When using open source makes you an enemy of the state

[rsn 135]

The US copyright lobby has long argued against open source software -now Indonesia's in the firing line for encouraging the idea ingovernment departments

It's only Tuesday and already it's been an interesting week for the world of digital rights. Not only did the British government changed the wording around its controversial 'three strikes' proposals, but the secretive anti-counterfeiting treaty, Acta, was back in the headlines. Meanwhile, a US judge is still deliberating over the Google book settlement.

As if all that wasn't enough, here's another brick to add to the teetering tower of news, courtesy of Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in law at the University of Edinburgh.

Guadamuz has done some digging and discovered that an influential lobby group is asking the US government to basically consider open source as the equivalent of piracy - or even worse.

What?

It turns out that the International Intellectual Property Alliance, an umbrella group for organisations including the MPAA and RIAA, has requested with the US Trade Representative to consider countries like Indonesia, Brazil and India for its "Special 301 watchlist" because they use open source software.

What's Special 301? It's a report that examines the "adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property rights" around the planet - effectively the list of countries that the US government considers enemies of capitalism. It often gets wheeled out as a form of trading pressure - often around pharmaceuticals and counterfeited goods - to try and force governments to change their behaviours.

Now, even could argue that it's no surprise that the USTR - which is intended to encourage free market capitalism - wouldn't like free software, but really it's not quite so straightforward.

I know open source has a tendency to be linked to socialist ideals, but I also think it's an example of the free market in action. When companies can't compete with huge, crushing competitors, they route around it and find another way to reduce costs and compete. Most FOSS isn't state-owned: it just takes price elasticity to its logical conclusion and uses free as a stick to beat its competitors with (would you ever accuse Google, which gives its main product away for free, of being anti-capitalist?).

Still, in countries where the government has legislated the adoption of FOSS, the position makes some sense because it hurts businesses like Microsoft. But that's not the end of it.

No, the really interesting thing that Guadamuz found was that governments don't even need to pass legislation. Even a recommendation can be enough.

Example: last year the Indonesian government sent around a circular to all government departments and state-owned businesses, pushing them towards open source. This, says the IIPA, "encourages government agencies to use "FOSS" (Free Open Source Software) with a view toward implementation by the end of 2011, which the Circular states will result in the use of legitimate open source and FOSS software and a reduction in overall costs of software".

Nothing wrong with that, right? After all, the British government has said it will boost the use of open source software.

But the IIPA suggested that Indonesia deserves Special 301 status because encouraging (not forcing) such takeup "weakens the software industry" and "fails to build respect for intellectual property rights".

From the recommendation:

"The Indonesian government's policy... simply weakens the software industry and undermines its long-term competitiveness by creating an artificial preference for companies offering open source software and related services, even as it denies many legitimate companies access to the government market.

Rather than fostering a system that will allow users to benefit from the best solution available in the market, irrespective of the development model, it encourages a mindset that does not give due consideration to the value to intellectual creations.

As such, it fails to build respect for intellectual property rights and also limits the ability of government or public-sector customers (e.g., State-owned enterprise) to choose the best solutions.

Let's forget that the statement ignores the fact that there are plenty of businesses built on the OSS model (RedHat, Wordpress, Canonical for starters). But beyond that, it seems astonishing to me that anyone should imply that simply recommending open source products - products that can be more easily tailored without infringing licensing rules - "undermines" anything.

In fact, IP enforcement is often even more strict in the open source community, and those who infringe licenses or fail to give appropriate credit are often pilloried.

If you're looking at this agog, you should be. It's ludicrous.

But the IIPA and USTR have form here: in recent years they have put Canada on the priority watchlist.

-----------------------END OF ARTICLE-----------------------

The fact that the RIAA, the most disgusting association in the history of man, is a member of this group is not terribly surprising.

Edited February 27, 2010 by rsn

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I would think open source would be the antithesis of piracy, unless Microsoft, et al, doesn't think user owns the files he creates using their software.

[scandal 951]

Everyone knows the slashdot crowd is just a bunch of tree-hugger leftist pinkos. I wouldn't be surprise if they all back cap™, immigration amnesties, and government provided healthcare, too. :devil:

[rsn 135]

I would think open source would be the antithesis of piracy, unless Microsoft, et al, doesn't think user owns the files he creates using their software.

The IIPA claims it is protecting the ability of customers to choose the best solution, unless that solution doesn't come from one of their buddies.

[Darnell 8,479]

Indonesia is a 'special case' - in that they (gov, companies, and private individuals)

historically have COPIED pirated versions of everything,

for use commercially.

The US Trade Rep Staffers could not get enough IP lawsuits done in Indonesia, so they've been tasked (IMO) to attack em on a different front.

FOSS software is cool, IMO - I use it for about 30 percent of my workload, with licensed products making up the other 70 percent.

Lets see how far this will go, ah?

Personally and Professionally, I'm anti-Piracy for all IP outputs (software, video games, DVDs, Music) - I have a huge stake in the game, and yes, I have lost my @ss in China with IP theft, once upon a time. Learn Hard, Live Hard.

[requested with the US Trade Representative to consider countries like Indonesia, Brazil and India for its "Special 301 watchlist" because they use open source software.]

[rsn 135]

Indonesia is a 'special case' - in that they (gov, companies, and private individuals)

historically have COPIED pirated versions of everything,

for use commercially.

The US Trade Rep Staffers could not get enough IP lawsuits done in Indonesia, so they've been tasked (IMO) to attack em on a different front.

FOSS software is cool, IMO - I use it for about 30 percent of my workload, with licensed products making up the other 70 percent.

This isn't about piracy at all. Canada is on the "Special 301 Watchlist". It's all about forcing foreign government to only do business with friends of the IIPA.

[Darnell 8,479]

rsn - I disagree. Cool!

[scandal 951]

rsn - I disagree. Cool!

rsn is cool peepz. We are friends IRL. He can be forgiven for the fact that he actually chooses to live in Wisconsin of all places. It's a flaw, but a minor one.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Guess I am Socialist too. I use open source a lot and when ever I need anything I am somehow able to find a free open source able to do any task.

[rsn 135]

rsn is cool peepz. We are friends IRL. He can be forgiven for the fact that he actually chooses to live in Wisconsin of all places. It's a flaw, but a minor one.

Actually it's not my fault. Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Besides, Wisconsin has cheese, and milk. And idiot Packer fans.

rsn - I disagree. Cool!

Darnell - I disagree with you disagreement. Wicked!

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hmmm....

Since most of the MA gov't offices uses OPEN SOURCE stuff, that makes MA an enemy of the state?

[mawilson 2,133]

I would think open source would be the antithesis of piracy, unless Microsoft, et al, doesn't think user owns the files he creates using their software.

Indeed... I don't get it. What does open source software licensing have to do with piracy

or copyright violations?

an influential lobby group is asking the US government to basically consider open source as the equivalent of piracy - or even worse.

If I wrote a piece of software, then I am the copyright holder for that software. I am free

to "license" my software any way I want to, including any number of open-source licenses.

The US government cannot take away my right to license my software any way I want to,

because no matter what license I choose I cannot force anyone to lose their rights - they

have to surrender them willingly and that is allowed (by an adult of legal consenting age).

That's basically the litmus test for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - you have all

of your rights until you try to take away the rights of another.

[luckytxn 2,265]

The idea is that they want you to be able to use their product exclusively and not another program to run something of theirs. I use an open source of office a lot. It can open and run MS office documents and pdf and most other similar programs that cost money to use. They hate that. I also pretty much use free open source for many other apps that is just as good as pay apps.

Microsoft brings a lot of this on themselves. Many years ago they and the city of Houston were at odds. Microsoft said the city owed them many millions for using their software and the city said they weren't. Microsoft demanded payment and threatened to sue. They sent investigators to prove they were using their product that were paid for on other machines not paid for. In fact they found no instances but still demanded money for past illegal use. The city of Houston then made a determination to go with all open source from then on and did. Microsoft never sued and lost a lot of business.

I also at this time decided to learn about open source and now use it almost always for everything. That publicity was good for my pocketbook but bad for Microsoft. I am sure all that high handed Microsoft threats and the ensuing publicity made others look at what open source was and many opted to use it. Why pay for a product when there is a quality free product. The one time I couldn't find a free open source product for a problem I was having I went to a forum about open source and asked about and many helped me with a free one and when I had problems using it they helped me to where I fixed a problem. That saved me about a hundred dollars as the paid programs wanted that much. It took a couple of hours to go through it all. The people that make the open source are very passionate about their product and keep updating it. They even allow anyone to have the source code to improve it even more.