Slashdot Mirror
RMS Calls to Liberate Cyberspace
Henri Poole writes "In an interview with Groklaw's Sean Daly at GPLv3 Conference in Barcelona, RMS talks with passion about the dangers of DRM. From the article: 'the point is, we shouldn't be passive victims! We should decide that it will not happen! And the way we decide that is by activism. We have to do everything possible to make sure that those products are rejected, that they fail, that they give bad reputations to whoever makes them.' He closed the interview with a far reaching goal for the Free Software Movement: 'the goal is to liberate everyone in cyberspace.'"
I always enjoy it when Richard Stallman gives interviews. He was probably the first person--many, many years ago!--to fundamentally understand that we have a CHOICE of whether we want to preserve freedoms to do whatever we want with our software, or whether we're going to let other parties take those freedoms away from us.
Also, he had the guts to stand up for his freedoms and everyone else's, to be able to do what they want with their software. He's done more than just about any other single person to try and protect those freedoms for regular folks like you and me.
Can you imagine what the software landscape would look like today without the GPL, without the FSF and without all the free software that has been licensed under the GPL (both by the FSF and by many other open-source contributors)? Even if many of us continue to use non-free systems such as Windows XP, it is nice to know we have a choice. And we WOULDN'T have that choice anymore if Richard and many others had not stood up when they did.
Lots of people criticise Richard Stallman, but in my view nearly all of those people are either (1) immature kids who wouldn't pass a real civics class if they were ever put in one, (2) people who don't understand the real issues and how fundamental they are, or (3) shills or trolls or other people with an anti-freedom agenda.
There are a small number of people who understand the issues but aren't particularly concerned about them; extreme pragmatists like Linus probably fall into this category. Still, I don't often hear Linus or others from this category criticising Stallman.
The people who criticise Richard Stallman are those who are afraid of his message.
The FSF has recently launched the Defective by Design campaign. This campaign is an initiative to provide activism opportunities for free software activists and is 'new territory' for the FSF. In the last 30 days, DefectiveByDesign has received press in Reuters, Financial Times, BusinessWeek, US News and World Report, BBC and over 40 publications in the tech space. The project was launched in response to the most recent FSF members meeting earlier this year, where many FSF members discussed ideas about bringing the fight for free software into the mainstream.
I really can't say it gave all that much new information, but he definitely made some points. DRM, in any shape or form, is essentially incompatible with the idea of Free Software. When your goal is to restrict the public, there's really no room for compromise. Richard Stallman = smart man.
I think the biggest problem is educating the public about what DRM is.
:/
In my experiences, after explaining what DRM is to people that I know, they think it is the dumbest thing that they have ever heard.
I am sure the public would reject it, but the problem remains then: how do we educate the public?
Registered Linux user #421033
Before liberation, shouldn't we educate the public first? Most people today know nothing about DRM, FSF, or that MP3 is a patented format. We all remember the Sony rootkit scandal, but the average consumer does not. The average consumer uses proprietary Windows formats and never considers the dangerous problems that closed systems present to free information. As long as the ignorant masses stay complacent and docile, and as long as consumers obsesquiently gobble up DRM-laced products, there is no chance that free software will win.
~ C.
Apparently not. This time he had a black leather trenchcoat, small sunglasses and was holding out 2 strangely colored pills.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I couldn't agree more.
The fact that machines are being built to suppress what people can do with them rather than to enhance our abilities to grow and perhaps go beyond their intended purposes makes them defective by design. Imagine not being able to make a copy of your music for use in your car because you already have one at home, one at your office, and three that were made for iPods (the first two of which were lost or broken). What if you wanted to include it in a mix tape [sic]?
Or it's like buying a computer that will only run M$ software - software that purposely spies on everything you do so that M$ can "protect" you from doing something their contract (that you signed when you turned the machine on) disallows.
It's FUBAR.
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
DRM isn't dangerous... DRM is simply encryption, and encryption isn't bad. I don't think anyone here wants encryption restricted in any way. Everyone has the right to encrypt any data in any way they want, period!
What IS dangerous is the government requiring DRM or giving it special legal protection. It is dangerous if the government mandates DRM, and makes it illegal for me to circumvent DRM. If I can crack the DRM on media, and convert it to an unprotected format for myself, without any fear of legal consequences, then my rights are not being restricted in any way.
What is also dangerous is people thinking that the government should act against DRM. Seriously, that is just as bad as DRM. It is going to come back to bite people in the ass when those anti-DRM laws start restricting how you are allowed to encrypt your own data. If I create data, I want to be able to encrypt it in any way I choose... just because you find it annoying that it takes 10 seconds to run your itunes music through a utility to convert it to mp3, doesn't mean you have the right to restrict me from encrypting my data however I want.
Basicly, keep all the legal restrictions out of it, and let people do whatever the hell they want want... that is the only truly safe thing to do.
Anyone know where can I get this GNU Flash player that rocks? Anyone know where I can get a GNU Flash editor?
Thanks.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Uh, maybe you haven't noticed that a lot of GNU activists outside of the United States are interested in the concept of Free Software because they think it might liberate them from the technological domination of a handful of firms in the U.S.. For example, Miguel de Icaza founded the GNOME project because of concern for the disadvantaged in his native country of Mexico. It's no secret that most of the world's most powerful propietary forces are based in the U.S., while GNU software is a cooperative endeavour that is international in scope. And it's not just the elite who take part; many GNU hackers in the former Soviet Union are using ancient hardware and have poor Internet connections. At least with Free Software, everyone is allowed to contribute, whereas with proprietary software it's hard for the rich and simply impossible for the poor.
>Should he be "liberated" from that technology because it is proprietary, non free, non gratis, owned >by the evil corporate horde?
It depends on whether you're using 'liberate' in the RMS sense or the G. W. Bush sense.
If you mean it in the Bush sense, and are liberating him by taking his technology away from him, then no, definately not.
If you mean it in the RMS sense, and are liberating him by giving him a free, gratis alternative that isn't owned by the corporate horde, that he's free to use or discard at his leisure, then yes, immediately. Yesterday, if possible.
I was thinking don't buy it.
But if you want want to give an aspiring journalist somthing to write about, feel free.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I live in the United States. I spent yesterday looking at other countries and what qualities of government they have, because I am just plain sick of it here. Every week, I read at least one story about our rights and how they are being taken away through the back door. It was difficult to find a country where there weren't any drawbacks - all forms of government seem fundamentally flawed in (at least) one way or another. We don't NEED it on the Internet.
This world-wide network has gained a momentum, and there are people in power that are AFRAID of that momentum. With no REAL commercial core, with free speech and architecture giving itself power and stance... These people feel threatened that they will be disregarded. So they start fighting it in their world.
MPAA/RIAA lawsuits. DRM. Internet taxation. F*CK THAT.
How about open standards. Open SOURCE CODE. Open practice and ethics. These are all the backbone of the Internet, such as the Tier 1 Internet providers, Internet exchanges and other entities that share information freely. We *KNOW* how to govern ourselves. It's actually very inspiring, isn't it? No real central authority (except for standards and protocols, like the IEEE and DNS root servers)... These people who don't see how it works right now intend to change it so THEY are the ones calling the shots.
No thanks, I think we can do it ourselves.
He's right. We need to fight. Keep it in the hands of everyone, not a just a few corruptable, power hungry mother f*ckers who want to either make money from it or pat themselves on the back knowing that they are in control.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Obviously, denouncing DRM and the products and companies that sustain it is what any fair use advocate should do. But such a strategy will never work unless the unwashed masses are also made aware of how DRM negatively impacts their lives. The anti-DRM slashdot type accounts for such a small piece of the pie compared to the workaday single mom who wants to record her soaps in HD, or the 13-year-old girl who wants to record Britney's new trailer trash offering off of the radio, or the recent business school graduate who wants to save what he hears on his new XM or Sirius radio for later. All those folks will be seriously impacted by the encroachment of DRM as the digital entertainment age emerges, but none of them are aware that their fair use liberties are in danger.
Now, if each of us told our parents and siblings about the imminent mainstream DRM fiasco, and all of them told their coworkers and fellow students, and so on, then maybe - just maybe - the public outrage would reach the critical point where Congress and the electronics companies would finally see the light and tell the copyright cartels where to cram it. Until then, the nerdiest of us will just have to sit and watch as our fair use rights are taken away one by one.
Well, better we have people with the courage and intellect of Superman than cowardly sheep who know how to stand and be shaved off better than standing up for themselves. Yes, let's wait for someone to hand over freedom on a platter while we criticize them for trying.
Was RMS wearing a Superman outfit when he made his call to liberate cyberspace.
Actually, Superman wears a Stallman outfit.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
Copyright is a very recent notion. Only in the last 400 years or so has it been enforced by government, and really only in the West until it was forced on the rest of the world. Look to other places and times. Take, for example, Rome and ancient Greece: there poets, dramatists, and orators created works of art that have lasted through the ages, and they weren't concerned about people freely copying their work. Martial, for exmaple, makes reference to free copying of his epigram in the marketplce, with no payment getting back to him, and he suggests he's fine with it as long as no one who copies it tries to claim they themselves wrote it. In India, there has always been a long tradition of copying and adapting previous material without payment, and yet it hasn't stopped a vibrant art scene. Copyright holds back the creation of art more than it spurs it.
There's my side, there's your side, and there's the truth. Just as from a conservative perspective the truth has a liberal bias, from a liberal perspective the truth has a conservative bias.
I rather doubt RMS would disagree with any of that. He has just chosen his part of the battle to be software, which best leverages his strengths. One person can't do everything, and ignoring one front of a war because another exists is idiotic. Claiming software is unimportant and shouldn't be fought because other battles exist is dooming yourself to failure on both fronts- there's always something more important you should be working on, you need people to dedicate themselves to one battle in order to make any progress.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
We need to stop this now. If every slashdotter joins then we can.
http://defectivebydesign.org/join/fsf
I reserve the write to mangle english.
"the goal is to liberate everyone in cyberspace."
He's right. Now what?
Time to start Anti DRM webpages that top search engines when you search HD-DVD, Blue Ray, Vista, and Itunes?
What does one do?
Hang around best buys all day and inform people?
Obviously the media, by that i mean CNN, Fox News, SONY, etc will not be getting the word out. Its in their interest that this goes through.
The people dont really have a voice anymore. The government is worthless in the matter.
Do we stick to slashdot.org and rant to like minded people? Who will see it? Who will care?
Frankly we LOST this years ago when corporations took interest in the internet and the computer boom took foot.
We're all 30+ now. The kids today all talk like we used too when we were the minority computer geeks.
Frankly its a world where we do not have a voice. Did the war protests have any effect on stopping the war? Did you see how many people showed up to the protests world wide? MILLIONS.
We dont have those numbers... and even if we did... it wouldnt make a dam difference.
Showing up to protests, writing people, writing articles... ranting on slashdot... DOES NOTHING.
The law trickles down... not up.
There isnt much anyone can do in todays world. We should get used to it.I know we wont, and we'll tell everyone about how much DRM sucks and they'll say "Well that sucks" and then we'll all buy the products despite our beleifs.
Its the way it goes.
The only real alternative is criminal. Support the hackers... and you're a criminal... Frankly thats the only real protest option left. The brilliant minds that liberate software, DVD, music... must go on.
Let the media giants push hard, and the coders have to push back harder.
Protesting, and writing your congressman is worthless. They do not care about you. That is the simple truth. They pass laws written by lobbiests paid for by the media giants. They have access and we the people do not.
Revolutions come from wars... not silly get togethers on the capital lawn.
Shouldn't we be more worried about the telcom lobby lying to and/or buying congress so that they can get the law changed to allow them to extort more money out of an Internet redesigned in the image of their maximum profit?
Start Running Better Polls
Then when you get around to reading the transcript of the interview or listening to it, you should be pleased to learn that Stallman is not with the Open Source movement. He takes pains to tell people that his movement, the Free Software movement, is older than the Open Source movement and pursues a different philosophy. Stallman doesn't speak for the Open Source movement.
In this interview he points out one of the differences between the two movements:
Digital Citizen
Michelangelo was paid for his work. Painters and artisans are paid for their garments and paintings. Shakespeare was paid, he was part owner of the theatre company. ...nobody gets paid when you download.
What is the problem here? They GOT PAID, they earned a living and in many cases a better than average living.
If today artists and other creators were to get paid in the same way those people in your examples got paid, then who cares if nobody gets paid when you download? That's like saying - the guys on the car manufacturing line got paid for every car they built, but everytime someone takes a trip in one of those cars nobody gets paid.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Since none of his ideas even remotely make any real world sense, why is he even publicized?
RMS is publicized because he initiated the Free Software movement. The GNU software license, which he and Eben Moglen created, has been used in some software projects you may have heard of: the Linux kernel, CVS, GNU Emacs, MySQL, and literally thousands of others.
More open source projects are developed under the GPL than under any other license, and companies like Red Hat, IBM, and others have built business units or entire buinesses around GNU-licensed software. When is the last time you saw IBM act out of naive idealism?
A lot of people in the open source world don't agree with everything RMS says, but he's incredibly smart, and people respect his ideas enough to pay attention to what he says. Get out from under the bridge and grapple with his ideas, instead of trolling.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
In general, I'm ambivilant to this topic. I tend to think there's extremists at both sides. I like my Tivo, and my mp3s, but I also feel people gotta be paid for their work.
However, when I see this response, I think--Are you kidding? The only way people against DRM are going to change anything is by making a stink about it. Saying "Don't buy it" is about as productive as vegitarians boycotting McDonald's because they serve meat. If you're not the target market, your opinion doesn't matter.
If only the anti-DRM crowd stopped buying the products, it would be a statistical glitch on balance sheet. It's not going to make an impression when most consumers are unaware of the DRM issue.
The Anti-DRM campaign has to make itself heard, while at the same time not coming off as shrill and fringe like PETA does.
There are 3 (video) talks at http://www.rehash.nl/hollandopen/ from Eben Moglen (rms lawyer) on these topics (license_drm.mp4 too). I submitted these a few days ago but they got rejected.
I'm not quite sure what to think about Mr Stallman. He certainly doesn't seem to be weighed down by self-doubt; but it is true that he has done a lot for those of us who enjoy computing and believe it shouldn't be yet another way for big corporations to make us pay though our noses. In that sense he is a true revolutionary: he is utterly convinced about the wrongness of the status quo and goes flat out to kick things over. When he started on the GNU project I don't think he was thinking about getting rich or famous, he just wanted to do something about what was and still is wrong. I respect that - a lot.
It's a funny thing though. He is an American, and what he does is seen as a fight for 'American values': freedom, fairness, equal opportunities etc. But to me as an un-American, this is socialism. A funny, old world, really; to you, as an American, socialism is either cruel totalitarianism or a stoned hippie-dream, but to many elsewhere it is about exactly those freedoms that you Americans value more than anything else. When I was young I used to think of it as 'Cristianity without God'; but of course the ideals are shared by most other religions. Wouldn't it be nice if people could put aside the labels of 'Christian', 'Communist' or whatever and see the person inside?
He should put the banner down and get on with some programming.
We all know Sony, Microsoft, and to some degree Apple are the spawn of Satan and their products are second-rate, but they're huge and already have a massive fanbase and product line that is firmly entrenched thanks to their marketing wallets.
Everyone hates Windows, still 3/4 the world uses it, they're keyboards aren't bad though.
Everyone knows the s2n ratio on the iPod is worse than anything from Creative, iRiver or Archos, you can't get your iTunes back off of it or play them on anything else, the screens scratch like a mofo and like everything Apple you'll have to replace it next year, but still it's the #1 portable audio player of choice.
Everyone knows the PS3 will have a poor Cell implementation and be overpriced, it's still going to sell in the millions.
#include <sig.h>
Belgium decided today to adopt ODF for all goverment-related documents, starting from September 2008. Microsoft Office will no longer be allowed to be used, unless it fully supports ODF by then.
Being able to read ODF has to be implemented on all federal computersystems a year earlier.
I would provide a link to an article, but I don't find anything in english. Here is a dutch article
int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
That's not true either. Have you heard of PBS or the BBC? While I'm not advocating the elimination of for-profit, private entertainment/media, your assumptions are flawed.
"Encrypt with DRM" is wholly unnecessary in that equation.
DRM restricts what you can access, how to access, functions and copying features of data (information).
Traditionally, data is just data, but with DRM, some read-only meta-data will mandate what you can and can't do with that data. Then freedom is lost.
Using legislation to disallow DRM could have impact on security methods like: filesystem permissions, serial codes for products, SELinux, encrypted filesystems, trusted computing, etc. Some of these are very liberating and gives the user freedom to express personal ideas without being compromised, serial-codes are a practical way to sell shareware / cheap software, while trusted computing takes away freedom for the end-user, just like DRM. The point is that legislation should be clear in its goal, and not mention products or special technology, and not be too general as to wipe out the good stuff. Legislators just can't understand the whole scope, and new useful inventions should not be stopped by over-legislation.
Using legislations to mandate DRM puts DRM-technology at an unfair advantage in the market place. What is DRM anyways, and why should some method of it be legislated? It makes the law unreasonable complex, and quickly outdated.
Legislation should be used for national security, not for securing big companies even more profits, villifying the citizens or forcing people into an outdated bussiness-model. Not war on terrorism, that war should be abolished due to global security mind you..
What effort is there to make the law simpler, more rational and understandable? This is the direction we should be going.
People need to get a clue, and we're the people / technicians who know about this and should educate as many as possible of what we know.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
DRM is bad and we don't need it. Amazing how much it reminds me of what was said about the MSX computer in 1983. It was seen as trying to impose an unwanted limitation on the public (ie: mostly sprite based games). Just like DRM today trying to impose other limitations that are also unwanted. Here's an interview with Design Design from Crash magazine. See the MSX section - how similar the arguments are!
http://crashonline.org.uk/08/rebirth.htm
I know it is a bit different today, what with legal stuff and all, but still.
The sad thing is that you read the same words as we do and yet interpret them so very differently.
It's only now that DRM and patents and DMCA are wreaking true havoc that people are *really* beginning to appreciate the whole magnitude and value of what RMS has been fighting for all these years.
Far from being an outsider, he is now seen as being the ethical heart of us all, even those in the Open Software community who at one point sought to divorce themselves from the ethical issues. The dangers of non-free software are now all too apparent to everyone.
The fact that you still don't see it is just a matter of statistics. Some never will.
While RMS is to be admired for many things, basic project management may not be among them.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Exactly the stuff I wanted to hear from him!
DRM is aweful, and really is NOT going to work. RMS knows that, and so do most people with at least a tiny amount of knowledge about how digital media is transferred.
Back then in the days of the Tape Recorders, you could have copied your CDs and LPs to a tape and listen to them on the road - much like iPods and ripping CDs. It's been going like that for AGES. The music industry thought that tapes were the end, they were easy to copy and one person could have made hundreds of copies for his friends, and they did the same with their friends and so on.
Apparently the world didn't end then, and music didn't end then.
Then there was Napster, and actually after they closed down Napster I started buying LESS CDs. Why? I was exposed to less music, and didn't actually feel the need to buy anything. Basically, it was a lose-lose situation. The artists didn't get any more famous, Napster got shut down, and I didn't get the music I wanted to and couldn't "try before I buy".
The music industry is a horrible thing. Trying to abuse information in order to make money out of it. Basically "give me $X and I'll tell you Y" - it's just data on the CD after all.
Just like software, music should be free. And just about anything else should.
o hai
Look: the population of Planet Earth have all characteristics required to qualify as a chaotic system - which is to say there are too many too consider all of them individually, and that their behaviour at any given time depends both on their inputs and their state.
This has a couple of interesting implications when it comers to activism. One is that macro-scale attempts at control (which in this context would be corporate and government manipulations) are unlikely to work out as intended. The other is that the butterfly effect, sensitive dependence on initial conditions, applies. Small inputs can make a tremendous difference, and the apparently uninterested non-techie you tell about this may, in fact, go home and mull it over, and then decide to tell someone else. Who tells someone else, who tells someone else... The point being that control over the media channels is no longer enough to surpress a campaign. The story leaks out at grassroots level. Which is why so many corporations and politicians are pouring money into "astroturfing" campaigns. They recognise the power of this approach, even if the general public to not.
But I don't think any astroturfing operation can compete with the real thing - no one can afford to buy that many opinions. Whereas we don't have to. You've heard of the "many eyes" principle for free software? Well this is the "many mouths" principle. With enough people talking, we can own this debate. I propose we do just that.
So stop taking like a loser, and start spreading the word. We can do this.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Other than, I agree.
Having a theoretically-possible technical workaround is not enough; there needs to be a workaround easy enough for normal people to implement. Between the DMCA and hardware-based Treacherous Computing (i.e. the TPM), it seems eminently possible that the cartels could actually succeed in marginalizing anti-DRM to a small group of technologically-saavy people. And that means, whether we're in that group or not, we all lose.
I agree, net neutrality and patents are important issues too, but so is DRM!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You are completely missing the point. They don't HAVE to prosecute them all, just some of them. And publicly. The more public the better. It will "scare straight" a lot of the population, and THAT is what they want. They know DRM, by itself, can never be perfect.
I clicked on the link to the ogg file and it started playing (Movie Player) as soon as it downloaded... Lo and behold the magical dapper drake knows what to do with Ogg files without me telling it. Now be honest, are you using Windows?
If it never worked in the "War on Drugs", what makes you think it will work in the "War on Piracy"?
Depends what you mean by 'worked'. If the goal of the War On Drugs was the elimination of certain recreational chemicals, then it has obviously failed. If the goal was to generate billions of $ in public funding for police forces and various auxiliary industries, and to give the police a pretext for going after people who otherwise aren't breaking any laws, then the war has been a resounding success.