Slashdot Mirror
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."
I'm not sure I agree with recent FSF positions (haven't tracked them much recently), but I agree overall with the FSF taking the long view of free software. There are enormous latent risks that DRM or shifts in the IP landscape (patents) could poison the well ten or twenty years down the road, by which point the crucial battles have already been lost. It's easy to come off as radical crusaders fighting battles that won't play out over a span of decades. Our short little span of attention is our worst enemy in these matters. The fact that they are alone in their extreme urgency doesn't prove much directly: they might be equally alone in a correct analysis of the risks at hand. Just because Chicken Little is squawking, that doesn't mean the sky isn't falling. Glib comments about Chicken Little behaving like Chicken Little have add nothing of any use to the larger debate. My comments add nothing of any use, either, but at least I know the difference.
In the last month or two, I've undergone a shift. I used to be fairly moderate in all this. I thought Lessig's book made some really good points, and I thought "there's a nice middle ground, it's only fair that the artists protect their rights, and that people should understand their own rights and at the same time not be piracy apologists. I don't pirate stuff very much, and I don't really mind when people do.
But especially with the new HDMI shit, with looking at what the DMCA actually lets people do, and thinking a little more about the big picture, I would like to take this chance to say: screw 'em. I hope the internet takes down the music industry, and then moves on to the movie industry. Let's take some risks, let's give people a little basic freedom, and let's let technology run its course a little and then figure out how to make money off the result. People have a hard time dealing with change, but it happens.
MPAA, I'm gonna go spend a little more time on the beach with my friends and a little less time trying to convince you and your surrogates that I legally own this DVD. Screw you and your careful licensing of permissions. And FSF, you've gained a contributor.
None of this is particularly new or revolutionary, but I want to add my voice to the chorus. Let's shake things up a bit.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
Wrong. Zealots are convinced of their cause. They are more often than not flat out wrong, but they are credible, since their believe in thier points.
Marketing/public relations/lobbying, btw. is a slighty different thing. There people are paid to appear convinced of their points. Wether they are or not is secondary. This of course doesn't rule out that they still might be right about their points. But more often than not they lack any credibility. And even more often than actual zealots they are flat out wrong. Only knowingly so in most accounts.
So RMS might be a zealot. But a non-violent zealot, and a zealot who doesn't care about money that much but very much about free exchange of information.
Anyone who is pro-drm is inherently agains free exchange of information. Anyone who is against free exchange of information has something to hide. And if someone with the goals of money and power is against free exchange of information, then he is a fascist and a danger to peaceful and free society.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
In fact the market DID sort out software since '85. That's because the market isn't something that falls from the sky, but it consists of individual acting human beings.
At some point some human beings (many inspired by RMS and the FSF I think) decided that they *wanted* Free Software, and that's why it happened. No magic, no legal intervention, just people and the market.
I like the FSF in most respects, but DRM is just another technology where consumers (yes, that's you and me) have to simply refuse current offers (I never buy DRM music, only CDs). The market already HAS sorted it out. There's Magnatune, there's eMusic. And for everybody who just *needs* mainstream music, well there's only mainstream providers like Napster or iTunes, but I think they're gonna have to live with it. Tough Shit.
There's absolutely nothing that would justify any legal intervention or any other meddling with the market in this case. Nobody is forcing DRM on you.
You pay your price and make your choice.
How many non-DRM alternatives are there anyway? To the best of my knowledge there is only one, and it's based in russia because that's apparently the only country whose laws don't enable the record company cartel found in the west. And even that DRM-free alternative is under constant fire from the cartel.
The whole evidence is pretty much moot if there isn't a possibility to proof it wrong.
If the record companies asked of us to whip ourselves on the back to buy music and didn't offer any other way to buy music, clearly whipping yourself to buy music is perfectly fine.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
There are those who'd call this FUD.
And then there are those who would say that this is right on the money. YMMV. Many people here are focusing on content, which arguably is not the point (although "The Right to Read" does make some good points). But fighting DRM as it is used to further restrict software is exactly in line with the FSF's charter.
I know, the market this, the market that, blah blah.
I agree, an informed consumer base is important.
Recent events show that the consumer responds quite well to fear, so maybe so-called "fear-mongering" is an effective way to go. I guess the "market" will sort that particular question out.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.