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."
But, the author trys to present FSFs anti DRM as a new thing:Which just isn't true - stallman wrote in his GNU Manifesto: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?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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.
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.
> 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!
My other car is first.
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.
...but is it art?
Perhaps I'm uninformed, but how can opposing DRM, a technique which clearly never will work in the long run and in the end be paid for by consumers, be a bad thing?
People are watching freakin' cammed versions of movies for Petes sake... When will the DRM firms get it?! I should go patent sound waves and photons and claim that these are a "media distribution channel for IP".
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.
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".
evil is as evil does
If anyone really thinks that DRM is or should be outside the FSF's agenda, he should read The Right to Read.
DRM is exactly the kind of things that caused Stallman to launch the FSF in the first place.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There's a reply to TFA posted on www.defectivebydesign.org
http://defectivebydesign.org/node/78
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.
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: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.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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.
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:
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).
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.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
This is one of the more ridiculous assertions I have seen in quite a while. It is akin to saying that the rise of the confederate army "puts the lie" to the Union Army's "histrionics" in regard to its anit-Slavery stance. It is a complete non sequitur to conclude that DRM is not bad just because a large part of the populace ignorantly embraces it. The difference here is that the harm falls on the ignorant as well.
People who think DRM is about protecting artist's rights and guaranteeing fair use while stopping piracy have literally no idea what DRM is, or what its potential for abuse implies. DRM is NOT about what music you can play or what videos you can watch, it is about what software you can run on your hardware!
The evolution of DRM is intended to be as follows:
Think about it people! Think! I implore you. You don't think Gates is pro DRM because he cares about making sure artists get paid boatloads of money, do you? Really?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
Slashdot-audience-focus-group jokes apart:
:-)
When I was single, everything I did with a sexual partner -- and everything she did with me -- could be repeated (or retried) with the next, without fear of being sued for the "Intellectual Property" of an interesting, insightful or even astounding sexual discovery.
At least that's how I learned the "Candelabro Italiano"
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048