menn (openuniverseunlimited)

menn

\n\n\n\nchapter 3: free culture \n\n\n"free culture" should be redundant. for most of human history, culture was free. there were other forms of censorship, but the only reason you couldn't copy things were you didn't have the ability, didn't have enough time or need, or because even the original was forbidden. \n\nforgery and fraud are other matters entirely. copyright is an insufficient measure against misrepresentation, and other laws exist to protect people from fakery. but free culture begins with the public domain. \n\nthe default of all creative works is freedom, until someone stands in the way. in england, prior to the american revolution, copyright was literally the right to print books, so the crown could forbid books from being printed. over time the concept of copyright changed from a regime of censorship to an incentive to create and a limited monopoly, but all along, copyright was the exception- and the public domain, the body of knowledge that everyone is free to use- was the rule. \n\nthe rule didn't change when america was founded with its own copyright concept, nor when the berne convention expanded a similar style of copyright into a global copyright empire. regarding powers that congress has, the constitution of the united states, article i, section 8 reads: \n\n"to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." \n\nnot only is this monopoly meant to be limited in time, but the purpose is to "promote progress" i.e., when a work is created, congress has the ability to grant a limited monopoly to the author, and in time that work enters the public domain. the author has an "incentive" to create, which (in the case of the united states, lasted 14 years with a possible 14 year extension) ultimately benefits the public. \n\nso began copyright in the united states, which continues to provide a model for copyright for the rest of the world. and when the industry in the u.s. wants more control abroad? trade agreements, like the korean free trade agreement, offer other countries exclusive channels to goods in exchange for enacting harsher copyright regimes there. \n\neventually this time limit which the public waited for to have the freedom to interact and share the expression of ideas was expanded, from 14 years (28 max.) to 28 years (56 max.) and so on, until today, where they "limited time" monopoly on a work such as a book, film, drawing, computer program, or even a few seconds of music- lasts for the life of the author plus- 75 years. \n\npopular works are usually promoted by a corporation, and the limit there is life of the author plus 95 years. if britney spears lives to be 100, "hit me baby one more time" could be out of public hands for almost as long as it's been since the writing of the united states constitution. (by the way, u.s. government-authored works- provided they are not secret of course- are public domain. you can make as many copies of the constitution as you like.) \n\nthose aren't the only ways in which copyright has expanded. sampling and remixing, which became more popular in the 1980's with digital equipment (before that, turntables were used) was not ruled as copyright infrigement across the board until the 1990's. before that, it would have been much more difficult for the rolling stones to sue the verve over the small handful of notes they sampled as the backdrop for "bittersweet symphony" (the rolling stones won all rights to the song, based on these 12 or so notes, over which an entire new body of lyrics were written.) \n\nworst of all, after changes made to copyright in 1976 made copyright the default state of creative works, suddenly any work- regardless of registration or notice- was copyrighted the moment it was put in some fixed form- take a photo, draw in crayon, write a poem, record a song- or any other kind of audio or video- and these works automatically fall under copyright. it's not so bad for you, the author (unless you want to say, put someone else's photo in your book for instance) but in short it means that all culture is suddenly locked up in legal bureaucracy for a minimum of 75 years. \n\neven worse still, you aren't required to register that work in the copyright office anymore, so finding the author or even the exact date of works becomes at best a monumental challenge. throw in harsher and harsher penalties for infringement - like losing the rights to your own song for a small handful of notes from another song, and what you have is nothing short of madness. who owns our culture? a group of large corporations, or the public? \n\nwe still have a public domain, although it's growing older and sparser with time, indeed most of it is in black and white- or printed, but every time mickey mouse is about to fall into the public domain, lobbyists paid by the disney corporation push to expand copyright terms even further. every time this happens, we get farther from a "limited time" monopoly and closer to "perpetual copyright on the installment plan," as it's called by free culture advocates. \n\none thing we still have is "fair use." this is a general rule that says basically: although you can still be sued for infringement, there are conditions that allow you a limited use of copyrighted material, so that you might be able to defend it (and thus often even avoid being sued.) the conditions include: how much (or rather how little) of the work is used, how much it "competes" with the original work, and what the work is used for. when people quote other texts for the purpose of commentary, that's fair use at work. it sometimes even works as a defense for including pictures and video. \n\nyou can also try getting permission to use the work- that's always an option, in theory. in practice, uses that have traditionally been defended as "fair use" anyway are being refused, and if you're not a large company with many lawyers (sometimes even if you are,) fair use is a narrower option than it might sound like at first. \n\nin many countries, like canada, fair use does not even exist! so while in the united states you might be able to use a video clip from the news to make a humorous comment about a politician without even asking, (and good luck with getting a "yes" from a giant news company...) in canada you need permission first. \n\ncanada- and some other countries- have have something called "fair dealing" which is a list of ways copyright material can be used without permission, but it's incredibly specific. it's actually a list of finite actions you can take in prescribed, "what if" situations. \n\nanother incredible example of overzealous copyright is something called "deep links," which you probably see all the time. if i tell you to go a page on say, the bbc news website, that's all well and good, you probably know how to get to the bbc website and i can tell you if you don't, but what if i want to tell you how to get to a specific page? it would be awkward to tell someone "go to the site, then click on 'world news', place the cursor in the search bar, and search for 'anti-counterfeiting trade agreement.'" it would be incredibly awkward to do this for a whole list of links. \n\nthe obvious answer to that problem is to provide "deep links," or links to specific pages on a website. a link to a certain page is longer than the address of the website itself, and while no one would argue whether i could tell someone "look in [title of book,] chapter [x], page [y], paragraph [z]," in some countries this is "fair use" and in some it isn't! \n\nneedless to say if we're going to share ideas in the 21st century it's going to be uphill at this rate. and it is already- people who upload home videos of their toddlers dancing to youtube have to fight against prince because his song was playing in the background. madonna has HER OWN music videos removed from youtube by warner music because she doesn't really "own" them. she's not alone, a lot of artists would like to upload their own material to youtube, but the list of reasons it may be taken down go far beyond signing contracts with warner. \n\nyoutube is trying to address some of this with a "fair use" button, but always remember, fair use is not universal. in fact the public domain isn't universal either- in the uk, the king james version of the bible is under "perpetual copyright" and can only be copied and redistributed without the crown's permission in countries outside the uk. in some countries you can submit your own work to the public domain, in some you can't. in those countries, how would you share your work freely even if you wanted to? \n\nif fair use is not universal, and even the public domain isn't universal, what is? people who want to offer and use the same "4 freedoms" of free software for free collaboration, and larger distribution can do the same thing free software authors do- use a license. \n\nthe gnu gpl license is not ideal for creative works, for one it requires "source code" to be available- that requirement doesn't always make sense. plus, if you want to say- print a book, do you want to be required (or require others) to include a cdrom or some other kind of electronic copy? the gpl is ideal for free software, not free culture. \n\nthere is a gnu license for free documentation, called the gnu fdl (for "free documentation license") but some free culture advocates point out that it allows "invariant sections" which makes some fdl-licensed works quite different from gpl-licensed software- an "invariant section" in gpl code is called a "binary blob" and is criticized by the free software foundation for being "non-free." we'll get back to this issue of invariant sections during the following explanation of free culture licenses. \n\nlawrence lessig, a law professor at harvard university and stanford university (and now harvard again,) was troubled by this problem of copyright run amok and (inspired by free software licenses,) set out to make the various freedoms that may be granted or limited by the public domain, or by copyright law, or even fair use- something that could be explicitly granted, much as the 4 freedoms are granted by free software licenses. \n\nin 2005, he started an organization called creative commons, with the purpose of offering copyright owners (like you and me) an opportunity to share our culture, to release our works with licenses that grant each other the freedom to collaborate with a minimum of bureaucracy, without managing complicated lists of rights granted to countless individuals- instead, why not simply license creative works in a way that lets us choose and grant these permissions along a spectrum between the familiar "all rights reserved," and the public domain. \n\ncreative commons licenses work on several layers. first, each license offers a "human readable" version. this version is not a legal license but it tells you what the license offers you, the user of the work. second, there is a legal license, written in lawyerese. this is more explicit about what is and isn't allowed by the license, and gives actual substance to the "human readable" version. lastly, there is an "rdf" or in other words: "computer readable" version of the license, so that if you place your works in a public directory, they are easier to search for by say... whether you can use the work "commercially." \n\nso the most permissive layer of creative commons or (cc) licenses is the public domain. the "cc pd" or public domain license is only useful to you in countries where the public domain can be utilized or added to, or for works which have expired (or were never copyrighted.) in other words, it's all well and good that there's a public domain, it's very important, but this is not the license to choose for the internet. \n\ni am still in the habit of submitting works to the public domain, but i am growing out of this habit because as i've explained, the public domain only goes so far. instead, creative commons recently created a "cc0" or "zero universal" license, which (being a legal license) is more able to offer the same rights to everyone, everywhere. if you don't want to have any copyright at all, or if you don't want to reserve any rights to the work and you want everyone everywhere to be able to use it for anything- this is the license to use. it's new, but it's the only serious license of its kind. \n\n(there are less serious licenses which say things like "do whatever the [heck] you want." i am not a lawyer, but i strongly recommend you avoid these licenses, even though they are not unlikely better than nothing.) \n\nmost people so far, do not want to release their work under cc0 (or the public domain,) but some do. it is also recommended for scientific data or statistics (which should be free anyway) that people want to release in a way that may be freely reused. \n\nbeyond the public domain, the spectrum of cc licenses varies. all licenses (beyond cc0 and the public domain) require attribution. in cc-speak this is called "by" as in, "who the work is by." \n\nalong with "by," other clauses in cc licenses include "nc," "nd," and "sa" which stand for "non-commercial," "no derivs," and "share-alike" respectively. \n\n"non-commercial" licenses are very popular, because you can let people use your work freely, unless they want to use them "commercially" in which case they have to ask the author permission. thus you can use this license and if people want to create a business around your work, they have to get your permission. (and you may have the opportunity to go into business with them, or collect royalties, or sell the rights.) of course, if they can simply find a similarly suitable work that isn't licensed with "nc," then you just lost a chance at noteriety. \n\ninsomuch as "free culture" is modeled after free software, "nc" means it is not a free cultural work. there is no such thing as "free software" for "non-commercial use only" because having the freedom to develop the software further and sell what you've added to is part of the 4 freedoms. at first this may seem kind of radical, but if you cannot build a business that develops software, the code is far less useful. lots of people working together on software cannot always all be contacted to negotiate the terms for commercial use, and even in culture works this begins to lead to many of the same problems as in works that are not cc-licensed. \n\n"no-derivs" works are the pits. like any other "all rights reserved" work, you can't do anything with them other than "consume" them, (and unless they are printed, they contain no dietary fiber) though unlike other works, you can share them "as-is." if they are not also "nc" you can even sell them- you just can't change them. you can create collections of no-derivs works, but you cannot "sync" them, say with video. if you have a piece of "nd" music, you cannot use it in a youtube video, even if you use the entire, otherwise unedited song. \n\nbefore we go further, let's talk about the different ways "by," "nc," "nd," and "sa" can be combined. these clauses or license types combine to form cc licenses, and it's no good to say your work is simply "cc licensed," you have to specify "which one" because they offer different rights: \n\ncc0: this is standalone. cc0 gives all rights to everyone, everywhere. \n\npd: this is standalone. pd is only possible and only useful in some countries. \n\ncc by: this can be standalone. the only requirement of "by" is attribution- although attribution (or is it share-alike?) also includes that you cannot use "drm" to make the work uncopyable. i believe all "by" licenses forbid drm though. \n\nalso, if you use someone's work, you are expected (either by the license, or to prevent misrepresentation, or simply out of reason) to note changes you've made to the work. i think you can get away with a note like "work reorganized, sections added, some spelling errors fixed." but passing off YOUR derivative work as the verbatim work of someone else's is frowned upon at the very least, and may be cause for legal action in some countries. (you can't very much blame them.) this is important to keep in mind with "nd" because it's part of why nd is such a lousy idea. \n\ncc by-nc: nc is never its own license, it is always in the company of "by" at least. \n\ncc by-nd: nd is never its own license. \n\ncc by-nc-nd: (attribution non-commercial no-derivs) nc and nd can combined to license something that can't be edited, and can only be used non-commercially. this combination is utterly worthless to users, except they can enjoy and share the work unedited and for free, without being sued. this should be the default of all works that fell under copyright- and it used to be. but we'll get back to that, too. \n\ncc by-sa: share-alike is never it's own license, it always includes "by" at least. \n\ncc by-nc-sa: (attribution non-commercial share-alike) nc and sa can be combined to license something that is share-alike and can only be used non-commercially. \n\ncc by-nd-sa ... there is no such license. if you can't change the work, you can't do much to change the license, nd is essentially "sa" by nature. \n\ngetting back to why nd is a poor choice for sharing or freedom, nd works cannot be "truncated," or changed. the license does allow for "format-shifting" although not everyone realizes or honors this. i have actually seen an "ogg [theora] video" licensed "nd" which forbade converting from theora to some other format. \n\nthis is incredibly shortsighted- the reason they didn't want such format-shifting was they wanted to promote video that wasn't "encumbered" (threatened) by patents, such a mpeg-4 is threatened, but the patents will expire before the copyright (and thus the cc license,) so even when the patents are irrelevant, the license will stop the sake kind of free use the video "format" was developed to provide. this is not only stupid, but totally backwards. \n\nplus, ogg theora is not the only free codec (it's inaccurate, but let's just say "format" to keep things simple) out there. there is dirac, and soon there will be vp8. these are/will likely be just as free as ogg theora, so why forbid them? there's only one reason: not thinking ahead. \n\npeople are not thinking ahead (or at all,) when they license a blog or other website text with "nd" either. yes, the permission to shift formats may allow people to remove the html from the text, which changes the appearance (derivative work? probably not) but only in terms of format. and they may have to, because the while the text may be cc licensed, its appearance may come from a template which is not- all this complication just to keep people from changing your text! and, you have to know where the text starts and begins- PRECISELY where. and the author rarely tells you. so complying with the letter of the license is an obstacle course at best. not what cc licenses are for- they're meant to simplify sharing. \n\n"nd" should have never been part of creative commons licenses. but again, the one way in which they're not totally useless is for "binary" works like photos, graphics, and audio and video, because at least they decriminalize sharing. but as someone licensing a work you can do better than that. don't be afraid of people misrepresenting your work, there are other laws besides copyright specifically for that purpose- probably even in your country. richard stallman isn't afraid of people writing bad code based on his code, but doesn't think people should have the same rights to text they have to software code. i think this is shortsighted. people have to take credit for their changes. \n\nfunnily enough, while stallman essentially agrees that any work should be freely sharable along the lines of by-nc-nd (that is, ANY work should be non-commercially sharable if you make no changes) lessig belives something incompatible- that the best argument (i'm paraphrasing and may get this wrong) for sharing a work is if you change it or "add value" to the work. if we left free culture up to the two of them together, it could get very confusing. \n\nbut that's where we are with free culture- it's largely based on, and inspired by, free software, but the two rarely meet. wikipedia, wiserearth, and identi.ca are three examples of services running free software that use free culture licenses, but most free cultural works are made or edited with non-free software, and most free software projects do not embrace free culture in any way other than to make included graphics and sounds as free as the software they're made for. free software blogs too rarely (but sometimes) use free licenses, and "nd" licenses (or the same like) are used by some, including by stallman. \n\ni personally think that if free software makes sense, if "nc" has no place in free software and "nd" is deeply discouraged at best, there's no reason software should have a higher standard of freedom than the rest of our culture. it wouldn't be so bad if these cultural works fell into the public domain after say, 10 years- and stallman supports this, but as he says his primarcy concern is software, not cultural works. i feel this is slowly changing in him and for the better. but i see no reason to wait for him to get on board and see that free culture should be just as free as free software. "nd" is an abomination. \n\nwith "nc" at least there is more reason, i feel there is no good reason for "nd." in fact it used to be (this is after united states copyright existed) you could copy any work- even commercially! if it was derivative. so nd isn't just a step back in time, it's a step all the way back and then it goes farther in that negative direction than history itself. today you need permission to make a movie from a book, even if you write the movie. i think greed, not reason, is behind that. it's not worth it, the cost to our culture is too great that we need permission to make movies based on books, or that we have to get permission to make a birthday cake with mickey mouse in icing on it. \n\nbut with nc the biggest problem is that no one really knows what "non-commercial is. a lot of people have a pretty good idea, and there's a lot of overlap and agreement, but a recent study showed just how much people differ on their idea of what is and isn't "nc," so ideally, they wouldn't complicate it by using a license with "nc" in it. but that's a bigger thing to ask of people than "ditch 'nd.'" \n\nall the things that make these things even remotely tolerable- fair use and the public domain mostly- are not global in nature. the easing of this restriction is local- the restriction is more global, and only becoming moreso. we really can't wait for free software to see how vital free culture is, or for free culture to see how vital free software is- we need to all work to bring them together in freedom, for our culture's sake. \n\nif there is a light at the end of the tunnel, it's that the more aware people become of the problems (and solutions) regarding culture and copyright (and patents and trademarks, but please don't call them "ip" because that's a trick) the more they start to think ahead. cory doctorow (rather famous author of cc books both fiction and non-fiction, if you haven't heard of him) and allison crowe (ditto, but for music) started with by-nc-nd licenses. they have both switched to by-nc. if big name artists and authors can not only use cc licenses, but switch from ones that don't allow "remixes" to ones that do, i feel there is real hope. the question is, will YOU be part of that hope, or will you be part of the shortsightedness? the next several decades will tell. \n\ni have chosen a cc by license for this book, just as nina paley chose for her film, "sita sings the blues." i love this movie, and i think nina paley is by far one of the coolest free culture advocates out there, and i recommend you see it. because of the cc by license, you can watch the movie, download it without worry of being sued, share it with friends, remix it, sell copies- you have all 4 freedoms. (pity it wasn't also made with free software, but hey, you can watch it in ogg video- on the internet archive, or on youtube. or buy the dvd...) \n\n"sita" is a feature-length, animated film, and you might think "whoa, who would be crazy enough to let other people sell copies of their film?" and the answer is: nina paley. but she does a great job of explaining why this really isn't so crazy (and a better job of demonstrating it) than perhaps any other free culture advocate. so be sure to check out some of these ideas at http://questioncopyright.org (just please watch out for any propaganda from the voluntary human extinction movement. seriously i don't get those guys, at all- they're insane. read daniel quinn and "the little engine that couldn't" first, it's a much more balanced and reasonable way to look at overpopulation.) \n\nother than that, paley is required reading for anyone that wants to be part of the 21st century. take your first step into a larger world. \n\nnow i have written a chapter about free software and a chapter about free culture, but i have given so few examples of either! and i really wanted to make that part of the previous chapter (before i'm done editing the book, i might,) but before we go any further, i am going to share a ton of free software and free culture works with you, here in this very chapter. \n\nthese are works you can use, study, modify and share, and just to be charitable (and because there are so many) i'll throw in some non-commercial cultural works, and one "no-derivs," by stallman himself. after all, free software and free culture existed before stallman and lessig, but only they took them and made them a way of life for (potentially) everyone once again.

menn

two things missing so far: talking about mainframes in "my computer" (cloud is a step backwards) and never got to how i think "tactic" isn't a totally fair word if the intention is not dishonest (i doubt it is actually)

menn

chapter 2: free software \n\n\nin the last chapter, i referred to people dedicated to the idea that you should be free to use your computer like it's something you own. that idea is commonly known as "free software." it's a fact that some people confuse this with something called "freeware," but the difference is important- and free software has in many ways, been popular for much longer than freeware has. \n\nbefore we compare them, let's define "free software." the official defnition is maintained by the free software foundation, and the definition consists of 4 freedoms. it's customary to simply include the definition in the text of whatever talks about free software, but for this edition let's try simplifying. in short, and with a fair amount of liberty taken, the 4 freedoms (ordered by obviousness) are: \n\n0. to use the software. \n1. to study the software. \n2. to share the software. \n3. to modify the software. \n\nas long as you have all 4 freedoms, there's no question about whether you can share modified software or modify shared software, of course you can, but the official definition is more explicit about these things. \n\nat first you may look at freedom 0 and wonder to yourself if there's any point in mentioning it. it's sad that we live in a world where it's even necessary to say that if you buy software, you should be free to use it. but that's not the reality today, a lot of software does not come with the freedom to use it. drm, which is supposed to prevent people from making (and selling) unauthorized copies, does no such thing. \n\nwhat it does do more effectively is penalize the people who purchase authorized copies from authorized dealers- drm places restrictions on use that hurt customers, while people who want to make illegal copies simply break the locks (which often makes the software more usable.) unauthorized copies and their sale continue, while people honest enough to pay for the locked copies get a somewhat broken, inferior product. \n\nthere's an interesting exception to this freedom so eloquently pointed out by terry hancock in his book "achieving impossible things with free culture and commons-based enterprise" which like this book, has a chapter devoted to free software and a chapter devoted to free culture. (indeed i find his book so inspiring i have to struggle to try to make this book different than his.) that exception is a thing called "copyleft," which is a pun on "copyright" and a mandate to "pay-it-forward," or in other words- offer the same freedom to others that you have with a particular work. \n\nfor example, one of the most popular (and one of the more innovative) licenses for free software is the "gnu general public license," a license designed specifically to spread the 4 freedoms and free software. it contains a prime example of the idea of copyleft, in that the 4 freedoms the gnu gpl license offers to you must carry over to anyone you share the software with. it does not, you'll be glad to know, require you to make copies for people. but it gives you the freedom to make copies for people, and then because of the "copyleft," you cannot deny the 4 freedoms to anyone "downstream." \n\none thing the freedoms to study and modify the software require is the "source code" for the software. in some software, much of the software written in javascript or python for example, the sourcecode and the code you actually run are the same thing. but lower-level or more computing-intensive software can be written in languages like c where all you may get is a lot of symbolic gibberish, unintelligible even to a computer scientist, and so with copyleft you must obtain and share the more legible source of these programs if you make copies, so the copies may also be studied and modified. a free software license which does NOT require you to pass the same freedoms along is called a "permissive" license. \n\nnow that you've been given a thorough explanation of what free software is, you may have noticed that the price of the software is not mentioned anywhere in the explanation. that's because the point of free software has nothing to do with price. it is a notable side effect of the freedom to make and share copies that you can do so without charging money for them, and thus very often without being charged money for them. however you are just as free to charge for copies, and this is a good thing- you may want to sell copies on media that is not inexpensive, or you may want to sell copies and split the money with the free software foundation, or with the company that maintains the software. these are worthwhile practices, and the concept of free software is not anti-business, anti-profit, or anti-money. it is anti-subjugation, and by nature anti-monopoly. \n\nthe free software foundation, founded by richard stallman to promote freedom for all users of software, began its mission in 1985. but stallman was inspired by a kind of freedom that was far less deliberate. in earlier days of computing, it wasn't a given that software was monopolistic, controlled excessively by copyright or patents, or even that you had to ask to use it to make your own software. in his youth, stallman enjoyed the very sort of freedom that the free software foundation exists to promote and preserve. \n\nit was only as copyright law became more restrictive and companies began to build software monopolies that this freedom began to be truly threatened. by the mid 1980's, companies like microsoft had exploited the ease in which someone may obtain software to build a codebase with, and begun their role in locking out the next generation from doing the same and thus compete fairly. for business. but the struggle against this new monopoly had already begun. \n\nthe 1980's saw an explosion in computing, having progressed from the business use of large corporations in the 50's through the hobby of the most hardcore nerds of the 70's to smaller businesses using pc's, and more and more people starting bringing computers into their homes. television game consoles started to be matched and many pushed into cabinets or closets by these new home computers, and those with interest or means even connected to public "bulletin boards" by local telephone to share ideas, files, or even software. a lot of the software was shared without permission, but sharing provided an opportunity to authors, even those who made software without giving much freedom to the users. \n\n"shareware" was proprietary software that anyone could redistribute. making users into voluntary redistributors was part of the business model. there was a "shareware" version of the game or utility, and it would come with the very limited freedom to try the software for a certain number of days, often about a month, at which point you no longer had permission to use the software unless you paid the author to register your copy. often the software would "nag" the user, even pause before allowing the game to be played or the utility to be used, to help encourage registration. some games went as far as to lock themselves after the time period and refuse to run, although those measures were often trivial for many people to defeat. some shareware, poularly referred to as "crippleware," didn't have full functionality until it was registered. games might offer bonus levels to registered users. \n\nperhaps the reason no one really confuses the shareware that took hold during that era, with free software, is that free software was not as widespread in those days, and shareware isn't nearly as important today. indeed, "free software" is more about sharing than it is about price. but the real "shareware" craze came and went, and as the once popular titles were abandoned, people could no longer pay to unlock their additional features or remove their nags. in time it became more realistic to migrate from the "shareware" model, to admit the inevitable defeat of nags and locks and simply write "freeware." \n\n"freeware," as a trend, could easily be described as "shareware 2.0.," although there are some differences that make the progression less than clear. computer historians will almost certainly have evidence of freeware prior to the shareware craze, and the most distinguishing characteristic of shareware is that you could share it- which often did not (and does not) apply to "freeware." \n\nwhile you could get a legitimate copy of a shareware title- the permission to share the software, at the very least for the initial time period- was explicit- this is far less common with freeware, and many people redistribute freeware illegally, violating copyright law (as no permission to share is requested or offered) in the often innocent but innaccurate assumption that it is like shareware. freeware may have nags, time limits, or be crippled prior to registration, but as bulletin boards were slowly replaced by websites, it was less vital (though in my opinion, no less of a good idea) to rely on people sharing copies when they could just share the url, or link address to the version that was "free of charge." \n\nthe internet did not just push the shareware trend towards freeware, it brought a second explosion in personal computing. if the first half of the united states had been convinced in the 15 years between 1980 and 1995 that they needed a computer, then it would seem nearly the other half has been convinced by the emergence of widespread internet access. within 5 years you could go to walmart and purchase a free software operating system to replace windows, although i'm not sure just how many people did. within another 5 years, you could install and use ubuntu (another system that is at least mostly, free software) much more easily, and today almost anyone that can use a computer can install a free software operating system almost as easily as they can install the firefox web browser in windows. \n\nwe've had free software, as defined and promoted by the free software foundation, for 25 years, and an ever more usable, functional operating system to run free software for nearly 20 of those years. and we're still moving forward. to confuse that accomplishment with "freeware" just because of the word "free" is understandable, but only in a world where monetary price is of more daily concern than personal freedom. when people say america is great because "our land is free," no one assumes that means they can take all the land without cost (at least, not in the past 200 years.) \n\nwhat it means is that many people have not given up on the idea that people should have freedom. and that's exactly what it means people say free software is great "because it's free." if that's confusing, it's only because the idea of being free to use your own physical property on your own terms is foreign to you. and that's extremely sad. computing has become a more and more inescapable part of our lives, and to not have freedom apply to it, too, is to lose too much freedom from our daily existence. \n\ni would go so far as to say that understanding free software, which is "free as in freedom," could be the next generation's key to understanding freedom in all other contexts. if it makes you proud to read about the struggles for civil rights through the 50's, 60's and 70's, if you long to see a similar push for freedom in a digital age, look no further than the pushes for free software, free culture, and net neutrality. they are far from being the only movements than matter. indeed since the 70's, the many pushes for many freedoms have become far too divided and easily ruled. \n\nthe movements of the civil rights era were diverse and many, and far from perfect struggles. today is not different in that regard, but even in an age of global, round-the-clock communication, we have lost some of our ability to come together and stand against oppression. this 24-hour, global communication is just one of many things threatened by the control and co-opting by and from non-free software and other monopolistic businesses and practices. \n\nthese networks were designed in a distributed fashion, they were built with tax money from all of us, built to connect researchers and enable us to communicate. they were built in a way that allowed unprecidented freedom and progress. they were built in a way that helped to create a global village, and we cannot stand by and let this greatest invention since the telegraph be taken out of our hands, and placed in the hands of people who care only about what they can make us do, make us pay, make us read and watch, for lack of options. we must keep this electronic frontier free- "as in freedom." \n\nwhat lessons are to be learned from this push for- among other things- the freedom of speech, have only just begun. we cannot live sustainably in a world that is "top down," monopolistic, excessively controlled, and we our global networks, with peer-to-peer communication and often, peer-to-peer control, offers countless models for a future of enabled, free human beings. \n\nof course the free software movement is not a monopoly, that isn't to say it has no backbone or integrity or common principles. the key principles of the free software movement are the 4 freedoms, although without other ideas like honesty and human compassion the 4 freedoms would not get as far. the urge to exploit (or even cooperate with) both corporations and traditionally non-free software companies (remember, free software is not anti-money or anti-business, but it is by its nature anti-monopoly, and deliberately against subjugation of the user) is strong and arguably natural. who doesn't want as many allies as possible? but then it is wise to remember to choose your allies carefully. \n\nin obvious ways, the "open source" movement is an ally to the free software movement. it is not the same thing at all. as you may recall from this chapter, the "source" code is necessary for many programs to be modified and studied, two of the 4 freedoms depend on this source, and to pass on the 4 freedoms you must pass on copies of the source with copies of the software. (this can be easy enough. if you put the software online for downloading, simply put the source up for downloading too. you don't have to worry if people download the source or not, just so long as they have the option.) \n\n"open source" began as a way to promote free software to people who might be uncomfortable with the phrase "free software" or the activist tone of the movement. one of the most notable and valuable successes of the open source movement is the contribution of the mozilla suite by the former owners of netscape. this contribution was made not by netscape alone, but by the countless volunteers and some paid employees who brought mozilla from a tangled, proprietary mess to a state where it could actually be maintained and added to openly and easily as a free software endeavor. the open source movement played a key role in this transition, helping to convince netscape to allow their software to live on. \n\nthe open source movement is a valuable ally, but not all of its allies are valuable to the free software movement. it should not be too surprising that a movement which by its very nature is harmful to monopoly is not appreciated by monopolies. the relationships between free software and monopolies like apple and microsoft are as strange as can be. \n\napple's greatest operating system ever is built from things which happen to be free software, but because the licenses for the free software they chose were not copyleft, apple was free to build on them and produce things which afforded no such freedom to people "downstream" of the process. thus apple enjoys freedom, but it goes out of its way to lock down its users in ways that can only be described as "horrific." a classic example of drm gone wrong is when someone has made videos of their baby's first steps (or the like) and they find their video has been stored in a format and protection scheme that makes the video deliberately (rather than incidentally) stop working when they get a new computer or new software. \n\ndespite all the multimedia tools apple promoted through the 90's, their motives appear to someone who doesn't know any different to be primarily about making every pc from a production device to a consumption device. services like itunes and their appstore contribute to their monopolistic practices. they will use software that other people wrote for everyone to use, but they will lock people out of their own files, and go as far as to dictate what apps you are allowed to install on many of their devices- even microsoft does not do this. (anyone can make software for most microsoft devices. compare that to the ipad, iphone, or itouch.) \n\nmicrosoft considers free software a very serious threat to their business. some of the most interesting evidence of this is contained in official memos leaked from microsoft, commonly referred to as the "halloween documents," in which they outline different strategies for eliminating free software. microsoft has enjoyed a powerful monopoly since the 80's and has struggled with the department of justice on more than one occasion for antitrust practices- where they not only lock out the user but other businesses from fair competition. a most damning example is the way they prevent computer manufacturers from selling computers with anything but windows on them. \n\nwhen you enjoy a monopoly, you can destroy other businesses with anti-competitive prices. walmart for example, can afford to build a new location in a relatively small neighborhood, and then lower their prices almost to cost- even below cost- for periods long enough to drive all competitors out of business. this is completely nonsensical in the short run- they actually lose money. but in return, they get full control of a whole neighborhood's business. they might drive away hardware stores, computer stores, pharmacies, or even grocers. that's monopoly power in action. \n\nmicrosoft has used similar power in the past to create deals by which original equipment manufacturers (oem's) couldn't afford to compete with other oem's unless they chose to install windows- and nothing but windows- on the computers they offered. if a computer buyer wanted anything else besides windows, they would have to first buy the computer, bundled with a windows license and any customer fees included, then remove windows before installing the system of his or her choice. then s/he may be able to see about a refund for the unused copy of windows. it was also possible to get custom machines built from parts from smaller dealers, but even today it is still a struggle to buy computers without anything except windows. \n\nthis year, i would like to buy an hp mini, but i won't because they do not offer one without windows installed. in the past few years, walmart has been stopped from selling desktops with another system installed, and asus has been pushed into a propaganda campaign against the very systems they offered to customers 2 or 3 years ago. it would be naive to assume that microsoft's monopoly is not ongoing, although i have read they are suffering financially for other reasons. \n\nthe free software movement is fully opposed to this kind of abuse, and the open source movement is more agnostic where freedom is concerned. it could be said that the two movements have similar values, but not in the same proportions. the definition of "open source," as maintained by the open source initiative, is for the most part compatible with the free software definition, but depending on which movement you consider yourself part of, you'll be viewing free software from notably different perspectives. \n\nif you value short-term practical compromises, don't believe that companies like microsoft and apple pose a threat to computing in general, let alone free software, and are more interested in marketing than freedom, you may find the open source movement trying to recruit you- and there are worse things, really. \n\nif you value long-term, sustained practicality, also known as freedom, also known as the ability to do things (without being controlled every which way,) realize even a percentage of the harmful things monopolies do, and these are your priorities, then i hope you'll count yourself among the free software movement. it will ultimately improve computing, as well as make the computing industry competitive again- instead of every startup trying to gain access to an industry controlled mostly by a single giant- who lets people move freely for a year before buying them out, suing them into oblivion, or making them into a puppet franchise. \n\nthere is a third player in this chapter on free software, who has earned his own mention (if only through grabbing the limelight, or through his mammoth contribution to either free software or "open source") along with richard stallman, the father of free software, and the open source movement- that third player is linus torvalds. \n\nas a student of helsinki university, torvalds decided to write a free version of the unix kernel. the gnu project, the free operating system and flagship of the free software foundation, was more than underway, but the kernel was- to say the very least- not ready, (to this day, it is still in the works and slowly gaining traction) and in 1991 news of torvalds' kernel project began to spread. when he released it under the gnu general public license, people began to use it together with the gnu operating system, and some began to refer to the operating system itself as "linux," which is what torvalds called his kernel. \n\nthough neither side is entrenched in the error of judgement that the name is the most important thing, it is disputed whether the pairing of the gnu operating system with the linux kernel should be called "gnu/linux" (pronounced "guh-noo slash linux," although i often pronounce it with a silent "/", it's still part of the correct spelling) or simply "linux." legally there is no reason that it has to be called either, and ubuntu's brand of gnu/linux is often simply referred to as "ubuntu," klaus knopper's brand of gnu/linux is usually called simply "knoppix," and it is perfectly within their legal right (and yours) to do the same. \n\nthe dispute starts with the history of the gnu project itself. the free software foundation was founded in 1985, the gnu project actually started two years earlier in 1983, the linux kernel began 8 years later. the gnu project, created to advance user freedom, has much different goals than linux, created entirely for practical ends. again i would argue that freedom is a very practical end in the long run, or as some advocates are known to say, "freedom is a feature." freedom however, is not the primary goal of linux, certainly not freedom as defined by the freedoms to use, study, modify, and redistribute, and ever since the advent of the linux kernel, the gnu project has taken a backseat to "linux" advocacy- which is not so much to have freedom on every computer, but more accurately to install linux everywhere. \n\nnonetheless linux is a substantial (and for the time being, absolutely vital) part of gnu/linux, hence the compromise proposed by free software advocates, some of whom like to insist you call it "gnu slash linux." i would like to point out that very often, windows is referred to as "microsoft windows," and people say this without pause or thought, and it has (and adds) the exact same number of syllables as "gnu slash" added to "linux." \n\ni do not insist that people call it "gnu/linux," but i occasionally suggest it, because i think it's more fair and reasonable (and important) to give the gnu project credit- even as much credit as keeping it in the name. a number of "brands" (also known as "distributions" or "distros," but perhaps it's more like "make and model") of this free operating system name themselves "[something] gnu/linux" accordingly. if i correct your use of the term "linux" by itself (it is the proper name of the kernel, no matter what group of people you ask) then you are probably not someone i consider an aquaintance but more like a friend, or at least someone who sometimes values my opinions or will tolerate the nudging. \n\nin the past i considered myself more a member of the open source movement than the free software movement, and i mention it only to point out the misconception i had, so maybe you can avoid the same. i would say it is a "tactic" of the open source movement to paint the free software movement as fanatical and "extreme," and i think it's totally unfair to call it either of those things. \n\nit is not fanatical to say that people should be able to use their own computers as though they own them. it is not extreme to say that corporations should not remotely control everyone's computers through encryption and locked protocols. it is not extreme to say it is a crime when amazon deletes books from people's e-readers. it is extreme when you sell someone a book that has been in print for decades, then decide it actually violates "copyright" or something, and then that you have to destroy the book to make things "right" again. there's definitely extremism going on here, but free software isn't it. \n\ni think the level of control that vendors have over users can rightly be called "extreme," but i think it is unfair to use that terminolgy to describe people who are simply advocating that people use something else. the free software movement, no matter how someone else paints it- is not a struggle of free software users against non-free software users. it is a struggle against vendors who do not value your choices, and a struggle to educate people, but it is not necessary for users to feel like victims of free software, just because free software exists to push producers of software to give them more freedom- or even because free software advocates try to explain the difference. \n\nas for petty arguments that may indirectly or directly result, they are part of life. people who agree on everything probably aren't thinking, and geeks (who for better or worse, are known to think a lot) outside the free software movement aren't any less prone to arguments, only less prone to ones about free software. as i said, i would call it a "tactic" of the open source movement to paint the free software movement as "extreme" for doing things like "only using free software," but i don't think it's any more extreme than when vegans only eat vegetables. the goal is not just to have more free software, but to not have software control its users. obviously the first goal serves the second goal, but making the smaller goal into the only goal is a failure of perspective. \n\nvegans do not eat only vegetables for the sake of eating more vegetables. most vegans are vegans because they believe animals should not suffer so we should eat. i am not myself vegan, despite the fact that i do not like animals to suffer, but i do not call vegans "extreme," because their actions are (for what they believe,) completely reasonable and do not hurt me or my choices at all. very few of them ever bother me about eating meat, unless i decide to engage them in an argument about their philosophy. \n\nthe free software movement is not peta. we will not fling fake blood at your computers, we will not call you murderers, and we certainly will not issue fatwas (stopped comparing the movement to peta, now talking about real extremists) against even the nastiest of monopolists and sellouts- although bono still really sucks. \n\nbut i promised to tell you how you can make your computer yours again. actually i'm going to tell you a lot more about that in the chapters to come, but the easiest way to make your computer yours again is to install a fully free "make and model" ("distro") of gnu/linux, such as gnewsense or trisquel- or if you're a geek like me, try rmsgnulinux.org. all of the distros i'll recommend to you use the "linux-libre" kernel, which has none of the "binary blobs" or "non-free marshmallows" that the standard linux kernel has. in my experience, distros that feature the libre kernel are more dedicated to integrating free software, rather than just throwing it in as an option or afterthought \n\nif i can't convince you that getting rid of windows isn't crazy, get started by trying some free software replacements for whatever software you use now. if you have a non-free browser, i can't recommend anything over icecat, the unbranded mozilla firefox, although let me tell you i deeply admire what the people at mozilla are doing right now to make people more free. the only thing "non-free" about mozilla that i know of is their plugin recommendations and their branding, which are problems that icecat easily solves- but mozilla is still a really great group of innovative and admirable people working on free software. \n\nlet's be clear, while they make my favorite browser, they don't make the only good browser. microsoft has one really lousy browser, and apple has one mediocre browser, but collectively, free software has several good browsers, and you can try and use as many of them as you like. this is still more true of other kinds of software, from editors to graphics software, to audio players, to progamming environments, to gui interfaces (in the free software world, they're often called "window managers" or sometimes "desktop environments") to almost any kind of software you can imagine (and some you couldn't.) \n\nso the way you get control of your computer back is to replace the non-free stuff on there with stuff that respects your freedom. thanks to free software, that's not just a dream- it's a real option. the choice is yours- instant gratification and control and betrayal on the installment plan? or freedom, the gratification of which only gets faster as time moves forward? if you have used mozilla firefox, you know that free software can surpass non-free software in convenience, practicality, and in many other ways. but it happened because enough people cared about their freedom. \n\ni'll be sure to tell you more about gnu/linux and free software in other chapters, but it was only a matter of time before the ideas of free software spread to other endeavors. the free culture movement, and its popular creative commons licenses, were largely inspired by free software, and they're the main focus of the next chapter.

menn

\n\nwithout the internet, people can write documents, create and edit graphics, compose and remix music, copy and listen to their music library on their computer, watch films and videos, read books, edit spreadsheets, create presentations, search through and organize thousands of files (or more,) and even write software. and if your computer is yours, you can do these things without permission or help (if you know how, or have books that help you learn how.) \n\nyou can even look at websites (they will often be less functional) or setup a network at home. with so many people connecting to a wireless router at home so they can share the internet connection, it's possible to connect these computers together wirelessly even when your home's internet connection is down- share files, chat with family, maybe even set up a local wiki to use as a "bulletin board" for your housemates. (that probably won't catch on in the next year or two.) \n\nwhen it's on your computer(s), it -can be- on your terms. alas, not only do the makers of your operating system try to control so many of the things you do, but now everyone is trying to get people to "move to the cloud" and put all their trust in other people, many of whom are as eager to control what you do (and even more eager to collect your personal information) than the makers of your operating system. \n\nat first it may sound like a wild conspiracy theory, or the plot of some "hacker" movie, but there's a completely logical reason that "the cloud" will try to control what you do- it has to. currently your internet service provider (or "isp") has a sort of "diplomatic immunity" in that it's pretty close to impossible for them to be in charge of everything that goes into and out of the internet. they may only have tens of millions of users who are on the end they provide service to, but their job is to connect those users to the rest of the entire internet- asking them to try to control the internet would be a lot like asking the u.s. department of transportation to control car emissions in every country in the world. \n\nwhat if they just controlled you? well, the #1 reason anyone would expect them to is issues regarding copyright, and deploying enough copyright lawyers to each isp to figure out what traffic was "okay" and what traffic was "infringing" would be a lot like trying to put court judges (or even police) to handle traffic tickets at every intersection. it's much better to put court judges in courtrooms, police in police cars, and copyright lawyers in law offices (if not the sea.) the job of isp's is to provide you with a reliable connection to the internet, which they can't do if they're drafted into some kind of copyright protection army. \n\nbut on the other side of the connection there are servers, where the websites and web services are maintained, and the people running these servers (who connect to the internet in the same way that you do, or close enough) can be (and are) subpeonaed, sued, or stopped from offering individual files are entire services. their connection to their own isp is logged, and the isp can even be told not to let them connect anymore- it's not so easy, when you run a large server farm, to just go connect to the net at a cafe instead. \n\nso people that run servers -have to- control what you do. and many of these services- including sites like youtube- "play it safe" and when they find something that -might be- a problem, even if it's not, they pull the plug (on your files) and often don't even give you a way to download a copy. when you put things "on the cloud," it's really best to have a copy of your own, because that could be the only way you see your favorite blog entry, home movie or desktop artwork ever again! \n\nthat's simply a matter of text and multimedia, of files where it's good to have a backup copy. but there's a surprisingly-less-than-new trend in computing today, a thing called "software-as-a-service," which doesn't just leave other people in charge of your files, it leaves them in charge of your software as well, and there's still more problems that can crop up with that arragement. \n\nthe most obvious problem you can have with a web service, like google docs, or online graphic editors, is that something happens to your internet connection. in france for example, there is a new law that kicks people offline for months or more if they're "caught" (or blamed) for infringing on someone's copyrighted materials 3 times. while they will probably only use this sparingly (lest french teenagers decide it's time to dust off the guillotine,) a person who finds s/he is no longer on the internet at least can still use a computer. \n\nif that unfortunate individual uses google docs and has no office suite, (please, let me tell you how to get one legally, and free of charge, before you run out and pay for one that tries to control you like the rest of your software!) then s/he will no longer have access to those documents, or have any way to edit them or compose new ones. this is avoidable! \n\n(and let me just add, that if you think the answer is as simple as "don't infringe copyright!" it's not. the last time the copyright extremists had an inquisition over music downloads, they charged young children, and the parents of young children, and people who didn't even know how to download music. innocence was irrelevant, most of these people settled out of court for thousands of dollars. next time they might find themselves without internet access. all this, in a land of freedom, free speech, and free press!) \n\nthe surest way to avoid such problems is to not use google docs, or any other service that replaces the functions of your software. if you insist on doing so, have backups of those files too, and of your changes, and have software that performs the same functions as the software you use online. but remember, you don't have to store all your personal files on the internet anyway. and you may not want to. \n\nthroughout most of the service and software industry. security is a major concern. if you screw up too badly, you will lose customers, or even have to field lawsuits, and many companies will never have the same reputation ever again. (the largest companies, sadly, seem to be immune to everything they do- as if it's just understood that being a towering, parasitic behemoth, you can only be expected to manage so many individual things before a several million user records including credit card information go missing. oops!) \n\nthat said, it's unrealistic to expect the average proprietary industry, with unlimited budgets to pour into advertising and pr, to make security a bigger priority than new features. if you're most people, you don't select a product or service because you're a security expert and you know it's the most secure, if you're most people you probably don't think about security for more than a few minutes, up until purchase or subscription, and then you forget about it since hey- even i don't want to think about the worst that could happen. you, (like most people,) probably choose your software and services based on features. and that's nothing to be ashamed of. \n\nbut the reality is that it's in the best interest of a company to pump out features and clean up messes when their found. to their credit, most companies clean up these "messes" at a rate that wouldn't be a total scandal even if you knew all about them. it's still something to consider before you put all trust all your personal data with a company that may have had an enormous security breech last year, or may in two years' time. \n\nso look at your computer, and ask yourself, "is it really 'my computer?'" did you buy it in a store or order it and have it sent to you, just to have it remote-controlled by the people who sold it to you? is it still "their computer" even though they have your money? was it an exchange, or was it a lease? \n\nand do you want to rely more on other people's computers, which you cannot really control, or even control your access to? these are good questions to ask. and the next chapter is about how to make "your computer" really yours again.

menn

\n\nit's funny, the way that a company like apple or microsoft will try to get you excited about all the things you can do with "your computer" and then spend so much effort taking it away from you. if i build a piece of furniture for you, let's say a table and some chairs, and then sell them to you, they are your physical property. it should be the same way with your computer- but it's not. \n\nsuppose you have a new neighbor over, and your neighbor becomes a friend, and even stops by enough that you find you're always pulling some odd seat over to the table from another room. this one doesn't match the set, and you decide you'd like another matching seat for your guests- your options here should illustrate why your computer isn't yours at all. \n\nan obvious option would be to call me and have me make you another matching seat. but it's possible i'm too busy, or i don't have the pattern anymore, or maybe i've even moved or sold my workshop and don't make furniture anymore. what are your other options? you could resign to using the seat from the other room, you could go to someone else and ask them to make a matching seat from one of the ones you bought from me, you could even (if you're so inclined, and have the skills and equipment required) make a copy of it yourself. \n\nthere's so much of this you can't do with your computer. you can't copy your system onto another machine (and then use both at once, or offer one to a friend,) you often can't even reinstall your own system, as you often don't get a cd to install from (or the number of times you're "allowed" to runs out, but this practice is only about 10 years old, for windows users) and this is not the end, but the beginning of the list of things you can't do with your physical property- if you're using a system from apple or windows. but let's talk about a few more ways in which your computer isn't yours- and i promise to also tell you how you can make it really "your computer" again. \n\nyou may not believe it, but your computer spies on you. sure, when you're on the internet, your service provider typically gets a log of all the sites you visit, but what about the things you do "offline," they wouldn't know about those things unless you did them on the internet, right? not quite. for example, if you use windows media player, it very well may be sending information about everything you listen to over to microsoft headquarters, where they do no one knows-what with it- but they have been talking about selling information they get from users to the government. seriously, did you sign an agreement saying that was ok? is it your physical property or not? this is where eula's come in. \n\na eula, or "end-user-license-agreement," is basically a piece of paper or a text file that says "as long as you use our software, we decide what you're allowed and not allowed to do with it." that's the point of a eula, and in a saner world it might not be such a dark and unpleasant thing, but there's almost no end to what people agree to when they use proprietary software- in fact recently (to make a point, or just for laughs) a software company actually put a clause in their eula about how by using their software, you agreed to hand over your soul- no, really! and while you may find that either very funny, or deeply disturbing, there really is no end to what people will "agree to" by using the software. they normally don't read these agreements. \n\nin the privacy of your home, with the privacy you should have while using your own computer, it shouldn't matter how many copies you make of things, anymore than people should be able to tell you what you can and can't write on paper, or how many pieces you can use, or what pen to write with, or whether you can ask a carpenter to make you a new matching seat. it's your property- and that shouldn't change when you put a file there, or when you put windows there. that's your own business. \n\nit should be very clear today that apple and microsoft do not share this belief that your physical property is yours to operate in your home on your terms- much the way that the phone company (many decades ago) did not believe you had a right to choose which phone you attached to the phone jack- and the eula is written proof they don't believe your computer is really your computer. they try to use software, electronics, and laws, to stop you from using your computer the way you want- even going so far as to send instructions to your computer to delete, overwrite, or deactivate your files and setup- all to keep you using your things the way they want. \n\nbut what can you do about it? you have to use windows, or apple, right? and no one cares if you have a right to use your computer, they just want you to buy stuff- all of these assumptions are wrong. you do not have to use windows, or apple's software (even if you already do!) and you probably don't have to buy a new computer. and as unbelievable as it may seem, there really is a giant group of people that would love to save you from this eula-induced abuse and takeover of your property, who i will introduce you to later. for now let's just forget about all this, and take a second (or new) look at what computers can do without the internet.

menn

\nthe philistine's guide to the digital age \n\n\n2010 openuniverse \n\n\nthis book is licensed under a creative commons attribution 3.0 license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ \n\n\nintroduction \n\nit's never necessarily wise to write a book without knowing what it's going to be about. i've written a guide to basic and started a guide to gnu/linux, first called "linux on the pc" and then "the do-it-yourself pc," and these are extremely difficult to write because (unlike the dialect of basic i was introducing) the target is constantly moving. a few months into a book about free software, you don't have to totally start from page 1. you just have to review everything. \n\nit's good to have a comfortable place to write. i am currently writing on a 20" television in a size 22 font, in leafpad on gnewsense (which i think is now debian-based,) but depending on which part of the audience i imagined for this you belong to, a lot of that is gibberish and the rest is uninteresting. \n\nit's funny what people know and choose not to know, and which details people hold onto. i've found that people know more about things they find interesting, so my hope is to interest you in enough of this digital world that you can stay if you want to, and maybe you'll even want to. if you aren't new here, i'll try to show you this place as i see it. \n\nthis is not just a book about technology, it's a book about people- about the things people are doing and ought to be doing, and ought to be able to do. society is based on social contracts, and our social contracts have not kept up with our technology. people are separated, ambivilent, and even afraid of and by the very things that offer them freedom and enrichment, and it doesn't have to be that way. \n\nbut you can't reap the riches of the digital age if you don't sow the effort of exploration. like you, i was taught at the hands of disciplinarians who made learning mostly a chore, and if you were half as eager as i was to learn about the world around us, you had to escape from textbooks to get back to other books, and the wealth of information that school often kept us too busy to explore. \n\nnow we are conditioned to learn as work, not to wonder, but to set out with a plan and then learn, and then stop when the task is complete. the world has changed, and no one wants to learn any more anymore. no one wants to explore, but they've forgotten how. \n\nthere are countless wonders in this modern age, and unlike in the decade of my childhood, they are not just for the middle and upper classes. we are building wonders everyone on earth can share, and everyone can use to better their lives. and like so many things, including the goose and golden eggs, we can try to exploit these wonders in one fell swoop, and see things in terms of tasks completed and bottom lines. that, or we can have another opportunity to grow and learn and explore these wonders around us. how you choose to read and learn about and see this new world is absolutely up to you. \n\nthis is neither a book of utopian ideals or hopeless cynicism. it is neither a book of wild ideals (though it may seem so just as much) or of empty and unimaginative, short-lived practicalities. an awful lot of it is about computing, and computing starts with the imagination. when babbage set out to build his difference engine, the materials didn't exist to build it- and when ada lovelace wrote her computer programs, she had to use paper and pen. \n\nthe wonders of the digital age are always ahead of their time, and that's only part of what makes them exciting. but the things we can already do should do so much more to prepare you for the future than waiting for it to happen, and hopefully you will find yourself very soon on the precipice of another world. \n\nanyone who has ever learned to write code and done so for his or her enjoyment should know what i'm talking about. but for me, my exploration began without coding, just moving a mouse around and drawing shapes. as this introduction was written in 2010, yours more likely began on the web- so together, we'll start with the things you can do without it. \n\n\nchapter 1: my computer \n\n