European vs. American views on capitalism, free speech

I have spent a lot of time arguing with Linux zealots that hate Microsoft. It seems their hatred of Microsoft stems from their hatred of captialism. Most Linux zealots I have argued with are infact European. They tend to dislike commercial Linux distros such as Red Hat and Mandrake and go for non-commercial distros such as Debian or Gentoo. The European Linux zealots seem to believe that nobody in their right mind would defend Microsoft's right to exist as a business and accuse anyone that says anything favorable about Microsoft as being Microsoft employees. These zealots seem to think that all software should be open and free, and that all file formats such as Word documents should be open standards. They can't stand it if Microsoft keeps their Word format closed so that only Microsoft Word is 100% compatible with Word documents while OpenOffice is incompatible to some degree.

For starters it doesnt shock me at all that you have detractors. It might shock you that I dont count myselfs as being one of them, even though I dont agree with you on many things that you write.
Actually, since your very very vocal on this and I suppose many other communities its only logical to assume that you get flamed by many people. That two thirds of those detractors are from europe might have several reasons I can only guess about.
It could be a coincidence.
It could be because most posters on the board were from europe.
It could be because the posts where on a board with some 'heated' Europe vs. America discussions.

The last point would be especially true for the discussions that occur here. On this site you find some very emotional posts from people who for some sick reason try to provoke hatred between europeans and americans. Someone is much more likely to flame you on a neutral topic if he has been insulted in a european-american flame ware then someone who 'fought' on your side, even though both might disagree with you.
Even this blog will attract more detractors from europe then from america. And of course some europeans like me that simply disagree with you.
What I cant understand when reading this and similar blogs is, why do you always have to make the other side look so bad? For Example:
The europeans are hostile towards capitalism. Why cant we have a different view? Why does it have to be hostility?
The europeans feel hostile towards commercial interested parties. Again, why hostile? We have a different view but its not hostility.
Take the commercials, in germany comparison ads are heavily regulated, they are not illigal anymore, they were once considered to be against the good morale of a fair competition (this is my probably lousy translation of the legal text, it might be misleading or wrong).
Those laws and regulations are in place for customer protection or due to what some politicians think is customer protection. I can assure you that many germans would love to see comparing ads since they are usually more fun then the dull spots we have to endure here.
Moving on to the free speech. By saying that the americans take free speech very seriously (and I believe they do) you imply that europeans dont. Why did you have to do that? We take the freedom of speech very seriously here in germany, we just have some different views on it.
For example, nazi symbols are illigal here in germany, not because we dont take free speech seriously, but because we believe that free speech doesnt entitle you to promote hate against another race, culural group or another religion. And those symbols do stand for antisemitism/racial hate, thus they are illigal.
I can also assure you that the debates here are very serious, they might not be just as flashy (or no holds barred as you put it) as they are in america, but the debaters are just as serious and determined to make their point.

I would bet that if you would make your posts more fair, without putting the opposite side in a very bad light, you would lose some of those detractors. Not all of course, on the net, where most people think that they are annonymous, you will always find some that will insult you just because they think its fun.

Europeans foam over Microsoft because in their hearts they don't believe in property rights. They're socialists. Owning stuff outright is selfish and immoral. Americans, on the other hand, consider property rights a cornerstone of personal liberty. Don't like how I handle my software/land/house/etc.? Get your own. Mind your own business.

This is an honest disagreement. The hatred of some Linux zealots, however, reveals something more sinister. Rather than *convince* Microsoft to open-source some of its code -- presumably because it benefits everyone, including Microsoft -- they'd rather (if they could) *force* Microsoft into sharing. This isn't socialism. It's totalitarianism.

I'm confused, how is this a comment on Draginol's article?

Draginol,

Regarding merchants, I must say I cannot share your view about what Europeans think about the term. Europeans have always been rather fond of merchants, which is why cities like Bremen and Hamburg have enjoyed special status for hundreds of years. (They were and are free cities, not accountable to state governments neighbouring them.) I have also never seen the term applied to Americans or America per se.

As to your secondly, I'm afraid my experience was quite the opposite. When discussing these things in Usenet (particularly comp.sys.mac.advocacy) it seems to me that it is always I, a European, who argues for the free market and against anti-trust actions against Microsoft (even though I absolutely dislike Microsoft software and have for a long time avoided any contact with it), while it is Americans who seem to have a very strong opinion about how evil Microsoft are and will continue to be. The other Europeans in the group seem to have a rather relaxed attitude about the issue and simply don't care; maybe because the whole Microsoft setup is a worst-case scenario that can happen in capitalism but could have been avoided in a smarter economic system, I don't know.


King Kong,

You have put your thesis rather agressively, but there is some truth to it. Except that capitalism does not really embrace the ideals of property rights you hold dear. For example, "don't like how I handle my software" is a very typical case where a current capitalist system could interfere, while socialism (GNU-like such) would not. Software patents can make it impossible for you to legally write software that you could then considers "your software", a more GNUified system would not interfere here. Copyright does make it impossible for you to do with "your" copy of a software whatever you want, because "your" copy of the software is consideres other people's property (by some interpretations of copyright law to which I don't subscribe).

As for the "hatred of some Linux zealots", I have not seen many who want to force Microsoft into anything. They usually try to defend their right to use Free software, which is constantly challenged by patent law and lawsuits of companies that suddenly claim ownership of code written by others. I'm not sure when you thought you had last seen an attempt of Linux zealots to force anybody into anything, but I do know that I have very often seen software capitalists (term for advocates of proprietary software) try to use the law to forbid others from developing or using (or copying) Free software.

You are correct about there being two factions, but I don't quite see how you could arrive at the conclusion that it was the Linux faction who try to reach their goals by resorting to use of force.

I am wondering, if forcing someone to share is totalitarianism, is forcing someone not to share his own work also totalitarianism? Because if it is, companies that hold patents for obvious ideas and companies like SCO are clearly embracing totalitarianism. But I would be very surprised if you could show me even one influential Linux zealot who would not only demand but try to enforce similarly totalitarian measures to advance his own goals.

(And before a well-known enemy of Free software even enters the stage I would like to add that I would not consider made-up quotes of RMS or unproven statements about his positions as serious attempts to answer the above.)

Jill: I used my power to delete responses to delete that weird anti-Bush article.

Strykar: I was being facetious about being shocked. Also, I was not referring to this blog as being a source of detractors.

Andrew: I am not referring to Usenet debates on free markets.

The Right to Read
by Richard Stallman

This article appeared in the February 1997 issue of Communications of the ACM (Volume 40, Number 2).


(from "The Road To Tycho", a collection of articles about the antecedents of the Lunarian Revolution, published in Luna City in 2096)
For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in college--when Lissa Lenz asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask, except Dan.
This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her--but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong--something that only pirates would do.

And there wasn't much chance that the SPA--the Software Protection Authority--would fail to catch him. In his software class, Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this information to catch reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest profiles to retailers.) The next time his computer was networked, Central Licensing would find out. He, as computer owner, would receive the harshest punishment--for not taking pains to prevent the crime.

Of course, Lissa did not necessarily intend to read his books. She might want the computer only to write her midterm. But Dan knew she came from a middle-class family and could hardly afford the tuition, let alone her reading fees. Reading his books might be the only way she could graduate. He understood this situation; he himself had had to borrow to pay for all the research papers he read. (10% of those fees went to the researchers who wrote the papers; since Dan aimed for an academic career, he could hope that his own research papers, if frequently referenced, would bring in enough to repay this loan.)

Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were a dim memory.

There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing. They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger.

Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers were sent to prison.

Programmers still needed debugging tools, of course, but debugger vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and bonded programmers. The debugger Dan used in software class was kept behind a special firewall so that it could be used only for class exercises.

It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers--you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that.

Dan concluded that he couldn't simply lend Lissa his computer. But he couldn't refuse to help her, because he loved her. Every chance to speak with her filled him with delight. And that she chose him to ask for help, that could mean she loved him too.

Dan resolved the dilemma by doing something even more unthinkable--he lent her the computer, and told her his password. This way, if Lissa read his books, Central Licensing would think he was reading them. It was still a crime, but the SPA would not automatically find out about it. They would only find out if Lissa reported him.

Of course, if the school ever found out that he had given Lissa his own password, it would be curtains for both of them as students, regardless of what she had used it for. School policy was that any interference with their means of monitoring students' computer use was grounds for disciplinary action. It didn't matter whether you did anything harmful--the offense was making it hard for the administrators to check on you. They assumed this meant you were doing something else forbidden, and they did not need to know what it was.

Students were not usually expelled for this--not directly. Instead they were banned from the school computer systems, and would inevitably fail all their classes.

Later, Dan would learn that this kind of university policy started only in the 1980s, when university students in large numbers began using computers. Previously, universities maintained a different approach to student discipline; they punished activities that were harmful, not those that merely raised suspicion.

Lissa did not report Dan to the SPA. His decision to help her led to their marriage, and also led them to question what they had been taught about piracy as children. The couple began reading about the history of copyright, about the Soviet Union and its restrictions on copying, and even the original United States Constitution. They moved to Luna, where they found others who had likewise gravitated away from the long arm of the SPA. When the Tycho Uprising began in 2062, the universal right to read soon became one of its central aims.


Author's Note
This note was updated in 2002.

The right to read is a battle being fought today. Although it may take 50 years for our present way of life to fade into obscurity, most of the specific laws and practices described above have already been proposed; many have been enacted into law in the US and elsewhere. In the US, the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act established the legal basis to restrict the reading and lending of computerized books (and other data too). The European Union imposed similar restrictions in a 2001 copyright directive.

Until recently, there was one exception: the idea that the FBI and Microsoft will keep the root passwords for personal computers, and not let you have them, was not proposed until 2002. It is called "trusted computing" or "palladium".

In 2001, Disney-funded Senator Hollings proposed a bill called the SSSCA that would require every new computer to have mandatory copy-restriction facilities that the user cannot bypass. Following the Clipper chip and similar US government key-escrow proposals, this shows a long-term trend: computer systems are increasingly set up to give absentees with clout control over the people actually using the computer system. The SSSCA has since been renamed to the CBDTPA (think of it as the "Consume But Don't Try Programming Act").

In 2001 the US began attempting to use the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas treaty to impose the same rules on all the countries in the Western Hemisphere. The FTAA is one of the so-called "free trade" treaties, actually designed to give business increased power over democratic governments; imposing laws like the DMCA is typical of this spirit. The Electronic Frontier Foundation asks people to explain to the other governments why they should oppose this plan.

The SPA, which actually stands for Software Publisher's Association, has been replaced in this police-like role by the BSA or Business Software Alliance. It is not, today, an official police force; unofficially, it acts like one. Using methods reminiscent of the erstwhile Soviet Union, it invites people to inform on their coworkers and friends. A BSA terror campaign in Argentina in 2001 made veiled threats that people sharing software would be raped in prison.

When this story was written, the SPA was threatening small Internet service providers, demanding they permit the SPA to monitor all users. Most ISPs surrender when threatened, because they cannot afford to fight back in court. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1 Oct 96, D3.) At least one ISP, Community ConneXion in Oakland CA, refused the demand and was actually sued. The SPA later dropped the suit, but obtained the DMCA which gave them the power they sought.

The university security policies described above are not imaginary. For example, a computer at one Chicago-area university prints this message when you log in (quotation marks are in the original):

"This system is for the use of authorized users only. Individuals using this computer system without authority or in the excess of their authority are subject to having all their activities on this system monitored and recorded by system personnel. In the course of monitoring individuals improperly using this system or in the course of system maintenance, the activities of authorized user may also be monitored. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of illegal activity or violation of University regulations system personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to University authorities and/or law enforcement officials."
This is an interesting approach to the Fourth Amendment: pressure most everyone to agree, in advance, to waive their rights under it.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

I think, Draginol (very rarely...)

Erm, let me start that over. Silly late-night posting.

You hit it on the head, sorta. I believe that one of the reasons you (and Stardock,) has so many detractors isn't because you're capitalist - it's more because you're an /aggressive/ capitalist of sorts (and I say this as a good thing, mind you.)

You aren't aggressive in the sense that you buy up all of your competition, or spend all of your time slandering it - instead, you're aggressive in the sense that you -are- active in the major communities, you -do- defend your product quite successfully, you actively market your own product, rather than letting word of mouth do it all and you /do/ put in that extra effort to make sure it's one of the best products out on the market - in a rather 'in your face' manner, as well.

People sense the aggresiveness (how could you not?) but they rarely bother looking beyond that - and wind up having issues because of that. They don't bother taking the thought to realize that it's a -different- kind of aggressiveness than they might be used to. If more people would sit back for a second and actually /think/ about it - they might realize this.

That, and of course, there's those people who still think of version 1 when they think of Windowblinds, and there are also those groups who are simply anti-SD because it's been 'trendy' to be so within certain groups.

Time to move away from home and get a better perspective, the rest of the world has a different perspective of America that you would do well to learn about.
Europeans populated America and introduced capitalism there, but European society has evolved and it's compassion to those less fortunate in society (the ideals you call Socialism) is to be admired - much preferred to the material greed and self interest that drives America.
Stay with the tech stuff, your social studies and politics are lacking somewhat.

Draginol,
as a European I would have to disagree with your first point but agree with your second.

Firstly, I have never seen a distaste for merchants in Europe. Starting your own business is much admired and encouraged in Europe. What is different though is that Europeans love the idea of small businessmen competing on a local level. Large companies (whether European, American or Japenese) using their superior size (and thus better buying power, improved efficiency, better distribution) to crush these local entrepreneurs are widely disliked. Large companies can indeed be liked within Europe, but they have to put effort into behaving like local companies, supporting the community. Stardock would be seen as a local entrepreneur company (as opposed to a huge software giant which buys up local companies) and would in general be widely admired in Europe.

Secondly I have to agree that Europeans do indeed have a dislike for big business interfering with their lives. This does not mean that they have a problem with a company actively defending it's wares, but they do tend to worry about a company using it's commercial might in making the defense. Good examples would be a company giving money to a political party, or a large ad campaign against a smaller company or non profit group. In Europe that is ALWAYS looked on with distrust. A normal man on the street can't do that and so there is hostility to such acts. There is nothing illegal with these acts but likewise there is nothing illegal with Europeans disliking and distrusting companies which do them.


In general I think the primary cause for dislike of American debating skills is the "if you're not with us you're against us" philosophy. This is the standard approach of assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is your worst enemy and treating them as being the polar opposite of you. People may only slightly disagree, or only disagree on certain points but America and her people seem to only see black and white. This is especially true in American politics. America seldom ever sees the other side of the arguement and tends to think the worst possible case scenario of those it disagrees with.

How does this apply to your company?

Well I have on a number of occasions seen yourself fall into this trap, with pundits who bought your software complaining (often unfairly) about something (which is often their fault), but you treating them like they were personally attacking you and saying the worst possible things about you. Much of this is often cultural misunderstanding with non English speakers coming across as particularly offensive at times and you responding to this. More than likely it's because you were stressed, tired, had a bad day, whatever. It's your company and you unsurprisingly don't like people critising it (especially when you work so hard at helping customers). I think you'll always get these occasional clashes and once they happen that person is likely to always feel a grudge. As these are often initial cultural problems you will have a higher rate of foreign detractors.

Keep up the good work though as the vast majority of yourcustomers are very happy,

Paul.

Exposed: The Carlyle Group

Shocking documentary uncovers the subversion of Americas democracy.

I defy you to watch this 48 minute documentary and not be outraged about the depth of corruption and deceit within the highest ranks of our government and the first family.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm

@ jon Dean

@ jon Dean

Solitair: There's nothing scientific in my observations. I'm just stating what I've seen. I hang out mostly on sites that are mostly Americans but those who seem to have the biggest problem with the combination of the 3 issues of the origianl article are overwhelmingly European.

It could be coincidence but it does seem odd.

Sorry to be provocative Draginol, but you have forget an european cliche for american. It is the american tourist, big, fat, T-shirt and short troussers, unable to speak a foreign language, unable to walk away more than 5 minutes from a McDonald. As an european living in a tourist city, I have met a lot like that. By no mean I would pretend that this description covers all american. I have also met very nice american people that were anything except that.

A big difference between european and american would probably lie that your hardly further 500 miles of another country, with a different culture, language, ... I would believe that the wideness of USA and its wideworld immigration allows a lot of variation but nothing compare to europe and the thousands year of history.

What Jon Dean doesn't seem to understand is that Socialism and Communism are artificial creations. Nobody is equal...everybody is different. I agree that we are equal as in we are human beings, we have souls, minds, etc. The misconception is that people equate capitalism as some evil to be eradicated. Being an individual is a good thing. In the real world, the playing pitch isn't flat. The people who can navigate around the field should be rewarded for that.

sorry to post twice...I wanted to reply to JEPEL's comments. JEPEL is right to an extent. Americans have their misconceptions about Europeans and likewise for Europeans. The European experience has been very different. Another poster commented about how America was populated originally with Europeans. True, they were Europeans who generally disliked the course Europe was taking or were cast-offs, deviants of European society. They wanted something different. Consequently, the divide b/w Europe and America began. This divide is hardly new.
It's strange how a blog for techies became a soapbox for politicos.

This article was fascinating to a non political midleclass former European like me. I am amazed at the pro-Israel slant of so much of the western media. Has anyone an explanation?

Notwithstanding the fact the Israelis have, in just 50 years, established more democracy, enfranchisement, well structured governance, health care, education, agriculture, science, arts, warfare, social welfare, economics, justice and human rights than the Palestinians have done in thousands of years, I still don't get how anyone can justify the right of any group of people to establish themselves as a nation in another country, (by force and terrorism in this case).

Perhaps at the same time someone can explain why present Israelis decry terrorism when Israel was founded on terrorism and their terrorists became well known Israeli politicians, even Israeli prime ministers?

Whatever the dubious legality of the existence of Israel, and you only have to read of the shennanegans at the UN at the time of Israel's establishment to realise just how blatantly dubious Israel's legality really is, surely the root issues are morality and ethics? Israel seems a manifestation of an old fashioned, miscreant, sectarian wilfulness, a paroxysm of western conscience and all round racial bullying from a time long gone in western history.

By any moral or ethical standards known to civilised man the Israelis clearly have no right to occupy Palestine, or anywhere else, (including a part of south America or north western Canada as was mooted as alternatives at the time). Their occupation of Palestine seems in direct denial of every standard the west has developed for legality, decency, honesty, principle, and right. As an ordinary, middleclass, a-political , Westerner, steeped by birth in a culture that sustains and frees me to be the self we all seek one way or another, a right fought for by hundreds of thousands of an ancient people, my people, each far better than me, I cannot tell you how resentful, bitter, helpless and ashamed I am by Israel's existence.

On these grounds, can we understand the present exodus of civilised values in Israel, the continuing flight of Israelis and capital, as growing signs of the failure of a state anyway reliant on handouts? Is Israel falling under the weight of its own evil?

I hope readers resist going into the default mode adopted by those defending Jewish honour by catcalling me as anti-Jewish. (I have never understood anti-Jewism, perhaps because I have never met many Jews or don't recognise them as Jews when I do). Anyway, I am making the distinction here between Israeli and Jew.

Regardless, the reality of a misbegotten Jewish homeland in Palestine is all too sadly obvious and disastrous for us all, whether Jew, Israeli, Arab, westerner, southerner, easterner, northerner or whatever...

Even in the unlikely event the Palestinians, Arabs and Moslems ever accept Israel, it is unlikely the rest of human sensibility will allow this assault on civilisation to heal. And where will Israel be anyway when the penny drops with the American people, as it will, because as we know, you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the American people all of the time? What when history weakens or removes the blind support of Israel by the American Empire, or even removes the Empire itself? Sooner or later, now or then, there is no way out for Israel but out.

Surely Israelis should come quickly to whatever terms they can get from the Palestinians, before it becomes impossible to get any at all?

Keith Hancock