Is it software?
I've been debating with myself over the last few days. Not that I'm torn so badly, but...
I once e-mailed RMS and asked him where the line was drawn. At what point does digital content become "code" where you should demand the 4 freedoms. Nobody really cares about the source code to their microwave, but an X server needs the source!
The original question popped up when I wondered about the SNES. I had the old bugger lying around, but I hesitated before I plugged it in. I can't change my games, I said. I don't have the freedom to edit this, and I know that it's just a stream of electrons, the same as on my computer!
*** This is an excerpt from the letter to RMS ***
My second set of questions revolve around the point at which hardware
becomes software. The BIOS is a good example of this. The opinions on
fsf.org (http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html) state that when a
BIOS was a ROM device, it was essentially hardware. But as it became
more and more malleable, it entered the realm of Free Software.
Is the use of ROM v RAM an indicator of hardware/software state as it
pertains to Free Software? Is this the only limit, or is (as the article
mentions) the idea that the BIOS was no longer static also an indicator?
****
I like RMS, but I didn't like his responce. It's not the first time I've disagreed with him (which is why I've said I sometimes feel more anal about Freedom than he is). His answer was "If it's common practice to install new software on it."
Common? The majority of people never install a new OS on their system but I clearly consider my computer in need of liberty! And there are SOME people who install new operating systems on their gaming consoles and iPods.
His second parts I DO agree with. It was "If the device can communicate over a network, demand Free Software! You can't tell if it's spying on you or not if you don't have the source."
I've decided that my SNES is safe. For all intents and purposes, to change the software requires a change in hardware, like old-school BIOS.
But here's where my internal debate began... If the SNES is okay, because it's hardware what about emulation? If I make a ROM image of a SNES game and play it on my computer, do I THEN need the source code? What makes the two things SO different?
My decision, as of last week, was that games are not software. I buy games to play them. They're linear content in my mind, like a book, or a song or a movie. It is the story, or the action, or the character development that I want, it's not the control.
The framework, however, must be libre. No DirectX, but a libre implimentation of it, like Wine, is okay. 
But now I wonder what you guys think. How do you determine if something is "software" that you demand control over?
Maybe anything that can reasonably be improved ? My microwave's software, if indeed there is any by the ROM-RAM definition, has a clearly defined job and for all it's worth, does it perfectly. Also, the microwave cannot communicate with anyone. My PC's BIOS is tricky. It can, in principle, communicate with all the world. It is changable. It could be speeded up, but, I feel no desire to liberate it... why ? It, too, has a clearly defined function which doesn't change. Any change could break valuable hardware it is nonetheless deeply entwined with. And the hypothetical lack of speed doesn't annoy me. Also, for all it's worth, it peut être libre. If it's written in assembler, it as good as is. I mean, my laptop boots on a hacked BIOS modified to circumvent... is DRM the right word for a WiFi card whitelist ?
My MP3 player, on the other hand, is better connected than a microwave, acts more like a toy, and has a lot more power than the manufacturer's firmware harnesses.
Let's go through the four liberties:
0. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
I believe BIOSen allow this.
1. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
here the tricky part comes in: "would I want to modify it in the first place ?", and "which source code ?"
2. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
invalid for firmware: if you have the hardware, you have the BIOS/firware.
4. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
basically the same as 1.
GAMES
Games are part software, part multimedia. Most proprietary games are complètement non libre, however a few, most notably most Quakes and DOOMs, use du logiciel libre and non-free multimedia. Whether you want free multimedia, or "free culture" is a subjective decision; the concept as a whole was long the prime subject of this site.
“I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing there inviting me to,†said Arthur. “it's heartless.â€
“Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten,†said Zaphod.
These are some tough questions.
The way I was thinking about this for long is that whatever is in digital form and can be easily copied (hence not depriving anyone of their own copies) we should have the freedom to copy and share it.
Restricting this freedom is an act that goes against the nature of digital information and it is almost always done in order to put the proprietor at an advantage over anyone else who may come across that particular piece of digital information or content.
So at the very least I think all digital "matter" should be free to copy and share.
Where things become a bit more complicated, though, is regarding the freedom to modify and share modified versions. Some people regard artistic expressions as something that shouldn't be tampered with because it would ruin the creation. I tend to disagree with this because, if it is digital art this means you can make a copy of it, rename it while giving sufficient credit to the originator and create a new piece of art without impacting the previous creation. This is called a remix.
Music, motion pictures and still images don't have the kind of source code that software has, but it can always, to some extent, be digitally manipulated and remixed. So even a "binary" music track can be a source for a new creation.
Bottom line; I think remix doesn't harm anyone and should also be a fundamental freedom.
And games, they are as free-zombie said a combination of software and this art (in a digital realm we tend to call it multimedia). So how do we deal with it? I think all sounds, images and music should be free to remix and the framework code of the game should be subject to four freedoms. In other words I believe the game engine and game content should be free.
This leaves one remaining part; game itself, the story lines and the whole plot. This is similar to written stories. I can apply the same test to this: Does the freedom to modify and share modified versions harm the original expression? I copy the story and modify my own copy and then distribute this modified version. Again, the original is intact. There is no harm.
When you look at it this way any restriction on sharing and modifying can only stiffle further creativity. Would it then be justified? How strong would the justifications be? Profit? That is proving to be an increasingly weak argument. One can have an opportunity to make profit even from creations which are freely copied and modified. When you move away from the business model of *renting* digital information and content, copying, modifying and sharing is no longer a harm. It can even be a benefit to the business. Game makers can put subtle but visible advertisements in games to make money. I think this is an excellent opportunity. They can hold sponsored gaming contests, sell merchandise and related services. "Renting" is a bad business model in a digital realm because it deliberately disrupts the equality and a free flow of creativity which digital technology allows.
The only different between software and art (including game content and game stories) is that software is functional where art is only stuff to look at, listen to and feel. So restricting freedom to modify and share this art doesn't have such a dramatic consequence as restricting this with software. However, it does have an effect of limiting creativity. If I can just look at, listen to and feel, but not touch, make a copy of it and do with it what I'm inspired to do then some of my creative urges are immediately being suppressed. If there is no good reason for this, it shouldn't be done.