A recent Mashable article informed me of a lobby group called The International Property Alliance that wants the US government to put countries that advocate or use open use software on a watch list of enemies of capitalism. What is interesting to me about this article is not how outrageous the groups claim is, but how (at least for some) there appears to be a natural link between strict copyright laws and capitalism and lenient laws and communism. Yes, open source software is likely to make less money and have creators who are less interested in making a lot of money than software that is sold and copyright protected. But doesn’t open source seem to come out of the “marketplace of ideas” as much as anything else? Whether it be open source or more traditional software, they are still competing with one another and hopefully the best software will be the most popular in the end.
-
Blog under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
-
About
-
In this course we will focus on a seemingly esoteric legal subject that is now located at the heart of many social, cultural, economic, and political conflicts: copyright law. While initially codified as a state granted monopoly designed to to encourage publishers and established authors to invest in culture, copyright law has now extended into every part of our day to day life and interaction with media. Moreover, the law is obviously and increasingly dangerously out of touch with digital culture. But what is really at stake in the copyright battles? Does our law reward profit, control, or culture? Should culture be owned? Does it even make sense to call it "intellectual property"?
In our efforts to better understand these issues, we will read both primary and secondary materials, covering subjects ranging from the birth of copyright to contemporary justifications for copyright reform, analyze relevant and interesting documentary films, and enjoy guest lectures from a range of established speakers.
-
In this course we will focus on a seemingly esoteric legal subject that is now located at the heart of many social, cultural, economic, and political conflicts: copyright law. While initially codified as a state granted monopoly designed to to encourage publishers and established authors to invest in culture, copyright law has now extended into every part of our day to day life and interaction with media. Moreover, the law is obviously and increasingly dangerously out of touch with digital culture. But what is really at stake in the copyright battles? Does our law reward profit, control, or culture? Should culture be owned? Does it even make sense to call it "intellectual property"?
I’d agree that you need to have a particularly narrow definition of capitalism to call the motivations behind open source development “communist”. Benkler’s work that we read grounds his explanation of peer production firmly in market-based principles; he just acknowledges other markets beside the monetary one.
Maybe the argument is that it’s communist (though more likely socialist) to have a government mandate the use of open source software, but that’s simply a purchasing decision. It’s no less capitalistic then their previous decision to “mandate” that people use Windows by entering into a bulk licensing agreement with Microsoft.