[Aeschines]

Whether or not such measures are taken are of little consequence in a much larger picture, as regardless of what is done in this country to protect music and movies, the vast majority of the world’s population would not be subject to such laws. The question would remain, is this economic system worth defending. I will attest that, much like in the situation with Wikipedia, the modern form of proprietary capitalism must morph into something else in order to survive.

Critics of this idea believe that in a system where there are no laws to guarantee profit for producers of intellectual property, innovators would cease to innovate. Such concepts are all but entirely false, as there already exists much evidence to the contrary. One group of examples can be seen at Sourceforge.net; here, over 130,000 open source software projects have been created by millions of programmers to be given away with no charge for the benefit to the larger society. These people defy the rules of classical economics in that they do not, by definition, act rationally, intentionally avoiding profit from their efforts. It is interesting to note that the universe did not cave in upon itself and disappear into infinitely tiny space with a resounding POP! when this “Law” was broken.

Again I arrive the subject of whether or not we should act to defend the current economic system. If you consider the morality and ethics of proprietary capitalism, interesting conclusions can be drawn about the values encouraged by our system of economics and the laws that protect it. In the most basic definition, money is anything that is generally accepted in exchange for goods or services. In other words, money is a means of converting time and effort into an exchangeable form with value. Generally, if something takes more time and effort to complete, it is assigned a greater monetary value. In many instances, individual items are paid for in situations similar to that of pottery making; a sculptor shapes a mass of clay into a functional and aesthetic object and, in the market, he or she can receive payment for his or her time, effort and materials. This is the basic unit upon which our economic system is based. It has changed very little since its original creation, and because of this, exploitations of the system are possible.

There are instances in the modern world when a product or service can be sold a great number of times at or near its initial perceived value without considerable additional time, effort or materials. In such cases, the proprietor of such a product can achieve vast amounts of money for very little additional work beyond the original creation. Since money is essentially a value for time and effort, such proprietors would be receiving payments of time and effort in quantities many times greater than they put in themselves. Take Microsoft Windows as an example: a software product is created, perhaps taking 50,000 hours to create using $100 million in resources. Every copy of Windows sold might cost an extra $2 in terms of time and resources. This product is then sold to millions of individuals in the market for approximately $200. If $200 dollars equates to 1.13 hours given an average wage of $15 per hour, then each copy of Windows sold would be equal to 13 hours of value. If Microsoft averages its sales of Windows at 10 million copies sold each month, then in one year they earn 1.56 trillion hours in value. This example makes it very obvious that our system of exchanging value has lost much of its accuracy since it was first developed. It may also be worth noting that Microsoft is one of the companies up in arms against piracy of its proprietary software, presumably due to the profit potential that they lose from such acts of theft (note that all figures are arbitrary)

There are now alternatives to buying proprietary products in the computer software industry. There is a movement for providing free, non proprietary software to anyone with the capacity to use such technology (the requisite is a modern computer). Programs that fit into this movement are called Open Source, and they conform to certain special license requirements that ensure that variations on the original source code of the programs is never used to turn a profit. By comparison to proprietary competitors such as Microsoft, it is hard to imagine why anyone would not choose to buy Open Source programs if all other qualities are comparable. Indeed, a considerable portion of the software market is moving to Open Source alternatives where they can be found.

An Open Source, non proprietary product or service given away free of charge, provides value to any person who uses it with no cost in money, time, effort or resources. The creator of such a product enjoys the same benefit as the end users as well as potentially gaining notoriety. A proprietary product or service is given away at monetary cost to those who buy it, decreasing the wealth of users in order to benefit the original creator. In cases like Microsoft, considerable value is taken away from society for the benefit of company employees and owners. If these statements are true, then Open Source, non proprietary products and services are inherently altruistic, as the creators give away their time and effort to improve the quality of life for all those who use their product. Proprietary products or services, conversely, are inherently greedy and vain, taking value from society to increase the quality of life and reputation of the creators. To take these ideas a step further, any legislation that encourages the creation of open source products also encourages values of generosity, compassion, empathy and kindness. On the opposite side of the coin, any legislation that encourages the sale of proprietary products encourages values of greed and self indulgence. For this reason, laws such as patents and copyright are socially immoral, as they prevent benefit to a larger number of people.

By now, I expect my readers to be pretty angry, and although I am sure that the reasons for such anger are numerous, they are most likely to be rooted in a feeling of betrayal. I assume that this is the case, as it is indeed the feeling that I felt most powerfully when I came to these conclusions: the form of governance and economics which I have been raised in and taught to embrace are innately immoral and directly conflict with common ethical codes and the foundation of all religions. There is a long history that provides the necessary framework for understanding how humanity have arrived at this dismal position, but what is more important is that we focus on how to sculpt the future. Like the potter who receives only his or her due benefit for a product, we need to embrace values of equity. The system in which we work and live has developed an advanced means of defending itself with checkpoints and ballasts strategically placed to fend off dissenters, and up until recently, nothing short of nuclear war has posed as true a threat to its method of maintaining hierarchical superiority and a stratified global society. But now the ingrained taint that has poisoned philanthropic innovation is shaken by the more powerful human need to care for one another. We are creatures of immense virtue and such will be our most esteemed asset in this time of great need, at the moment of our liberation. Embrace your family that covers the globe and give selflessly and take what is freely offered to you.

This not a call to arms against a corrupt government, rather, it is a prediction of future economic and geopolitical events. The majority of the world seems to be sick and tired of having their wallets crushed beneath the invisible thumb of Adam Smith. There is a group of people that has not resigned against the uneven odds and rhetorical evidence that states the unwavering success of proprietary capitalism. They have fought back, perhaps unknowingly, and have won momentous battles. All that is needed now in order to achieve widespread equitable distribution of intellectual property is an aggregate espousal of this new system: Open Source. Sooner, rather than later, this movement will realize its full potential, and little will stand in the way of the philanthropic force of humans supporting one another. Let us act now to usher this movement on and do our best to contribute freely where we are capable, and let us take every opportunity afforded to us by those who have already embarked upon this sanctified journey.