FSF, Political Activism or Crossing the Line?

orbitor writes to tell us InfoWorld's Neil McAllister is calling into question some of the recent decisions by the Free Software Foundation. From the article: "All the more reason to be disappointed by the FSF's recent, regrettable spiral into misplaced neo-political activism, far removed from its own stated first principles. In particular, the FSF's moralistic opposition to DRM (digital rights management) technologies, which first manifested itself in early drafts of Version 3 of the GPL (Gnu General Public License), seems now to have been elevated to the point of evangelical dogma."

Comments

Utter nonsense.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

The Author presents the market as being able to solve the DRM 'problem' (or at least decide whether its acceptable):

For starters, market realities right here in the United States put the lie to the FSF's histrionics. Apple's iTunes Store, which sells DRM-encoded music and videos to millions of iPod owners, is going like gangbusters. Clearly, despite DRM's widely discussed inadequacies and regular aggravations, more than a few consumers are willing to put up with it when the price is right. That's just basic free-market economics.

Well, thanks Neil McAllister, I bet you would also have advised Mr Stallman that the market would sort out software in 1985? I think he would have said something like:

For starters, market realities right here in the United States put the lie to the FSF's histrionics. Software vendors such as Microsft and IBM which sell closed source software to millions of businesses, are going like gangbusters. Clearly, despite closed source's widely discussed inadequacies and regular aggravations, more than a few consumers are willing to put up with it when the price is right. That's just basic free-market economics.

If the author wants to attack the FSF for being anti-DRM, more power to them (although, frankly I question the motivations of anyone who's pro-drm.

But, the author trys to present FSFs anti DRM as a new thing:

far removed from its own stated first principles. In particular, the FSF's moralistic opposition to DRM (digital rights management) technologies,

Which just isn't true - stallman wrote in his GNU Manifesto:

I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way.

You can see pretty clearly how DRM fits in there - and if you don't believe in DRM on software, why on earth would you for content?

Re:Utter nonsense.

[Ohreally_factor]

I don't think you've made a valid comparison.

Stallman's answer in 1985 was to create F/OSS software, not to outlaw proprietary software, nor to use unlawfully copied proprietary software. F/OSS was and is able to compete in the marketplace.

Now let's look at DRM. DRM is a flawed, ultimately unworkable attempt to control copying of "content" files. If the FSF had a workable alternative to DRM, then they should put it forth and let it compete for our hearts and minds and dollars.

Better yet, if they want to work a political angle, why not work on/against legislation such as the DMCA? Why waste the effort on DRM, which in my estimation is going to turn out to be one of the big non-issues of the century.

Re:Utter nonsense.

[QuantumG]

The point of political protest against DRM is that the proponents of DRM are pushing for laws that force people to use DRM. You are right, DRM is "flawed", but that hardly matters when there are laws demanding that no-one tell anyone that it is flawed. As for your question about the DMCA, exactly what laws do you think we're talking about? The DMCA is just the first of many that will make DRM workable.

Re:Utter nonsense.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Stallman's answer in 1985 was to create F/OSS software, not to outlaw proprietary software, nor to use unlawfully copied proprietary software. F/OSS was and is able to compete in the marketplace.

Hmmmmn, good point - my analogy was flawed.

Now let's look at DRM. DRM is a flawed, ultimately unworkable attempt to control copying of "content" files. If the FSF had a workable alternative to DRM, then they should put it forth and let it compete for our hearts and minds and dollars.

DRM can be used to protect any digital file - including software. It affects the FSF directly (DRM measures can remove some freedoms granted by the GPL) and is a legal and social problem, there is no technical solution.

Better yet, if they want to work a political angle, why not work on/against legislation such as the DMCA? Why waste the effort on DRM, which in my estimation is going to turn out to be one of the big non-issues of the century.

I take your point that the DMCA is the whip that enforces DRM, but the FSF is going working on the DMCA, not too mention even more dangerous items, like the wipo netcast treaty, and software patents.

Just 'cause they're attacking DRM doesn't mean they've forgotten everything else!

Re:Utter nonsense.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If the FSF had a workable alternative to DRM, then they should put it forth and let it compete for our hearts and minds and dollars.

They do. Its called Freedom. You know - free as in liberty, not free as in beer. What works for software can work for art too, they are effectively the same thing after all.

The big difference is that when Stallman got started on Free software, non-Free software was only a few years old and had only just gained an advantage over Free software.

Entertainment has been technically non-Free for a couple of centuries. Its a much bigger entrenched mindset that must be overcome, and unlike the software microcosm, those who benefit from the current non-Free environment have so much control over the public discourse that its almost impossible for a dissenting opinion like the FSF's to be widely heard, much less considered more than "fringe."

Re:Utter nonsense.

[paganizer]

Valid point.
I think it skirts around the issue that DRM is just downright Evil (tm 2006 microsoft/disney/bush); the entire concept of placing limits on something I own that I didn't ask for is so blatantly wrong that I'm still at a loss as to how anyone can support it.

Re:Utter nonsense.

[Znork]

"There's Magnatune, there's eMusic."

And there's aluminium, and there's milk, and there's screwdrivers.

The existence of other products does not a free market make, and monopolistic competition for the consumers disposable income does not create the economic efficiency that free market competition on commodity pricing does.

On a free market, competition forces the price to fall towards the cost of production, driving production into ever higher efficiency to create profit margins. This in itself means more wealth is created for the same amount of effort, thus creating an ever more wealthy economy, and benefiting society as a whole.

So, seen the price of a CD lately? If 'the market' had 'sorted it out', it ought to be around a few cents for the more widely produced mass produced products. Oops, nope, not there. And the amortized cost of Windows should be a couple of bucks. Oh, not there either.

Seems the market isnt sorting things out that good, eh?

"There's absolutely nothing that would justify any legal intervention or any other meddling with the market in this case."

Indeed. Intellectual monopoly legislation needs to be removed. There is nothing that justifies the legal intervention of copyrights or patents in the market, and the damage is obvious.

Re:Utter nonsense.

[bit01]

DRM - as a concept - is just a logical progression of copyright law.

No, DRM is what some entrenched interests would like existing copyright to become. It is not a logical progression.

DRM'ed content (as currently implemented) usually breaks the copyright (as currently implemented) bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions. It should not be possible to copyright DRM'ed content.

The law is a creation of the mind and can be anything we want it to be. Current copyright law is only one of a universe of possibilities. Those people who create the false dichotomy of copyright law as currently implemented versus a free-for-all as the only alternative are confused at best and fraudulently misrepresenting the situation at worst.

Your implicit assumption that current copyright law is the only possibility is part of this narrow mindset. e.g. I'm pro some forms of copyright (e.g. very short terms with a trademark-like loss of copyright if software or media like m$word or happy birthday becomes a standard) but I'm strongly anti-DRM (which just for starters should be illegal until it implements current law) while still being anti copyright and patent law as they're currently implemented.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:Utter nonsense.

[squiggleslash]

Stallman's answer in 1985 was to create F/OSS software, not to outlaw proprietary software, nor to use unlawfully copied proprietary software.

The FSF hasn't "outlawed" DRM in any way that it hasn't proprietary software. It does, actually, support copyright law changes that would result in the banning of proprietary software. (As it does DRM.) It did release a license whose aim was to use existing copyright law to prevent proprietary software by making people choose between being able to build upon a free software project, or being able to release something proprietary, and likewise is using the same bargain against DRM.

So I fail to see what's so amazingly different. Finally, arguing the FSF are extremists for suddenly going political reminds me of politicians who criticise their counterparts for "playing politics". The FSF is, and always has been, a political organization. It will consider its mission furfilled when the last vestages of proprietary software (and this includes DRM, which is a form of proprietary software, inherently involving secrets and closed, unmodifiable, code) have been displaced by free software. Anyone who describes it in the terms the author did is an idiot.

Re:Utter nonsense.

[samkass]

I bet you would also have advised Mr Stallman that the market would sort out software in 1985?

I think a more apt comparison would be software copy protection. I recall in 1985 almost all commercial software had copy protection. A little earlier than that, the Commodore 64 was legendary for various schemes that caused intentional error states in the floppy disk that was required for the software to run, etc. As the industry matured, they realized that copy protection was only hurting the honest folks, and that the people who wanted to copy would still copy. By the time the Mac reached its market share peak, MacWorld was taking away a "mouse" in its software ratings if the software had copy protection. It sorted itself out.

If DRM doesn't sort itself out the same way, it probably means that it's probably not all that bad for the honest folks. I know Apple's DRM has never annoyed me at all when I'm trying to do legal listening to my music. As soon as the DRM starts getting in the way of regular lawful usage, industry forces will start to push it out.

Re:Utter nonsense.

[Kadin2048]

Don't think for a moment that the people pushing copyright (and the entire concept of "intellectual property") in the U.S. haven't travelled abroad. They have, and they're for the most part not stupid. They're afraid.

A lot of people, particularly those inhabiting some very choice real estate in downtown Washington, DC, are quite aware that as a country, we don't really make anything anymore. Okay, so there are still a few agricultural commodities that we grow for export, and some manufacturing that apparently can't be outsourced to China, but it's not the sort of thing that you run an economy on. It's definitely not the sort of thing that you remain economic ruler of the free world based on.

So what do you make and sell, when you don't manufacture anything anymore? The answer that quite a few people seem to have come to, is "content."

You manufacture content. It's better than manufacturing physical goods, because it basically has no inputs besides labor, but produces a "good" which can be sold over and over again as a result. There aren't any pesky raw materials to import, so it's a totally domestic product. On one end it's a service industry, but on the other end it's manufacturing. Plus, the demand for it is basically constant, and even though foreigners may not want our airplanes or SUVs, they seem to want to watch MTV.

When you look at it this way, you can see why there are more than a few people around who think DRM is a good idea. More than that, it's a necessary idea. You basically can't do what they want to do -- manufacture content and sell it per-unit, as if they were Ford or GM -- without some control that keeps people from deflating the price back to its actual marginal cost of production and distribution (the "one more copy" cost).

DRM, in my opinion, is a bit of a desperate measure. It strikes a chord with people who can't understand (or don't want to understand, or don't believe in) the whole "service economy" concept, and would like to see the U.S. dominating a "software industry" in the same way we once dominated steel, only churning out lines of code rather than bar stock, and selling it for export.

Huh? Recent?

[suckfish]

Since when has FSFs neo-political activism been a "recent spiral". RMS has been a loud-mouth activist since before most /. readers were born (and hopefully, he won't be shutting up any time soon).

The authors opinions seem just as clueless as his non-facts.

Stupid article

[strider44]

Apart from misquoting "There is no more important cause for electronic freedoms and privacy than the call for action to stop DRM from crippling our digital future" (slightly different meaning there mate) I'm struggling to wonder why he's surprised that the free software foundation would be against DRM. Admittedly the car steering analogy is a bit silly - it's more like a car that will only steer on vendor-approved roads.

An utterly idiotic article.

Re:Stupid article

[Haeleth]

Admittedly the car steering analogy is a bit silly

No, he misrepresented that as well. He presents it as though the FSF is claiming DRM is like a car that can't be steered. If he seriously thought that, then he's an idiot. In fact, the FSF is saying DRM is like a car that won't let you steer it -- i.e., one that steers itself, driving you where the car makers decide you ought to want to drive.

One can imagine quite a lot of people happily buying a self-driving car - how convenient! Except... how odd, when you tell it you want to drive to a hotel in Boston, it has a list of the hotels you can drive to, and they're all big chains. The nice little independent one you've booked isn't an option. And it's going to drive several hundred miles out of your way, to avoid having to fill up at an unapproved gas station. And you're going to be forced to watch adverts all the way...

And that's actually not a bad analogy for one form of DRM dystopia, the one where the content creators literally control all the content that gets produced, and amateurs literally cannot play back home recordings and the like. Of course that's not a plausible scenario. But hyperbole has always been an acceptable rhetorical device.

Uhh, they're the FSF...

[jrockway]

> In particular, the FSF's moralistic opposition to DRM (digital rights [sic] management) technologies, which first manifested itself in early drafts of Version 3 of the GPL (Gnu [sic, it's GNU] General Public License), seems now to have been elevated to the point of evangelical dogma.

Um, yeah? They're the Free Software Foundation -- they like Freedom. DRM is the exact opposite of Freedom, which is why they're against it. The FSF has always been about politics. If you want the neutral, "here's some code, enjoy!" stance, use the BSD license. If you want to ensure that software remains Free for generations to come, then the GPL is the way to go.

If you read Stallman's essay, The Right to Read , you'll see why he's so opposed to DRM. Today, DRM is limited to crappy pop music that nobody wants any, but the extension of what can be done with DRM is pretty scary. It's easier to nip the DRM plague in the bud rather than wait until the society in The Right to Read becomes reality!

Perspective

[Bongo Bill]

While TFA is certainly excessive in the manner in which it presents this issue, it does indicate a deeper concern. Why shouldn't DRM'd software be written and sold, as long as the transaction is voluntary? It's no more restrictive than any other type of contract - and contracts are the foundation of the economics surrounding any creative work.

Re:Perspective

[pchan-]

As an embedded systems engineer, I've created systems using open source software, GPL and others. You could go to our company's website and download the source to all those that we are required to distribute. But these won't do you any good. The system cryptographically authenticates all binaries from the bootloader on. Even if you changed our kernel, improved our software, you'll never be able to use them on the hardware you bought from us*. This "security" is to secure the content from you, the person who paid for it. In the process, we have subverted the intent of the GPL (without violating any of its rules). The point is to let you modify the software and *be able to use it*, not just stare at the authentication error message when you'll try to run the software you've built yourself.

RMS is trying to stop this, stop the erosion of software freedom. In ten years, what I'm doing today will be a standard feature of your motherboard. Your authenticated OS will not run your unsigned code. Your free OS will not have access to the encrypted drive partition where your content is stored. Your hardware will conspire against you. Stallman is trying to extricate GPL software from the world where some are able to put restrictions on its free nature by means of DRM systems.

* Well, you could if you're really smart, but in the U.S. this is prohibited by law.

Re:Open Source zealots

[killjoe]

Yes except that in this case the zealot is the author of this article who believes that people who don't agree with him should just shut up and sit down. He is annoyed that the FSF (and other people) are getting uppity. He says "the market will solve the problem" as if the "market" didn't inlclude people he doesn't like. The "market" includes the FSF, the "open source zealots" as you like to smear them, you, me and everybody else. FSF putting up a fight is just much a part of the market as he is.

He is telling the people who disagree with him to shut the fuck up. You are telling the people who disagree with you that they are zealots. The FSF is telling people they should fight DRM. It's all a part of the "market".

Free market economics?

[91degrees]

Clearly, despite DRM's widely discussed inadequacies and regular aggravations, more than a few consumers are willing to put up with it when the price is right. That's just basic free-market economics.

This is not a free market! The record industry controls how music is allowed to be released. They restrict the market. If there was a choice between DRM and non-DRM music, everyone would go for the non-DRM stuff. It would allow them choice over which mp3 player to buy, not restrict them to an arbitrarty number of copies, allow them to play them on many types of DVD player, and give them all the flexibility that CDs give.

Re:Open Source zealots

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

[oss zealots] are no more credible than any other type of zealot

Hmmmmn, I'm not sure I'd agree. RMS would fit my description of a zealot - and even tho' I don't agree with him all the time, I've always found him to be honest, self consistent, straightforward, convincing. All the things I would call credible.

The author of the article flat out lies however - how on Earth are the FSF trying to control artist's lyrics or notes:

No DRM system ever told an artist what notes to play or what lyrics were OK to sing. But the FSF seems intent on doing just that.

Generally speaking, free software 'zealots' are more credible then pro-drm 'zealots' as the pro-drm zealots are paid to defend the indefensible, whereas the free software zealots are defending what they believe to be freedoms.

textbook case of FUD

[leomekenkamp]

This is imho a classic case of FUD: heavy use of emotinal words and reasoning, false reasoning, using a pro-argument as an against-argument simply by stating it differently.

I tried to make an analysis of the article, and here's what I came up with:

• Alinea 1: Introduction with mistake: "software should be free" was not a radical idea; a lot of software already used to be free delivered including the source.
• Alinea 2: Short description of RMS
• Alinea 3: main statement, uses lots of emotionaly loaded words
• Alinea 4: this should be backing up alinea 3, but just poses a new statement, again with the use of emotionaly loaded words
• Alinea 5 & 6: author does not seem to see the dangers in drm and uses emotions ('if you do not agree with me you are as stupid as people who fell for obvious hoaxes') to direct the user instead of using arguments
• Alinea 7: This is a non argument: so companies are making money using drm; this has nothing to do with the reasons the FSF is opposed to current drm implementations.
• Alinea 8 & 9: A media player which will not allow you to play certain files is comparable with a car that will not allow you to drive on certain roads, i.e. "won't let you steer" to go on these roads. That customers would not buy such a car while they do buy such players suggests that the FSF has to step up its campaign; ironically the writer here makes a case agains his own statement.
  Also, the author suggests that a free market needs no regulation. Unfortunately, history has shown that a free market without regulation does not work properly (labour issues, environmental issues and moral issues are less important than making a profit).
• Alinea 10: Again, the false assumption that consumers can change the market in all situations. Also a non-argument: the fsf does not made any statements about drm interfering with the _creation_ of data, only with the _playing_ of data.
• Alinea 11: Correct facts about the FSF; does not strengthen the author's statement in any way.
• Alinea 12: Again, use of emotionally loaded words. Wrong reasoning: drm is not an algorithm. By the way, RMS has stated that drm may be used, as long as Free (as in speech) implementations of that drm-scheme are possible, so this argument is wrong on two counts. The "God on their side" argument is ridiculous, as there are often reasons to abandon social and economic arguments in favour of morale: for instance I do not kill people who are of no economic value, so morale clearly prevails here.
• Alinea 13: Author claims RMS is not rational w.r.t. drm. RMS has however imho written clear and rational about drm using arguments and not emotionally loaded words or orwellian newspeak. Claim about FSF without any backing up.
• Alinea 14: Emotionally loaded comparison and repeat of claim from alinea 13.

So, what have we: a claim that is not backed up by valid arguments, only by another claim that is in fact not backed up by arguments. A lot of paying on the readers' emotions.

Can't wait to see RMS' rebuttal on this one.

Re:No.

[linuxrocks123]

Well, first, what you're saying is irrelevant. You are asserting that a free market for that which is currently protected by copyrights, trade secrets, and patents is a bad idea. I was responding to an incorrect statement which asserted that the market for music was a free market. Whether free markets are good or bad in a specific instance is irrelevant to what they are.

Beyond that, what you're saying is mostly correct. There wouldn't be "no" incentive to innovate, but there would be substantially less of an incentive to innovate. Copyrights and patents create an incentive to innovate through the creation of monopolies on innovations. These monopolies impose their own inefficiencies. If you believe that copyrights and patents are good for society, you must believe that there is no alternative to them that solves the incentives problem with greater efficiency.

I think that subsidies are a better way. We already subsidize that which is protected by patents through DARPA, the NSF, and other government funded agencies. We could feasibly get rid of patents and dramatically increase funding for these agencies to compensate. In my proposal, the inefficiency of a monopoly is replaced with the inefficiency of extra taxes. If we have a reasonably efficient tax system, I think this will easily be a net win over private monopolists.

With regard to that which is copyrighted, we could do subsidize in a similar way. Get rid of copyrights, but dramatically increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. As long as additional taxation is less inefficient than the inefficiency of private monopolies, this is a net win.

Now, if we as a country were to do this, I'd recommend doing it gradually. Decrease copyright and patent terms over the course of 10 years while increasing government subsidies to research and innovation. There's not a snowball's chance this will actually be done anyway, though.