[LINK] Use Open Source - You're a Pirate

[Frank O'Connor]

The latest intellectual foray by the reactionary forces of IP 
ownership makes interesting reading.

And these venal, no talent dicks are taken seriously by the 
Australian government.

					Regards,
---
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/feb/23/opensource-intellectual-property

When using open source makes you an enemy of the state

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