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

BBC shouldnt report we are not going to die

[Neuronerd]

After all why do I listen to their news? Whats the point in reading news if you are not even threatened by death ...
I will read BBC again in 2059 to be sure

for those late to the show

[Alien54]

Here are some asteroid impact calculators

quick and dirty
http://janus.astro.umd.edu/astro/impact.html

very detailed
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Astero ids.html

Finally, a Neat Java Applet with a display of the orbit can be seen here. You can Zoom in, spin the solar system around, and animate the display. The data they are using does not currently jive with projected impact date, apparently using the updated information.

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/db?name=2002+NT7

NOTE: of course, as seen here

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

the possible impact in 2019 has been ruled out.

and of course all the basic information on asteroids can be found here, for those who are interested.

http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructional.Materials/ Curriculum.Support/Space.Science/Near.Earth.Impact .Hazards/.index.html

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

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?

Re:How DARE he

[ewhac]

Civil liberites my ass. Someone doesn't give you a seat on the pannel, so you go to the meeting and make jokes. Think you'll get one next time?

Dude, weren't you paying attention? The hearing was rigged! The fix, as they say, was in. Anyone, particularly the EFF, holding views contrary to the pre-established, bought-and-paid-for conclusion were expressly barred from participating. How is one expected to "work within" such a system?

Schwab

courtesy is sometimes a tool of the oppressor

[fermion]

It is fascinating to me that so many people on /., people who probably regularly flaunt the law by downloading MP3's, using a single license of Windows on multiple machines, or driving down the highway at higher than posted speeds, are decrying Richard M. Stallman's behavior. Are these people children, or just naive?

The rules of any process, meeting, or presentation, are generally tilted to give the advantage to the incumbents. I am sure no one is surprised to hear this, and no one doubts that the Commerce Departments DRM Workshop was likely tilted to insure the implementation of some recording and movie industry friendly protection. Therefore, if we all sit back like nice sheep, act appropriately, and follow the rules, what we will get is an industry friendly DRM system.

I am sure that some of you feel that downloading MP3s while hiding behind your firewalls and anonymous hotmail accounts is all it will take to stop DRM from coming, and maybe that will be enough. But maybe some direct action is needed. Maybe the token Free Software person needs not to sit back and smile, grateful for the opportunity to be in the presence of such great people that he is not even worthy to shine their shoes, but to stand up and declare himself not a patsy, but an equal.

The reference to the US suffrage movement may or may not be accurate. Our ability to copy and download music may not be as important as a women's right to participate in our democracy. On the other hand, I do not see any DRM protesters picketing the white house, being beaten, sent to jail, and force fed because they feel that their children's right to be considered full citizens was greater than any discomfort they themselves might incur.

What Stallman and a few other brave folks did was minor. It is being blown out of proportion by a media fearful for the demisof the only livelihood they know. It being propagated in populist forums like /. by persons uncomfortable with democratic process and the messiness that is occasionally necessary to keep that process afloat. If the opposition to the DRM is not important enough to justify such messiness, we should allow it to pass, and live in whatever world is the result.

Stallman's account

[Tex Bravado]

It always irritates me when Stallman makes cogent and pertinent remarks like this, which threaten my image of him as a wild-eyed ranting iconoclast.

Judge RMS for Yourself

[mkcmkc]

RMS is portrayed in various places and by various people as being a commie, nut job, etc. I've noticed, however, that all of the times when I have personally listened to or read what he has to say, that it's pretty damn reasonable.

If you want to have an educated opinion, you owe it to yourself to check out RMS's positions personally.

--Mike

Re:Why RMS bugs me

[no_choice]

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 propaganada in his writings.

What seems to "bother" you is that Stallman has advanced persuasive arguments in favor of an idea that conflicts with your existing world view. Rather than rethink that world view in light of the new information, you emotionally reject it as "propaganda." This is, in fact, a very human reaction. It is often difficult for people to accept new ideas, even good ones, that conflict with their entrenched existing ideas. This is particularly true when the person in question has an economic interest in maintaining their current world view, as you do.

In your post and in your essay, you spend a great deal of time attacking Stallman and his ideas as "propaganda," without rebutting those ideas. This is called an argumentum ad hominem attack ("against the man") and is considered a very poor argument--I'll resist the urge to call it "propaganda." And no, simply stating that you hold some particular belief as fundamental (e.g. "I believe that the owner of a computer program has the right to sell it") is not a rebuttal.

When I see an author trying to persuade me emotionally rather than through reason or logic, it makes me suspicious.

Indeed. These are emotional issues to those who understand them; DRM legislation, for example, could potentially have a devestating long-term impact on our society. I find Stallman's ideas to be exceptionally well-reasoned and logical. Clearly, you react to them very emotionally; I suggest you read Stallman's ideas again and give them some thought.

IP *is* a civil-rights (and colonialism) issue

[hunterellinger]

Without having an opinion one way or the other on the impact of RMS's behavior at the meeting, I am one person who was active in the civil-rights movement in the early 60's who is not offended by the comparison of it to the fight to restrain IP claims. (I'm also author of several minor patents -- example.)

US-led intellectual-property laws (all mixed together, as Stallman points out) are a growing method of forcing the poorer parts of the world to send money to the richer parts. The biggest problem is not copyright, but patents such as the ones that make many needed medicines too expensive to use throughout most of the world. Taking money from impoverished sick people (or countries) just for the privilege of using an idea is as immoral as were the earlier colonial and feudal expropriations that were also justified by ownership ideas that are now discredited.

Laws that let you keep other people from using ideas need to be limited to what can be clearly shown to benefit people in general. When numerous trivial ideas are granted patents, and unjustified but ruinously-expensive infringement lawsuits are routinely used to stifle independent invention, it is clear that the correct balance has been lost. While the protests should not be limited to DRM (it won't help for people to see entertainment piracy as the only IP issue), I think that the fights on DRM are an important element in awakening people to the dangers posed by greed backed up by political power, even if the greatest such dangers are not DRM ones.

The civil-rights movement and the women's-rights movements were glad to make use of precedents from the ACLU's free-speech efforts to stop pornography prosecutions and from alliances first formed to repeal alcohol prohibition -- even if the issues were not directly related in theory, the enemies of more freedom were pretty much the same in all cases, so that all the freedom efforts reinforced each other in practice. Efforts for more IP freedom are in the same tradition.

From the Author of the Inflammatory Feature

[al3x]

While I hesitate to buy into the comparisons with martyrs of civil rights and women's suffrage, I understand and sympathize with RMS's views. I also agree that a miscommunication about his views on intellectual property occured, and clearly a well-written text can offer a much more cohesive explanation than five minutes of conversation on a hot DC sidewalk.

But perhaps this is exactly the point: I've recieved an outpour of sympathetic responses from red-blooded geeks from all parts, bemoaning our self-appointed representatives and their complex, often unrealistic viewpoints that can be explained only at length and implemented only in a closed system of their own design. However, the beautiful thing is: RMS, the NY Fair Use crowd, and their ilk have just as much right to their style of politicking as those of us who desire efficient and reasonable lobbying. And, as one Slashdotter enlightened me, it does take all kinds to really expose a tangled issue like this.

I am largely in agreement with RMS, with the GNU philosophy, and with the notion that 'intellectual property' is both a misnomer and a vile construct. But I've also been mired in enough DC politics from a young age to know that idealism lies well beyond the goal in sight, and as disheartening as that may be, it's the price of "majority rules" democracy. I appreciate RMS clearing up our misunderstanding, and I appreciate those of you who wrote in support of a more moderate geek political platform.