Slashdot Log In
FSF, Political Activism or Crossing the Line?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed May 31, 2006 02:34 AM
from the keeping-em-honest dept.
from the keeping-em-honest dept.
orbitor writes to tell us InfoWorld's Neil McAllister is calling into question some of the recent decisions by the Free Software Foundation. From the article: "All the more reason to be disappointed by the FSF's recent, regrettable spiral into misplaced neo-political activism, far removed from its own stated first principles. In particular, the FSF's moralistic opposition to DRM (digital rights management) technologies, which first manifested itself in early drafts of Version 3 of the GPL (Gnu General Public License), seems now to have been elevated to the point of evangelical dogma."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Utter nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, the author trys to present FSFs anti DRM as a new thing:Which just isn't true - stallman wrote in his GNU Manifesto [gnu.org]:You can see pretty clearly how DRM fits in there - and if you don't believe in DRM on software, why on earth would you for content?
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman's answer in 1985 was to create F/OSS software, not to outlaw proprietary software, nor to use unlawfully copied proprietary software. F/OSS was and is able to compete in the marketplace.
Now let's look a
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmmmn, good point - my analogy was flawed.
Now let's look at DRM. DRM is a flawed, ultimately unworkable attempt to control copying of "content" files. If the FSF had a workable alternative to DRM, then they should put it forth and let it compete for our hearts and minds and dollars.
DRM can be used to protect any digital file - including software. It affects the FSF directly (DRM measures can remove some freedoms granted by the GPL) and is a legal and social problem, there is no technical solution.
Better yet, if they want to work a political angle, why not work on/against legislation such as the DMCA? Why waste the effort on DRM, which in my estimation is going to turn out to be one of the big non-issues of the century.
I take your point that the DMCA is the whip that enforces DRM, but the FSF is going working on the DMCA [petitiononline.com], not too mention even more dangerous items, like the wipo netcast treaty [fsf.org], and software patents [ffii.org].
Just 'cause they're attacking DRM doesn't mean they've forgotten everything else!
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
They do. Its called Freedom. You know - free as in liberty, not free as in beer. What works for software can work for art too, they are effectively the same thing after all.
The big difference is that when Stallman got started on Free software, non-Free software was only a few years old and had only just gained an advantage over Free software.
Entertainment has been technically non-Free for a couple of centuries. Its a much bigger entrenched mindset that must be overcome, and unlike the software microcosm, those who benefit from the current non-Free environment have so much control over the public discourse that its almost impossible for a dissenting opinion like the FSF's to be widely heard, much less considered more than "fringe."
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it skirts around the issue that DRM is just downright Evil (tm 2006 microsoft/disney/bush); the entire concept of placing limits on something I own that I didn't ask for is so blatantly wrong that I'm still at a loss as to how anyone can support it.
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
That might be true if your only form of entertainment is sex, otherwise it's total bollocks, do you feel compelled to pay every busker, pub band, musically talented relative/friend
Sex IS Free (as in Freedom of Speech) (Score:4, Funny)
When I was single, everything I did with a sexual partner -- and everything she did with me -- could be repeated (or retried) with the next, without fear of being sued for the "Intellectual Property" of an interesting, insightful or even astounding sexual discovery.
At least that's how I learned the "Candelabro Italiano"
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people, particularly those inhabiting some very choice real estate in downtown Washington, DC, are quite aware that as a country, we don't really make anything anymore. Okay, so there are still a few agricultural commodities that we grow for export, and some manufacturing that apparently can't be outsourced to China, but it's not the sort of thing that you run an economy on. It's definitely not the sort of thing that you remain economic ruler of the free world based on.
So what do you make and sell, when you don't manufacture anything anymore? The answer that quite a few people seem to have come to, is "content."
You manufacture content. It's better than manufacturing physical goods, because it basically has no inputs besides labor, but produces a "good" which can be sold over and over again as a result. There aren't any pesky raw materials to import, so it's a totally domestic product. On one end it's a service industry, but on the other end it's manufacturing. Plus, the demand for it is basically constant, and even though foreigners may not want our airplanes or SUVs, they seem to want to watch MTV.
When you look at it this way, you can see why there are more than a few people around who think DRM is a good idea. More than that, it's a necessary idea. You basically can't do what they want to do -- manufacture content and sell it per-unit, as if they were Ford or GM -- without some control that keeps people from deflating the price back to its actual marginal cost of production and distribution (the "one more copy" cost).
DRM, in my opinion, is a bit of a desperate measure. It strikes a chord with people who can't understand (or don't want to understand, or don't believe in) the whole "service economy" concept, and would like to see the U.S. dominating a "software industry" in the same way we once dominated steel, only churning out lines of code rather than bar stock, and selling it for export.
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
So I fail to see what's so amazingly different. Finally, arguing the FSF are extremists for suddenly going political reminds me of politicians who criticise their counterparts for "playing politics". The FSF is, and always has been, a political organization. It will consider its mission furfilled when the last vestages of proprietary software (and this includes DRM, which is a form of proprietary software, inherently involving secrets and closed, unmodifiable, code) have been displaced by free software. Anyone who describes it in the terms the author did is an idiot.
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:5, Interesting)
At some point some human beings (many inspired by RMS and the FSF I think) decided that they *wanted* Free Software, and that's why it happened. No magic, no legal intervention, just people and the market.
I like the FSF in most respects, but DRM is just another technology where consumers (yes, that's you and me) have to simply refuse current offers (I never buy DRM music, only CDs). The market already HAS sorted it out. There's Magnatune, there's eMusic. And for everybody who just *needs* mainstream music, well there's only mainstream providers like Napster or iTunes, but I think they're gonna have to live with it. Tough Shit.
There's absolutely nothing that would justify any legal intervention or any other meddling with the market in this case. Nobody is forcing DRM on you.
You pay your price and make your choice.
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
And there's aluminium, and there's milk, and there's screwdrivers.
The existence of other products does not a free market make, and monopolistic competition for the consumers disposable income does not create the economic efficiency that free market competition on commodity pricing does.
On a free market, competition forces the price to fall towards the cost of production, driving production into ever higher efficiency to create profit margins. This in itself means more wealth is created for the same amount of effort, thus creating an ever more wealthy economy, and benefiting society as a whole.
So, seen the price of a CD lately? If 'the market' had 'sorted it out', it ought to be around a few cents for the more widely produced mass produced products. Oops, nope, not there. And the amortized cost of Windows should be a couple of bucks. Oh, not there either.
Seems the market isnt sorting things out that good, eh?
"There's absolutely nothing that would justify any legal intervention or any other meddling with the market in this case."
Indeed. Intellectual monopoly legislation needs to be removed. There is nothing that justifies the legal intervention of copyrights or patents in the market, and the damage is obvious.
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole evidence is pretty much moot if there isn't a possibility to proof it wrong.
If the record companies asked of us to whip ourselves on the back to buy music and didn't offer any other way to buy music, clearly whipping yourself to buy music is perfectly fine.
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a more apt comparison would be software copy protection. I recall in 1985 almost all commercial software had copy protection. A little earlier than that, the Commodore 64 was legendary for various schemes that caused intentional error states in the floppy disk that was required for the software to run, etc. As the industry matured, they realized that copy protection was only hurting the honest folks, and that the people who wanted to copy would still copy. By the time the Mac reached its market share peak, MacWorld was taking away a "mouse" in its software ratings if the software had copy protection. It sorted itself out.
If DRM doesn't sort itself out the same way, it probably means that it's probably not all that bad for the honest folks. I know Apple's DRM has never annoyed me at all when I'm trying to do legal listening to my music. As soon as the DRM starts getting in the way of regular lawful usage, industry forces will start to push it out.
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
Currently, the "black market" IS in the process of regulation of the content industry. If I can go to iTunes and pay for DRM'd crap that won't play on my OS of choice or to Bittorrent for free copies that will play on anything anytime, guess which one I'm
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM - as a concept - is just a logical progression of copyright law.
No, DRM is what some entrenched interests would like existing copyright to become. It is not a logical progression.
DRM'ed content (as currently implemented) usually breaks the copyright (as currently implemented) bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions. It should not be possible to copyright DRM'ed content.
The law is a creation of the mind and can be anything we want it to be. Current copyright law is only one of a universe of possibilities. Those people who create the false dichotomy of copyright law as currently implemented versus a free-for-all as the only alternative are confused at best and fraudulently misrepresenting the situation at worst.
Your implicit assumption that current copyright law is the only possibility is part of this narrow mindset. e.g. I'm pro some forms of copyright (e.g. very short terms with a trademark-like loss of copyright if software or media like m$word or happy birthday becomes a standard) but I'm strongly anti-DRM (which just for starters should be illegal until it implements current law) while still being anti copyright and patent law as they're currently implemented.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.
Huh? Recent? (Score:5, Insightful)
The authors opinions seem just as clueless as his non-facts.
Stupid article (Score:5, Insightful)
An utterly idiotic article.
Re:Stupid article (Score:4, Insightful)
No, he misrepresented that as well. He presents it as though the FSF is claiming DRM is like a car that can't be steered. If he seriously thought that, then he's an idiot. In fact, the FSF is saying DRM is like a car that won't let you steer it -- i.e., one that steers itself, driving you where the car makers decide you ought to want to drive.
One can imagine quite a lot of people happily buying a self-driving car - how convenient! Except... how odd, when you tell it you want to drive to a hotel in Boston, it has a list of the hotels you can drive to, and they're all big chains. The nice little independent one you've booked isn't an option. And it's going to drive several hundred miles out of your way, to avoid having to fill up at an unapproved gas station. And you're going to be forced to watch adverts all the way...
And that's actually not a bad analogy for one form of DRM dystopia, the one where the content creators literally control all the content that gets produced, and amateurs literally cannot play back home recordings and the like. Of course that's not a plausible scenario. But hyperbole has always been an acceptable rhetorical device.
Re:Stupid article (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a good thing cars ob
Uhh, they're the FSF... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, yeah? They're the Free Software Foundation -- they like Freedom. DRM is the exact opposite of Freedom, which is why they're against it. The FSF has always been about politics. If you want the neutral, "here's some code, enjoy!" stance, use the BSD license. If you want to ensure that software remains Free for generations to come, then the GPL is the way to go.
If you read Stallman's essay, The Right to Read [gnu.org], you'll see why he's so opposed to DRM. Today, DRM is limited to crappy pop music that nobody wants any, but the extension of what can be done with DRM is pretty scary. It's easier to nip the DRM plague in the bud rather than wait until the society in The Right to Read becomes reality!
Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS is trying to stop this, stop the erosion of software freedom. In ten years, what I'm doing today will be a standard feature of your motherboard. Your authenticated OS will not run your unsigned code. Your free OS will not have access to the encrypted drive partition where your content is stored. Your hardware will conspire against you. Stallman is trying to extricate GPL software from the world where some are able to put restrictions on its free nature by means of DRM systems.
* Well, you could if you're really smart, but in the U.S. this is prohibited by law.
Re:Perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
There are those who'd call this FUD.
And then there are those who would say that this is right on the money. YMMV. Many people here are focusing on content, which arguably is not the point (although "The Right to Read" does make some good points). But fighting DRM as it is used to further restrict software is exactly in line with the FSF's charter.
I know, the market this, the market that, blah blah.
I agree, an informed consumer base is important.
Recent events show that the consumer responds quite well to fear, so maybe so-called "fear-mongering" is an effective way to go. I guess the "market" will sort that particular question out.
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Informative)
The informed consumers (or lack thereof) is another problem, but not one the GPL can address.
Re:Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Setting aside the GPL for the moment, people are perfectly free to write all the DRM code they like. And publishers are perfectly free to apply any stupid DRM schemes
Re:Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
I can because economics is mostly an ideology driven system and not one driven by testable hypothesis and rigorous proof. Economics is closer to a religion then a science. I don't remember who
DRM is meaningless (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps I'm uninformed, but how can opposing DRM, a technique which clearly never will work in the long run and in the end be paid for by consumers, be a bad thing?
People are watching freakin' cammed versions of movies for Petes sake... When will the DRM firms get it?! I should go patent sound waves and photons and claim that these are a "media distribution channel for IP".
the long view (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure I agree with recent FSF positions (haven't tracked them much recently), but I agree overall with the FSF taking the long view of free software. There are enormous latent risks that DRM or shifts in the IP landscape (patents) could poison the well ten or twenty years down the road, by which point the crucial battles have already been lost. It's easy to come off as radical crusaders fighting battles that won't play out over a span of decades. Our short little span of attention is our worst enemy in these matters. The fact that they are alone in their extreme urgency doesn't prove much directly: they might be equally alone in a correct analysis of the risks at hand. Just because Chicken Little is squawking, that doesn't mean the sky isn't falling. Glib comments about Chicken Little behaving like Chicken Little have add nothing of any use to the larger debate. My comments add nothing of any use, either, but at least I know the difference.
Someone needs to read up (Score:5, Informative)
DRM is exactly the kind of things that caused Stallman to launch the FSF in the first place.
Reply (Score:5, Informative)
http://defectivebydesign.org/node/78 [defectivebydesign.org]
Free market economics? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a free market! The record industry controls how music is allowed to be released. They restrict the market. If there was a choice between DRM and non-DRM music, everyone would go for the non-DRM stuff. It would allow them choice over which mp3 player to buy, not restrict them to an arbitrarty number of copies, allow them to play them on many types of DVD player, and give them all the flexibility that CDs give.
Re:It IS a free market; you are 100% wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
A market based around copyright is inherently not a free market, because the government is involved.
Re:It IS a free market; you are 100% wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. The DMCA was bought and paid for to prohibit a free market and to try to defeat natural free market forces and to prohibit natural free market responses.
Teh DMCA makes it criminal for me to offer an independant and innovative pla
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Dogmatic DRM opposition (Score:5, Interesting)
But especially with the new HDMI shit, with looking at what the DMCA actually lets people do, and thinking a little more about the big picture, I would like to take this chance to say: screw 'em. I hope the internet takes down the music industry, and then moves on to the movie industry. Let's take some risks, let's give people a little basic freedom, and let's let technology run its course a little and then figure out how to make money off the result. People have a hard time dealing with change, but it happens.
MPAA, I'm gonna go spend a little more time on the beach with my friends and a little less time trying to convince you and your surrogates that I legally own this DVD. Screw you and your careful licensing of permissions. And FSF, you've gained a contributor.
None of this is particularly new or revolutionary, but I want to add my voice to the chorus. Let's shake things up a bit.
DRM does not benefit my life (Score:3, Interesting)
as a consumer, writer, musician, actor, or software developer.
Remind me how it benefits someone else?
Re:DRM does not benefit my life (Score:3, Insightful)
Opposing DRM is about defending good old copyright law, not about saying artists should work for free.
Unless you'd like to explain why the hell blind people sould go to prison under the stupid horribly broken D
DRM are evil, OSS-wise (Score:3, Insightful)
I see the logic behind the FSF position and it seems objective enough to me. Their goal is to defend the 2-3% of the population known as "the geeks" who care for their digital rights and who have, in the field of computer science, a better chance than the rest of the population to recognise a "slippery slope". Of course, 97-98% of the population don't know/don't care about these issues and are numerous enough to make a commercial success
Tactics (Score:3, Insightful)
Looking at the terms like "evil" used by the FSF to describe DRM, it is hard not to think McAllister has a point.
This has little to do with whether you think DRM is A Good Thing or A Bad Thing. It is a question of the FSF's attitude towards it. Alas, what the article doesn't do is consider whether the FSF's new tactics (if you think they are new) are more or less likely to succeed than their older and more laid-back ones.
Telling someone that if they disagree with you they are morally wrong is not usually a great way to get them on your side. It comes across as arrogant, I would guess. Suggesting that by agreeing with you they will help to make the world a fairer and better place for both them and everyone else is usually more successful. So, yes, one can argue that the FSF has chosen to be too shrill and over-the-top to be as effective as it might be, especially since consumers have already shown with iTunes that if the price is right they will flock to a DRM-encumbered scheme in huge numbers.
However, Apple is only one company. Behind them lurk some decidedly bloodthirsty characters, and the Beast of Redmond
McAllister is apparently anti-Copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
He also thinks that free software has to prove itself to him or anybody else; here's a piece of news: it doesn't have to prove anything to anybody. In practice, enough people find it useful for free software to be a force in the market. If McAllister can't figure out why, that's his loss and his problem.
As for "neo-political activism", that's what the FSF is about (that's actually why the FSF and the GNU project are separate, but, hey, if you're an Infoworld journalist, why bother with facts). Personally, I consider the FSF's methods a whole lot better than the campaign contributions and other influence peddling that the big commercial software companies engage in. Regardless of whether you agree with their goals (and I don't always myself), politics is supposed to work like the FSF does it, not like corporate America does it.
If McAllister wants to participate in any meaningful debate on free software and free software licenses, he first needs to get rid of some of his assumptions, foremost his assumption that free software owes him anything.
Skip it... (Score:3, Interesting)
textbook case of FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
This is imho a classic case of FUD: heavy use of emotinal words and reasoning, false reasoning, using a pro-argument as an against-argument simply by stating it differently.
I tried to make an analysis of the article, and here's what I came up with:
Also, the author suggests that a free market needs no regulation. Unfortunately, history has shown that a free market without regulation does not work properly (labour issues, environmental issues and moral issues are less important than making a profit).
So, what have we: a claim that is not backed up by valid arguments, only by another claim that is in fact not backed up by arguments. A lot of paying on the readers' emotions.
Can't wait to see RMS' rebuttal on this one.
ProDRM - Ignorance = FSF Stance (Score:5, Informative)
This is one of the more ridiculous assertions I have seen in quite a while. It is akin to saying that the rise of the confederate army "puts the lie" to the Union Army's "histrionics" in regard to its anit-Slavery stance. It is a complete non sequitur to conclude that DRM is not bad just because a large part of the populace ignorantly embraces it. The difference here is that the harm falls on the ignorant as well.
People who think DRM is about protecting artist's rights and guaranteeing fair use while stopping piracy have literally no idea what DRM is, or what its potential for abuse implies. DRM is NOT about what music you can play or what videos you can watch, it is about what software you can run on your hardware!
The evolution of DRM is intended to be as follows:
Think about it people! Think! I implore you. You don't think Gates is pro DRM because he cares about making sure artists get paid boatloads of money, do you? Really?
Re:Open Source zealots (Score:5, Insightful)
He is telling the people who disagree with him to shut the fuck up. You are telling the people who disagree with you that they are zealots. The FSF is telling people they should fight DRM. It's all a part of the "market".
Re:Open Source zealots (Score:3, Insightful)
A "free market" is made up of more than just businessmen trying to conquer markets. It's also the customers. The needs of the customers are not the needs of the men trying to l
Re:Open Source zealots (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmmmn, I'm not sure I'd agree. RMS would fit my description of a zealot - and even tho' I don't agree with him all the time, I've always found him to be honest, self consistent, straightforward, convincing. All the things I would call credible.
The author of the article flat out lies however - how on Earth are the FSF trying to control artist's lyrics or notes:Generally speaking, free software 'zealots' are more credible then pro-drm 'zealots' as the pro-drm zealots are paid to defend the indefensible, whereas the free software zealots are defending what they believe to be freedoms.
Re:Open Source zealots (Score:5, Interesting)
Marketing/public relations/lobbying, btw. is a slighty different thing. There people are paid to appear convinced of their points. Wether they are or not is secondary. This of course doesn't rule out that they still might be right about their points. But more often than not they lack any credibility. And even more often than actual zealots they are flat out wrong. Only knowingly so in most accounts.
So RMS might be a zealot. But a non-violent zealot, and a zealot who doesn't care about money that much but very much about free exchange of information.
Anyone who is pro-drm is inherently agains free exchange of information. Anyone who is against free exchange of information has something to hide. And if someone with the goals of money and power is against free exchange of information, then he is a fascist and a danger to peaceful and free society.