7 ms·

The problem is deeper than that. Software has completely eroded property rights. I believe someone has coined the term "techno feudalism". Corporations own the

by yedava 2y ago

The problem is deeper than that. Software has completely eroded property rights. I believe someone has coined the term "techno feudalism". Corporations own the software and us serfs merely lease it.

CatWChainsaw 2y ago
Yanis Varoufakis.
Clubber 2y ago
>Corporations own the software and us serfs merely lease it. We were way more worried about that before GNU/Linux became a thing.
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  Serfs has very little choice over their situation. What piece of software do you need for your life, but you're forced to lease?
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    Code running on medical devices.
- userbinator 2y ago
  Now there are tons of devices running Linux, for which you may be able to see the source code, but are unable to modify it, for ostensibly "security" reasons.
ronsor 2y ago
> Software has completely eroded property rights. This is a great topic to discuss right after you accept the End-User License Agreement and Terms of Service.
majormajor 2y ago
> Software has completely eroded property rights. I believe someone has coined the term "techno feudalism". Corporations own the software and us serfs merely lease it. I think that's reversed - that's property rights being stronger than ever. "Own things forever and just rent them out" is NOT a weak formulation of property rights from the point of view of the producers of those things.
- aynyc 2y ago
  I think they meant basic concept of keeping the things you paid for, such as software, ebooks, musics, et.. Not actual housing market.
  - majormajor 2y ago
    I didn't mention the housing market? I was talking about anyone who produces goods (digital or physical). There's not an inherent privilege of purchasing over renting in property rights. In either case you're paying for something, it's just a different slice of that something. They're different transactions that can benefit the different parties different ways in different situations. But if technological development lets the owner get the financial rewards of selling through "licensing" that's hardly a reduction in the owner's rights - and it's hard to make a "pro-strong-property-rights" argument that's based in "people should be forced to sell on the buyer's terms, not their own."
    - esperent 2y ago
      > There's not an inherent privilege of purchasing over renting in property rights. In either case you're paying for something, it's just a different slice of that something I don't think there's anything inherently right about renting or owning. Rather, it's one of the things we need to learn about and decide which is better for our societies. Right now, we are far into testing the "renting" side, especially when it comes to housing and software, and it's very clear that, at least as currently implemented, this is creating an unhealthy society with massive wealth inequality. I don't have an answer to this, but the only people I see arguing for the status quo are the very few who have benefited from it - landlords, politicians, company execs etc. Or at least people who aspire to join those classes. If you do find yourself arguing for it, please ask yourself whether you're doing it for selfish reasons rather than looking beyond yourself.
TZubiri 2y ago
Stallman's contributions may have issues, but man his views on Intellectual Property stands on its own legs. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
- nottommo 2y ago
  Good read. I wonder how you get the average person to be interested in these issues.
  - crawfordcomeaux 2y ago
    Run for President in an attention-grabbing way without caring about winning and say it over & over?
    - avmich 2y ago
      Lawrence Lessig tried (not quite without caring about winning, but close), but that attention-grabbing didn't work out that well.
  - alexashka 2y ago
    You don't. The average person ought to do simple work and produce children, select few of which will have talent and integrity. These few have and always will make all the difference.
- prlin 2y ago
  That was interesting. I was hoping for him to dive deeper into specific cases but I suppose the essay was long enough. Any other recommendations (potentially from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html#Laws https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html#Laws)?
__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
Nobody owns software. Some people control it. Others, it controls.
phyzix5761 2y ago
[flagged]
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  I used to fork out $1200/year for just three apps. Nowadays, it’s about $800, and I have access to any of their apps I want (I still only use the three, though).
- realce 2y ago
  > I think the reality is most people are ok with not owning things. > By removing ownership from the product offering the seller can reduce the price. The price of ownership is greater than the price of licensing, as it comes with additional rights and privileges than licensing. If a product or good is only offered and priced without ownership, how can you say that people "are ok with" not utilizing an option that's not provided to them? They cannot purchase ownership, by what means could they experience the difference? The products you use as examples were wildly successful under an ownership paradigm, what says that Photoshop or N64 games would have been somehow better if they were licensed goods?
  - phyzix5761 2y ago
    I agree "The price of ownership is greater than the price of licensing, as it comes with additional rights and privileges than licensing." That's why it was more expensive to purchase a product with ownership rights. The reason I say people are ok with it is because the companies who didn't switch to a licensing model and kept their old prices either are no longer around or had to switch to a licensing model in order to stay competitive. If people were ok paying higher prices for the benefit of ownership then that's what we would see in the market today.
- sweeter 2y ago
  few companies actually offer products that you can just pay for. Its pretty rare and usually extremely celebrated when it happens. When it comes to things like housing and cars, very few people can buy a home and have to rent or take out gigantic loans. I wouldn't read this as "people are okay with not owning things" so much as "what choice is there?" and thats at the root of the problem. Monopolies and collusion have destroyed choice and competition which is supposedly the root of capitalism and neo-liberalism.
zeroonetwothree 2y ago
It's the producer of the software that has the property rights, not the user. If I own a piece of land, I can charge people to visit it, but I don't give up my property rights to do so. We don't see that as an "erosion" of property rights but rather the opposite.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
vundercind 2y ago
Not much software is really all that useful, let alone necessary, though. And only a little bit of that isn’t provided by one vendor or another as part of delivering whatever other actual service you were after (e.g. banking apps).
mesofile 2y ago
> I believe someone has coined the term "techno feudalism" Bruce Schneier, for one, not sure if anyone else had applied the feudal analogy before him. His remarks stand up quite well, I think: https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2012/11/when_it_comes_to_sec.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2012/11/when_it_com...
sp0d3rmun 2y ago
Unrelated but I love your username haha, wonder why I didn't think of it earlier.
mbostleman 2y ago
Property, that is, that didn’t exist prior to the wide use of software or SaaS platforms. Which begs the question, did the rights ever exist to be eroded in the first place?

by yedava 2y ago

The problem is deeper than that. Software has completely eroded property rights. I believe someone has coined the term "techno feudalism". Corporations own the software and us serfs merely lease it.

CatWChainsaw 2y ago

Yanis Varoufakis.

Clubber 2y ago

>Corporations own the software and us serfs merely lease it. We were way more worried about that before GNU/Linux became a thing.

IncreasePosts 2y ago
Serfs has very little choice over their situation. What piece of software do you need for your life, but you're forced to lease?
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  Code running on medical devices.
userbinator 2y ago
Now there are tons of devices running Linux, for which you may be able to see the source code, but are unable to modify it, for ostensibly "security" reasons.

ronsor 2y ago

> Software has completely eroded property rights. This is a great topic to discuss right after you accept the End-User License Agreement and Terms of Service.

majormajor 2y ago

> Software has completely eroded property rights. I believe someone has coined the term "techno feudalism". Corporations own the software and us serfs merely lease it. I think that's reversed - that's property rights being stronger than ever. "Own things forever and just rent them out" is NOT a weak formulation of property rights from the point of view of the producers of those things.

aynyc 2y ago
I think they meant basic concept of keeping the things you paid for, such as software, ebooks, musics, et.. Not actual housing market.
- majormajor 2y ago
  I didn't mention the housing market? I was talking about anyone who produces goods (digital or physical). There's not an inherent privilege of purchasing over renting in property rights. In either case you're paying for something, it's just a different slice of that something. They're different transactions that can benefit the different parties different ways in different situations. But if technological development lets the owner get the financial rewards of selling through "licensing" that's hardly a reduction in the owner's rights - and it's hard to make a "pro-strong-property-rights" argument that's based in "people should be forced to sell on the buyer's terms, not their own."
  - esperent 2y ago
    > There's not an inherent privilege of purchasing over renting in property rights. In either case you're paying for something, it's just a different slice of that something I don't think there's anything inherently right about renting or owning. Rather, it's one of the things we need to learn about and decide which is better for our societies. Right now, we are far into testing the "renting" side, especially when it comes to housing and software, and it's very clear that, at least as currently implemented, this is creating an unhealthy society with massive wealth inequality. I don't have an answer to this, but the only people I see arguing for the status quo are the very few who have benefited from it - landlords, politicians, company execs etc. Or at least people who aspire to join those classes. If you do find yourself arguing for it, please ask yourself whether you're doing it for selfish reasons rather than looking beyond yourself.

TZubiri 2y ago

Stallman's contributions may have issues, but man his views on Intellectual Property stands on its own legs. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

nottommo 2y ago
Good read. I wonder how you get the average person to be interested in these issues.
- crawfordcomeaux 2y ago
  Run for President in an attention-grabbing way without caring about winning and say it over & over?
  - avmich 2y ago
    Lawrence Lessig tried (not quite without caring about winning, but close), but that attention-grabbing didn't work out that well.
- alexashka 2y ago
  You don't. The average person ought to do simple work and produce children, select few of which will have talent and integrity. These few have and always will make all the difference.
prlin 2y ago
That was interesting. I was hoping for him to dive deeper into specific cases but I suppose the essay was long enough. Any other recommendations (potentially from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html#Laws https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html#Laws)?

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago

Nobody owns software. Some people control it. Others, it controls.

phyzix5761 2y ago

[flagged]

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
I used to fork out $1200/year for just three apps. Nowadays, it’s about $800, and I have access to any of their apps I want (I still only use the three, though).
realce 2y ago
> I think the reality is most people are ok with not owning things. > By removing ownership from the product offering the seller can reduce the price. The price of ownership is greater than the price of licensing, as it comes with additional rights and privileges than licensing. If a product or good is only offered and priced without ownership, how can you say that people "are ok with" not utilizing an option that's not provided to them? They cannot purchase ownership, by what means could they experience the difference? The products you use as examples were wildly successful under an ownership paradigm, what says that Photoshop or N64 games would have been somehow better if they were licensed goods?
- phyzix5761 2y ago
  I agree "The price of ownership is greater than the price of licensing, as it comes with additional rights and privileges than licensing." That's why it was more expensive to purchase a product with ownership rights. The reason I say people are ok with it is because the companies who didn't switch to a licensing model and kept their old prices either are no longer around or had to switch to a licensing model in order to stay competitive. If people were ok paying higher prices for the benefit of ownership then that's what we would see in the market today.
sweeter 2y ago
few companies actually offer products that you can just pay for. Its pretty rare and usually extremely celebrated when it happens. When it comes to things like housing and cars, very few people can buy a home and have to rent or take out gigantic loans. I wouldn't read this as "people are okay with not owning things" so much as "what choice is there?" and thats at the root of the problem. Monopolies and collusion have destroyed choice and competition which is supposedly the root of capitalism and neo-liberalism.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago

It's the producer of the software that has the property rights, not the user. If I own a piece of land, I can charge people to visit it, but I don't give up my property rights to do so. We don't see that as an "erosion" of property rights but rather the opposite.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

vundercind 2y ago

Not much software is really all that useful, let alone necessary, though. And only a little bit of that isn’t provided by one vendor or another as part of delivering whatever other actual service you were after (e.g. banking apps).

mesofile 2y ago

> I believe someone has coined the term "techno feudalism" Bruce Schneier, for one, not sure if anyone else had applied the feudal analogy before him. His remarks stand up quite well, I think: https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2012/11/when_it_comes_to_sec.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2012/11/when_it_com...

sp0d3rmun 2y ago

Unrelated but I love your username haha, wonder why I didn't think of it earlier.

mbostleman 2y ago

Property, that is, that didn’t exist prior to the wide use of software or SaaS platforms. Which begs the question, did the rights ever exist to be eroded in the first place?