Slashdot Mirror
BusinessWeek on Open Source and Copy Protection
prostoalex writes "An article starting with the words "Forget about Bill Gates, folks. The biggest enemy of free software may be Senator Ernest F. Hollings" historically had a little chance of being published in a recognized business publication. In this case, though, Business Week (no registration) runs a detailed but straightforward explanation of how the new copyright bills could threaten free software and open source movements."
Haha. So much ignorance packed into such a small paragraph. Where do I even start?
The USA may not be the whole world, but it is a decent sized chunk of open source development. Sure you won't miss us?
The law won't keep a geek from running linux. The tiny little DRM chip soldered to the motherboard will do that job.
And, most importantly, the EU is full of copynazi's too. Generally, they adopt laws about 5 years after we do. So you'll get about half a decade more freedom than we do, use it well.
I'm a proud owner of a Mensa membership card.
Who's card is it?
The first clue that Black has none is her assertion that "consumer groups, plus makers of PCs and electronics gear" were the first to sound the alarm. That may have been her first notice, but others have been thinking about such things and publishing it for much longer, like this man, back in 1983. The whole free software movement is a reaction to OTHER PEOPLE REMOVING YOUR CONTROL OF YOUR COMPUTER AND MEANS OF PUBLICATION, the reasons for it and the evil things required to accomplish that goal.
Jane then goes right back to things that must be nearer and dearer to her heart, Hollywood profits. She's swallowed the lie, hook and sinker, that this is about entertainment and a eighty billion dollar consumer electronics market.
Though confused and rambling, Jane manages to be smug and insulting. Check this out:
Embedding copyright-protection mechanisms into new PCs and other digital devices would mean inserting pieces of software code that are hidden, or locked down, and couldn't be altered. That would amount to nothing less than an assault on the open-source religion, which advocates sharing, collaboration, and free access to code.
That's all I can stand folks, let me set this ninny straight.
It's about freedom, stupid. I don't care if I can watch a movie on my computer. I don't care that a set top box runs propriatory software. What I do care about is some idiot telling me that I have to have a program installed on all of my computers that effectivly makes OTHER PEOPLE ROOT. THAT GIVES OTHER PEOPLE CONTROL OF MY COMPUTER AND MEANS OF PUBLICATION.
Don't get confused. Telecomunications companies, entertianment companies and your federal government are afraid of freedom. That's why someone else controls the wires that go into your house. It's why a 69 channel TV tunner will only pick up 4 or five stations owned by three or four companies. Hollings stuff, however, has the potential to control ALL forms of publication and must be stopped.
A supposed friend that trivializes your issue and get's it all screwed up is not a good advocate. Thanks for looking into it Jane, but keep digging. There's truth at the end of your quest, but you will have to stay away from entertainment pimps, their attorneys and other people only interested in extracting money from you.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
before the libertarians mouth off, please not that this is private industry pushing hollings for this law. bad gov't typically gets bought by "free enterprise" when people don't pay any fucking attention to their gov't.
too many people in america complain that their gov't doesn't work right, maybe they should get off their ass and vote a better one in.
ah, rant done, feel better.
hey, go visit fairvote.org
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!