Slashdot Mirror

from their record contracts.

Several of Sarah McLachlan's CDs are DRM'd:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004144.php
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~freeculture/wiki/index.php /DRM

(data unavailable for the other members, but it wouldn't surprise me), and almost all (Broken Social Scene and possibly a couple others being exceptions) are currently signed to RIAA/CRIA member labels. Most have released albums with those labels in the last couple years - i.e., since the campaign of lawsuits started.

Put your money where your mouth is, folks.

MythTV-based systems like OpenMedia will blow DRM-crippled products like Intel's Viiv right out of the water.

I mean, who in their right mind would buy a restrictive system like Viiv when free-as-in-speech OpenMedia systems are available? Of course, the challenge is explaining to consumers why Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) is against their interests, and spreading the word that MythTV-based systems are superior to DRM-crippled offerings.

Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk

Summary: The hardware could be useful, if it is under the control and scrutiny of the person who paid for it. Otherwise, it's a menace.

P.S. your claims about DRM compatible with Linux are bullshit. DRM relies first and foremost on a locked-down kernel. It's the kernal that interacts with the sound and video... no amount of Trusted Computing will change that... TC will only allow software providers to enforce the use of particular crippled kernels.

Is the NFC system that they are talking about a true digital cash implementation? There are solutions to the digital cash problem that allow security and protect privacy, but all I have ever seen are credit or debit systems. Can anyone here explain what they are doing?

You are mixing up two things (and perhaps I did too, though I thought I spelled them out).

1) The family copyright act thing was signed into law last year, I quoted from some of that.
2) the H.R.4077 from which I was quoting is NOT law.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.0 4077:
"Latest Major Action: 9/29/2004 Received in the Senate."
Which incidentally confirms what the article linked by this story says:
"The provisions were included in H.R. 4077 as passed by the House."

But this new proposal (which again has NOT passed into law):
H.R. 2391 The Intellectual Property Protection Act
Includes elements from all the bills listed in the article, INCLUDING H.R.4077.

So your quote"Get it through your thick, thick head: this became the law of the land LAST YEAR. It's done. It is not a bill, it is not something that might be signed into law, it is signed, and it is the law, right now. Has been for a while."
Is not correct. At least not in reference to that portion of what I was actually talking about, which was the proposed legislation HR4077 that exempts ad skipping from being infringment.

Quote from you:
"And you know what I don't recall? I don't recall lawsuits around ad skipping buttons. In fact, as a copyright lawyer, who knows more about copyright law than you ever will, I don't even see how that would be possible."
Your expert legal copyright career must have been pretty short up to this point. Starting around 2003 or 2004 perhaps, so you missed the sonicblue/replaytv lawsuit?

Lets pick a couple hits from google regarding sonicblue (original owners of replayTV driven into bankruptcy)
http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-1015121.html
"The company said its upcoming ReplayTV 5500 boxes, which are expected to be released in August, will not contain the Send Show and Automatic Commercial Advance tools as the company tries to "address the concerns of copyright holders.""
"Two years ago, the major movie studios and TV networks filed a lawsuit against Sonicblue, which at the time owned ReplayTV."

The exact name (if you want to do more specific research):
Paramount Pictures v. SonicBlue

http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/Paramount_v_ReplayTV/2 0011031_complaint.html
There's the complaint.
Since you said
"I don't recall lawsuits around ad skipping buttons. In fact, as a copyright lawyer, who knows more about copyright law than you ever will, I don't even see how that would be possible."
Well here's how its possible, quotes from the complaint:
"Defendants' unlawful scheme attacks the fundamental economic underpinnings of free television and basic nonbroadcast services and, hence, the means by which plaintiffs' copyrighted works are paid for. Advertisers will not pay to have their advertisements placed within television programming delivered to viewers when the advertisements will be invisible to those viewers. In effect, by eliminating the embedded advertising, defendants' copying-and-commercial-deletion feature will (as to those viewers who employ the feature) eliminate the source of payment to the copyright owner for the very program being viewed."
"For subscription television program services that depend in part on advertising revenues, use of the AutoSkip feature has the same effect. In both cases, the AutoSkip feature would fundamentally and inevitably erode the means by which copyright owners are paid for their works and hence the value of the programming they create."

Intel is pushing a technology called Treacherous Computing, which will prevent unsigned code from running on their hardware. So even if you have the source code, if you try to remove the DRM restrictions, the hardware will refuse to run the modified binary.

The Free Software Foundation admits that the anti-DRM provisions in the GPLv3 will not be enough on their own to prevent the nightmare scenario where users can't trust their own computers.

People who understand the dangers of Digital Restrictions Management at a technical level (ie.Free and Open Source software developers) should warn the general public to avoid buying DRM-crippled hardware. Consumers should know about the great variety of DRM-free computers and accessories built specifically to work with Linux, the KDE desktop, and other Free and Open Source applications.

On the music side, there are plenty of websites that legally sell DRM-free, RIAA-free music by independent artists. Consumers can use an iTunes-like application called Songbird to easily download songs from these sites.

As for movies, building a Linux media center works better than the DRM-crippled offering from M$FT. Just download MythTV and run it on a computer equipped with the pcHDTV HD-3000 card and the PVR-350 card -- these will capture both standard definition (NTSC) and Digital/Hi-Definition (ATSC/HDTV) signals.

Second, if you offer Internet access to the public, you must post a sign suggesting that customers' personal machines implement a security measure. It's not necessarily the best way to protect customers, but a sign is a low-cost requirement and probably rarely burdensome.

The law doesn't forbid offering unrestricted Internet access to anyone within range. This is a good choice. A person or business should be allowed to share use of an Internet connection, provided they are willing to take the risk that someone might use this connection to do very bad things. For example, you might want to offer your Internet connection to the (semi-)anonymous public by running both an unprotected wireless hotspot and a Tor exit node.

Which is why you need the proxied requests to be encrypted like Tor. All the ISP knows is that you are sending/recieving X amount of data and possibly that that data is being sent via Tor.

I was inspired to write my congresscritters and other elected officials about a news report yesterday about Mr. Gonzales and his latest push against kiddie pr0n. I sent the following:

---
CNN has posted an article on their web site this evening (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/20/gonzales.porn/i ndex.html) stating that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is "sending to Congress a legislative package that includes greater penalties and improved cooperation from Internet service providers".

The United States Department of Justice has already clearly spelled out that trafficking in child pornography on the Internet is a Federal offense (http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide_ porn.html). Shouldn't Attorney General Gonzales be making his best effort to ensure that the laws that are already on the books are being enforced, as opposed to attempting to enact new laws that will - as has been seen and documented with the PATRIOT Act, and the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) - surely be twisted beyond their originally declared scope to further weaken our civil liberties and rights as free citizens?

In light of recent news reports that AT&T has willingly supported the NSA in efforts to *illegally* monitor telephone and Internet traffic of it's customer base (http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_04.php#0045 38), in addition to the uproar over the President's use of illegal wiretaps (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/i ndex.html) the last thing that is needed is further opportunities to allow excessive monitoring of our civilian activities by government officials, especially under the transparent disguise of "thinking of the children".

I'm no fan of kiddie porn or it's consumers, but there's no need for this new legislation. There are already laws on the books, laws that have been tested and proven to be effective against criminals, as well as secure from abuse by those who would seek to limit our freedoms. Use THOSE laws. Keep the LAW-BREAKERS in fear, not the honest citizens.
---

The suit was filed in Santa Clara county, California. I believe that according to California laws, absent a confidentiality agreement between the secret holder and the journalist, that a journalist has no obligation to keep a trade secret that was provided to him. I also believe that in California a journalist is not required to reveal his sources.

Lifted from http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-journalists.php : The California Constitution includes a reporter's shield which provides "absolute protection to nonparty journalists in civil litigation from being compelled to disclose unpublished information." It may be "overcome only by a countervailing federal constitutional right." The California reporter's shield protects all persons "connected with...a newspaper, magazines, or other periodical publication," without limitation.

Trade secrets leakage are probably NOT covered by first amendment freedom of speech. If the general public are protected by leakage, then yes....

IANAL but I would guess that Congress shall make no law abridging one's freedom to leak trade secrets. Hypothetically, what if you worked for AT&T and wanted to make known the fact that the company was (secretly) giving the NSA broad access to your company's switching equipment? (I know it doesn't sound much like a trade secret, but I bet that label could be flexed to cover such a case.)
 
Basically, it is none of the Feds' business whether Joe Employee decides, for whatever reason (maybe money, maybe conscience) to spill the beans about something going on at work. If Joe is violating his NDA, then there are already state laws that will take care of that problem.
 
The scenario you are suggesting is that if Congress passed such a law, non-disclosure agreements would be pretty much unnecessary, and it would be a Federal crime to reveal a trade secret! Bad scene.
 
And where then would the EFF be in its suit against AT&T?

Wanna bet.

Look here for Bushie's new adventures:

EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect your digital rights.

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/

EFF's Class-Action Lawsuit Against AT&T for Collaboration with Illegal Domestic Spying Program

Better than a Big Mac lunch:
https://secure.eff.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=D ON_splash&JServSessionIdr011=v8n0n891r1.app2a

Wanna bet.

Look here for Bushie's new adventures:

EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect your digital rights.

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/

EFF's Class-Action Lawsuit Against AT&T for Collaboration with Illegal Domestic Spying Program

Better than a Big Mac lunch:
https://secure.eff.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=D ON_splash&JServSessionIdr011=v8n0n891r1.app2a

Question. Is it possible for a chinese to connect to the TOR network and thus avoid detection?

i'm sure we'll see something along your lines here soon enough :)

Here's someone who could use your money in a better way:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/faq.php

EULAs are not binding legally[...]

Source please.

I'm sorry, I can't provide evidence for something that has never happened.

Here is an example of a class action lawsuit from users against a company's EULA: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983988.html

Here is some info regarding your rights under a EULA: http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php

There is no button when displaying a EULA that says, "I cannot agree or disagree with this EULA because I am under the age of 18 and not able to agree or disagree with legally binding contracts".

Hey, I've got shit to do as well. That's why I pay people other than myself to fight in my place.

As to TC, that's how it'll probably be used although it's marketed as something to protect your system (the exact concept behind this somewhat escapes me, as it was such a poor cover for hardware-level bending over). Much like how crap is marketed as anti-piracy when it's obviously just a hardware lock-in.

True enough. The idea behind Trusted Computing is DRM... that was its original design goal. However, the security concepts behind it could be very useful. The root key is the... well... key to this. It is baked into the TPM, and you do not have access to either read it or change it.

Effectively, the system is hardwired not to trust you. It doesn't have to be that way. We can have Trusted Computing hardware and the benefits it could bring, without the downsides of secrecy, control, invasion of privacy and big brother levels of control over the computing infrastructure.

See EFF's proposal. We have to force the secretive Trusted Computing Group into the light of the mainstream press. They've been hiding and dodging and trying to sneak this stuff (in its current customer abusing form) into PCs. Apple caved when it included a TPM in it's Intel Macs. We have to stop it, and force them to make the hardware work for us, not against us... before it is too late.

With that root key, you become the trusted party. You control the machine again, and you can get all the benefits of the security the hardware can provide. These companies involved in Trusted Computing could drop almost all the objections to it at a stroke... but they will not do it, because a) They want that control. They don't want to hand it over to you. b) Trusted Computing is really about bringing DRM to the PC platform.

The EFF's excellent summary of Trusted Computing's promise and risks

Or, if you want a really good summary. Alan Cox said: "If you don't have the key, then it [Trusted Computing] is not about security." Too bloody right Alan... as things stand, Trusted Computing is about control and vendor lock-in. It doesn't have to be that way.

The reason we are in so much trouble now is only partly to do with the media companies. They pushed for DRM systems, and the computer industry (or rather Microsoft, Intel and Compaq) setup the secretive Trusted Computing Initiative. A system designed to introduce DRM into the PC... without distrupting current applications, of course.

Trusted Computing rolled forward slowly for 8 or 9 years... all the while Intel and Microsoft (and now HP) were busy rearchitecting software protocols and designing things like HDCP.

Now we are in a situation where most of the big technology companies have all signed up for this Trusted Computing stuff... and very few people seem to be asking the important questions. You may ask why I said the music industry is only partly responsible? It's because this has now gone way beyond them. Companies like Microsoft and Intel now understand that DRM is about far more than music and video. DRM is, fundamentally, about the hardware encforcing access to data "X" only to code which matches the digital signature "Y". They can enforce absolute control over what code gets to access a piece of data... if you code doesn't obey their arbitrary rules, it doesn't get access. For example: an application that accesses a particular word processing document must be written to ask a Microsoft Rights Management server (perhaps on the internet) what the user can do with this document -- are they allowed to open it at all, how much does it cost, how long can they keep it open, can they print etc etc. Applications which haven't got the correct digital signature doesn't get access by default. You, of course, have no say in any of this. You can't make a decision to trust... it is made for you, because *you* aren't trusted.

This technology allows tech companies to completely control a PC... to specify what it can and cannot do. To be the brokers for access to digital data (be it music, video, emails, word processing documents) -- the hardware is essentially a big brother chip on the motherboard. So you see... DRM is far beyond music and video these days. The tech companies all know how much power it will give them, and they all want it badly. And if you think using Free software will save you... it won't. This hardware operates on the digital signature of a binary. If you have the source code for a program, you can't compile it and use it as you did because you can't sign the resulting binary.

This is where Real's claims come in... to implement DRM, you first need to ensure that the kernel doesn't do anything you don't want it to (that it is "Trusted"). What Real is talking about is an unmodifiable Linux kernel... if you change it in anyway, it is no longer trusted and won't be allowed to access the data. Interested parties might also like to ask Red Hat just what the fuck they are doing working on the Linux equivalent of Microsoft's Protected Media Path -- a technology that relies on you not being able to modify your own software... so much for Red Hat being a supporter of Free software. They don't like talking about this much, for obvious reasons. Considering how much influence they have over the kernel, they should have to. One might also consider just what their game is with SELinux -- that's the basis for a DRM system when it is tied with an unmodifiable Linux kernel and TCG hardware (indeed, that was it's original design purpose at the NSA... only for controlling access to intelligence information, rather than music).

More information:

Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions

EFF: Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk

all of this raises an interesting question. Is the NSA currently tapping / sniffing the Interenet for voice? That is, tapping / sniffing VOIP?

And if not, will this hasten the day when NASA does so? I can hear it now. "All of these people are now connected end to end via WIFI and VOIP through their cell phones. We must be able to tap / sniff those conversations.

"The evidence that we are filing supports our claim that AT&T is diverting Internet traffic into the hands of the NSA wholesale, in violation of federal wiretapping laws and the Fourth Amendment," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston.

Now, if they were able to brute-force decrypt 1000 IPSec connections in real time - this would be something to worry about.

DES cracked in less than 3 days (circa 1999 public knowledge technology).

One of many IPSEC crackers, IKEcrack.

Who knows what is possible with a budget of... oh wait, that's classified, although we do know it was over 70 Million in 1972 ($319,277,570.21 of today's dollars or 1277 of the EFF's 1999 machines.)

I'd say they can.

Karma whoring off the EFF, eh? http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/small_att.png

TOR should do what you want, assuming you get an "exit point" that is on an IP that geocodes to an "allowed" region.

Tor (http://tor.eff.org/) is a good way to prevent the government (or anyone else) from watching what sites you go to.
It can be a little slow at times, but you do not need to use it all the time (unless you are very paranoid).

The so-called lobbying reform bill that just passed the House won't fix anything. If anything, it will reduce the influence of those who don't support big business. It's a whitewash created by those who the system benefits the most. The Business Software Alliance spends tons of money wining and dining members of Congress, and they have much more influence than any individual voter.

Until more of us read a newspaper, educate ourselves, and show up to vote, the system isn't going to change. Those with money have more influence than voters. Of course, if more states deploy electronic voting, our votes won't count any more.

In the meantime, you can fight back by giving money to those that support ODF, like EFF and EPIC. (I have no affiliation with either except to give them a little money now and then.)

Anybody remember the Lotus Notes "language helper" and the EFF investigation on it? I am not totally surprised that the NSA would have total access to the backbone here, or maybe even in a few countries that would go to war if they found themselves digitally raped by the USA. But, the rules of spying mean once your ass is caught, you GET what you DESERVE, even if you simply disappear. As for fiction fans, that could apply to sneaky submarine operations, too, in my book.

But, back to the "REAL" ("Matriczed") world...

EFF: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/?f=decrypt ing_puzzle_palace.article.txt

Lotus Notes ships in two versions. DonUt count on much protection from the ...
  head of NSA, would rebuff FBI attempts to get a little help from his agency. ...
www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/ ?f=decrypting_puzzle_palace.article.txt - 42k - Cached - Similar pages

Lotus Notes: Information From Answers.com
http://www.answers.com/topic/lotus-notes
Lotus Notes Messaging and groupware software from Lotus that was introduced ...
  At one point, Lotus negotiated an agreement with the NSA that allowed export ...
www.answers.com/topic/lotus-notes - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

=======

Disclaimer:

I LIKE Lotus and some of their products, especially SmartSuite, and of them particularly Lotus Approach and Lotus Word Pro. I REALLY wish these two things would go dual-licensing/dual source. OF course S/S lacks a ton of stuff that OO.o & SO have, but they've got stuff that OO.o and SO simply lack: Lotus Approach, and Lotus Word Pro's ease of use. They probably won't have it for another 10 years.

Here's the (partial) list of EFF legal victories - over forty key cases, each against tough opponents. That's not including the work EFF does lobbying against bad laws, technical research on topics like cracking DES, analysing printer dots, and publicising issues like the broadcast flag and the dangers of DRM. To get an example of the breadth of that work, here's another short list of EFF's work last year. We chopped the list at 15 items because the list was compiled for our fifteenth anniversary.

Here's the (partial) list of EFF legal victories - over forty key cases, each against tough opponents. That's not including the work EFF does lobbying against bad laws, technical research on topics like cracking DES, analysing printer dots, and publicising issues like the broadcast flag and the dangers of DRM. To get an example of the breadth of that work, here's another short list of EFF's work last year. We chopped the list at 15 items because the list was compiled for our fifteenth anniversary.

First couple of hops taken out to hide the originator: 8 qwest-gw.cgcil.ip.att.net (192.205.32.97) 23.034 ms 29.478 ms 24.981 ms 9 tbr1-p032501.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.123.6.30) 32.666 ms 41.991 ms 44.869 ms MPLS Label=32458 CoS=5 TTL=1 S=0 10 tbr1-cl14.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.10.1) 44.957 ms 48.719 ms 41.727 ms MPLS Label=32538 CoS=5 TTL=1 S=0 11 gbr5-p30.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.11.10) 46.586 ms 40.296 ms 37.793 ms MPLS Label=34 CoS=5 TTL=1 S=0 12 12.123.214.57 (12.123.214.57) 37.662 ms 46.947 ms 48.176 ms 13 12.126.221.94 (12.126.221.94) 68.314 ms 63.227 ms 54.721 ms 14 12.110.110.132 (12.110.110.132) 68.426 ms 46.873 ms 35.525 ms 15 * * * If all this is true att violated their own privacy policy: http://att.sbc.com/privacy_policy http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/

Thats the old news on the lawsuit...check the EFF website for the new injunction here:

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_04.php#00453 8

which cleary states they have evidence that AT&T is funneling internet traffic to the NSA in a wholesale manner.

You know... if you're into that sort of thing...

(Of course, using it just proves that you have something to hide... so maybe you'll get in trouble anyway.)

Link: http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_04.php#00453 8

http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA_v_ThePeople/P2P_bkt cy_memo.pdf

Well, it is not a foolproof solution, but you can try using TOR: The Onion Router (http://tor.eff.org/). It will act as a random daisy-chain of proxies that pass all the information (except for the final hop) encrypted.

Failing that, you could always buy a laptop/PDA/etc. and a cheap wifi card and connect to random WAPs using a spoofed MAC address.

I wish there was a way that I could view websites without giving any IP or client information. However, that kind of information is important to webmasters and business.

Yeah lets all hype Blizzard while overlooking their spyware
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004076.php

The chip does nothing of this. The chip itself only encrypts and decrypts. The rest of the nightmare scenario requires a Treacherous Computing operating system and/or application software to do this.

Oh bullshit. The Werner Von Braun defence. "I only make the rockets go up. Others decide where they land." As things stand at the moment, Trusted Computing hardware has only one use: to remove the control of the computer from its owner. The EFF has a proposal to mitigate the risks and keep the benefits... and yet the TCG will not even consider it. The reason why not should be obvious. As it stands, the TPM is not about security it is about control and there is not one single reason to trust any of the companies behind this.

Read this. There are solutions to this that will allow the security benefits of trusted computing without the huge nastiness, but the TCG refuse to consider it... they just don't want to give up the potential control over the computing infrastructure.

As things stand at the moment, *NO-ONE* should be considering buying a machine with TCG hardware in it... you are basically paying for a PC that you do not own, do not control, and have no idea what it is really doing.

These people would be helped by a project like Tor. http://tor.eff.org/

Geist:
there are many groups (EFF, CDT, Public Knowledge, ACLU, EPIC, IP Justice, etc) that work in the area.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Center for Democracy & Technology

Public Knowledge

American Civil Liberties Union

Electronic Privacy Information Center

IP Justice

etc

I think what you are describing is Onion routing. Go setup Tor and help out. :)

Does this mean that Dmitri Sklyarov did a favour for adobe?

That is just what happened in the case of the Amateur Action BBS, which was based in California when the operators got convicted in Tennessee.

Wouldn't the designers of any system entrusted to protect the lives of others automatically reject DRM as an elemnent of that system if it could prove to be a point of failure?

..better alternatives, which respect your rights.

http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/guide/

Intel is pushing a technology called Treacherous Computing, which will prevent unsigned code from running on their hardware. So even if you have the source code, if you try to remove the DRM restrictions, the hardware will refuse to run the modified binary.

The Free Software Foundation admits that the anti-DRM provisions in the GPLv3 will not be enough on their own to prevent the nightmare scenario where users can't trust their own computers.

People who understand the dangers of Digital Restrictions Management at a technical level (ie.Free and Open Source software developers) should warn the general public to avoid buying DRM-crippled hardware. Consumers should know about the great variety of DRM-free computers and accessories built specifically to work with Linux, the KDE desktop, and other Free and Open Source applications.

On the music side, there are plenty of websites that legally sell DRM-free, RIAA-free music by independent artists. Consumers can use a cross-platform, iTunes-like application called Songbird to easily download songs from these sites.

As for movies, building a Linux media center works just as well as the DRM-crippled offering from M$FT. Just download MythTV and run it on a computer equipped with the pcHDTV HD-3000 card and the PVR-350 card -- these will capture both standard definition (NTSC) and Digital/Hi-Definition (ATSC/HDTV) signals.

It's clear that RMS feels that in some cases it is better to use the GPL than the LGPL.

I think RMS would say the GPL is preferable in the vast majority of cases. Else why would he urge developers -- in bold letters -- to release their libraries under the GPL?

But getting back to the topic of this thread: should GNOME's multimedia backend be licensed under the weak LGPL, when we know that the entertainment cartel has been one of the most vocal advocates of Digital Restrictions Management and Treacherous Computing?

Preventing users from skipping computers
Controlling your computer over the internet with rootkits
Instilling fear by suing innocent people
Suing independent competitors out of business
Bullying witnesses into perjury
and the list goes on...

The answer is absolutely no, and I daresay the FSF is of the same opinion, since they will include anti-DRM provisions in the GPLv3.

Developers of Free and Open Source Software should use every legal tool at their disposal to protect the users' freedom. One of the best tools is to license music and video apps under the GPL, so that the entertainment cartel can't poison their hard work with draconian DRM. Otherwise, the developers might as well be working for the RIAA and MPAA!

Open Source developers who care about the users' freedom should help out multimedia projects that are licensed GPL (such as Xine, MPlayer, and VideoLAN).

Not quite the damning of the LGPL that his link suggests.

Good job selectively quoting the FSF site, which is titled: Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library. How much more explicitly can it be stated than that?

To further quote from the Free Software Foundation website:
...If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries.

Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.

The GNOME Foundation didn't listen to Richard Stallman or the FSF and started to cater to the business interests that are pushing proprietary software infested with treacherous computing and DRM to handcuff users.