TUT-100-29: Free software, free culture

Exercise #5

The free-software movement has succeeded in changing the terms on which a great deal of software is developed and distributed. The system of peer production that Benkler envisions for creative works generally already exists for free software, and it has been shown to be economically viable and useful.

What are the prospects for extending this model to the development and distribution of popular music and video? Under what conditions and by what means could a ``networked information economy'' in popular music and video emerge and become as prevalent as free software?

Write your your answers to these questions in the form of an essay (1000 to 2000 words). Submit your essay at the beginning of class on Thursday, December 7, if possible, and in any case no later than Tuesday, December 12.

You may want to focus your essay a little more tightly on one of the following issues:

• At least two-thirds of all free-software projects release their work under the GNU General Public License. The widespread use of this license provides users and developers with a common understanding of the mechanics of free software, of its advantages, and of the free-software movement's principles and goals, and this common understanding provides the foundation for the construction of an economic community of free-software developers and distributors. Can Creative Commons licenses play a similar role in the emergence of a similar community of creators of free music and video? What are the differences between the terms of the GPL and the terms of the various Creative Commons licenses? Do these differences affect the potential of Creative Commons licenses to provide a common foundation for the emergence of a free-culture community?
• If a programmer has the source code for a piece of software, it's often possible for her to improve it in small ways, either by fixing bugs or by adding new features. This encourages a kind of participatory culture among programmers and promotes sharing. Are similar incremental improvements possible in videos or in musical works and performances? Are there ways of transforming or re-using music or video that have no analogues in software development, but might similarly promote sharing?
• In the last few years, more and more companies have begun to sell special-purpose music players (the iPod, the Zune, etc.), and more and more companies (Napster, iTunes, etc.) have begun to sell music on line. How does competition in these commercial markets affect the prospects for music sharing?
• There are some early signs that consumers will strongly resist the attempt to convert general-purpose computers into ``trusted systems,'' refusing to buy hardware, operating systems, and software applications unless they are more completely under the owner's control. The availability of free software facilitates this resistance by providing workable alternatives to ``trusted'' operating systems and applications. Could the availability of free music and free video also promote resistance to devices that enforce copyright restrictions, or is the relationship too tenuous for most consumers to recognize?

In addition to our course readings, here are some sources that you might consult in researching the question:

Drahos, Peter. Information feudalism: who owns the knowledge economy? (large PDF file). New York: The New Press, 2002.

Lasica, J. D. Darknet: Hollywood's war against the digital generation. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2005.

Litman, Jessica. Digital copyright. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2001.

McLeod, Kembrew. Freedom of expression (R): overzealous copyright bozos and other enemies of creativity (large PDF file). New York: Doubleday, 2005.

Vaidhyanathan, Siva. Copyrights and copywrongs: the rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity (scroll down for links to PDF files). New York: New York University Press, 2001.

Exercise #4

In chapter 5 of The wealth of networks, Benkler says that ``filtering'' the materials that are offered for publication on the World Wide Web, so as to exclude, override, or reduce the visibility of contributions that are unhelpful or irrelevant, constrains authors and readers in one sense, but also provides a foundation that makes it possible for authors and readers to exercise freedoms of a higher order and greater variety. The purpose of this exercise is to test this claim in a real case.

Choose a Web site that accepts and publishes contributions from visitors -- ideally, one to which you yourself have contributed, but alternatively one that is well-known and has many contributors (Wikipedia, Kuro5hin, Digg, YouTube, Slashdot, or Groklaw, for instance). Find out whether, how, and by whom contributions to that site are filtered. Then write a short essay (500 to 2000 words) in which you (1) identify the Web site and explain the filtering method used there; (2) assess the effectiveness of that method in achieving the maintainers' goals; and (3) present evidence for or against Benkler's assertion about filtering by identifying ways in which contributors and readers are constrained or empowered by the practice of filtering.

This exercise will be due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, November 21.

Exercise #3

Part 1: As we all know, copyright law applies to books, to articles in newspapers and magazines, to songs, and to movies. When it became clear in the 1970s that computer software had considerable economic value, the courts quickly established that copyright law applied to source code as well. What other kinds of creative works does copyright law apply to?

Part 2: One of the rationales for copyright laws is that the author or creator of a work deserves to be rewarded for his or her willingness to share it with the public. Does this rationale apply equally to all creative works?

Write your answers to these questions in the form of a short essay (500 to 2000 words) and submit it at the beginning of class on Tuesday, October 3.

Exercise #2

Give a well-informed, objective answer to any one of the following three questions:

• Chapter 9 of Free for all describes Eric Raymond's view that the methods by which free software is developed are fundamentally different from the methods that commercial software developers use. In practice, what are the most significant differences between the typical development processes for free and proprietary software?
• Are there significant differences between otherwise comparable free and proprietary programs (for instance, between Firefox and Internet Explorer, or between OpenOffice.org Writer and Microsoft Word) in the frequency or severity of defects in the software?
• Are there significant differences between the ways in which developers of otherwise comparable free and proprietary programs find out about errors in the software and correct them?

Write up your answer in the form of a short essay (500 to 2000 words) and submit it at the beginning of class on Thursday, September 7.

The layout conventions that I recommend (double spacing, page numbers in the upper right corner, etc.) are summarized in chapter 17 of the College writer's reference and described in much greater detail in chapter 54 of that work. However, since I write a lot of comments, I prefer that you use margins an inch and a half wide at the left and right sides, rather than the one-inch margins that Fulwider and Hayakawa advocate.

Exercise #1

AOL recently announced a new software product, Active Virus Shield, that was designed to inspect material transferred onto one's computer from outside and intercept such improper items as viruses and spyware. AOL offers this software without charge to everyone, although one needs a Microsoft operating system (Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows Millennium Edition, or Windows XP) to support it.

Read the end-user license for Active Virus Shield. What conditions does this license place on the user of the software? If you wanted to protect your computer from viruses and spyware, would you consider using Active Virus Shield under this license? What criteria would you use in making this decision?

Write up your answers to these questions and submit them at the beginning of class on Tuesday, August 29.

Course abstract

Recent developments in copyright law and mechanisms for controlling the production and distribution of creative works impose socially counterproductive constraints on artists and innovators, impeding the evolution of new forms and styles, squandering the opportunity for cultural development and exchange that digital technology provides, and reserving to media corporations the freedom to guide, shape, and contribute to popular culture. We shall explore legal ways to oppose these trends, beginning with techniques developed over the last twenty years by the Free Software movement, techniques that take advantage of copyright law to protect the free development and exchange of computer software.