Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds Describes DRM and GPLv3 as 'Hot Air'
An anonymous reader writes "In Sydney this week for the annual Linux conference, Linus Torvalds has described DRM and the GPL as 'hot air' and 'no big deal'. From the interview: 'I suspect — and I may not be right — but when it comes to things like DRM or licensing, people get really very excited about them. People have very strong opinions. I have very strong opinions and they happen to be for different reasons than many other people. It ends up in a situation where people really like to argue — and that very much includes me... I expect this to raise a lot of bad blood but at the same time, at the end of the day, I don't think it really matters that much.'"
That pretty much shows it, Torvalds is out of touch with reality. DRM is getting more pervasive and he says it's no big deal.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It doesn't matters that much. Good said. Not that the words of a regular person like this overrated one (Linuzzz something) means a thing, but that is the scence of the problem. DMR may be good for some, bad for some others. In the end of the day, there is not black or white, but a lot of colors there inbetween.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
DRM is hot air.
/. articles.
Because it does protect nothing from getting ripped or copied.
DRM is made to steal money from customers. It certainly isn't anything like a threat for the warez scene.
DRM is also important to generate news with big headlines.
One sentence from Torvalds has more news and truth for nerds than a thousand
People often contrast Torvalds and Stallman as being pragmatic and idealistic, respectively. I don't think this is the case. Stallman *is* pragmatic - the only thing is, he's pragmatic about the long-term consequences and Torvalds only looks at the short-term consequences.
One example of this is the version control debate. Stallman rightly pointed out that Bitkeeper was a problem waiting to happen, and Torvalds didn't care until it was too late. Sure, you might say that the problem was avoided because Torvalds wrote git. But if he'd have done that in the first place, git would have been years ahead in development by now, and the Linux community could have avoided an embarrassing debacle.
This isn't an isolated incident - there is a history of Stallman making a point about something, a lot of people laughing at him and saying that it won't be a problem, and then a few years down the line, it becomes a problem.
Another example: the GNU project has required contributers to sign copyright waivers on the code their contribute, or have their employers do it if necessary. If Torvalds had done this from the start, half of the things SCO were complaining about to the press would have been more readily rebutted and easier to face in court. But Torvalds didn't bother with this until it was too late either.
Now I'm not saying that everything Stallman does is perfect. But he has a history of being right, even in the face of people saying that he's wrong or that it doesn't matter. So instead of simply writing him off because golden boy Torvalds says so, perhaps it would be prudent to take a closer look.
I'm going to skip DRM. It's an ad nauseum discussion.
I've watched the arguments on the GPL 3 and it seems like what some of the louder voices are saying is, "GPL is all about freedom. Our version of freedom." It smacks of the voices from ages past that yell, "Heretic!"
To draw upon the analogy of religion, and those watching the discussion know that the movement, FOSS, GPL, OS flavors and distributions, has become a religious discussion, and in some circles holy war cum Jihad:
We are told that early settlers in America were seeking to protect themselves from religious persecution back in merry old England. The Puritans (now there's a tolerant sounding moniker) decided to place an ocean between them and the State sponsered religion. So, what happened when other religious groups started to arrive in the "new" world? Suddenly, those freedom lovers didn't like some of the newer religions that were springing up. "You have freedom of religion," they would say, "As long as you pick ours." (read: "You're either with us or against us.")
This is what is happening in the world of GPL 3, when looking in from the sidelines. GPL 3 are the silky bonds that when all is said and done, could bind us tighter than any EULA developed by Microsoft. A license that grants absolute freedom to the users, and follow on developers and integrators would place absolutely NO restriction on implementations.
Maybe its time to drop the zealots and their Prophet, the Grand Ayatollah Stallman, and create the Truly Open and Free License of All Choices (TOFLAC).
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Maybe Linus is one of those people for whom it will only matter very much when it bites him in the ass and it's too late to do anything about it.
no big deal he says. the next killer application could be gpl3 and it may just set a standard for free software. appearently drm doesn't run on gpl3 legally.
It's always about 'losing your rights', and such, but I can think of plenty of times where DRM could be an advantage.
... So, in this case, it's like the argument that the movie studies claim -- by protecting their rights, they're more willing to make content. ... the problem is, DRM is always associated with big companies ... why isn't there a DRM system out there for the rest of us?
Okay, say that you're trying to talk your girlfriend (I know, this is Slashdot, but this a purely hypothetical situation), into letting you take naked pictures / movies of her. She doesn't want to, because she doesn't want you posting them to the internet should you ever break up. If there were a way for her to place DRM on the files, so that you couldn't go printing them out, or giving them to others (okay, you could have them look at your computer, but it keeps you from attaching it in e-mail), or so that she can revoke access should you ever break up, she might be more willing to do it.
(okay, she'd have to actually be technically oriented enough to understand that what you propose has merits, without knowing enough about DRM to know that it can be cracked with a little effort)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Linus seems to assume that since he (and Linux(tm)) have never experienced a directed, concerted attack (other than the SCO lawsuit) that he (and Linux) will never experience such an attack. Whereas I think that the major media and communications organizations were caught off-guard, first by the Internet itself and then by Linux, and required some time to gather their forces and develop a strategy.
/additional/ DRM legislation, I strongly suspect that the strategy is in place and rolling. And that free communication in general, and Linux specifically, are going to come under very heavy attack over the next 4 years.
With the _Democrats_ in the Senate now introducting
So I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Torvalds.
sPh
...but I don't think he has the legal understanding and I don't think he understands why the content industry is pushing DRM (hint: it's not because of piracy).
That is why I take Torvald's world on any programming issue related to the kernel and support RMS's position when it comes to freedom, content industry issues. While RMS may not be legally trained, he realises that and has a team that is competent in legal matters. Of course Linus is entitled to his opinion on these issues, but I believe that his take on it is harmful because it's the "famous people slightly connected to the issue seeming to be expert on the issue to the public" syndrome. He is no more competent in this case than the celebrities ridiculed by the bbc in a previous article.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Apparantly Linus hasn't got the basic idea of debating and democracy as a whole. If nobody discussed this issue, it would not be adressed, and no effort would be put into creating a better solution. He's right that the debate might get a bit too hot at times, but the solution to that isn't to call it off.
I will give one thing to Linus. He is right that there is a lot of hot air involved. That's because people (including him) miss the point about DRM and the GPL.
For DRM to work, it has to use technical means to prevent modification of the code. This is open source we're talking about. If they don't prevent modification of the code, a crack will be easily implemented.
The GPL prevents a party from relicensing your code with a modification restriction... but DRM allows them to use technical means instead of legal means to accomplish the same result.
DRM (or at least, that part of it that I've described) is a loophole that should be closed. We are not talking about "someone's right to create programs that use DRM". We are talking about someone's right to modify **your** code, while preventing further modification by others. That's one of the core rights that the GPL is meant to preserve.
"both DRM technology and GPLv3 will cause "lots of arguments" but in the bigger scheme of things, neither will stop good technology from prevailing."
He doesn't seem to be aware of the current actions to limit his options here.
The problem is that IBM appears to be trying to take control of Linux via software patents. Specifically, censoring it when a Linux solution gives them competition that they don't like.
And they are doing this in the fashion of a Patent Troll, with some rather questionable software patents.
I've mentioned this before; here's the link again. "IBM's decision to sue Platform Solutions is another indication that the company is becoming more aggressive about defending its intellectual property in an effort to extract more revenue from its extensive patent trove."
What is especially disconcerting is that if IBM wins this lawsuit, it means they will have extreme influence (if not effective control) over most (if not all) Linux products out there, given IBM's vast Patent trove.
Note very well that this is what people were worried about with Microsoft and Novell. The sad news here is that this may have already arrived, via IBM. Which is probably why IBM wants to keep this quiet.
Hello - where's the Linux community on this one? People (myself included) were up in arms when Microsoft and Novell tried to skirt the GPL. IBM's approach strikes me as much worse. It's here. Now.
While Linus would like to keep adding good technology to the kernel, if IBM's lawsuit is allowed to stand, Linus doesn't seem to recognize that his options may be taken away from him. He will no longer be able to publish software without IBM's blessing.
What's next? Is he going to need Microsoft/Novell approval after that?
The only option that I can see is the GPL v3 license approach. One wonders how long Linus can keep ignoring this issue. It would be much better if he were taking a proactive approach here, because simply ignoring the issue doesn't seem to be working.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
gloves, condoms development models volume of NetBSD Of Jordan Hubbard Eulogies to BSD's Things in personal rivalries antibacterial soap. propaganda and There are some butts are exposed Users With Large between each BSD out how to make the Jesus Up The users. BSD/OS they are Come These early stupid. To the first avoid going it was fun. If I'm sales and so on,
This is what is happening in the world of GPL 3, when looking in from the sidelines. GPL 3 are the silky bonds that when all is said and done, could bind us tighter than any EULA developed by Microsoft
Clearly you need to examine the issues much closer. One important example that needs to be examined carefully is Tivo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization This is a novel form of theft that made GPL V2 meaningless. Maybe you've heard about Novell and their "innovative" end-run around the GPL? GPL V3 is required to close the loopholes that opportunistic asshats have opened. There will probably be a GPL V4 as other "innovations" are discovered in the GPL.
Attempting to marginalize free (as in freedom) software benefits no one. I would argue it actually reduces innovation and overall public benefit that computers/software bring to a society.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
"Which mindset is right? Mine, of course. People who disagree with me are by definition crazy. (Until I change my mind, when they can suddenly become upstanding citizens. I'm flexible, and not black-and-white.)"
"I'm always right. This time I'm just even more right than usual."
It is your belief that slavery is a voluntary arrangement on both sides?
Why couldn't it be? After all, the people in Brazil who work without pay, living in hovels ankle deep in muck and jungle rot, cutting and burning trees to make charcoal to be used in producing iron used all over the world agreed to be employed, they should have asked whether or not they'd be driven off hundreds of miles away from civilization and dropped off at the labor camp and told to work or die alone in the jungle.
After all, it's not the employer's fault the employee didn't do due diligence to make sure they weren't going to be enslaved.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/7238
Oh cut the sophmoric libertarian crap; moral responsibility has got everything to do with it. If your friend wants to drive drunk, are you going to give him your keys? What's the difference between enabling your friend to drive drunk (by giving him your keys) and enabling someone to do something bad with the software you write? Now you can argue that DRM is never bad, but many disagree; and in any case, that's a completely different argument to the one you're making, which is that software licenses can't have moral implications.
I don't want DRM to interfere with my access to my own medical records, for example; but there's absolutely nothing I can do to stop that from happening if the software licenses for the components people use to build their EHR applications allow it. So you're happy to protect the vendor's freedom, and you're happy to protect the hospital's freedom, but you don't give a shit about my freedom to my own medical records? If people want to use DRM on top of linux so that they can limit access to your medical records to a specific vendor's application you're o.k. with that? DRM has more important ramifications than what the media conglomerates decide to do with Laverne and Shirly re-runs.
Just admit it already, you're steeped in dogma just as much as any bible thumper.
Hence why I don't buy songs from iTunes anymore. Or Sony
Just out of interest, where do you buy your songs from? (Not trolling, just interested)
Socialist/Fascist/Controlling/Anal. This is a problem! Something must be done!
Liberal. If there's a problem, someone will do something.
The first is the planned economy of the socialists and the second is the free market economy of the liberals. Over the years, it's the liberal philosophy which has turned out to be the most profitable. The former controlling philosophy there's the belief that you can control events, the second is the understanding that most of the time you can't.
I'm not saying that Stallman is wrong, it's just that he's only one among many in the market and if it wasn't him it'd be someone else.
You keep saying "too late" and debacle. Except that Linux is plodding along just fine. Feel free to get worked up about everything, but I'll go with the flow, along with substantially lower blood pressure.
Deleted
Global warming is a cube.
over a quality 4 previously
If Solaris goes with GPL3 and Linux stays with GPL2 (for DRM and other reasons) it will mean that Linux code can be added to Solaris, but Solaris code can't be added to Linux. Surely this is a disadvantage for Linux?
Zen tips: Pay attention. Don't take it personally. Believe nothing.
Linus has said before that he'd probably choose a different licens if had was to choose one today.
GPL for him was never about freedom he only had one requirements, if people improved his code, they should give the improvements to hom.
What they do with the code, and how that affects other people was never an issue, as long as he can use their code (and apparently he don't want to use it with their hardware).
Yeah, Linus is right: "...at the end of the day, I don't think it really matters that much."
Why? Because all DRM will eventually be circumvented. Look at DVD, HD-DVD and (soon would be my guess) Blue-Ray. Even on Windows and Mac OSX, with Microsoft's / Apple's blessed and fully supported state-of-the-art DRM solutions, people will come up with ways to achieve what is rational: fair use. So yeah, develop away. Stuff as much DRM as you want in Linux as well. At the end of the day, I'll still want to be able to use media like I use CDs and DVDs nowadays. The industry doesn't get it, but people want / need it, so it will happen.
.To err is human, but to forgive is beyond the scope of the Operating System...
Because it makes me laugh wholeheartedly.
Licensing is the hot air that's helped your OS take off.
Can you describe a situation in which it would ever bite him in the ass? We live in a free market. If DRM becomes too restrictive, consumers simply abandon that product for something else, and the DRM dies. I know some Slashdotters live in a melodramatic hyper-reality where DRM are equatable to slavery, sweatshops, and other human evils, but consumers are great at regulating things for themselves. DRM is not that big of a deal. People just need to stop forming their worldviews based on Slashdot headlines.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Maybe he is right...
I see thousands of posts when someone mentions DRM, how much it is misunderstood by the mainstream users, and how evil it is always assumed to be.
And then I see the SAME people post how they love their iPod and fill it with DRM Apple songs that are not only lock them into Apple, but lock them into iTunes and lock them into an iPod for the rest of their life since they can't put the music they have bought on any other device.
What I don't understand, is how the same people can scream about DRM and then fall into one of the biggest DRM traps that ever existed.
DRM truly isn't a big deal, consumers have a choice and there are also places that DRM works because it is handled in a reputable way. One example of DRM that doesn't jump on users is audible.com.
Again the biggest problem with DRM is the misunderstanding of it by the non-geeks. I have had people read an article on DRM in Vista, and then say things like they would never buy Vista because they couldn't download movies anymore or get files off a torrent - all which is not true, as the Vista DRM is not any different than the Windows Media DRM in all previous versions of Windows.
If people here truly hate DRM for the right reasons, then they should protest Apple and demand that users do not buy iPods or OSX, the two most DRMed products currently in existence.
I tend to deplore DRM. But I also agree that GPLv3 won't stop it. The value of the GPL codebase above BSD and above the cost of proprietary code just isn't that great: neoTivo would just go BSD if not MS-proprietary.
DRM will stand or fall one-by-one as users accept the deals offered. Or reject them. The iPOD is currently the biggest successful implementation of DRM. Consumers apparently accept the deal, irrespective of RMS' dire warnings.
What happens when I do want to buy a movie, I do want to entertain myself, and I do want to play it on systems I choose? If I have bought the media, why do I not have rights to use the media as I wish, without profit or gains? The big issue comes into play when lawmakers begin to draft legislation that then backs these forms of protection and for the most part lock entire nations to them. Unless this DRM thing is a FAD and will fade away into nothingness, this is going to become a big issue in the future.
There iwas supposed to be not text here, but I could not post without puttin something in here. So, in order to comply, I am putting in this verbiage just to get this past the "lameness filter" or whatever is preventing my post from completing. What a waste of electrons.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
I think that the AD&D analogy is warranted here. Torvalds admits that he dislikes DRM, but doesn't want anyone else to be stopped from using it. He likes the idea of the GPL, but he thinks that all of the broo-haha over v3 is a sideshow and that its just a load of hot air. Torvalds is on the side of Linux, and Linux only. Sort of how druids love nature. They hate fire, but they must also embrace it so that the forest can grow. Torvalds likes opensource, but will be satisfied with any license that protects Linux. Druids hate orcs, but they are also forest creatures...Torvalds dislikes huge businesses, but he needs them for linux to expand. Its a delicate balancing act that he's trying to pull off here.
Rewriting the portions of the code which aren't licensed under GPLv3 is fairly straightforward. What would it take? One year, perhaps two at the most, if the decision were made to move this way.
It is a myth that the kernel license can't be changed. It can, with a lot less effort than it has taken to get the kernel to where it is now.
Your only other option appears to be subject to Microsoft and IBM's (and others) approval before your code can be accepted into the main kernel source tree. At least, with the direction that everything is moving now.
So, which option would you prefer? I don't see a third one available, if you want to use Linux
If Linus had written git in the first place, the Linux kernel would still be at v1.2, used only by guys with beards in university basements. (Where is Hurd right now, Stallman?). Linus is a pragmatist - he uses the best tool for the job. When Bitkeeper stopped being the best tool, he switched to git. Linus actually learned a very important lesson from Microsoft - it doesn't have to be Right, it just has to be Good Enough that you can make it Right later (which the GPL promises). Linus is so good at this that the kernel, under his stewardship, is beating Microsoft at their own game.
A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire
Maybe Linus is one of those people for whom it will only matter very much when it bites him in the ass and it's too late to do anything about it.
He's one those people who will go to great lengths, writing an OS kernel even, when there's a problem that's right in his face. If it's not right in his face, it's not a problem.
<plug>BTW, Torvalds is Mr. October in my Naked Geek Calendar . WARNING: Apparently so shocking that when submitted to digg.com, they disabled my account for misuse!</plug>
Loose lips lose spit.
They're just going to get Congress to mandate it, and that will be the end of the discussion.
But then again, it will affect congressmen and their families/friends. They will sit down to use a new piece of technology and become frustrated with the artificial limitations. This will become more prevelant as the baby boomers move out of office and younger generations move in. The knife will cut both ways, and will probably end up being its own undoing.
I agree with Linus; there is a problem, but its not as bad as we imagine.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
That's not fecal matter. It's unprecedented choice, and flexability.
Everything that was once directly lived has receded into a representation. -debord
http://www.opsound.org/
Not all music is commercial, just most bad music.
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
A likely do-nothing outcome is that non-DRM hardware becomes either:
a) Illegal, because RIAA/MPAA and other content owners "buy" appropriate legislation
b) Unaffordable, because the mass market products are all DRM based
In either of those cases, I would consider the ass of Linus truly bitten.
For Christ sakes, stop beating TiVo bush. I feel like someone didn't get play with their TiVos and now cries in corner, shoutin "they don't give a candy, wheeee!". Sorry, but it is such impression (Disclaimer: I am free software/GPl advocate, but I disagree with RMS and rest of crowd on GPLv3), and GPlv3 is imho somehow "childish" answer to serious problems - IPovitisation, DRM, and software patents.
There is another argument why TiVo example is bad one - I can see real sense why to use DRM to control integrity of TiVo system. Because if someone creates custom image, uploads and fuck ups their TiVo, is their fault. But I am sure they (t.i. users) don't think so and propably blame company all the time. So decision to use DRM is quite...logical, no matter how do you look at it.
Question also is - how much people which are crying loud about TiVo actually own one? Honestly? I know that I would buy Dreambox, who don't have DRM and everything is nice.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Linus Torvalds is political too, despite any description to the contrary. But Torvalds' politics are different and contrary to the free software movement. Torvalds' thinking is more in line with the open source movement which focuses on a development methodology and eschews discussion of any freedoms for computer users. The free software movement focuses on all computer user's freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify software.
Don't fall into the traps of believing that Torvalds is apolitical, or that describing something as "political" is sufficient to convey any substantive meaning.
Digital Citizen
"Hot Air" from arguing techies.
Finally!!! The true cause of global warming!
Cut Linus some slack. At least here in the US, as people age they tend to settle down, have kids, accumulate a little wealth, grow politically more conservative and less idealistic. Probably true everywhere. A lot has changed since Linus was a graduate student in Helsinki.
---- Richard L. Goerwitz III
From Linus' standpoint, I can see where it's not a big deal. He doesn't write the ripping, office, productivity, or gaming software, he just works with the core of the system.
If someone wants to add that to the system after they've released the core to the various folks that are going to do their own compilations, that's no big deal.
He doesn't care if, for example, Ubuntu does a full DRM support implimentation, and RedHat says no. There will be enough distro's out there that you will still be able to get one that is closest to your belief on how one should run that it makes no difference. His level is above the level that such decisions need to be made, and his stance is absoltely correct in this case.
Why are you listening to the music in the first place? Because you like it? No, because everyone else likes it. Nobody is listening to Limp Bizkit now, are they? But it was the hottest thing, and if it was the hottest thing today, people would be snatching up "Nookie" like there was no tomorrow on iTunes. Was the song THAT good? Would you pay $0.99 today for it? Maybe some would, but not like back then. No, it was not that good. Everyone else just happened to listen to it. They thought it was cool, so you thought it was cool. So you hand over your money so you could look cool playing it in your car. Play it today, and your passenger will likely tell you to put something "new" in. How about this: Try talking to your elderly neighbors about Stargate SG1. Wow, hard to make friends with them that way. Guess you have nothing in common with the "old foogies", cause they don't watch the same programs or listen to the same music. They aren't "cool". What am I missing, really? So I missed every season of American Idol and Survivor. I think anyone that watched American Idol missed out on too many hours of their life. They tuned in and tuned out their families and friends. I missed out on watching cut throat competition and popularity contests. You know, after high school, I have no plans on voluntarily engaging in adult versions of childish games. I didn't catch the Deal or No Deal craze. Yeah, I've seen it. That has got to be the dumbest premise for entertainment I've ever seen. What could I honestly say by those entertained by it? Obviously, they watch it for a reason. TV has burned a place for low brow entertainment. Hand them a copy of The Time Machine to read and they'll bite at your hand like Morlocks. (If you don't get that, you're probably a big "Deal" fan.) This is the crap, yes crap, that DRM is being put on. It's pure junk. Junk in, junk out. But hey, keep paying $0.99 per song. Remember, it has nothing to do with the fact that the real reason you listen is that everyone else is listening to it... no, it's REALLY that good. Yeah, that's what they said about Vanilla Ice. Maybe it's a boring life to some, but I really enjoy my DRM free life. I have my computer, run Linux, listen to music and watch video. I listen to Christian stations which pay little to no royalties, or are based off local radio stations who have minimal advertising and mostly exist on donations. I get my news online, on radio, and in the newspaper that I read at work. I have a portable music player. Actually, it's a voice recorder that doubles as a music player. I record my own live music which is royalty and DRM free. I run the sound booth at my church, so I would be the one to determine any DRM. I make DRM free DVDs of services, plays, presentations, etc. When I want to read, I read a DRM free book, which doesn't even have a copyright, the King James Version of the bible. I can copy it in part or in whole (I have a copy in software also for digital copies, "mixups" aka "topical quoting"). Now, I understand that many of you would find my favorite past time boring, even though my work lets me work with the latest and greatest Linux software. I do web hosting, programming, audio/video processing, etc. Then again, it doesn't take living a devoted Christian life to understand that today's media, well, sucks. There's nothing that good on TV or on pop radio. And, unlike that media, the media I listen to, create, and distribute brings me in touch with life long friends. I'm sure the same might be true of "Dead Heads" and some other fringe bands, but I doubt most Blink 182 or Britney Spears fans get that close, and no Dead Head ever got as close as we do based solely off their common music. Too many people escape life into their TVs, into their computers, and into their iPods. I like to think that what I do is escaping into life. I can talk to just about anyone about it. What do I do in my spare time? It's called a life. I do my best not to ignore it, but live it. Almost all of my friends are DRM free
I8-D
Why are you listening to the music in the first place? Because you like it? No, because everyone else likes it. Nobody is listening to Limp Bizkit now, are they? But it was the hottest thing, and if it was the hottest thing today, people would be snatching up "Nookie" like there was no tomorrow on iTunes. Was the song THAT good? Would you pay $0.99 today for it? Maybe some would, but not like back then. No, it was not that good. Everyone else just happened to listen to it. They thought it was cool, so you thought it was cool. So you hand over your money so you could look cool playing it in your car. Play it today, and your passenger will likely tell you to put something "new" in.
How about this: Try talking to your elderly neighbors about Stargate SG1.
Wow, hard to make friends with them that way. Guess you have nothing in common with the "old foogies", cause they don't watch the same programs or listen to the same music. They aren't "cool".
What am I missing, really? So I missed every season of American Idol and Survivor. I think anyone that watched American Idol missed out on too many hours of their life. They tuned in and tuned out their families and friends. I missed out on watching cut throat competition and popularity contests. You know, after high school, I have no plans on voluntarily engaging in adult versions of childish games.
I didn't catch the Deal or No Deal craze. Yeah, I've seen it. That has got to be the dumbest premise for entertainment I've ever seen. What could I honestly say by those entertained by it? Obviously, they watch it for a reason. TV has burned a place for low brow entertainment. Hand them a copy of The Time Machine to read and they'll bite at your hand like Morlocks. (If you don't get that, you're probably a big "Deal" fan.)
This is the crap, yes crap, that DRM is being put on. It's pure junk. Junk in, junk out.
But hey, keep paying $0.99 per song. Remember, it has nothing to do with the fact that the real reason you listen is that everyone else is listening to it... no, it's REALLY that good. Yeah, that's what they said about Vanilla Ice.
Maybe it's a boring life to some, but I really enjoy my DRM free life. I have my computer, run Linux, listen to music and watch video. I listen to Christian stations which pay little to no royalties, or are based off local radio stations who have minimal advertising and mostly exist on donations. I get my news online, on radio, and in the newspaper that I read at work.
I have a portable music player. Actually, it's a voice recorder that doubles as a music player. I record my own live music which is royalty and DRM free. I run the sound booth at my church, so I would be the one to determine any DRM. I make DRM free DVDs of services, plays, presentations, etc.
When I want to read, I read a DRM free book, which doesn't even have a copyright, the King James Version of the bible. I can copy it in part or in whole (I have a copy in software also for digital copies, "mixups" aka "topical quoting").
Now, I understand that many of you would find my favorite past time boring, even though my work lets me work with the latest and greatest Linux software. I do web hosting, programming, audio/video processing, etc. Then again, it doesn't take living a devoted Christian life to understand that today's media, well, sucks.
There's nothing that good on TV or on pop radio. And, unlike that media, the media I listen to, create, and distribute brings me in touch with life long friends. I'm sure the same might be true of "Dead Heads" and some other fringe bands, but I doubt most Blink 182 or Britney Spears fans get that close, and no Dead Head ever got as close as we do based solely off their common music. Too many people escape life into their TVs, into their computers, and into their iPods.
I like to think that what I do is escaping into life. I can talk to just about anyone about it.
What do I do in my spare time? It's called a life. I do
I8-D
But you're violating the law. It'd be nice if people could practice fair use above the counter for legitimate purposes.
I heard he doesn't like to go to the conferences. How come he went to Australian conference? I'm curious because we would like to see him in Croatia!
Vlatko Kosturjak - Kost
It's both: it makes legitimate activities difficult to do, but rarely makes actually illegal ones impossible. So it doesn't accomplish its stated purpose, and fails to accomplish it at the cost of inhibiting legitimate activities. As an example, it will probably never be impossible for a skilled person to copy a movie, or move their audio from one device to the next; however it may not be within the reach of most people. They'll be left repurchasing their media, without regard to traditional fair use. And in their pursuit of locking users into pay-per-view business models, DRM systems will also drive more tightly controlled, black-box hardware.
DRM is flawed and will always be broken, but not easily; it will probably always be obnoxious and intrusive, and the continuing arms race between DRM-builders and DRM-breakers is destructive, and may have a lot of "collateral damage" (not to mention a waste of time and skill that could be profitably spent elsewhere).
But to be honest, the problem of DRM is really only a symptom of a far greater problem, which is the influence that industries (in particular, the entertainment industry) have on government. I would be ready to just let the DRM/anti-DRM war play itself out on the technological front, except that there's no way that it's going to stay there: as new DRM systems fail, the media lobby is going to look to the government to shore up the failed technology with draconian legislation. Those laws will have effects far beyond any single DRM system, or virtually anything that either the content industry or the anti-DRM programmers could do by themselves.
That we have entities other than natural (in the "natural persons" sense) U.S. citizens contributing money to politicians and their campaigns is absolutely ridiculous. So if you want to look for hypocrisy, just find a politician railing against 'corruption' in one moment, while begging for cash from lobbyists in the next.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If you don't even have the right to get an education and let others borrow your textbooks, how is digital restrictions management not a crime against humanity?
Well, sure, by your definition "political" doesn't have any meaning, because you have redefined "political" to mean "everything". And, sure, Linus is a political creature, as we all are. But I wasn't talking about the politics of Linus, but of his project. The kernel project hasn't made any significant play into politics, as a group, except perhaps for not holding Kernel summits within the USA (but that too was purely pragmatic. No letters to the US Government, no lobbying efforts. "Fuck it", and do them elsewhere). Last years open letter about GPLv3 went out of its way to say it was only from some of the contributors, not from the project. Individual kernel hackers may care very much about politics, and Linus almost definitely does to. But this doesn't much filter into the code. Individual files are under non-GPLv2 "only" licenses; fairly trivial patches closing out 3rd party modules haven't been included; the barrier to changing APIs is fairly low, but they don't change them randomly just to annoy 3rd party module writers; they allow and ship firmware blobs.
IBM wants to sell hardware and services, and they contribute code to the kernel. HP wants to sell hardware, and they contribute code to the kernel. Oracle wants to sell software, and they contribute code to the kernel. Person X wants freedom and contributes code to the kernel. Person Y is bored and contributes code to the kernel. The kernel is about all of that, and none of that.
The FSF was once the largest and majority contributor to the GNU Project. They produced code, funded others to do so, and they produced political energy. I doubt they any longer contribute the majority, or even the most, code to GNU proper systems. They are definitely not doing (the most) visible stuff like mozilla.org, Debian, OO.o. But Im not here to talk about how many KLOCs of code the FSF is shipping.
Lets put it this way:
FSF expends their efforts on political goals, while shipping code. Hardly ever do they "not care" about a political or legal problem.
The Linux Kernel collective spends their efforts on shipping code, while sometimes being involved in politics. They try to care as little as possible about political or legal problems.
Better?
What is a .rm file? A list of files to delete?
You might need to resort to reading arguments other than the usual
/ part-3.htm
suspects such as GNU, etc. Consider the _Wealth of Networks_ by
Professor Yochai Benkler in either hardcopy or online format. In
particular, see Part III, "Policies of Freedom at a Moment of
Transformation":
http://www.congo-education.net/wealth-of-networks
What threatens live performances isn't copyright but minimum drinking age. Too many of these free concerts are held in places that are required by law to turn away all persons under age 21. This means people with kids can't attend a concert, and college underclassmen can't attend a concert either.
emusic.com will sell you mp3s sans DRM. Yes they have a smaller catalog but you can choose to buy DRMd music or not buy DRMd music or even better you can chose to buy corporate DMRd music of lame boy bands and Brittney Spears. Or you can spend your money on independently produced and sold music that does not have DRM. The latter takes a little more work because you have to seek it out and decide for yourself what you like. Instead of being told what you should like by a label and synergized media onslaughts. So DRM is not a moral issue. Buy what you think is the right thing to buy. Don't buy what you believe is the wrong thing to buy.
Let's not be too hasty, DRM may be the only thing protecting us from K-Fed.
My (English) Puritan ancestors came to this country because the (English) Catholics burned their houses down and tried to lynch them. Those that survived came here to carve a new life out of the American Indian (apologies to Firesign Theatre, but it's true).
Nowadays people are still allowing the Catholics to exist despite their 2000 year history of child abuse, political chicanery, and real-estate market manipulation through their vast tax-free land holdings.
So, what's your point?
O RLY?
So how do you recommend that independent musicians eliminate the risk of being sued for infringement through subconscious copying, like what happened to George Harrison?
And the term of copyright continues to increase, which means that independent songwriters don't have a vibrant public domain on which to build. Those who attempt to write a song from scratch run the risk of subconsciously copying a copyrighted work. For instance, George Harrison wrote "My Sweet Lord", got sued, lost, and had to pay 1 million USD in damages. Michael Bolton lost a similar lawsuit.
20 years ago, before the Internet took off and powerful desktop computers, your statement might have had some validity, but today producing high quality works of "entertainment" is easier and less expensive, and with the Internet, and broadband, distribution is easier too.The Internet still does not reach motor vehicles such as cars or school buses, which expose a captive audience to major label music every day.
Slap together a few simple black and white concepts like an artists right to work on their own terms, a distributors right to demand compensation for their services to the artist and the consumer, and the consumer's right to use what they paid for, and all you see is grey from a distance.
You answered "cars". But how do independent recording artists reach adults who can afford a $15 Durabrand portable CD player from Wal-Mart and $15 major-label CDs but cannot afford a $600 computer, $200 MP3 player, and $400/year Internet access? These people get on the Internet at public libraries if at all.
You did not answer "school buses". Most states in the United States make school attendance compulsory until age 18 or completion of high school, whatever comes first. School district policy often forbids students, even those in high school, to carry an MP3 player onto a school bus without the express written consent of school administration because its potential distraction outweighs any obvious educational purpose.
Surely this line of reasoning could only possibly work for as long as:
In other words, as soon as governments around the world make it illegal, law enforcement agencies start seriously enforcing it, and courts start heavily penalising it, your reasoning becomes useless.
This began to happen years ago, and the changes are propagating. Given the amount of US-based corporate money involved, the design of the US federal government that lets its corporations buy legislation, and international treaties that are forced on other nations by the USA (in exchange for things they can't do without, like lifting of crippling trade barriers), it should really be expected that it could only get worse for everyone. For one thing, all of the DRM circumvention research that people in the US rely on people in other countries to provide is going to dry up.
Besides, all DRM isn't circumvented. The only DRM that's circumvented is the DRM that a large enough majority of people care about. DVD DRM has been circumvented because there happen to be millions of people out there who want to rip DVD's. The possibility of circumvention doesn't prevent companies from penalising minorities in the population for their own interests. They can still construct artificial extensions to copyright law, pretty much whenever its exact restrictions don't suit them, and anyone who has a need to make a copy of the data they provide for whatever reason (preventing it from degrading, using it in another device, preserving it for society's benefit, whatever) ends up at a big disadvantage.
The reason I'll most likely use GPLv3 for everything I write (when that license is finished) is that yes, I agree, Apple has every right to put DRM in iTunes, Microsoft has every right to put it in the Napster music store (and the Zune music store, and whatever), and the MPAA has every right to put it in DVDs.
However, they do not have the right to use my code to do it.
I personally do not support DRM. That means that I will not write code which enables people to do DRM. Which means I fully support the Tivoization clause -- TiVo is perfectly within their rights to do anything they want with my player, but I'm giving them a choice: Either write their own software, license some from somewhere else, or use mine without the DRM.
It's not really different in spirit than GPLv2, either. Microsoft has every right to build Windows, but they won't be using a single line of code from Linux to do it, not unless they want to give us the full source code to ALL of Windows. Just as you have every right to build a church, say, but don't come to the atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, or Taoists asking for donations.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
1. If it is worth buying, why steal it?
2. If it is not worth buying it is not worth stealing.
3. Media centers with terabytes of storage are shrines to our consumerist folly.
4. Read a book.
5. Play an instrument.
6. Don't let the media define your life.
if they should just keep on using drm, but start selling programs that take off the drm..................
a little bit out of touch. DRM is a threat.
8 218 could be proven right.
GPLv3 is a promise. Don't forget the good ol' GPL. RMS has a complete system in place, except of a kernel.
If only those retards at SUN got their licensing house in order, we'd all have our preferred 'Linux'-distro running on a Solaris kernel. At the end of 2007.
And ZDNet's Paul Murphy http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/31/01
Linus argument as quoted in the scoop sounds a bit like a sequel to the Beatles' "Strawberry Fields".
This reference might be a bit far fetched. But check the lyrics.
Do not trust this signature.
This is only my guess, though. I haven't followed the Linux-GPLv3-Novell-RedHat-etc. news lately.
No, not better because it's untrue.
/. posters ("political") place on them. But since they use the label, it's important that we understand what Torvalds really says and stands for.
Allowing people to distribute Torvalds' version of the Linux kernel with non-free software firmware, and allowing TiVoization, these are political choices. The reasons these choices are made is more important than the label some
When Torvalds takes credit for an entire operating system he didn't write by allowing people to call the GNU/Linux OS "Linux" (giving no credit to anyone but his project, named after him), that's a political choice. When he tries to insist that the name "GNU/Linux" "paint[s] Linux as a GNU project" despite that for years the FSF has been clear the Linux kernel is not a GNU package, that is a political choice. These choices are made to placate businesses (possibly also Torvalds' ego).
I'm not redefining the word political at all. It's important to see these choices for what they are: differing agendas, but still agendas. For people who share Torvalds' agenda, popularity is more important than ethics. And popularity often means going along to get along. Ironically, Torvalds' lack of advocacy for the freedom to cooperate as a general ethical principle is something people connect with him (ironic because the Linux kernel wouldn't be what it is without the cooperation of many other people and organizations). The irony continues because of the conflict between his claim that the kernel was "always about giving source code back and keeping it open, not about anything else" and proprietors efforts to make the kernel a vehicle for their proprietary code.
Digital Citizen
Slashdot doesn't like DRM because the average user is a tech guy, programmer, or engineer of some sort. Most of you are concerned about technology, but only because you want it to benefit you in some way. That's understandable. What isn't understandable is that you think that content creators will continue to produce new media when it's cheap and easy to steal it. DRM doesn't exist to be uncrackable. It's not Hollywood's way of calling out all the Slashdot geeks and DVD-Johns. It simply exists to ensure that it is more worthwhile for Joe Shmoe to pay for his media rather than steal it.
Did none of you notice how Napster killed the music industry? Good music stopped being profitable to market nationally because it was being downloaded. The music industry had to focus on selling images rather than music - because images shamelessly sell products and star in reality t.v. shows. I've seen so many great bands and the best of them played in backyards and barns.
Anyway, if movie piracy because the norm, you know what'll happen? ADVERTISING. If box office and DVD sales can't pay for the flick, then there's only one other source of revenue. Ever see the Microsoft-Coca-cola-Cadillac-licious the Island? If movies are distributed for free then, like the music industry, quality will degrade.
Hmmm, think more... "K-Fed". Bad bad visual images... yeah, that's DRM, hehe.
I8-D
There is a "race to the bottom" as people like you disingenously call it, amongst the US states.
It is called competition for fucks sakes. You don't need to use idiotic loaded terms when there is one that is accurate and descriptive.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Go on. Show us a couple of examples of those people.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Stallman thinks people should have the opportunity to have root access to their own hardware.
That doesn't mean one should be logged in as root for processing untrusted data.
I'm sure he doesn't do his web surfing under root, for obvious reasons.
1.- The iPod can be used for non DRMed music. I should know. I have one. Try again.
2.- Google for articles stating how much music people have on their iPods and where it is comming from. Hint: most music in people's iPods is not bought in iTunes. The iTunes-iPod model may be making money, but that does not mean it is the most popular mechanism people are using to get music on their players.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
To come to a forum where one is encouraged to post comments. And we do post them. In reply to other people's ones!
I really don't know what we are thinking....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Stallman doesn't believe writing DRM-laden code is ethical.
But he's not forbidding anybody to try. After all, he's never promoted legislation to make DRM illegal.
He does, however, oppose legislatures from making DRM unstudiable or mandatory. He's for those FREEDOMS. He never takes away the content industry's right to attempt to DRM content.
If you read his famous "Right to Read" essay, it's about mandatory DRM, enforced by the power of law, where fair use is eliminated.
If we really did have a free marketplace (in the US) where DRM wasn't legislated by the media's congress onto the hardware manufacturers, then we'd have hardware manufacturers who would always provide DRM-unladen equipment and devices, and they'd occupy that niche for us hackers in the marketplace.
In addition to the FSF's lobbying efforts, there's the GPL, which is a license that is applied by the personal choice of the copyright holder. The copyright holder simply uses the license to make sure that his own work is unladen by DRM restrictions when he contributes his code. The copyright holder has _every right_ to do this. This is their _choice_. If the proprietary industry wants to use DRM, they are free to write their own code to do so.
RMS never lobbies to make proprietary software illegal. He says it's wrong/unethical, but not that it should be "illegal" under force of law.
Free software will win without the help of outlawing proprietary software.
This all goes back by the fundamental confusion that people have between the FSF and command economies, and why RMS insists that there's no confusion that need to be made. The FSF advocates for freer economies, not more restricted ones.
Why would people be confused? It's because the Libertarians (capital L) who broke off and formed the Open Source Initiative are fundamentally incapable of the thought necessary to make the distinction between ethos and juris (ethics and the law). RMS is way more libertarian (small L) than they are.