked for a small production company that leaked its artists’ songs before their release date, ultimately working in their favor. Still, there are larger corporations, like Universal, that strongly regulate and monitor the sharing of their clients’ crafts and who are also successful. So clearly, there are many different ways of doing things. Not only are ways of running a successful business flexible, but the ability to adapt to change is remarkable as well. Over the last decade, we have seen the music industry drastically change. During the 90s, we all listened to CDs, until Shawn Fanning created Napster at the end of the decade, allowing us to share our music online. From Napster came many other similar programs. This plethora of music available online meant less CDs, unless of course they were personally burned mixes of our favorite songs (that we downloaded of course). So for a while, artists lost a lot of money. But look where we are today: Napster is now a pay service, and iTunes has established itself as a leading digital media application (among many others) selling everything from songs and albums to movies and TV shows. And now, it’s impossible to walk down the street and not see an iPod or other mp3 player in someone’s hand. In this way, we are still getting exposed and introduced to our favorite artists without “stealing” the craft from its creator. So nevertheless, corporations DO have the ability to adapt to change and turn a threat/hindrance into something profitable.

This argument about ability to change/adapt was discussed in class for some time, in relation to the possibility of an entirely free and open creative commons, as Lessig desires. Rachel posed a great question about these creative commons and how its openness fosters creativity and growth. Her argument deals more with its practical implications than its theoretical ones: “How truly stifled is creativity today, and how great would its positive impact be without any structure in place to protect it? Can artists still profit from their ideas if they aren’t protected? It seems like the openness does foster innovation and growth as Lessig says, but I don’t see how this innovation and growth can be spread through society and utilized without corporate interest, especially in today’s society. This is really cynical, but I just don’t see how this call for the commons can revolutionize a society based on spending money, owning and possession” (Rachel).

Two excellent points are brought up here – first being the question of how far open these commons should be in order to work effectively/in the most utilitarian way, and second the nature of our society.

Consumption and materialism have become an integral part of our human nature. So much of our culture revolves around brand names/labels that we ultimately use as status symbols. Going further in this understanding of our human nature is our drive for competition, the need to always be better, do better, be the best we can possible be. Going back to Rachel’s question about the open creative commons’ practicality, this drive for competition would most likely diminish. If everything is put into the hands of everyone, where is the incentive to create to one’s fullest potential in order to stand out against the competition? We always want the newest, coolest, most unique thing out there, but things lose their value if everyone has them, like inflation.

So with all this being said, it is not easy to solve the argument of F/OSS vs. regulation, but it is clear that there needs to be some sort of middle ground, different from the one that is in place now. There should definitely be some more leniency for a creative commons. This comic (from our class handout 10/22) makes a very good point:

It immediately got me thinking about the legal drinking age in the United States, and how that has been questioned ad nauseum; the argument primarily being “if I can shoot a gun and fight for my country in battle, why can’t I drink a beer?”

Anyway, back to this new middle ground between F/OSS and regulation… I came across an article in the Wall Street Journal written by Lawrence Lessig. Titled In Defense of Piracy, Lessig discusses his issues with our copyright laws by telling a story of a mother (Stephanie Lenz) who posted a video on YouTube of her 13-month-old daughter (Holden) dancing to “Let’s Go Crazy” by Prince; the only reason she posted this video was to share it with Holden’s grandmother. Eventually, someone from Universal saw the video and recognized the song in the background, then demanded that YouTube take it down for unauthorized “performance” of Prince’s music. Ms. Lenz was stunned and confused so she tried filing a “counter-notice”, arguing that this was a case of fair use and that no rights of Universal were violated by her daughter’s dance. Still, she was told that she could be fined up $150,000 for sharing 29 seconds of her daughter dancing.

It is a really interesting and enjoyable article, and I suggest that you read the whole thing. In case you don’t get a chance, Lessig made a great point in his reaction to this whole fiasco between Ms. Lenz, YouTube, and Universal: “It doesn’t have to be like this. We could craft copyright law to encourage a wide range of both professional and amateur creativity, without threatening Prince’s profits. We could reject the notion that Internet culture must oppose profit, or that profit must destroy Internet culture. But real change will be necessary if this is to be our future – changes in law, and changes in us.”

He goes on to suggest ways to change our copyright laws: 1) Deregulate amateur remix, 2) Deregulate “the copy”, 3) Simplify, 4) Restore efficiency, and 5) Decriminalize Gen-X

For descriptions of each of these suggestions, click here to read the article in its entirety.....

(if for some reason the link to the article doesn't work or is expired, and you do want to read the article, let me know and I can make copies of the one I printed.)

Monday's class focused on the Thomas reading "Technology and Punishment: The Juridical Construction of the Hacker." Overall themes shared discussed throughout the class include the connection between the computer and the body, the Kevin Mitnick legal fiasco, and the cat and mouse game involving hackers and the law.

Under traditional law, there always needs to be a physical body to prosecute a crime. Hackers are very hard to prosecute if they do commit a digital crime since they are difficult to see online. Regardless of whether or not they are seen, many hackers are unsure about the laws within a digital space because the law is one step behind the technology.

Since the law did not know how to properly handle online crimes (i.e. credit card theft, or "breaking and entering" to prohibited databases), the law stayed extremely cautious and attempted to punish hackers to the fullest extent of the law. Kevin Mitnick is a prime example of how enforcement was exceedly harsh on the hacker community.

Kevin Mitnick was not an innocent hacker. Mitnick has hacked into the Digital Equipment Organization, IBM, and has constantly used social engineering in order to gain information. Mitnick however was facing up to 25 years in prison for what was mostly theft, which is a bit absurd for what the punishment would be for physical theft. Mitnick ended up only serving five years in prison, partially because the hacker community was so vehement against his arrest.

Why was the law so set on sending Mitnick to prison for such a long time? Part of the reason is because the law feared the technology and did not know the extent of Mtinick's power. Journalists and prosecutors believed (and promoted) that Mitnick could hack into government databases and launch nuclear weapons, which just was not possible.

However, while the prosecution was generally agreed upon in the class as excessive, John raised an interesting point as to why the fear of hackers is at least understandable. The police always want to be stronger and smarter than the criminals, and hackers are a threat to that power. Before the age of the internet, police used to been seen no matter where they went. The internet however, allows the police and FBI to be more undercover, since there is no physical body that can be seen on a computer. However, hackers can be the police of the police. They are the ones who have the tools to unmask federal agents online. This knowledge scares the law because suddenly they have a challenger that can watch them watching other people, which is a threat to their power.

Some people would argue that unmasking a cop on the internet would be against the law since it blows their cover. However, it is not illegal to point to a cop on the street. Same act, different perception of a crime. While this is not fair, one would hope that time will normalize the technology and the differences between the law will disappear.

The unfair bad representation is partly present because the language journalists use to describe hackers makes them seem evil. The computer was seen as a feminine object and hackers are "raping" the technology by hacking into it. Instead of being viewed as a craft, the word hacking became related to crime, making it easier to prosecute hackers. And since the computer was viewed as a victim in hacking crimes, the mere possession of computer but hackers was a crime. The theory was that if you take away the tool, the hacker cannot cause any more harm to society.

Computers and hacking were also viewed as an addiction, which both helped and hurt Mitnick in his legal battle. When Mitnick was not allowed to touch a computer he lost over one hundred pounds since he resorted to exercise. Computers, therefore, were seen as an object that could ruin your life and taking away the computer from hackers would help them heal.

At the fifth HOPE, Kevin Mitnick addressed all of these issues listed above and gave some overarching advice about hacker ethics based on his experiences. He warns that after 9/11 and the birth of cyber-terrorism have made the stakes a lot higher if you hack in a place you aren't supposed to be in. He tells his audience to be smart and clever when online.

Questions left on the table:
Computers as a drug: Are we now all addicts to this technology?
Is a traditional jail necessary for hacker addicts? Or can thier actions somehow be self-enforced?
How has Mitnick's endeavor changed the law?

Wednesday's class began with a brief discussion regarding Monday's guest speaker John Perry Barlow. I was unable to attend, but it seemed his reviews were for the most part favorable. For other free NYU events check out: http://www.freeculturenyu.org/

To open the main discussion on virtual games and the first half of the Jullian Dibbell's book Play Money, Gabriella played Leroy Jenkins, a video of a virtual raid in the game Worlds of Warcraft by the internet star himself, Leroy Jenkins. Additionally, we watched the infamous Serenity Now bombs a World of Warcraft funeral in which a group of raiders raids a representational funeral held on behalf of a real life player in a PVP (player vs. player) allowed area of the virtual game world.

The second video sparked discussion on whether the raid of the funeral was justified. While the experienced gamers of the class insisted that in a game about fighting, funerals had no place and a raid in a PVP area was well within game rules. Others, conversely, found the raid to be in poor taste, noting that the reward for killing other players are honor points, not points for experience and were therefore of little value.

Both videos helped to open up the discussion further on virtual gaming, particularly the differences between virtual gaming and those which are tangible and the real world effects on the virtual world.

As Chelsea noted in class, all characteristics that apply to games also apply to virtual games, however the same is not true vise versa. The differences, therefore, are very telling. Gabriella and much of the rest of the class agreed with Chelsea, however John disagreed, arguing that distinctions should not be made because such discussion allows ethical and legal issues to get in the way. Despite his insightful perspective, we carried on discussing the distinctions.

A major distinction between for instance a card game and a virtual game is the aspect of world building that goes into playing a virtual game. Players engage in a sociality they don't engage in while playing chess or badminton, they help to create cultures and even economies, and they cultivate relationships. Richard claimed that interpersonal relationships effected virtual play and gave us an adorable example of how his desire to kill his real-life girlfriend in D and D distracted him from other virtual tasks. Radny, Dibbell's virtual roommate and business partner (a 17 year old smart-ass), was mentioned briefly in this discussion.

Charlotte then brought up the distinction of time. While games in the real world end, usually with a clear winner and loser, virtual games are on-going and never result in a real winner. Anique then made the point this made virtual world more like the real world. Other distinctions included the unregulated nature (for now, noted Gabriella) of virtual games and the intricate games within virtual games. Finally, Max brought up how virtual games encourage the imaginative reinvention of yourself. This virtual self sometimes pulls from reality but is not a literal representation.

As Dibbell writes:

It is this endlessly repeatable collusion of freedom and determinism--the warp and the woof of fixed rules and free play, of running code and variable input--that sets both gamers and computers apart, together, from the larger universe of information technologies they inhabit...And only games, therefore, come close to capturing the precise mix of unpredictability and inevitability that makes the computer such a powerful simulation of our lived experience of the world. (104)

We had already scratched the surface on the subject of the fluidity of the boundaries which separate virtual from real space in discussing Dibbell's perspective that a line can be drawn between the two, however it is not rigid. But, we dug deeper following the the conversation of imaginative identity. Where else does the virtual world seep into the real world? Well, for Julian Dibbell and other entrepreneurs like him who sold virtual loot for "real" cash, the virtual world became his real world livelihood. Max drove the point home declaring that as far as the economy goes there was no line between the virtual and real.

Real world, too, seeps into the virtual world. Status and money would not exist in the virtual world if the real world didn't similarly rear its head. Status and wealth are coveted just as they are in the real world, and while this may seem absurd, it is merely a magnification of the real world process and the real world absurdity. Though it has been normalized and naturalized, our real world economy is just as intangible as the virtual economy. Is there even a distinction at all when virtual money can be sold for real currency? Or, as Charlotte posits: is economic life masquerading itself as play?

We ended on similarly evaluative note that infused hacking back into our discussion, and I feel inclined to do the same. Before we were dismissed from Wednesday's class Richard and Anique posed questions we hadn't yet gotten to. Food for thought, you might say:

Richard: Do gold farmers make the game less fun?

Anique: Which group of virtual gamers stands closer to the hackers?

Happy Halloween!