Iraqi Haqers
Brian Behlendorf (on a MAILING LIST (ew, how 1990s)) alerted me to this SlashDot Q&A with a reporter who helped start a Linux Users Group in Iraq.
Apparently Iraq used to be the The Land Without Linux. Our cultural imperialism has won us GNU converts! U S A This fact alone should be enough to convince anti-war nerds that we've done right by Iraq.
But he just doesn't know enough about Linux, since it was all but unknown in Iraq during Saddam's regime. I find that is typical--when I explain Linux to just about any Iraqi, they get it quickly and want it.
Saddam deprived the people of LINUX. The man was a monster. He had to go!
I was also reminded of this old Healing Iraq entry and photoblog about LAN cafes in Iraq:
Of course all the games we get are copies and we rarely find originals. There are (thankfully!) no such things as copyrights in Iraq. Which means you are able to buy a PS game for half a dollar. These games reach us the moment they are released in neighbouring countries.
It appears that Iraqi Freedom™ includes the the right to 0day warez. If only the US could have such Freedom™. They're way ahead Over There.
Comments
Didn't you hear? Irony is dead, at least online. Unless you weren't being ironic above, in which case, I'm hopelessly confused.
You can tell the difference between someone excited about the spread of Linux, and that same person noting, but not necessarily advocating, copyright infringement, I assume.
Posted by: Brian Behlendorf | February 3, 2004 01:21 AM
No, I gotcha, Irony is dead. Long live Irony.
I think a blog is a better idea for me than a mailing list because people will be less likely to think that my cynical comedic shorthand is an assault on them directly. If you think I was trying to confront, insult or critique you, I'm glad to tell you I wasn't! :) I'm not sure what point you think I was making re: you, I just wanted to give credit where credit was due.
I personally see free software and phr33 software as two parts of the disconnect between IP laws and the real world. Third world countries are the perfect example of how inadequate IP law is : these people couldn't dream of paying the retail price even if the product were being marketed there, which it isn't. Is it still "stealing"?
I'm reminded of Fat Tony :
Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
Tony: Enjoy your gift.
=darwin
Posted by: Darwin | February 3, 2004 11:29 AM
Actually, I didn't interpret it as a personal anything, don't worry. :)
I guess I am just concerned about any conflagration between open source developers and people who decide to disobey the law, even an unjust law. Copyright law is important to the way open source licenses work, and much of the drive towards open source projects comes from those who want the positive economics of using software for free with legal sanction for doing so. It's why the Chinese are going head over heals for Linux, and why Iraq should as well.
It's just my jerking knee I guess. :) I am quite concerned about whatever "IP" laws are being written into the new Iraqi constitution.
And yeah, there is ambiguity around whether someone using non-OSS software for free that they otherwise would never have bought anyways is "stealing". I recall a study that said that a given amount of piracy is a GOOD thing for a software company, as it helps establish a user base who would rather pay up when they have to, than switch. But as far as developing country economic policy goes, advocating OSS is much better than the alternative.
Posted by: Brian Behlendorf | February 3, 2004 02:09 PM
Agreed, I'm certainly not one to call for the elimination of IP. I just like to point out that water does, in fact, flow downhill. IP law that criminalizes non-commercial copyright infringement creates a world of criminals. The vast majority of copyright holders are not groovy IP citizens, and IMO have violated the intent of the copyright grant.
None of this, of course, justifies infringement legally. My preference is that whomever needs software be able to use it. If they use it for commercial purposes they should pay for it. If they play a game all the way through they should pay for it. If they are unable to pay for it, I do not see the feasibility of criminal enforcement of their anonymous, noncommercial infringement. In the mean-time, things like a photoshopping culture can develop. How many Farkers or Something Awful photoshoppers do you suppose bought their copy of Photoshop from Adobe for $2500 or whatever? :)
Open Sores software development is the answer to a lot of questions. For lots of tasks, however, there is only commercial software. There's often reasons for this. I acknowledge the need for IP in order for businesses to make money selling it, but
I personally think most non-commercial infringement does at least no harm, and at best some good to the copyright holder. Whether it does good for the end user is obvious. :)
=darwin
Posted by: Darwin | February 3, 2004 02:50 PM