Slashback: Assembly, Avoidance, Civility

With the usual round of updates, corrections, reactions and related stories, Slashback tonight has word of yet another giant Euronerd conclave, as well as some news on the odds of being smashed into a pulp in the year 2019, and a gentle response from Richard M. Stallman on appropriate behavior in absurd circumstances.

Good place for a lemonade stand. The march of the gigantic temporary European computer city-state goes on: Late writes that "Assembly 2002 starts in Finland on Thursday at 12.00 EET-DST (GMT +3). With over 2800 computer places and an expected total of over 4500 visitors, Assembly is one of the largest combined demo- and lanparties in the world. Those of you who can't make it, can watch our streamed TV broadcast. We'll be broadcasting all the competitions, at least part of the seminars that include such speakers as Rob Hubbard (C64 music legend) and a whole bunch of other programs."

You are condemned to live even longer. h4mmer5tein writes: "The BBC has an update on the asteroid story from a few days ago saying that it won't, after all, hit the earth in 2019. More information is being collated but it seems that 2060 is unlikely to see an impact either."

Iron IronGorilla adds: "Much like a Microsoft crash^H^H^H^H^Hrelease date being pushed back, NASA is reporting here that we are not, in fact, all going to die on February 1st, 2019 ..."

The dangers of meeting someone who means what he says. A few weeks ago, reader Al3x wrote his account ("Results of the Commerce Dept's DRM Workshop") of the recent gathering in DC of (officially invited) representatives of the entertainment industry and the less-officially invited members of the public. Alex criticized the approach of several members of the Free software community on hand for the discussion, including Richard Stallman.

Stallman writes in response:

"Al3x went to the July 17 Washington Digital Restrictions Management panel feeling admiration for me, but left disappointed with my views and actions. I think his disappointment was partly due to a couple of misconceptions, so I hope this explanation will partly restore his good opinion of my work and methods.

I cannot deny Al3x's charge that I, and the rest of us, defied the rules of the meeting by refusing to be completely silent. If it is wrong to disobey an unfair system, I stand convicted, but I am not ashamed. However, in the scale of civil disobedience, ours was very mild. Women demanding the vote sometimes chained themselves to doorways, which might have been inconvenient for some passersby. Blacks demanding an end to segregation sometimes broke rules, and even laws, by sitting in a Whites-only diner or at the front of a bus. It is up to each of you to decide your ethical approach to judging acts of disobedience to an unfair system.

Al3x criticized NY Fair Use for 'preferring to show up and disrupt the debate' rather than ask for a seat on the panel. Our occasional laughter and less frequent verbal comments did not disrupt the panel, and all the panelists were able to express their views; but because our means were so limited, we could not communicate very much. We would have much preferred to participate officially, on an equal footing with Jack Valenti, but they had refused our request, just as they refused the EFF. Our measured protest appears to have obtained for us the chance for a seat on a subsequent panel.

After the meeting, Al3x asked me for my views on intellectual property. As it happens, I think it is a grave mistake to formulate one's views in terms of 'intellectual property,' and I explained why.

I explained that the term 'intellectual property' lumps together disparate areas of law, including copyright, patent, trademark, and others, and that they are so different that it is a mistake to try to group them together. The public policy issues of these various areas of law result from the details of how they restrict the public, and those details are different; if you try to form your opinions about 'intellectual property,' you will miss all of these issues, and you will be led to propose sweeping generalizations which cannot help being foolish. I explained the problems of the term 'intellectual property' to Al3x hoping this would help him and others he communicates with avoid that pitfall in thinking.

I suspect a miscommunication took place there, because when I said that his proposed copyright system for music might be a good one, he perceived that as a contradiction. Perhaps when I said 'the term "intellectual property" is bad,' he heard me as saying 'everything people call "intellectual property" is bad.' That, however, is exactly the sort of sweeping overgeneralization that the term 'intellectual property' leads people to form; it is to discourage such simplistic views that I ask people to avoid the term. I have views on copyright, views on patent, and views on trademark, but I do not have *any* position on 'intellectual property.' As Al3x learned, I'm not 100% opposed to copyright, though I believe it should be much less restrictive to the public than it is now.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.htm for more explanation of the problems of the term 'intellectual property.' If you're interested in my views on copyright, see www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html.

Comments

Stallman's response is interesting

[peterdaly]

Through "the media" I alway have gotten the impression that Stallman was steadfast to the idea that IP is always wrong, but I guess maybe his media converage is not very broad when it comes to his view.

Those comments changed my views on him quit a bit. I went from hating all his views before he even opened his mouth to not quite being sure where he stands. This at least has made me backpedle. Now I am not sure what to think. I have an open mind about him again.

-Pete

Re: Stallman's response is interesting

[SirSlud]

Well, no matter how badly people try and paint him, his opposition always bests him in the areas of nonsubstance and rhetoric.

The guy has smarts, but those who are winning the world are dictating the rules, so guess which way things are going. I think most people seem to view the world as a 'just world', where those in power are there because they deserve it, and thus must be doing the correct things for us. I just feel bad for those who think his ideas are useless; they can't seem to make the distinction between a good system and a system out of control as it relates to current copyright and patent laws.

I just cant figure out if his /. anti-fans deride him because its the hip in-crowd thing to do, or if it's MS employees. ;)

Re: Stallman's response is interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a Microsoft employee (And yes, that's why I'm an AC right now, and no, not on behalf of Microsoft, just personal opinions as one who works for The Great Evil Empire) I find some of his ideas just great.

However, he takes things to an extreme that I don't like. I love the free software movement, hell, my server is running FreeBSD. But I also see a place for propriatary software. It has its uses and purpose. Both can co-exist, believe it or not.

The best comparison I can make is RMS to Ayn Rand. I love Ayn Rand's books and agree with much of her philosophies. However, she takes things to an extreme I don't care to visit. I feel the same about RMS.

Heh, looking at the two, I see even more resemblance, but that's neither here nor there.

The only problem is that RMS is an extremist. Extremists have their place, they get us to think about things. Everyone needs a smack upside the head with a 2x4 and they are able to provide that. However, we also have to realize that adopting a more moderate version of their beliefs is much better than actually following all of their tenants.

Anyway, just my two cents. Not that anyone will probably read them, but oh well. :)

He said, he said

[Otter]

al3x says Stallman and his friends were being wildly obnoxious and alienating people. RMS says he was engaging in a little mild protest. It comes down to whose social sensibilities you trust. I have no idea who al3x is; I do know who Stallman is and I'm not sure who has less credibility.

al3x, if you're reading this -- you wrote

" [T]he NY Fair Use crowd, however, never bothered to request a representative, preferring to show up and disrupt the debate on their own terms, and for nobody's good but their egos, it seems."

RMS says they did ask to join the panel and were turned down. Since this seems to be a more objectively verifiable question, where did you get your information?

I don't like posting this...

[SkipToMyLou]

I hate to be considered a troll, especially since I'm a new user and I'm already posting at zero due to the fact that just *one* of my comments was modded down (off-topic, sorry), but the constant spats between Linux developers and Linux developer with other people are causing bad perception of Linux itself. The general public (actually, I just surveyed my immeadiate aunts, uncles, mom, and dad) thinks of Linux being a community they cannot get involved in due to the teenage 1337 hack0rz,the "long-haired computer geek" that all those with computer interests are portrayed as, and the constant public spats involving Linux developers. I am not critizing Mr. Stallman, because he has certaintly handled this in a good way. In fact, he could be an example for many other developers. I also feel that maybe a coordianted marketing campaign by IBM (who has a pretty good advertising agency) could erase the image of pimply-faced teenage hackers and smelly soda-guzzling developers. I only hope some day it will happen.

Why RMS bugs me

[foobar104]

(Karma level falling...)

I disagree with much of what Stallman has said and written over the years. It wouldn't bother me so much were it not for his continued use of evocative propaganda in his writings. When I first encountered it, I was tempted to say that Stallman is just incredibly-- almost inhumanly-- arrogant. That may still be the case. But he makes such a pattern of that sort of passionate, irrational rhetoric that I have to wonder what his true agenda really is.

(...falling...)

This quote is an example of just that sort of propaganda:

I cannot deny Al3x's charge that I, and the rest of us, defied the rules of the meeting by refusing to be completely silent. If it is wrong to disobey an unfair system, I stand convicted, but I am not ashamed. However, in the scale of civil disobedience, ours was very mild. Women demanding the vote sometimes chained themselves to doorways, which might been inconvenient for some passersby. Blacks demanding an end to segregation sometimes broke rules, and even laws, by sitting in a Whites-only diner or at the front of a bus.

Here he tries to associate himself with civil rights protesters from the past, as if to say, "What we did is right because what they did was right." The association is horribly inapt, and in very poor taste. You're not a martyr, Richard. You're a political extremist. Nobody is dying for The Cause here, and I for one would appreciate it if you'd tone down your language a bit.

(...falling...)

Stallman used the same propaganda technique-- and some others-- in his writings on "free" software. I put the word free in quotes there because what he means by "free software" and what the word "free" actually means are two very different things. I won't go into detail on this here, because I don't want to get too far off topic, and also because I've already done it in depth here. If you have any opinion on this matter at all, Constant Reader, please have a look at the comment to which I linked. I'll welcome any sort of discourse on this matter, if for no other reason than to bring the debate to the attention of those who presently have no opinion at all.

Just to sum up, I think Stallman's politics are misguided and wrong, but that's not what really bothers me. What really bothers me-- what really leads me to think that he might actually be dangerous, subversive in the bad sense of the word-- is the way he presents his ideas so carefully. His message is so clearly meant to appeal to emotion at the expense of reason that it makes me wonder what it is he's trying to slip past me.

(...gone.)

Re:Why RMS bugs me

[Sloppy]

Nobody is dying for The Cause here, and I for one would appreciate it if you'd tone down your language a bit.

No, they're just spending time in jail, watching what they say in public, spending vast sums of money on legal defense, and living in fear. No cause for alarm.

I understand your point, but. . .

[kfg]

I do feel compeled to point out that freedom of speach *is* a civil rights issue so fundamental that it is the first in the Bill of Rights, and the essential foundation of the Votes for Women movement.

In fact, the founding fathers considered protecting it, ( no taxation without representation), by armed insurection. I don't think 'curtious' was a word *ever* applied to Sam Adams, ( the orginizer of the 'Boston Tea Party).

All 'Intellectual Property' law is a very serious civil rights issue.

KFG

Re:Judge RMS for Yourself

[nathanh]

I see a few asertions there but I don't yet see how comparing media rights and the freedom of computers to that of racial/sexual rights is wrong.

As you say, RMS is fighting for property and copyright. Women were only fighting for the vote; a "right" which +60% of USAnians don't care about anyway. I'd say RMS is fighting a far greater fight with far greater implications.

I believe racial equality is even more important but unfortunately it seems too many USAnians are still fighting that one.