RMS Calls to Liberate Cyberspace 578
Henri Poole writes "In an interview with Groklaw's Sean Daly at GPLv3 Conference in Barcelona, RMS talks with passion about the dangers of DRM. From the article: 'the point is, we shouldn't be passive victims! We should decide that it will not happen! And the way we decide that is by activism. We have to do everything possible to make sure that those products are rejected, that they fail, that they give bad reputations to whoever makes them.' He closed the interview with a far reaching goal for the Free Software Movement: 'the goal is to liberate everyone in cyberspace.'"
The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, he had the guts to stand up for his freedoms and everyone else's, to be able to do what they want with their software. He's done more than just about any other single person to try and protect those freedoms for regular folks like you and me.
Can you imagine what the software landscape would look like today without the GPL, without the FSF and without all the free software that has been licensed under the GPL (both by the FSF and by many other open-source contributors)? Even if many of us continue to use non-free systems such as Windows XP, it is nice to know we have a choice. And we WOULDN'T have that choice anymore if Richard and many others had not stood up when they did.
Lots of people criticise Richard Stallman, but in my view nearly all of those people are either (1) immature kids who wouldn't pass a real civics class if they were ever put in one, (2) people who don't understand the real issues and how fundamental they are, or (3) shills or trolls or other people with an anti-freedom agenda.
There are a small number of people who understand the issues but aren't particularly concerned about them; extreme pragmatists like Linus probably fall into this category. Still, I don't often hear Linus or others from this category criticising Stallman.
The people who criticise Richard Stallman are those who are afraid of his message.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:3, Insightful)
In the same way that I am sympathetic to the animal rights movement yet think PETA is counterproductive, I am sympathetic to the Open Source movement yet think Stallman is, generally, overshrill for his/our own good. The idea that you have to match extremity with extremity in politics finds no home with me.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:2)
Place for the truth (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Place for the truth (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Place for the truth (Score:3, Informative)
Usually, it's stated in terms of the relatively uncontroversial, "well there are radical extremists on both sides of the issue." While this is usually true, it doesn't necessarily mean that the truth lies directly in between them. In addition, it's generally implied that the radical extremists are both equally wrong, which is usually not the case. Michael Moore is not Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly is not Al Franken, and Jon Stewart is not Dennis Miller (not that I've heard th
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you know what extreme is.
Communism as a solution to the problems of proprietary software would be extreme, but that isn't even close to what Stallman promotes.
Stallman's position is to the proprietary software industry as the expectation of being able to open the hood of your car is to the automobile industry. No reasonable person would argue that the hoods of all cars should be welded shut and only openable by the manufacturer, so why is it extreme for Stallman to make the same argument about software?
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, no, no. Source code is step-by-step instructions for building a product, it's not (usually) the product itself. (The exception would be for stuff like teaching/educational programs, such as Minix, where the source code is part of the product.) To get the "source" for a car, you need all the blueprints, design schematics, assembly line instructions, etc. to build one yourself from very small parts.
Now you may, from looking at the finished product, be able to deduce some or even most of how the car was made. But that's just reverse-engineering, which you can do with software too (well, less and less these days). All those books you see at your local auto parts store, like the Haynes manuals? They're the result of reverse-engineering the car. Manufacturers have their own manuals which they sell (for big money), but they are more like MS's MCSE books than source code.
Sorry, but the analogy you made is kind of a pet peeve of mine. I think so many people make the same error because cars are so simple (compared to major computer programs) that a regular Joe can look at one and figure most of it out. It's frustrating that we can't do the same with software, but even people who do have the source code can't keep it all straight in their heads. It's why we have APIs.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:3, Insightful)
No. I can look at the Linux kernel source code, but I wouldn't have a clue on the thought processes that went into it. There are no specs, blueprints, or design schematics provided with it. There's just code that's assembled for me in a particular configuration that I can modify to my hearts content (if I had the knowledge) or even combine it with other GPL code to create whatever I want. If I didn't have the knowledge, I could hire a consu
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, you are allowed to sell a car where the hood is welded shut, but police wouldn't stop people from opening it.
On the other hand, with DRM if you manage to open it up, the RIAA will call the police, and at the expense of taxpayers, police will come and take you to jail.
I don't have anything against DRM except the police enforcement. If they can come up with a technological measure that stops me from making a copy of digital information, so be it. The less of my worries will be music or movies. But if they don't, I don't know why the goverment has to protect them and not me.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now, you are allowed to sell a car where the hood is welded shut, but police wouldn't stop people from opening it.
If opening the hood possibly enabled you to create as many copies of the car as you see fit, im pretty sure it would be illegal, or they would want it to be illegal. Digital media is not comparable to cars.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that while in the US, any politician which isn't in the two siamese parties is mostly ignored, in the rest of the world, while they aren't typically in a position to be elected, they do provide input to the general debate and are listened to.
The point of "extremists" is typically to go "over the top" on a given subject so that some more moderate view can be considered by the majority. That's the way it often works in Europe.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you talking about his insistence on the use of the phrase "Free Software" instead of "Open Source"? If you are, you should consider the possibility that it's necessary to make that distinction because the terms mean two different things. Even though all Free Software is Open Source, not all Open Source is Free Software. Because Stallman is specifically referring to the ideological aspect of it, he must insist on "Free Software" because "Open Source" is inaccurate.
Moreover, this distinction is not an idle one, because his opponents' strategy is to try to re-frame the argument in order to ignore the central ideological issue. For example, Microsoft's opposition to OpenDocument is based on tricking Massachusetts' politicians into thinking that it's "OpenXML" format is just as "open" as OpenDocument, even though it's not even slightly as Free. Therefore, the minute Stallman stops insisting on the semantic distinction, he loses. Now do you still object to it?
RMS doesn't speak for "Open Source". (Score:5, Insightful)
Then when you get around to reading the transcript of the interview or listening to it, you should be pleased to learn that Stallman is not with the Open Source movement. He takes pains to tell people that his movement, the Free Software movement, is older than the Open Source movement and pursues a different philosophy [fsf.org]. Stallman doesn't speak for the Open Source movement.
In this interview he points out one of the differences between the two movements:
Re:RMS doesn't speak for "Open Source". (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT -1:Blinkered (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean the Open Source community? The one he rejects? I don't think you read my post at all. He continues to declare himself an outsider of the Open Source community. As for this "Open Software" community you speak of, perhaps you're thinking of the Sun community? That's how they refer to themselves. And I assure you, they do not think of RMS as anything approximating a "heart"..
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Insightful)
Like it or not, but moderates stir no one to action exactly because they have no defining ideological principles. It is simply a relative marker of the "middle ground." Extremist serve their purpose by marking the extreme (the edge).
A moderate today is different from a moderate yesterday but sets of principles are more firm. If there were no Richard Stallman setting up his extreme, the current leftist (or what have you) extreme would be moved closer to your middle, and you'd be the extremist, unless of course, if you don't stand for anything, then your stand would be significantly pushed to closer to the status quo and away from what Stallman stands for.
In fact, being a moderate is much of an deceit on people to appear "reasonable" when it really is just a way not to ruffle anybodies feathers by having a stance. Their opinions change with the tide.
If moderates were the flag bearers (which by definition they are the exact opposite of), would there be slavery in our country still? What about woman's suffrage? Or the civil rights movement?
None of these were started by moderates nor advocated by moderates until the "extremists" stood up and then moved the "middle position" away from the status quo.
My point is, people like RMS are exactly what's needed because the whiny people in the middle don't want to obstruct the flow and, in the absense of two extremes but having only one to follow, would tend to sway toward that group.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:3, Insightful)
With moderates left in charge of things, slavery would definitely be gone by now (because there isn't any reason to keep it around at this point), and Civil rights probably wouldn't have been an issue because the effort to deal with
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Insightful)
The accusation of fanaticism has been levelled at Stallman for more than two decades now, and it is still absurd. It is typical that whenever Stallman sees a new threat to freedom, one that most or nearly all other people in society do not see, he his called names and people say he is hurting Free Software. However, Free Software, and Open Source software for that matter, would have died long ago if Stallman had not been defending it. In fact, if Stallman had listened to his critics in the past, Microsoft would still be the only choice, unless it could be imagined that a broken rewrite of MacOS could have posed a serious challenge to Microsoft -- which really is hard to imagine.
I think the main reason for this freqent and unfair criticism is the outlook of those trapped in the Emerald City, those with green glasses locked to their faces forcing them to everywhere see green. They are the same ones who think the "free" in Free Software means "free of charge", which is indeed a limited view of the word free. For those who live in a world where there is only green, that seems to be the only freedom.
This could not be farther from the truth, of course. The freedom to speak freely and the freedom to think for oneself and the freedom to learn what one wants are certainly beyond pricing. There is a reason that selling oneself into slavery cannot be allowed in a Free Society. There is also a reason that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America protects one's right to free speech. Rights are priceless. Their value is unlimited. Rights should not be curtailed based on the whinings of some crooked entertainment industry executives.
DRM directly threatens the right to free speech. It will allow third parties to control which computers communicate with which computers. It will allow authorization of all speech by third parties. It will control whether you can or cannot alter or copy any file on your computer. Hardware implementation of this will mean that the cost to free oneself of this will be the cost of fabrication of chips to alter the code for this. In fact, it would be possible to eliminate Free Software altogether with hardware DRM. This will leave 1984 style control of free speech in the hands of the likes of Microsoft, Intel, and a handful of other companies that will be able to basically control all of your communication with the outside world.
Richard Stallman has seen this future, and he understands the implications. Does it matter if Free Software is in the majority of computers and devices if we do not have the freedom to modify it? What is the difference between Linux and Microsoft when someone can tell you what you can and cannot do with your computer, with your software? If DRM wins, everybody, all six billion of us, loses.
I will leave this with another quote from a much darker book, nothing less than 1984 (Book I, Chapter IV):
DRM makes Winston Smith's job convenient.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:3, Insightful)
I like to think that this will eventually become something larger than just Free Software. I want to see society working together for the benefit of society, rather than individual profit.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to understand that although we both know about Free Software and DRM, most people haven't ever heard of these things. Activists don't mind people thinking that they are crazy as long as they are able to get people interested/curious enough to research what they are protesting for themselves.
If people see a protest outside an Apple store, they will naturally think the people in
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow. Pre-emptively demonizing those who might dare disagree with the great RMS. I'm sure all those people won't post now!
I think you've illustrated the RMS cult of personality far
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you've illustrated the RMS cult of personality far better than you realize. Keep that mind closed! It's much safer that way!
You are way over-stretching your example. Anyone who has been on slashdot very long has heard all the complaints about RMS, by now its just a litany of repitition - nobody has come up with anything new to complain about RMS for long, long time.
So the guy posts first and says, "yeah, yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before and most of the arguments against RMS break down as either A, B or C." That doesn't mean he's close minded, it means he's tired of hearing the same well refuted drivel over and over again.
Anyone who wants to criticize RMS should take that as a declaration that they need to do better than they have in the past, that same tired old specious arguments aren't worth the effort to type them in.
By the way, your "cult of personality" bit - that's one of the referenced specious arguments that nobody cares about.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, the strongest Christians are those that hold onto their faith (and are not swayed from it) no matter what they hear? Isn't that also head-in-the-sand thinking?
I'm sorry, I don't mean to attack you, but I always had this extraordinary fascination with people who thought holding onto faith was the most important thing and that faith itself was the most sanctimonius and unassailable of emotions (enough tyrants also have complete faith in themselves or their value systems). I mean that assumes so many things, like that the religion they happened to grow up with (in most cases) is the correct one. As opposed to the myriad of others out there.
But wouldn't the strongest Christians be open to new ideas just as they were open to their parents (presumably) faith and that it may actually sway their stance because they personally find more truth in it (it resonates with them more)? What is so magical about the first version of religion they hear that they shouldn't contemplate others?
I'm sorry, I just have to ask as I find blind faith as a version of head in the sand thinking and I have to ask as someone who has some (converted) gnostic friends.
I don't mean to insult or offend:)
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:2)
I call bullshit... no one is correct, 100% of the time. RMS is an idealist. In a utopian world perhaps all of his ideas would work. But that isn't the world we live in, I'm afraid.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, it's a disappointment to see so many disparaging comments (mostly it seems from the same few AC trolls) whenever an RMS story is posted here. Personally, I think the "Open Source" world will continue to remain open and useful only for as long as RMS and the FSF keep it that way.
Reading his interview I kept thinking about how many times I've seen a phrase like "DRM is coming and there's nothing you can do about it so get over it". I would always think "Wh
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Informative)
In my speeches I often make it clear that I consider myself to be standing on Richard's shoulders. Indeed, I said that while sitting next to him on a panel at the UN World IT Summit in Tunis. And Richard immediately responded by protectively clutching his own shoulders! So, I feel that this community member isn't appreciated by his prophet :-)
Bruce
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'm not a diehard OSS fanatic by a
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Insightful)
That quote shows you completely do not understand the GPL. People can charge for my GPLed software if they wish. Nothing in the license stops them. What they can't do is take it and make software from it without releasing their own code. In other words, it keeps the code open. Taking the code and making a proprietary branch doesn't improve the world. IT just continues the cycle of proprietary shit used to fuck over consumers. The GPL does improve the world- it forces offshoots to be GPLed as well, so people can use the code to improve their lives and the lives of others.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Interesting)
And this is the standard false dichotomy that opponents to the GPL like to ask. Of course given only those choices we would rather have proprietary ones. But even better would be free (libre) drivers. And to get those we have to convince the people making the drivers that everyone wants their drivers to be Free. To do that you have to stop accepting the non-free drivers that the companies give you. One we have free drivers, the entire community benefits from better driver software. So the answer to your question is "NO drivers for a little bit leading to free drivers forever is better than proprietary drivers forever."
That's the theory, in any case. But don't make it look as though FSF is trying to cripple your computer for its own lofty ideals. The ultimate goal is to make it so everyone will see it as a mistake if people don't release their software under a free license. There are two major methods to acheive this goal so far: try and win through superior software alone, or, in addition, use your rights as a software writer to make sure your software isn't used against this goal.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:3, Insightful)
When you put down the LSD, you will realize that Linux, and for that matter Free Software, has changed the world immensely. Do you call Google a small change? Google has changed the way people think, work, do research, and in many ways the way people communicate with eachother. Google would have been impossible without Linux. The existence of Free Softw
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes the GNU GPL the GNU GPL is its requirement to republish the changes. This surely is a restriction for the particular person/organisation using or changing a piece of software. But it should be seen as a protection for the whole community (that is: everybody who is interested in that software); it makes sure that if someone enhances the software _all_ benefit from the changes.
Some claim that the GNU GPL discourages organisations to touch software licensed under it and that the BSD like licenses are "friendlier". As we talk about free software the important thing is how much code gets contributed back to the original project. I haven't seen any statistics (please post links if you know of such) but I would guess that the contribution ratio is about the same with both licenses: some "change encouraged" organisations using some BSD licensed software _may_ contribute back, but often do not. With the GNU GPL, far less organisations touch the code, but those who do (and distribute anything derivative) _have to_ contribute back. So I guess it's more or less the same. The GNU GPL has the whole manhood as a focus whereas BSD like licenses focus on the individual.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Informative)
I can't believe people still are confused about this aspect of the GPL.
FSF's Defective By Design (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FSF's Defective By Design (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever try explaining free software to someone by saying "its free as in liberty not free as in beer" -- they just look at you with a big "what the fuck?" expression on their face. Same thing happens when you say that DRM is "defective by design" - all you get is a big
Interesting read. (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM education (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experiences, after explaining what DRM is to people that I know, they think it is the dumbest thing that they have ever heard.
I am sure the public would reject it, but the problem remains then: how do we educate the public?
Re:DRM education (Score:5, Insightful)
Educating them would also mean that they would have to give more thought in technology, and from my point of view, it seems most of them just want it to work. Perhaps we can hope that the DRM makers make DRM so incredibly hard to work out that people will actually pay attention to it. Until then, we're trying to swim uphill while picking up a couple of people here and there.
Re:DRM education (Score:5, Insightful)
Admittedly, DRM could have terrible consequences, but right now a key part of the next generation DRM is the "managed copy" bits which the consumer ironically perceives as granting them *more* rights rather than less because the copying features are integrated into the product. You see this already in Apple's Fairplay system.
Actually convincing people that DRM is worse than their nifty new consumer products is a difficult problem. Arguments about pubic domain and (academic) fair use don't have much traction among consumers. And the "boiling the frog", "road to fascism" arguments honestly come off as over-the-top and kooky, even if they are plausible.
Re:DRM education (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DRM education (Score:2)
Education? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Education? (Score:2)
Re:Education? (Score:3, Insightful)
I sympathize with you, but does Free Software have to win, or just merely have and maintain a strong niche to be successful? If one thinks about it that way, perhaps it has already "won". Just having a strong Free Sofware movement around is enough to influence purveyors of other software ecosystems to look over their shoulders to see w
A very telling exclusion there... (Score:2, Insightful)
RMS says our goal should be to liberate everyone in cyberspace (whatever that is). I say our goal should be to liberate everyone on earth - from poverty and disease and whatever else needs fixin'. It may never happen, b
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
we are all the elite (Score:2)
The poor need money - they need jobs, they need health, they need hope. They don't give a shit whether the internet runs on oil or gas or whether it runs at all. Making the blanket assumption all DRM = evil is just one more extremist, unprov
Re: (Score:2)
Re:we are all the elite (Score:2)
Think of why it is important to not "abridge" freedom of speech, the ramifications of ideas like "free speech zones". If supported by legislation, DRM = evil for similar reasons.
Re:A very telling exclusion there... (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on whether you're using 'liberate' in the RMS sense or the G. W. Bush sense.
If you mean it in the Bush sense, and are liberating him by taking his technology away from him, then no, definately not.
If you mean it in the RMS sense, and are liberating him by giving him a free, gratis alternative that isn't owned by the corporate horde, that he's free to us
Re:A very telling exclusion there... (Score:2)
No, he should be "liberated" so that he has the choice between proprietary and free cell phones.
Re:A very telling exclusion there... (Score:3, Interesting)
"there is no room for DRM in Free Software" (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that machines are being built to suppress what people can do with them rather than to enhance our abilities to grow and perhaps go beyond their intended purposes makes them defective by design [defectivebydesign.org]. Imagine not being able to make a copy of your music for use in your car because you already have one at home, one at your office, and three that were made for iPods (the first two of which were lost or broken). What if you wanted to include it in a mix tape [sic]?
Or it's like buying a computer that will only run M$ software - software that purposely spies on everything you do so that M$ can "protect" you from doing something their contract (that you signed when you turned the machine on) disallows.
It's FUBAR.
DRM isn't dangerous. (Score:5, Insightful)
What IS dangerous is the government requiring DRM or giving it special legal protection. It is dangerous if the government mandates DRM, and makes it illegal for me to circumvent DRM. If I can crack the DRM on media, and convert it to an unprotected format for myself, without any fear of legal consequences, then my rights are not being restricted in any way.
What is also dangerous is people thinking that the government should act against DRM. Seriously, that is just as bad as DRM. It is going to come back to bite people in the ass when those anti-DRM laws start restricting how you are allowed to encrypt your own data. If I create data, I want to be able to encrypt it in any way I choose... just because you find it annoying that it takes 10 seconds to run your itunes music through a utility to convert it to mp3, doesn't mean you have the right to restrict me from encrypting my data however I want.
Basicly, keep all the legal restrictions out of it, and let people do whatever the hell they want want... that is the only truly safe thing to do.
Re:DRM isn't dangerous. (Score:2)
You're talking about RMS here, who has previously been against the idea of even having passwords for computer access... (http://mannu.livejournal.com/10626.html) ... you think he's going to be all for people encrypting their data? :D
Re:DRM isn't dangerous. (Score:4, Insightful)
That kind of thinking is wrong on so many levels...
Encrypting files for personal use has almost nothing to do with DRM. If an RIAA exec wants to encrypt his music, good for him, but he has no business encrypting music I PAID FOR. If I've bought the music, no one has any right to restrict how/where/when I use it, especially if it's well within my fair use rights.
And yes, government has every right to restrict DRM. It's not about regulating files encrypted for personal use, it's regulating business transactions, something that governments have legitimately long been involved in. One party in the business transaction is being very deceptive and insidious about what it is selling.
Essentially, consumers expect certain rights when they purchase things. When I buy a car, the car manufacturer has no right to restrict things like where I take the car, whether I can sell the car, and whether I put Chevron or Exxon gasoline in it. When they buy music, they expect that they own the music, and can play it on any device they own, and put it on any playlist or mixtape they want, and maybe even sell the music to someone else when they're done with it, or at least archive the music in an easily accessible format so they won't ever have to repurchase it. All in the full quality they purchased it in too, not downsampled or recompressed to a different lossy format.
No DRM I've seen yet gives consumers all these rights, or even close, hence the need for governments to get involved.
Re:DRM isn't dangerous. (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel compelled to answer this one (Score:3, Insightful)
Traditionally, data is just data, but with DRM, some read-only meta-data will mandate what you can and can't do with that data. Then freedom is lost.
Using legislation to disallow DRM could have impact on security methods like: filesystem permissions, serial codes for products, SELinux, encrypted filesystems, trusted computing, etc. Some of these are very liberating and gives the user freedom to express per
RMS says Flash is no longer an issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks.
Re:RMS says Flash is no longer an issue (Score:4, Informative)
As for editor, good question.
Re:RMS says Flash is no longer an issue (Score:2)
Re:RMS says Flash is no longer an issue (Score:2)
Don't buy it (Score:3, Interesting)
I was thinking don't buy it.
But if you want want to give an aspiring journalist somthing to write about, feel free.
"Don't buy it" is not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, I'm ambivilant to this topic. I tend to think there's extremists at both sides. I like my Tivo, and my mp3s, but I also feel people gotta be paid for their work.
However, when I see this response, I think--Are you kidding? The only way people against DRM are going to change anything is by making a stink about it. Saying "Don't buy it" is about as productive as vegitarians boycotting McDonald's because they serve meat. If you're not the target market, your opinion doesn't matter.
If only the anti-DRM crowd stopped buying the products, it would be a statistical glitch on balance sheet. It's not going to make an impression when most consumers are unaware of the DRM issue.
The Anti-DRM campaign has to make itself heard, while at the same time not coming off as shrill and fringe like PETA does.
Re:"Don't buy it" is not enough (Score:3, Insightful)
He has the right attitude. (Score:5, Interesting)
This world-wide network has gained a momentum, and there are people in power that are AFRAID of that momentum. With no REAL commercial core, with free speech and architecture giving itself power and stance... These people feel threatened that they will be disregarded. So they start fighting it in their world.
MPAA/RIAA lawsuits. DRM. Internet taxation. F*CK THAT.
How about open standards. Open SOURCE CODE. Open practice and ethics. These are all the backbone of the Internet, such as the Tier 1 Internet providers, Internet exchanges and other entities that share information freely. We *KNOW* how to govern ourselves. It's actually very inspiring, isn't it? No real central authority (except for standards and protocols, like the IEEE and DNS root servers)... These people who don't see how it works right now intend to change it so THEY are the ones calling the shots.
No thanks, I think we can do it ourselves.
He's right. We need to fight. Keep it in the hands of everyone, not a just a few corruptable, power hungry mother f*ckers who want to either make money from it or pat themselves on the back knowing that they are in control.
Re:He has the right attitude. (Score:2)
Soylent Green is people (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if each of us told our parents and siblings about the imminent mainstream DRM fiasco, and all of them told their coworkers and fellow students, and so on, then maybe - just maybe - the public outrage would reach the critical point where Congress and the electronics companies would finally see the light and tell the copyright cartels where to cram it. Until then, the nerdiest of us will just have to sit and watch as our fair use rights are taken away one by one.
Join the Defective by Design campaign! (Score:4, Informative)
http://defectivebydesign.org/join/fsf [defectivebydesign.org]
BINGO. (Score:4, Insightful)
He's right. Now what?
Time to start Anti DRM webpages that top search engines when you search HD-DVD, Blue Ray, Vista, and Itunes?
What does one do?
Hang around best buys all day and inform people?
Obviously the media, by that i mean CNN, Fox News, SONY, etc will not be getting the word out. Its in their interest that this goes through.
The people dont really have a voice anymore. The government is worthless in the matter.
Do we stick to slashdot.org and rant to like minded people? Who will see it? Who will care?
Frankly we LOST this years ago when corporations took interest in the internet and the computer boom took foot.
We're all 30+ now. The kids today all talk like we used too when we were the minority computer geeks.
Frankly its a world where we do not have a voice. Did the war protests have any effect on stopping the war? Did you see how many people showed up to the protests world wide? MILLIONS.
We dont have those numbers... and even if we did... it wouldnt make a dam difference.
Showing up to protests, writing people, writing articles... ranting on slashdot... DOES NOTHING.
The law trickles down... not up.
There isnt much anyone can do in todays world. We should get used to it.I know we wont, and we'll tell everyone about how much DRM sucks and they'll say "Well that sucks" and then we'll all buy the products despite our beleifs.
Its the way it goes.
The only real alternative is criminal. Support the hackers... and you're a criminal... Frankly thats the only real protest option left. The brilliant minds that liberate software, DVD, music... must go on.
Let the media giants push hard, and the coders have to push back harder.
Protesting, and writing your congressman is worthless. They do not care about you. That is the simple truth. They pass laws written by lobbiests paid for by the media giants. They have access and we the people do not.
Revolutions come from wars... not silly get togethers on the capital lawn.
If I might make a suggestion... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look: the population of Planet Earth have all characteristics required to qualify as a chaotic system - which is to say there are too many too consider all of them individually, and that their behaviour at any given time depends both on their inputs and their state.
This has a couple of interesting implications when it comers to activism. One is that macro-scale attempts at control (which in this context would be corporate and government manipulations) are unlikely to wor
Isn't Net Neutrality more pressing? (Score:4, Interesting)
3 talks from Eben Moglen on GPL3.0 and DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
From one revolutionary to another (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a funny thing though. He is an American, and what he does is seen as a fight for 'American values': freedom, fairness, equal opportunities etc. But to me as an un-American, this is socialism. A funny, old world, really; to you, as an American, socialism is either cruel totalitarianism or a stoned hippie-dream, but to many elsewhere it is about exactly those freedoms that you Americans value more than anything else. When I was young I used to think of it as 'Cristianity without God'; but of course the ideals are shared by most other religions. Wouldn't it be nice if people could put aside the labels of 'Christian', 'Communist' or whatever and see the person inside?
Re:From one revolutionary to another (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the far right has been able to control the language, and make us think that the word "socialist" means "communist" or "fascist". That leaves your average, moderately socialist, American with a sense of morality and reason who knows that capitalism must be tempered with socialism, yet can only speak intelligently about capitalism, while any discourse in favor of socialism is hampered and limited to emotional pleas because the rational words are off-limits or misrepresented.
The death knell for any public debate of a socially beneficial program is the question, "but isn't that really socialism?" The honest answer ends the debate right there. The only political acceptable answer is, "no, because..." followed by an attempt to hide the fact that it is socialism, which puts the progressive and liberal proponent at an obvious rhetorical disadvantage. That's why you have no difficulty finding people who will say and believe silly things regarding how DRM is necessary to be able to produce television shows, or how private industry should replace NASA today, when private industry can barely place two people into a short, sub-orbital trip to the closest reaches of space.
What really needs to be made known to every American is that socialism is not a bad thing. It is a necessary part of the Western world. Capitalism is also necessary. It's not an either-or choice. Capitalism for a fluid economy and personal freedom, Socialism to keep Capitalism viable, and promote a healthy society.
In other news... (Score:3, Informative)
Being able to read ODF has to be implemented on all federal computersystems a year earlier.
I would provide a link to an article, but I don't find anything in english. Here is a dutch [standaard.be] article
Reminds me of 1983 (Score:3, Informative)
http://crashonline.org.uk/08/rebirth.htm [crashonline.org.uk]
I know it is a bit different today, what with legal stuff and all, but still.
Next Emacs release date? (Score:3, Funny)
While RMS is to be admired for many things, basic project management may not be among them.
Re:The Superman thing... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The Superman thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Superman thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Other than, I agree.
Re:The Superman thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Superman thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends what you mean by 'worked'. If the goal of the War On Drugs was the elimination of certain recreational chemicals, then it has obviously failed. If the goal was to generate billions of $ in public funding for police forces and various auxiliary industries, and to give the police a pretext for going after people who otherwise aren't breaking any laws, then the war has been a resounding success.
Re:The Superman thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Having a theoretically-possible technical workaround is not enough; there needs to be a workaround easy enough for normal people to implement. Between the DMCA and hardware-based Treacherous Computing (i.e. the TPM), it seems eminently possible that the cartels could
Correction (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, Superman wears a Stallman outfit.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why would anyone produce shows then? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the problem here? They GOT PAID, they earned a living and in many cases a better than average living.
If today artists and other creators were to get paid in the same way those people in your examples got paid, then who cares if nobody gets paid when you download? That's like saying - the guys on th
Re:Why would anyone produce shows then? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hrm.... People currently do upload shows and music to usenet, yet studios are able to make a profit. You're not making any sense here.
That's not true either. Have you heard of PBS or the BBC? While I'm not advocating the elimination of for-profit, private entertainment/media, your assumptions are flawed.
Re:RMS's remark about Flash (Score:2)
Thats not how to win this battle.
Re:RMS's remark about Flash (Score:2)
Ugh. That did more to turn me off of RMS than any amount of crazy ranting.
Put me solidly in the "RMS is one crazy bitch" camp.
I'll address the troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Since none of his ideas even remotely make any real world sense, why is he even publicized?
RMS [wikipedia.org] is publicized because he initiated the Free Software movement. The GNU software license, which he and Eben Moglen [wikipedia.org] created, has been used in some software projects you may have heard of: the Linux kernel, CVS, GNU Emacs, MySQL, and literally thousands of others.
More open source projects are developed under the GPL than under any other license, and companies like Red Hat, IBM, and others have built business units or entire buinesses around GNU-licensed software. When is the last time you saw IBM act out of naive idealism?
A lot of people in the open source world don't agree with everything RMS says, but he's incredibly smart, and people respect his ideas enough to pay attention to what he says. Get out from under the bridge and grapple with his ideas, instead of trolling.
Re:I'll address the troll (Score:4, Insightful)
If freedom is a hippie issue, then you are saying that the Founding Fathers of the United States, the Authors of the United States Constitution, and the Soldiers that fought the Revolutionary War to give us a legacy of freedom from the English Crown were also hippies, right? Remember, without freedom, the United States is just another English Colony, a possession of Her Majesty. Are all people who do not believe that hippies?
Re:More of the same (Score:3, Interesting)