The philosophy of Freenet

[Nova Andromeda]

--Here is the link to Freenet philosophy.
-Will the destruction of copyright cripple creative productivity by starving it of resources (since stuff is shared freely)?
-Are the alternatives to copyright effective?
-What are the alternatives to copyright?
-Even if creativity does suffer significantly, is it worth it to ensure truly free speech?
-Does soceity really want (in the abstract) truly free speech. It would mean hate speech, holocost denail, etc. are all tolerated?
-If society does restrict speech, what can be done to prevent abuses?

Rules:

--Opinions and personal desires don't count for much in this dicussion. This is a discussion about Freenet philosophy and whether it is in society's best interest or not. Therefore, you must identify what is in society's best interest first and then determine how Freenet's philosophy applies to it.
-Please try to organize your response instead of writing long rants that address multiple topics and/or posts.

[Nova Andromeda]

--My first thought is:
-Freenet doesn't just allow freedom of speech. It allows freedom of information flow. That includes all forms of information: political speech, hate speech, movies, national secrets, corp. secrets, weapon designs, all of math, and anything that can be compressed into a digital form. Therefore, one cannot just consider Freenet a method to enable free speech unless "speech" is expanded to mean much more than it is in casual conversation.

[Seggybop]

I would contend that freedom is more important than having professional artists (those who claim that we would have no art do not understand creativity: people will always create, it is a compulsion, the only question is whether they can do it for a living).

I wish more people would understand this.

[Frank Hipper]

I would contend that freedom is more important than having professional artists (those who claim that we would have no art do not understand creativity: people will always create, it is a compulsion, the only question is whether they can do it for a living).

I wish more people would understand this.

The Art Gallery set elitist snob mentality must fucking die. It's precisely what's given us literal sacks of trash masquerading as art.

[Queeb Salaron]

I would contend that freedom is more important than having professional artists (those who claim that we would have no art do not understand creativity: people will always create, it is a compulsion, the only question is whether they can do it for a living).

I wish more people would understand this.

But coming from that concept, I subscribe to the Lars Ulrich philosophy regarding piracy: "It's not about the money. I'm a musician. That's what I do for a living. If people are getting my work for free, why can't I walk into a car mechanic's shop and get my car fixed for free?"

And as someone who plans someday to be a professional artist, let me tell you exactly how much I despise this kind of "art belongs to everyone" mentality. SOME art exists solely for the purpose of appealing to the masses. But that art is still the property of the artist. Yes, people are free to enjoy it, but they may not claim it as their own until the artist has given them permission to do so. Artists charge a fee for the transferrence of property rights to consumers, and any consumer who bypasses this process is in violation of the artist's rights.

If you're starved for free art, create your own.

[RedImperator]

Translation: "I want to enjoy the fruits of an artist's labor without compensating the artist for it."

Fuck you.

[Jalinth]

And as someone who plans someday to be a professional artist, let me tell you exactly how much I despise this kind of "art belongs to everyone" mentality. SOME art exists solely for the purpose of appealing to the masses. But that art is still the property of the artist. Yes, people are free to enjoy it, but they may not claim it as their own until the artist has given them permission to do so. Artists charge a fee for the transferrence of property rights to consumers, and any consumer who bypasses this process is in violation of the artist's rights.

If you're starved for free art, create your own.

Look at authors - the ones I read are able to work full time producing books - which I can then read - hopefully every 9 to 12 months. If I was picking them up free and so was everyone else, I'd be lucky to get a book every 4 or 5 years out of them (assuming they were willing to slave away each weekend for zero return - some would, but not many).

Having said that, artists need to realize they are catering to the public. If the public can't stand your work, you have two choices: a) find a very wealthy, select group able to pay for your artistic inclinations, or b) do something else. Screaming that the public are a bunch of Phillistines is not a valid choice.

[Tommy J]

And as someone who plans someday to be a professional artist, let me tell you exactly how much I despise this kind of "art belongs to everyone" mentality. SOME art exists solely for the purpose of appealing to the masses. But that art is still the property of the artist. Yes, people are free to enjoy it, but they may not claim it as their own until the artist has given them permission to do so. Artists charge a fee for the transferrence of property rights to consumers, and any consumer who bypasses this process is in violation of the artist's rights.

If you're starved for free art, create your own.

Look at authors - the ones I read are able to work full time producing books - which I can then read - hopefully every 9 to 12 months. If I was picking them up free and so was everyone else, I'd be lucky to get a book every 4 or 5 years out of them (assuming they were willing to slave away each weekend for zero return - some would, but not many).

Having said that, artists need to realize they are catering to the public. If the public can't stand your work, you have two choices: a) find a very wealthy, select group able to pay for your artistic inclinations, or b) do something else. Screaming that the public are a bunch of Phillistines is not a valid choice.

The one noteable exception is fanatical Trekkies. They will produce model ships, write fanfic, produce entire volumes of back material about every conceivable scenario, and even write a non-existent language's dictionary--Klingon. And of course raise $3/million to produce a TV show that should be for profit.

I've never met a group of people that are so completely devoted to their 'art' and willing to give it away for free.

Paramount is laughing all the way to the bank as these geeks churn out everything for them at no cost.

[jcow79]

I'm all about protecting intellectual property rights. However I do take issue with people and companies who abuse it...*cough* Microsoft *cough*

[Crayz9000]

Given that it's been proven time and time again that CD sales give exactly jack and shit in profits to the artist (You can't live off of $4k or even $8k a year!) and all the money goes to the production companies and labels, I really have no moral compunctions against downloading music. However, if I like the artist, I *will* go to their concerts -- that's where they make the most money anyway.

[kc8tbe]

I don't use Freenet, but I do subscribe to its philosophy. The reason I don't use Freenet is for technical reasons; I feel that GNUnet (http://www.gnunet.org) is technically superior to Freenet, although both serve the same purpose.

As a courtesy to the root post:
--Will the destruction of copyright cripple creative productivity by starving it of resources (since stuff is shared freely)?
Not if we find a different way to compensate artists (see long rant).
--Are the alternatives to copyright effective?
It depends. One example of such an alternative is open source software. In all the cases I can remember, when a popular OSS application has needed money to continue development, it has had no trouble getting that money via donations and corporate underwriters. So in the case of OSS, yes. In other cases, perhaps not.
--What are the alternatives to copyright?
See long rant.
--Even if creativity does suffer significantly, is it worth it to ensure truly free speech?
If we do not have free speech, then creativity is certain to suffer significantly. If copyright is abolished, the impact on creativity is less certain.
--Does soceity really want (in the abstract) truly free speech. It would mean hate speech, holocost denail, etc. are all tolerated?
You don't have to tolerate it in the sense of agreeing with it or trying to actively support its dissemination. But then there are some who would consider homosexuality and atheism to fall in the same boat as holocaust denial, etc.
--If society does restrict speech, what can be done to prevent abuses?
Absolutely nothing significant, that's the whole point.
------------------------------------------
And since I like ranting:

Bear in mind, the Freenet philosophy does not condone screwing artists out of their money or the distribution of kiddie porn. Likewise, the manufacturers of weapons would prefer that their products not be used to kill people. Both entities acknowledge that the primary purpose of their technologies are unsavory but necessary in a society such as ours.

In classical law, ownership is defined as a way to resolve conflict of use. Some things, such as land, goods, and services, can only be used by a limited number of people. Those people with ownership of these things then get priority in their use. Art, media, and ideas can be used by an unlimited number of people. So while I can have a good idea, and that idea is "mine", I do not "own" the idea.

This said, there is conflict of use associated with an artist's or researcher's time. There are a finite number of artists with a finite amount of time and a finite amount or resources, so to produce art involves a conflict of use of that time and those resources. In other words, for some art -- or intellectual "property" -- to even exist in the first place, the artist must be compensated. And since the conflict of use no longer exists once the art is created, it makes more sense to compensate the artist in advance.

Most of our laws are based on "natural" laws. For example, we have a police force that prevents people from killing each other. Since there are very few people with a compulsion to kill other people, this arrangement works out fairly well. However suppose that all of a sudden 60% of the population decided to go on a killing spree. Would a police force be effective in preventing people from killing each other then? Of course not.

Intellectual property, copyright law, etc. are derivatives of conflict-of-use property laws. The problem is that, since there is no conflict of use on an idea, these laws are not "natural" laws and will never be successfully enforced, no matter how hard one tries. GNUnet and Freenet are evidence of this. Artists deserve to be compensated, and people will need an incentive to compensate them. But charging a fee to access an artist's work is a poor way to manifest this incentive because it goes against natural laws. Artists, researchers, etc. are eventually going to have to come up with new models for supporting the creation of their works.

[Tommy J]

[quote="Destructionator XIII"]Actually, the Klingon Dictionary was written by Marc Okrand, who actually made the language for the show (why Klingon isn't just random noises like many show's languages). He is NOT a fanatical trekkie, nor did he write it for free. Paramount payed him well for his services then SOLD his book.

[quote]

Then someone else did so as well, because I watched the movie 'Trekkie's' yesterday and the person who was speaking Klingon and who wrote the dictionary seemed like your joe-avg fanatical.

[Queeb Salaron]

Intellectual property, copyright law, etc. are derivatives of conflict-of-use property laws. The problem is that, since there is no conflict of use on an idea, these laws are not "natural" laws and will never be successfully enforced, no matter how hard one tries. GNUnet and Freenet are evidence of this. Artists deserve to be compensated, and people will need an incentive to compensate them. But charging a fee to access an artist's work is a poor way to manifest this incentive because it goes against natural laws. Artists, researchers, etc. are eventually going to have to come up with new models for supporting the creation of their works.

Great, so now on top of being pressured by markets and publishers to constantly create, we artists are also now held responsible for the methods by which we make our art available? Let me break this down: Musicians are musicians. They are not businessmen, most of them, nor market analysts. They create, and if the public likes what they hear/read/see, they do well for themselves. Telling artists to find new ways of supporting the creation of their work is effectively telling them to sink or swim, a notion that simply cannot be healthy for the art of writing.

Put another way, consider this: As a writer, I have spent countless hours writing and revising short stories (that's what I write). For three months I edited a story that took me a year to get into its near-finished stages. And after fifteen months of work, I submitted it for publication everywhere. The big-name publicists rejected it (which I expected), though the New Yorker said the story had "evident merit." When I finally DID get it published, I sold the first North American serial publication rights and one-time electronic copyrights for a grand total of... get this... $25 and two contributor's copies.

Yep. 15 months of work for $25. I must have paid that much in stamps to send the damned thing out.

Every fanfic author in the world will tell you that I was lucky to have gotten paid at all, never mind the added boon of having the New Yorker actually comment on my rejected manuscript. Point is, I'm a starting writer, and this is how I make a portion of my living. Many musicians live gig-to-gig. And in the constant struggle to keep creating and to keep performing and to keep showing your art to the masses, there simply is no time to think about how one can prevent piracy from happening. We artists accept it as an inescapable evil and move on. And if we did worry about piracy robbing us blind, we'd never submit anything for publication, never record, never show our paintings, etc.

Long story longer: It is the responsibility of the pirate to consider the rights of the artist, not the other way around. We're the ones doing the work.

[kc8tbe]

Yes, artists need to find a new way to make money off of their works. Sink or swim. The current method -- finding a middle man to do it for you -- isn't working. One the one hand, you get $25 for your work. 15 months has to be worth more than that. On the other hand, the middleman (e.g. RIAA, publishers) choose incentive methods that don't make sense in the long run.

Try this. Post some of your recent fanfics on a website. Make them available for free. Then ask for patronage ($) from individuals, and charge entities that actually have money to spend -- such as libraries and publishers -- a license free, but distribute your digitized works under the Creative Commons. If your work is that good, then who knows? Chances are, you'll make more than $25.

Point is, you can't make people pay you for art like you can make people pay you for food or clothing. Your best strategy is to make yourself a reputation, then make money on new stories before you release them (which is when you need the money most, after all). As a minor incentive, distribute a list of patrons with your distributed works. Don't forget publishers will still have to pay you if they decide that they want to use your stuff.

[Queeb Salaron]

Yes, artists need to find a new way to make money off of their works. Sink or swim. The current method -- finding a middle man to do it for you -- isn't working. One the one hand, you get $25 for your work. 15 months has to be worth more than that. On the other hand, the middleman (e.g. RIAA, publishers) choose incentive methods that don't make sense in the long run.

Just to be clear, which incentive methods are we talking about?

Try this. Post some of your recent fanfics on a website. Make them available for free. Then ask for patronage ($) from individuals, and charge entities that actually have money to spend -- such as libraries and publishers -- a license free, but distribute your digitized works under the Creative Commons. If your work is that good, then who knows? Chances are, you'll make more than $25.

(For the record, I don't write fanfic. But I'm acutely aware that there are many fanfic writers on this board, hence the reference to fanfic.)

See, therein lies the problem, at least for publishers. Many publishers, especially smaller presses, won't touch a piece unless it's been previously unpublished. For reference, most publications that wish to purchase first rights won't buy a piece that's been published in a magazine or publication with a circulation of more than 500. For online publications, "circulation" is roughly equated to the number of independent IP addresses that visit a certain site. Meaning that if I get more than 500 people going to that website, I'm banned from publishing in a rather large number of publications. That's just how the market works at the moment.

Also, in order for this to work, I'd have to advertise this site, design it (rather, have it designed as I know nothing of web design), and pay to keep it running. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do these things; my time and money are better spent perfecting my craft.

Point is, you can't make people pay you for art like you can make people pay you for food or clothing.

Of course not. Technically, art isn't necessary for survival.

Your best strategy is to make yourself a reputation, then make money on new stories before you release them (which is when you need the money most, after all).

Exactly how does one do this?

As a minor incentive, distribute a list of patrons with your distributed works. Don't forget publishers will still have to pay you if they decide that they want to use your stuff.

Publishers aren't interested in publishing lengthy dedications to precede short stories. It's just not done.

[Keevan_Colton]

Queeb, you seem to be forgetting that having a succesful site allows you to point to it as a decent circulation, showing that there is a market for your stories, which will mean publishers will be more interested in your next work.

Also, the dedication/patron list would be on the website, not with a version sold to a publisher.

[Queeb Salaron]

Queeb, you seem to be forgetting that having a succesful site allows you to point to it as a decent circulation, showing that there is a market for your stories, which will mean publishers will be more interested in your next work.

Publishers are less impressed with work published on a site that you own, rather than in a noted publication. Though it's not altogether a bad idea, it's still not financially and logistically practical.

[Keevan_Colton]

Queeb, you seem to be forgetting that having a succesful site allows you to point to it as a decent circulation, showing that there is a market for your stories, which will mean publishers will be more interested in your next work.

Publishers are less impressed with work published on a site that you own, rather than in a noted publication. Though it's not altogether a bad idea, it's still not financially and logistically practical.

Free webspace and domain names are available out there.

[Slartibartfast]

It only costs like $36 to get a web host for a whole year, plus $15 for the domain name.

[kc8tbe]

Of course. Because anyone can publish work on his or her own site. But if you can show that X number of people have downloaded your work and that Y number of people have made donations, and if X and Y are sufficiently large integers, then you may get a publishers attention. Also, there's no reason you can't publish on your website and get it syndicated in a noted publication. Dilbert, Garfield, Fox Trot, and other comics come to mind.

I can see publishers being reluctant to pay for the rights to publish something that you've already published digitally, but if enough people do it then they won't have much of a choice. As for advertising -- the "pirates" will do that for you. How do you suppose SD became so popular?

[Seggybop]

And as someone who plans someday to be a professional artist, let me tell you exactly how much I despise this kind of "art belongs to everyone" mentality. SOME art exists solely for the purpose of appealing to the masses. But that art is still the property of the artist. Yes, people are free to enjoy it, but they may not claim it as their own until the artist has given them permission to do so. Artists charge a fee for the transferrence of property rights to consumers, and any consumer who bypasses this process is in violation of the artist's rights.

If you're starved for free art, create your own.

"Professional artist" as you use it here is an oxymoron. Art is not something you make for subsistence. You're not an artist if you're doing that, only some kind of capitalist content-creation guy. Not inherently bad, but not an artist either.

[Queeb Salaron]

"Professional artist" as you use it here is an oxymoron. Art is not something you make for subsistence. You're not an artist if you're doing that, only some kind of capitalist content-creation guy. Not inherently bad, but not an artist either.

That's utter bullshit. I am in school, in part, to study the process of creative writing. Writing is my trade, and all tradesmen deserve to be compensated for their services, provided their trades are deemed valuable to a given market. My art is no less valuable than, say, fine leather working. Leather workers don't make their goods for the art of it. They make them to sell them. Similarly, I write because I enjoy writing, true. But I write because I am interested in writing, because it's a craft I'm pretty good at, and because it's possible for me to make a living doing it. The art that I create for subsistence is no less valid as art than something created for the sake of being art. The difference is that people who create art for a living know the value of their creations, and those who create art for art's sake either don't know or don't care.