Unlike most of you, I maintain an electronic compendium that both has the
FAQ nature and makes money in the commercial-publishing world. I refer, of
course, to the Jargon File aka TNHD; the second edition is doing quite nicely,
thanks, and I expect to make about $9000 on it, which will go to support my
freeware-writing activities and my free Internet-access project (Chester
County InterLink).
Accordingly, I've wrestled with the ethical issues involved considerably.
Some of you may remember the lively discussion that ensued when I sought
advice on alt.folklore.computers about the best thing to do with the first
edition royalties. If so, you'll also remember that I took that advice, and
have continued to do so.
In this light, I own I was rather surprised at the crisping of Tim Freeman.
While I agree with the majority position that FAQ maintainers have a right to
control redistribution of and profit from their works, I also think that Tim
raised a valid question, and that most of the heat in the resulting flamewar
was generated by a defensive unwillingness to face that question.
I think there are at least two issues tangled together in the resulting
wrangle. Only one of these has to do with rights --- the other has to do
with right conduct. Unless I mistook Tim's postings, I don't think he ever
argued that FAQ maintainers don't have property rights in their FAQs. Had
he, I might have engaged in a bit of Freeman-flaming myself.
I think Tim was trying to ask a *right conduct* question --- that is,
for *what reasons* do FAQ maintainers deny others the privilege of
profiting from repackaged FAQs? And are those reasons ethically and
instrumentally valid?
Tim's way of raising the question was inopportune, but the question
itself hasn't gone away. And I think the unreasonable extent to which he
was flamed reflects a lot of guilty consciences --- a lot of people who
have internalized the Christian/altruist notion that the good of an action
is measured precisely by the extent to which it represents a sacrifice for
the benefit of strangers.
For persons so imprinted, Tim's question (especially as phrased in the
resonant Biblical language of "covetousness" and "envy") posed a galling
if only half-realized dilemma. And I think that's why he got crisped.
Instead of responding to the question, most elected to flame the messenger.
Before I go further, let me make clear that I am myself neither
Christian nor altruist. I explicitly reject the notion that self-sacrificing
benefit to others measures "goodness"; thus, I was neither impressed nor
angered by Tim's challenge, and I can reject his implied position that FAQ
maintainers ought to allow for-profit republication by others even if they
(a) have the right to so prohibit, and (b) have chosen not to profit
themselves.
On the other hand, the reaction of the anti-Freeman crowd seems to me to
be overheated and un-sane --- a reaction which derives from and points to
fundamental blindnesses and contradictions not only in the beliefs of
individual flamers, but also in the mores of the net.culture at large. And
that is why I'm responding with care and at length --- because I believe
these contradictions *must be resolved* if we are to survive and prosper.
So let's look at some of the assumptions that seem to have underlain the
flaming of Tim Freeman.
1. That designating X an ethical good means that you advocate coercing
people from refraining to do X.
I lost count of the number of respondents who responded to Tim's implied
"wouldn't it be better if you gave others the option to profit from your
FAQ" by screaming "how DARE you claim I don't have the right not to allow
others to profit from my FAQ"?
Though I disagree with Tim's position, the fault here is entirely with
his detractors. Their inability to separate virtue from coercion, their
inability to distinguish questions about what is *right* from what should
be made compulsory, is not his fault. It is symptomatic of a much more
fundamental failure of ethical reasoning on their part.
To see this more clearly, rephrase the above as:
The Pressure Principle: If X is designated as a moral good, then coercing
people to do X is a moral good --- and resisting that coercion is evil.
Or, in other words, coercion has no moral cost. Put this way, I hope it
is clear that the Pressure Principle begins as an instrument of morality,
but inevitably ends as the rationalization of force and oppression. It is
no credit to Tim's opponents that they behave as though they believe it.
2. A FAQ maintainer who refuses to profit by it is more virtuous than one
who does not.
Without commenting on the morality or ethics of this position, let me
observe that it is instrumentally disasterous. It encourages burnout; it
also fails to distinguish between those who could have passed the free
market's implied test of value delivered with second-raters incapable of doing
so.
Indeed, it has the perverse result that we must judge an `altruistic'
FAQ maintainer who does a poor job to be more virtuous than a profit-making
FAQ maintainer doing a better job on the same topic. Surely this reduces
the principle to absurdity?
3. Commercial publishing (and, more generally, the market) is parasitic on
the work of creative altruists, and contributes no value of its own.
I'd be surprised if anyone held this as an explicit assumption, but it
seems to me that only some such belief can be implied by the contemptuous
dismissal as "parasites" of anyone who profits from a FAQ for which the
author has renounced profit-making intentions.
In the real world, publishing books involves costs and risks --- often
very substantial ones. The decision to publish isn't made in a vacuum;
there are no coteries of vampires meeting at midnight to gloat "Here's a
nice succulent FAQ, let's suck its blood". Rather, profit-seeking
publishers balance *cost* against *expected demand* --- and if they choose
to use material free to them, that's no more intrinsically a crime than when a
FAQ author quotes physical constants from the Chemical Rubber Handbook
instead of buying the equipment to measure them himself!
In conclusion, let me reiterate that I disagree with Tim's implied position
that FAQ authors *should*, as a matter of virtue, allow strangers to
profit from their work. However, I think he is right to this extent; if
one accepts conventional altruism, if one accepts that goodness is
measured by self-sacrificing benefit to others, then his position follows
inexorably.
Thus, one may reject Tim's position only by first rejecting the
altruist credo. And I think we *must* do that, as individuals and as a
culture, if we are not to be destroyed and burned out by self-destructive
"goodness", and left behind by a roaring, huge free market that is getting
daily more hip to the special matter of the network culture.
-- Eric S. Raymond
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved