FSF, Political Activism or Crossing the Line? 567
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."
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?
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.
Open Source zealots (Score:1, Insightful)
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: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".
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: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 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.
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.
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: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:Utter nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:2, Insightful)
If not, then I don't see how the market will regulate this because of lack of compition concerning DRM.
Unless market regulation is suddenly no longer influenced by consumer demand.
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."
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
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.
It's not dogma if you can explain it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open Source zealots (Score:2, Insightful)
Could we tone down the rhetoric a little, please?
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 going to choose?
Here's a hint: I'm not about to pay more for something that does less.
On the other hand, I will patronize (and have patronized) Magnatune or other artists that offer unencumbered downloads for a reasonable fee. They have earned my money by providing something I want to buy.
Now, that by no means is to indicate that I agree with the author of this piece. And in fact, ALL that GPLv3 forbids is any DRM scheme that seeks to limit modification or redistribution -of the GPL'd code.- If that piece of GPL code implements DRM measures, that would not violate the GPL, so long as the DRM was not on the program itself.
Of course, that does make the implementation of DRM rather impossible-but then, it already was, they haven't been able to do it in 50 years so far, and that with Congress in their pocket!
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.
Re:Stupid article (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a good thing cars obey their drivers and most cars really can go off the road (provided terrain is not too rough or slippery). Cars are really quite versatile and I for one wouldn't like to own a car that isn't. Trigger locks are another bad example. It is not like the gun factory or the government has the key to a lock while the owner doesn't. Any technology that empowers individual owner is a good thing. I wouldn't want the possibility of someone sneaking into my house (or cabin while I am off) taking away one of my weapons and using it for a crime, or injuring oneself with it by reckless handling.
The DRM, on the contrary, is like the TV in Orwell's "1984". Someone else remotely controls my stuff and I am even forbidden to cut that someone out of the loop. It is like being forced by law to allow trespassing (of some lord's men) on your property. I don't need that and I don't want that. But, am I allowed to have a choice on that?
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.
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 lock down markets.
It is more than fair that users should organize to keep a few operators from telling everyone what to do and what to pay for it.
Businesses are fictional individuals licensed to exist by the people as corporations. They exist for our benefit. We do not exist to service them. They are not the bosses, we are. If we don't want to play by their paid-for little rules, THEY can shut up and sit down. Free software proponents aren't the zealots here. People who give things away rarely force people to use their wares.
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 but an ex president is quoted as saying "get me a one armed economist so I never hear the word "on the other hand" again".
"DRM can be misused. The fact that it has been only demonstrates that this is true. I never said that it could not or would not. What I am saying is that just because technology can be misused is no reason to forbid that technology from being used. "
Who is going to forbid the use of DRM? Are you under some impression that the FSF is capable of doing such a thing?
" What I am saying is that just because technology can be misused is no reason to forbid that technology from being used. ""
What I am saing is that the technology IS being misused.
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 you encounter? It's only when one of these artist's can draw a big enough crowd to sell seats that money enters the equation (some people erroneously think that if you throw enough money at a good looking kid it will make them a popular artist). During the 20th century technology has made distance practically irrelevant, an artist in the 19th century could not even invision an audience of a billion westerners with disposable income. Today the cream of the popular talent bubbles to the top and it's almost impossible for their potential audience not to know their names.
It won't take long (in historical terms) before the perverted music/video distribution model built up around physical media collapses under it's own weight. Artists will routinely release digital music/video for free, and the market will return to selling seats at theaters and concerts. Print media vs the web is a whole other game, both would suffer greatly without advertising dollars and geek-shop trinkets.
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Beyond that, what you're saying is mostly correct. There wouldn't be "no" incentive to innovate, but there would be substantially less of an incentive to innovate. Copyrights and patents create an incentive to innovate through the creation of monopolies on innovations. These monopolies impose their own inefficiencies. If you believe that copyrights and patents are good for society, you must believe that there is no alternative to them that solves the incentives problem with greater efficiency.
I think that subsidies are a better way. We already subsidize that which is protected by patents through DARPA, the NSF, and other government funded agencies. We could feasibly get rid of patents and dramatically increase funding for these agencies to compensate. In my proposal, the inefficiency of a monopoly is replaced with the inefficiency of extra taxes. If we have a reasonably efficient tax system, I think this will easily be a net win over private monopolists.
With regard to that which is copyrighted, we could do subsidize in a similar way. Get rid of copyrights, but dramatically increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. As long as additional taxation is less inefficient than the inefficiency of private monopolies, this is a net win.
Now, if we as a country were to do this, I'd recommend doing it gradually. Decrease copyright and patent terms over the course of 10 years while increasing government subsidies to research and innovation. There's not a snowball's chance this will actually be done anyway, though.
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I refused to buy a DVD player because I objected to the region encoding and the way that the content provider can control what buttons I can press on my remote. It was not until I could get a player with these features hacked out (and also by then you could copy a DVD too) that I got my first player.
Since then I have purchased over a hundred DVDs. It probably would have been more, but I realised that it was cheaper to hire titles many times before it comes anywhere near the price of buying a DVD. Most of the titles that I own are foreign ones that are not available in my region.
Similarly, I will not be considering any DVD replacement until I know that I retain control of my machine. I don't really care whether they have copy protection on the discs, as long as it does not restrict how I use my legal copy. Until I am sure that I will be able to buy a title anywhere in the world, skip through its trailers and be able to watch it when my Internet connection goes down then HD-DVD and Blueray can just sit on the shelf.
Not that I have any real need for a higher resolution, but I would have liked a greater bitrate and colour depth.
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.
Copyright is the artificial price mechanism.
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: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.
Way to go FSF! (Score:1, Insightful)
In a world where your DVR can tell you what you can or cannot fast-forward, where your cell phone can give away your exact location, and where ISP's are increasingly pressured to log everything you do online, personal freedom heavily depends on the freedom to control your own information appliances.
How long until your media player can rat you out for watching an unpopular political documentary? The worst dictators of the 20th century only dreamed of dissident entrapment methods that are now possible through misuse of technology, and as this technology becomes ever cheaper and smaller it is only a matter of time until Big Brother's spies can theoretically hide inside any leaf, any particle of dust. I'm not saying that the people who bring us these technologies to it with bad intentions, but if they give corporations and governments tremendous potential to monitor and control the informational activities of the ordinary citizens, and this kind of power, if left unchecked, is sooner or later bound to corrupt.
You don't need an Orwellian outlook to understand these dangers. Corporations are very efficient organizational entities optimized for profit, and in nearly robotic pursuit of ever-greater profit they have been shown to be willing to do everything they can get away with to boost their marketing databases, reduce their costs, and increase your prices. If they could sell you the air you're now breathing, they would. Record labels and many media companies, for example, have pretty much outlived their usefulness with the advent of the Internet, the artists can now distribute and promote themselves, and yet those companies find ways to manipulate both artists and consuers to make ever more billions in profits. If consumers do not exhibit vigilance in controlling their information appliances, their information appliances will begin to control them!
This is why concerned people in increasing numbers are beginning to demand hardware and software transparency, flexibility, and and respect for privacy. Thank you, Free Software Foundation! Thank you, Electronic Frontiers Foundation! We need your efforts now more than ever before.
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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 they like to the content they publish.
The problem is horribly broken and evil law like the DMCA and EUCD that try to prohibit people from writing and transacting software freely. The horribly broken and evil DMCA and EUCD that say I go to prison if I write and offer to BLIND PEOPLE independant text-to-speech reader software to be able to read the e-books they bought. Horribly broken and evil law that says blind people go to prison for using such software.
But as for the article and for the GPL, it either missunderstands or missrepresents the issue. The GPL v3 does NOT, I repeat does NOT prohibit you from writing GPL DRM software.
The GPL v3 simply reaffirms and clarifies the original operation and function and intent of the GPL. In particular the original operation function and intent of the GPL was that you must do two things:
(1) In order to redistribute other people's GPL software, you MUST grant all of the legal rights needed for modification and use. In particular you cannot take MY software and attempt to deny ME any of the legal rights to modify and use derivatives of MY OWN SOFTWARE.
(2) In order to redistribute other people's GPL software, you MUST distribute the full and complete source code needed to be able to modify and use the software. In particular you cannot take MY software and attempt to deny ME the ability to modify and use derivatives of MY OWN SOFTWARE.
Well the GPL v3 simply clarifies point (1). In particular the GPL clarifies that granting all legal rights to modify the software includes the new issue of DMCA rights to modify the software. The original GPL said that you cannot try to use the law to prohibit me from modifying derivatives of my own software, and the new GPL v3 clause simply clarifies that that does indeed include any attempts to use the DMCA to prohibit me from modifying the software.
The GPL v3 also simply clarifies point (2). In particular clarifies that "all of the source code" really does include all of the source needed to be able to compile working software. More specifically, it clarifies that any crypto key required to be able to compile the working software is indeed part of the source. That if you cannot create a working compile, then the source is not complete.
So you are perfectly free to write DRM GPL software. However the original operation and function and intent of the GPL is that you cannot attempt deny people the legal right to modify the software, nor can you deny people the practical ability to modify the software and to use modifications. Which means that you can write DRM GPL software, but you cannot expect to deny me the legal right or the ability to modify it. So the simple practical fact is that attempting to write DRM under the GPL has always been pointless. You can do it, but you cannot expect to prevent people from modifying or even removing that DRM at will.
People complaing that the FSF and the GPL v3 are some move against DRM are either missinformed or are lying. The simple fact is that any attempt to enforce DRM on or in GPL code is inherently an attempt to violate the GPL. It is either an attempt to deny people the right to modify the GPL code (through the DMCA), or an attempt to deny the ability to modify the code by providing incomplete source code insufficent for compiling working modifications.
-
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:1, Insightful)
Which artists? A writer can use a computer too, but some might insist on getting a typewriter. A painter needs pencils and paint and such stuff - even my father could afford that long before any of us could afford a computer. Musicians? A guitar does not need to be that expensive, a piano is probably around the price of a PC...
Where does the huge expenses come in? Don't say "record companies", an artist needs record companies as much as an OSS programmer needs Microsoft.
no valid arguments (Score:2, Insightful)
no? well then this statement is void
so, what millions of people are doing must be right, eh? well in 1933 millions of germans voted hitler, so this must have been a right decision too, according to this argumentation...
irrational argumentation - void!
the argument is again that DRM must be right, because millions of people buy the products - so again he saies the holocaust was a good idea, because millions of people voted for it...
has the author thought about the possibility that many people may not even know DRM or don't know how it harms them? he states "Convinced, perhaps, that average consumers are too stupid to know what's good for them" BUT doesn't go into that... you know 85% of all computer users use the internet explorer ALTHOUGH it is known to be the worst browser around (and security experts advise to use ANY OTHER BROWSER) so missing knowledge MIGHT be a reason for products being successful although they are known to have a bad quality...
yet I think the car-comparison is not that good - I'd say DRMed media players are more like navigation systems that don't contain cities that didn't pay a fee to the producer of the navigation system... if you don't try to go there, you'll never notice and the more popular the navigation system is, the more pressure is on the cities to pay the fee, because they can't afford to not-being on these maps... sure, let's all give up our freedom, as long as we get a cool-looking navigation-system for it... when the manufacturer rules the market then we'll see how reasonable priced the navigation-systems and the fees for the cities will stay...
Yeah... help me out here... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
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:2, Insightful)
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 DMCA DRM law for using an independant text-to-speech product on the e-book they bought. And explain why a programmer should go to prison under the DMCA DRM law for offering that independant text-to-speech e-book reader product to blind people.
I'm supporting copyright. I want artists to get paid. I just want the good old copyright law we had 8 years ago. I just want a free market, where people can offer independant innovative player products. A free market that can respond to and resolve any legitimate problems caused by DRM schemes. A free market that can offer independant MP3 players and conversion software to be able to read and use iTunes DRM formate and WindowsMedia formats and any other DRM formats on any and all MP3 players. A free market that can offer GPL Linux DVD players. A free market that can offer DVD players that do NOT refuse to play a DVD I bought in Austraila ok England. A free market that can offer DVD players that do NOT lock out the fast forward button during the several minuts of commercials on some DVDs. A free market that can offer the religious fundies that stupid (yet innovatively stupid) DVD player with the ability to skip over the "dirty" or "violent" segments of movies. That's not a product I want, but it is a legitimate product with a legitimate demand, and they should be free to buy such a product and any independant manufacturer should be free to offer such a product.
Of course all this free market would kill DRM, or at least make DRM pointless by offering products and services to circumvent or remove DRM for legitimate purposes.
Pro- good old copyright law. Pro- copyright law of just 8 years ago.
Anyone who argues that opposing DRM equals opposing copyright, that opposing DRM equals abolishing copyright, that person is either confused deluded or just plain lying. Any attempt to equate opposing DRM to supporting piracy is lying to slander and demonize the other side.
-
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:1, Insightful)
Really? Intel now includes DRM technology in its chipsets. Pretty soon you won't be able to buy a PC without it. The DMCA makes it illegal for you to circumvent this technology. Microsoft and Apple both love this stuff, and make the operating systems which virtually every employee at every corporation must use. So yes, it is being forced on us.
I think the tipping point against this imposition may come from abroad. When foreign governments finally realize that they have completely lost control of their own IT infrastructure, they won't like it one little bit. Then the backlash against IT megalomania will hit the mainstream. Watch Intel and Microsoft cry for government intervention, to protect them against the Euro-bullies.
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Utter nonsense. (Score:2, Insightful)
There are always two factors in a transaction, the lowest price the seller finds acceptable and the highest price the buyer finds acceptable. The seller usually bases his price on the cost of the item in question to him, and the buyer on the benefits. If the buyer benefits to the tune of $6000, why shouldn't the buyer be able to charge him $3000, even if his costs are closer to $1000, or even $1? A smart buyer would pay either way, he gets $3000 of value out of the deal...
Wrong DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
If anyone really thinks that DRM is or should be outside the FSF's agenda, he should read The Right to Read.
Absolutely, but it's important to keep in mind that proposed GPLv3's anti-DRM clause is about something else, something less "radical" (not that I disagree with RMS here) and more subtle.
I guess I can't take issue with the author of the article for not understanding the proposed GPLv3's position on this, because most of the Free Software community misunderstands it as well. Everyone thinks that the GPL's anti-DRM provision is intended to prevent the protection of content. That's because when we discuss DRM we're usually talking about content (music, movies and, in the case of "The Right to Read", books). But the GPLv3 anti-DRM provision has nothing to do with content. Not directly, at least.
GPLv3 aims to prevent the use of DRM to protect code, to ensure that it remains open to modification. Imagine a device that ships with embedded GPL'd code, but uses a digital signature to verify that only "authorized" versions of the GPL'd code can run. Under the terms of GPLv2, the maker of the device can ship the device with a copy of the code and be in compliance, even though the device prevents the user from making use of some of the freedoms provided by the GPL. Specifically, the user cannot modify the code, because the modified code will not run on the device.
The same opportunity to limit GPL users' freedom exists even without hardware support. If the GPL software runs in a closed software environment that checks the code's signature before running it, the same opportunity/problem (depending on your point of view) arises.
So, GPLv3 requires that if you distribute the code, and if keys are required to use, modify, copy or distribute the code, you have to provide the keys as well. To emphasize the point: the keys that protect the *code* from being used in the ways the GPL allows must be provided. Otherwise, code signing can be used to perform an end run around the GPL, taking away the freedoms the GPL is intended to ensure. This is precisely in line with GPLv2's requirement that if you distribute the code you have an obligation to ensure that the recipient has all of the legal rights specified by the GPL, but taking it a step further to prevent the user's rights from being limited technologically.
This means that you can, in fact, write software that implements DRM protection of content and publish it under the terms of the proposed GPLv3, without providing keys. It would be a dumb thing to do, of course, since users could modify the code to defeat the DRM. Unless, of course, the GPL'd code could be locked against modification, something GPLv2 allows and the proposed revision would disallow. So I guess you could say the proposed GPLv3 would make it impossible to write *useful* GPL'd DRM code, and I'm sure RMS considers that a good thing, but that's not actually the purpose of the anti-DRM provision.
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.
Open respose to McAllister (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony, which I'm sure I don't have to point out to you, is that FSF has been supportive of the rights of computer users to have control over their computers and the software and data that is on them. Meanwhile, DRM specifically and purposefully exists in order to control what you can do with data.
So I must assume that you got confused in combining the words "do what I say" with the name of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Perhaps you got your TLAs confused and really meant to associate "do what I say" with the acronym "DRM". Because that would make sense.
I don't know why I'm bothering to write, because I'm sure you must know this -- DRM is about limitation, FSF is about no limitation -- and yet you managed to switch the seats and slur FSF as the seekers of restriction. By inferred converse, this must mean that DRM is simply a beacon of liberty for you.
I think the problem is that you don't seem to see free software as a good thing because it gives individuals control over their computers, but because it does good things to the market. The philosophical questions of whether people should be free in their computers is (ironically enough) apparently not important to the modern libertarian; rather the only thing that matters is what the market does.
But the flaw in your market argument betrays the idea that maybe you're not really pro-free software at all. You argue that iTunes DRM must be okay, and not a challenge to user liberty, because the end-user market is gobbling it up. Now, if market acceptance was your true yardstick of good/bad, you couldn't in the same article say that free software (i.e. "free as in the concept of liberty") was also good -- because the end-user market *isn't* gobbling it up; they still use IE and Office and AIM and so on.
So how can you possibly use market acceptance as a yardstick for DRM but then not for free software when you're trying to compare the two? Clearly there is something inconsistent here. Clearly market acceptance means little in terms of real value. Actually, I'd really like to see you argue that there is any at all correlation between market acceptance and personal liberty. People aren't really all that big on personal liberty these days, not if market acceptance (not just in software, but in everything from CPUs to media players to gasoline to presidents) is any indication.
iTunes doesn't succeed in the market because it champions personal liberty. It succeeds because it has a large catalog of popular music and has lots of accessories and cross-branding. Personal liberty doesn't have anything to do with it. Like I said, personal liberty is not really all that high on people's priorities -- not as long as they can find a few things they are free to do (e.g. download music at a buck a song flat that they can do less with than they can a CD at roughly the same per-song price).
Now in closing, and just in case they didn't require Intro to Logic at your J-school, here's how the FSF-DRM thing breaks down:
* FSF fundamentally supports end-users' ability to have complete freedom over their computers and devices including the bits and bytes on them.
* Therefore, FSF fundamentally opposes restricting end-users' complete freedom over their computers and the data on them.
* DRM fundamentally exists in order to restrict end-users' complete freedom over their computers and the data on them.
* Therefore, FSF fundamentally opposes DRM.
It makes sense. That is, as long as your logic is consistent.