As consumers, we are not responsible for how a company intends to make money. If I buy something, I own it. If I license it, I explicitly know that it isn't mine. He bought it, its his. They don't get to say "this doesn't fit our business plan."
Some time ago I bought an iPhone, went though the contract, and then changed carriers. I put the iPhone in a box, where it remained for the next year.
One day I needed an iPhone to do some market research for a product I was making. "But wait, I _have_ an iPhone," I remembered. I took it out of the box and it didn't work; it was deactivated, because I'm not longer an AT&T customer.
I had to spend the next four hours of my life jail breaking that phone -- I still needed it -- to make the iPhone I have "sort of" mine. This is after paying for the device and for a year of service under contract. After all that money spent, I still needed permission from two separate companies to use something that was mine in the first place.
So after going though that experience, I don't really care if a company (startup or not) goes bust, come up with a better business model, not my problem. If I payed my money for it, I will do whatever I want with it.
'Piracy' seem to have evolved from making digital copies to Stuff That Short-Sighted Commercial Dude Don't Want You To Do.
Maybe somebody should create a list of hacker friendly and property right respecting companies so people don't buy stuff from companies like what is mentioned in the manifesto.
If you bought it, you own it. Period. Just do whatever you want.
It doesn't matter what the "commercial dude" wants. He's acting silly. You should laugh to his face. Literally or metaphoricly. In public. If he gets angrier it just shows other people what an asshole he is.
Note: I posted this to your posterous blog as well, but I want to hear what HN has to say about this.
When I first read about Emokit, I was really excited because the biggest barrier to entry in BCI research was being lifted. However, Emotiv is a startup, they're practically giving away the headsets for free because they expect to recover the expenses from the SDK licences they sell. Which is a good strategy since developers are the ones buying this thing right now. If Emokit becomes sufficiently mature and reliable, the number of licences that Emotiv sells will reduce, and I think we can count on the price of the headset going up.
What daeken is doing is great. As a relatively poor BCI nut, I am grateful for the work he has started. However, in this case, his work is breaking the business model of an innovative startup. Should emotiv just suck it up and adjust?
Edit: Of course, the piracy claims are just bullshit.
> However, in this case, his work is breaking the business model of an innovative startup.
I would argue that an innovative startup has bet on a broken business model. I didn't feel bad when the Xbox got hacked and Microsoft was selling us all (relatively) cheap PCs. I don't feel bad for the media industry that is trying to hold on to a broken business model. If Emotiv knew what they were doing, they knew they were taking this risk, and it's part of the initial cost to get their business going.
If they don't know what they're doing (on the business side), they're doomed anyway.
We should note that the subsidy is just speculation at this point, inferred from their knee-jerk reaction to daeken's work.
That being said, I was just thinking that Emotiv could stand to make a lot more money by removing the subsidy(if there is one) and embracing Emokit. The existence of a FOSS SDK would lead to drastically improved sales for Emotiv, despite the(possibly) higher price. Their manufacturing seems to be saturated, however-the EPOC is significantly back-ordered.
From my perspective, Daeken's work made me more likely to buy one of these devices, not less likely. It sucks that Emotiv chose a poor business model; and it's really too bad that they're too short-sighted to see how a passionate community of tinkerers and makers can be the road to their success.
Sounds a bit like the CueCat business model. It sounded bad back then, and it sounds bad now. It's cool that such a consumer device has come to market, and kudos to the clever folks who designed it, but everybody knows (or should know, anyway) that subsidizing hardware in this way is shaky ground to base a business upon.
I'd like to preface this by saying that I don't believe Cody has done anything wrong, and I agree with him about his rights.
That said, I'm a bit disappointed that a self-described hacker is taking such a narrow view of the idea of property. He starts out saying "It all comes down to one simple question: once you've purchased something, do you own it?" And that is the question— but it's not a simple one, not anymore. Intellectual property has changed the game fundamentally, and accepted ideas now need to be challenged.
This "manifesto" assumes inviolable rights contingent to ownership without discussion. Where is the intellectual curiosity? Where do you believe the rights of ownership derive from? What makes them valuable? Why should the nature of ownership be the way you want it to, as more and more of what makes a physical thing valuable is not contained in the value of its materials and the labor to construct it?
Define and defend your philosophy— and then you'll be in a much better place to argue it as it applies to hacking.
And when you go to do that, don't stop after saying "I can and I want to." There are people who disagree with you— convince them. What will be the outcome? Why is hacking actually good for the world? What are the risks? Why are they worth it?
Otherwise it's just an angry rant with "manifesto" written on top.
> Intellectual property has changed the game fundamentally
You know there's no such thing as "intellectual property". Property, or ownership, is a thing about physical stuff. Scarce stuff. Stuff you lose when others take it. Knowledge is so different that any analogy from the physical realm is bound to lead to critical misconceptions. (Just like anthropomorphism spur critical misconceptions about computers.)
What people actually refer to when they talk about "intellectual property" is intellectual exclusivity, or intellectual monopoly. Copyright and patent laws are about just that: the exclusive right to copy some data, or the monopoly over the usage of some idea.
Now we know that intellectual property doesn't exists, we also know that it couldn't have change the game at all. Actually, what did changed the game is the Ultimate Copying Machine, namely the internet. And as Copying Machines became more efficient, exclusivities and monopolies are harder to maintain. So naturally, those who have a stake in them stroked back.
Hence the term "intellectual property", one of the most effective propaganda oxymoron I have ever seen. See, "property" is a heavily loaded term, which has an extremely good connotation. The right to property is perceived to be fundamental (I think it is, by the way). And that does it. few see that this term glosses over the fact that knowledge can't be owned at all. But the emotional impact of the starving inventor and "stealing intellectual property" are such that it become very hard to see the flaws of this analogy.
Ideas are real-- as real as anything. Intellectual property is a fiction applied to ideas, just like physical property is a fiction applied to physical objects.
But of course physical objects don't follow the same rules as ideas do, so IP needs to have different rules from property. (We're still figuring out what the best rules are.) But the hard question we're talking about here is what do we do when most of the value of a physical object is in the idea that it represents, rather than it's physical nature? Should that fall under the fiction of physical property, or intellectual property? Or some third abstraction that hasn't caught on yet?
I think that's a hard question, and stopping after saying "I own it, it's mine" isn't doing justice to it or to the spirit of intellectual curiosity.
Ideas aren't real by themselves, in the sense that they aren't even a part of reality. Now the fact that we have ideas is definitely real, in the sense that having a idea is a physical process (some sort of brain chemistry).
I know I sound pedantic, but such confusion is the basis of many silly disputes, like the one that's about deciding whether ideas "out there" or "man made", while it doesn't actually change anything.
Now, you keep saying "property", but do you really think that any rule we should come up with are closer to physical property than exclusivity or monopoly? Frankly, the only IP rules I can come up with are directly a form of exclusivity or monopoly, and have nothing to do with ownership.
Now your question may be hard for you, but for me it's dead easy. I believe that all software should be free. That patents should be banished (including, if not especially, the pharmaceutical ones). That copyright length should be reduced down to 10 years tops, and it's scope limited to commercial exploitation. The only thing I'm not sure yet is whether we should abolish copyright altogether. Therefore, I believe that you should totally own what you rightfully hold in your hands, even if most its value comes from the idea it represents. I may make an exception for DVD and such, but when the object can do useful things beyond storing some pre-set data, then you should be allowed to do anything, including publishing the schematics and the firmware.
I was being pedantic in saying that ideas are real. An idea is the subjective experience of a brain state; there's nothing extra-real about that. It's not really possible to own an idea, but then if you deconstruct ownership, it's not really possible to own anything; all "property" is a legal fiction, so that by itself is a dead end.
Now, personally, I believe having access to more information is better than less. Purely on utilitarian grounds, I feel like I've seen pretty strong arguments that short-term patents and copyrights are great at incentivizing creation, which then lapses to the public creating greater good for all. Our IP system may be pretty broken, but that's a different subject.
You seem to be opposing IP categorically because of a moral judgment, but I don't understand what the principle is. You clearly have some consequentialist concerns, but they don't extend far enough to, say, allow a developer to earn a living by selling software. What's the moral value here?
More on point, why doesn't the same thing apply to physical property? Why is it okay for the government to tell you you're not allowed to drive "my" car, but not for them to tell you you're not allowed to reprint "my" book?
It sounds like we both read lesswrong. Good. :) I now understand your notions of "ideas" and "legal fiction", and I obviously agree with you on those points.
Now my moral judgement is mainly about freedom. More specifically where you draw the line between the freedoms of different people. Basically, I try to draw a reasonable one, where no one can significantly restrict the freedoms of others.
I can exemplify this best with the BSD vs GPL dilemma. Individually, the BSD licence gives total freedom, while the GPL doesn't. So at this first glance, the BSD licence is "more free". However, when you look closer, you see that the only important additional freedom the BSD licence gives you is the ability to proprietarize the licensed software. In other words, the freedom to take away the freedoms (1, 2, and 3) of your customers. Using that freedom is crossing my line, because I mostly care about individual freedom for the masses. Therefore, something that forbids you to cross this line is perfectly OK for me. I would go as far as accepting a law that would forbid proprietary software (private and custom software would still be allowed), at least when it comes to "useful" software. I still hesitate when such software is mostly art (like games).
Now, about selling software, well… The way we understand "selling" only applies to scarce stuff, like groceries, or books (the book itself, not it's embedded content). So, the only way to effectively sell software is to make it scarce. Scarce software is necessarily proprietary. So I view the sell of software as an immoral activity. Now I don't mind if you sell the labour of producing the first copy (as is the case with custom software). I don't mind if you charge $much for the privilege of getting a copy from you. I don't mind if you ask for donations. And I certainly don't mind if you sell support or hand holding (your time is scarce stuff).
If I use your car (even when you don't need it), it will get… used. Which mean you will be less able to use it in the future. Your car is scarce stuff. For your book, it depends. If I need to "use" your book (piece of paper) to reprint it, obviously that means you will be less able to hold it in the future. Also, even if I can get a copy of your book from you without damaging it in any way, you could still want to keep it secret. That's privacy, and I think it's crucially important. But when the state forbids me to reprint your book (piece of knowledge), of which I have a copy that I have legitimately acquired, then it's a direct restriction of my freedom to do something that doesn't directly restrict your freedom. In this case, the state better have a damn good reason to forbid me to reprint your book (like, otherwise you would write much fewer books).
In the end I'm not categorically opposed to IP systems. (I am opposed to the term "IP", because it's confusing.) But I think an IP system must have the burden of proof. It should present strong evidence that its benefits outweigh its costs, which in my opinion are quite high.
I'm realizing that I didn't clearly define "freedom" nor stated why I value it so much. Actually I can't, right now. I'll have to clear my head about that.
Intentions he's got, but I don't agree he stated his principles. Or rather, I don't think that "hacking is fun" and "you should be able to do whatever you want with something you own" are particularly compelling or rigorously declared principles.
Where do you believe the rights of ownership derive from?
Don't think of it terms of "rights." Think of it in terms of fairness. I don't get to control what you do with the money I paid for your product, so why should you get to control what I do with the product?
See that's just it— you're thinking of a cash transaction as traditional barter. I bring something, you bring something, we exchange them. Each of us loses what we owned before, each of us owns something new.
That's obviously not how information works, though.
An iPhone costs $600. Possessing an iPhone gives you, in theory, the capability to make new iPhones. However, the right to make your own iPhone would cost a lot more (if anyone would sell it at all). The difference falls under the umbrella of "intellectual property", and it's a lot of things; trademarks, copyrights, patents, probably lots of little trade secrets that aren't patentable, but nobody else has figured out yet.
To be explicit, of course, the ideas themselves don't have value. The value is the exclusive right to execution of the ideas, which is provided by the government. That's no different from physical possessions, though; my car would not be worth very much to me if I didn't have the right to exclusive control of my car guaranteed me by the government.
The point being this: You want to buy my gizmo. However, you've previously told me that when you get your hands on it, you're going to immediately take it apart, figure out how it works, and tell other people so they can make their own without coming to me. Obviously in this case, I don't gain from selling you the gizmo at any price— in fact it's probably worth a lot to me to keep you from getting one.
So either we both stick to our guns — you don't get a gizmo, I don't get any money, both of us are unhappy — or we compromise. I say, you can have it if you promise not to open it. You say you can't make that promise. I say, okay, I guess I don't mind if you open it as long as you don't tell anyone else what's inside. Since you're willing to make that sacrifice, I'm willing to let you have a gizmo for $50.
That's one way the conversation could go. There are a lot of other ways, as illustrated by the thousands of different ways there are to license IP— say I agree to let you make copies of the gizmo, but only for yourself, not to sell. Or I agree to let you tell people how it works, but only if you tell them that I made it originally. All of those things have value to me, and if their value isn't properly represented by your barter, I won't make the trade.
This is a hairy question— I sure don't have the answer to it. My only real point is that when we're talking about something so fascinatingly complex and delicate, you're doing yourself a real disservice going with your gut based on "fairness".
* The Emotiv business plan seems to be based on some game-console like cost structure where developers would pay Emotiv so that they can release software, with the 300$ headset being sold as a loss leader and then recoups the cost through people buying software. Emotiv's investors seem to like that business model.
* Having an open ecosystem around their EEG device would mean that the loss-leader business model doesn't work anymore and their investors are threatening to do ugly things if Emotiv doesn't get it under control.
Now, which one is it? "Hooray, we can build an EEG at a consumer-friendly (for some value of consumer) price"? Or "We had a broken business model from the start, but we're going to blame our users"?
Note that a slightly-expensive special-purpose device gets a significantly higher share of people interested in using it creatively than a tool that has a very obvious recreational and/or professional purpose, and already fulfills this purpose very well, such as a synthesizer keyboard.
Trying the game consoles business model on an EEG device is similarly sensible as selling a 300$ CNC lathe that you can only use with bought programs that were written by random other people with more money on their hands.
It's true that no-one should not assume that hardware tinkering is immoral. It would be so much smarter to encourage it. It's a way like another to get people engaged with your product. Tinkering, hacking, or re-purposing what you fully own is a natural process, a human right. You can't stop it. Unless you want consumers to revert to a state where we just know how to use tools, not make or modify them!!
All rights exist on a scale from absolute to nothing. Two individuals with free will cannot completely overwill the other. There must be balance to mazimize the rights of both parties. So it is with producers of products and owners of products.
If you buy something, you should have the right to do with it as you please for your personal use.
The producer of said good may implicitly or explicitly (see licenses and patents) retain some right to exclusive first sale of the product that you have purchased.
You still have the right to sell your good to another, but you do not necisarrily have the right to manufacture, distribute or produce it.
Does sharing your insights into the design of the product on the internet equate to publishing their design content? Apparently so, according to the accusers.
The internet especially has lowered the hurdles for anyone to compete in the intellectual property market. Some companies will fight tooth and nail for the rights or perceived rights to their IP.
As a contrast, check out the efforts of the Open Hardware Summit. The OHS is drafting an open source hardware license that people and companies can apply to their products clearly defines that the products design can be distributed, changed and shared.
>You still have the right to sell your good to another ... you do not necisarrily have the right to ... distribute ... it.
How is distributing something different from selling it? I just got a presentation at work today from a company, and they complained that a lot of their product was being resold by distributers, but there was nothing they could legally do to stop it besides only sell to individuals in small amounts.
I suppose I was thinking of selling the one physical device you own vs. manufacturing and distributing them en masse.
If you're still purchasing things from the original creator you should be able to distribute them all you want. Granted, at scale, commercial agreements and contracts would likely come into play.
Oh and by the way, it would be great to hear a lawyer on the issue here. This reminds me vaguely of so many debates on software and media IP. But hardware is vastly different. Legal POV?
Some time ago I bought an iPhone, went though the contract, and then changed carriers. I put the iPhone in a box, where it remained for the next year.
One day I needed an iPhone to do some market research for a product I was making. "But wait, I _have_ an iPhone," I remembered. I took it out of the box and it didn't work; it was deactivated, because I'm not longer an AT&T customer.
I had to spend the next four hours of my life jail breaking that phone -- I still needed it -- to make the iPhone I have "sort of" mine. This is after paying for the device and for a year of service under contract. After all that money spent, I still needed permission from two separate companies to use something that was mine in the first place.
So after going though that experience, I don't really care if a company (startup or not) goes bust, come up with a better business model, not my problem. If I payed my money for it, I will do whatever I want with it.