[Upd-discuss] Paper:"Digital property" By Sabine Nuss, NY, NY, April 12-14, 2002

[Richard M. Stallman]

Here are some comments on the substance of that paper.  Zapopan,
please forward this too to the other lists, if you see fit.

    Considering that the Madonna song is now available free and everywhere on
    the net, that it is thus not subject to the owner’s discretionary and
    exclusive power of disposition, its value cannot (or only with
    considerable effort) be realized.

To speak of "realizing the value" assumes that the only value of a work
consists of the money that could be made from it.

There is more than one conceptual way to value a work.  One value is
_what you get in exchange for it_, and the other is _what it
contributes to society_.  For material commodities in a competitive
market, the former tends to follow the latter (but watch out for
externalities, such as pollution that neither the producer nor the
consumer pays for).  But that conclusion is not universally
applicable.  In cases where it is not applicable, the two kinds of
"value" have to be distinguished.

    The internet freedom fighters explicitly separate cyberspace from the real
    world (other rules etc.). This is false, both analytically and in reality.

Here the article argues against a straw man.  Of course software is a
part of the real world--what else could it be, a fantasy?  The use and
development of software are part of the real world, too.

What we say is that what can be done with software (and other
information) in the real world is different from what can be done with
physical objects--and this has consequences.

    The critics of private property relations on the net refer only to the
    level of commodity circulation. They don’t take into account the sphere of
    capitalist production.

We are more concerned with the use of software than with its
development for a specific practical reason: the use of software (the
word "commodity" is inappropriate) affects our freedom, where as its
development does not.  Therefore, the details of the social system of
use of software are directly important to us, in way that the system
of development isn't.

The word "commodity" is part of the Marxist mind-set that thinks in
terms of economic value only.

    As we know, the consequence is what Marx labels the transition of
    the laws of appropriation. Capitalist property is not based on the
    appropriation of one’s own work but rather on the appropriation
    of other people’s work.

This is often true in the case proprietary software--when it is
developed by employees or contractors.  But it is not true in the case
of free software, because free software becomes part of society's
commons.  It is not appropriated by anyone--neither the persons that
develop it, nor some employer of theirs.

    If you take this perspective, naturally the question does not arise why a
    principle like the exclusive power of disposition exists in the first
    place and where it comes from. Rather, the only question that comes up is
    how to change and adapt this principle considering the special quality of
    digital goods. 

Not just "how", but "whether"!

    In this, they resonate with the promoters of modern management
    models for the internet economy, where similar models are
    discussed but in a different terminology and with the aim of
    avoiding the difficulties for establishing restrictive property
    rights on the net, and not in order to keep information
    free”. Ultimately, these models result in digital goods being
    part of a whole product, as described earlier.

The earlier example cites Acrobat Reader.  It is a valid example
precisely because Acrobat Reader is _not_ free software.  This
conclusion is invalid when applied to nontrivial free software,
because the ability to make programs that work with it is, in general,
not limited to any specific developer.

						   These digital goods
    appear to be ”free”, but that is an illusion, because as
    part of a whole product they would still be subordinated to
    commercial pressures and only stay accessible as long as they were
    profitable as part of this product.

This conclusion is inaccurate too, because it is based on the previous
one.