You Can't Oppose Copyright and Support Open Source

Reader gbulmash sends us to his essay on the fallacy of those who would abolish copyright. The argument is that without copyright granting an author the right to set licensing terms for his/her work, the GPL could not be enforced. The essay concludes that if you support the GPL or any open source license (other than public domain), your fight should be not about how to abolish copyright, but how to reform copyright.

Comments

In a world without copyright...

[c0l0]

...it would be possible to have commented disassemblies of everything that a computer can run openly available. That would be a lot better than the situation we have right now in SOME cases (by far not all of course - but please note you could still publish sourcecode in a more high-level language if you felt like it ;)) when there are only legally encumbered BLOBs available for crucial components of a system like, for example, graphics or network drivers, which you may execute, but not touch in any other way (in the US at least, that is).

Summa summarum, I think it's better to live in a world with copyright in place.
I just - like many other fellow advocates of Free Software - would wish for more people to publish their works under more permissive and freedom-granting licenses: to have art, culture, knowledge and wisdom spread for the greater good, and not just immediate, monetary profit in the first place.

Bottom line is: supporting Free Software and/or the GNU GPL does not automagically make you speak out against copyright per se at all.

Re:In a world without copyright...

[HeavensBlade23]

It would be *possible* that things would become more open without copyrights, but it wouldn't neccessarily happen. Companies might be come even more secretive about their source code since secrecy would be the only method of protection they have left.

Re:In a world without copyright...

[Babbster]

I just - like many other fellow advocates of Free Software - would wish for more people to publish their works under more permissive and freedom-granting licenses: to have art, culture, knowledge and wisdom spread for the greater good, and not just immediate, monetary profit in the first place.

Immediate, monetary profit is what copyright-reform advocates want to protect. As a current example, I think Sony/Marvel/etc. should have the right to make as much dough as they can on the recently released Spider-Man 3 for the next 10 years. After that, it should enter the public domain. The same, I think, should apply to software, books, etc. I could probably be convinced that a reasonable compromise would be 20 years (at least until corporations actually get used to having to create instead of indefinitely rehash). Any longer than that, with high-speed distribution (get the product out) and the availability of numerous and sophisticated marketing methods (let people know about the product), actually serves to stifle creativity more than it helps.

Re:In a world without copyright...

[ActionGaz]

However, the guy who wrote the article is totally and completely batshiat crazy; he assumes that using the system to produce results closest to those that one desires automatically means one doesn't desire a lack of the system. I disagree. If a lack of copyright is what you desire for your creations that already exists now within the current system. You simply put them into the public domain. The fact that this isn't what people want to do means that they do, as the author suggests, want to retain some control over their creation and so use the GLP or Creative Commons or some similar system.

Re:In a world without copyright...

[Planesdragon]

Open source without copyright law.

No, not really.

If you don't have copyright (or patent) to your code, I receive no consideration when I take your code and use it in my project. Once I have seen the code, I have all that I need. I can simply ignore what your contract says, state that I have been given nothing of value to compel me to release what I do in kind.

The day-to-day effect of OSS would be the same -- free as in beer software, because there's no law that keeps you from handing your buddy a DVD-R with every piece of software you own. Copyleft, however, would disappear.

(Remember that, if you nullified copyright today, it would apply to every OSS project in existence. MS could take Linux with impunity, Apple could (and would) give a big finger to BSD, and everyone from IBM to Dell would never pay another dollar to an out-of-house software developer ever again -- because they've already got all that they need.)

Re:In a world without copyright...

[dircha]

"But without copyright, one would also have no need to enforce the GPL, as any releases made would be into the public domain assuming it is possible to disassemble the software."

I think there's some confusion here about Open Source and Free Software. The GPL is just a license that uses a technique called Copyleft to proliferate Free Software in the current legal setting. But there is plenty of non-Copylefted Free Software.

The FSF advocates that all software should be Free Software; software that satisfies the 4 essential freedoms of software users (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). But Free Softare is not in any way dependent on copyright law. The definition of Free Software makes no reference to copyright. And you don't need to settle for copyright vs. essential freedoms and resort to relying on disassembling software or something like that.

Instead, you can advocate that software should be covered by law that mandates the 4 essential freedoms of software users, in addition to, or in place of copyright.

The FSF (the publisher of the GPL) is not anti-copyright per se. It is pro-software freedom. It is a logically sound position. If this position is appealing to you, read up on it. Don't let blogger prattle throw you like that.

Re:In a world without copyright...

[iminplaya]

Actually patents are what protect method of implementation of an idea, and you were at one time supposed to bring a model or at least a drawing(since perveted by relaxed definition of what is patentable) of that method to the patent office. A single idea can have many methods, each one of them individually patentable*. For example, look at the fight between Glenn Curtiss and the Wright Brothers. Aircraft advancement** slowed to a crawl until the government took over the patent during world war I. And that's when things really took off, so to speak. Anyway, I am saying you have no right to exclusivity. You only have the real natural right to, for lack of a better word, "authorship", simply because it is impossible for one to be a creator of something that was created by someone else. IP*** is a fallacious claim of ownership. You have no right to dictate what I can do with what I possess. My copy is my copy. Yours is yours. What you are trying to do is to recollect the smoke that was let out of the bottle. Well, you can't. Only by the use of physical force can you make such false claims. Copyright was created out of the exact same reasoning 297 years ago as it is used to today, to protect an established industry. And I restate the only legitimate claim in ALL of this is that of authorship. Those who plagiarize are the only ones that should be looked after. Distribution and use is not for you or anyone else to control. There is no logical defense for operating this way. Attribution is your only rightful claim, and it is one that even I would defend.

*didn't help Curtiss though.

**In every instance I can find IP law has always slowed developement of virtually everything until it copyright/patent expired.

***which covers copyrights AND patents, so patents are not irrelevant. They are every bit as much a part of the picture as copyright.

abolish copyright

[nefarity]

Who are these amazing people that want to abolish copyright?

Re:abolish copyright

[KutuluWare]

The author of TFA is seriously confused about a lot of things, one of those things being the goals of the Free Software Foundation. Stallman is probably one of the most extreme ultra-liberal people to ever sit at a keyboard, and yet I don't think he's ever once pushed for total abolition of copyright.

What RMS and ideologically similar people have proposed is this: software should not be covered under copyright law. You can see this ideal most clearly if you head over to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html and read the two articles called "Why Software Should {Be Free,Not Have Owners}". While I disagree with his philosophy, he makes a pretty solid empirical case for why software should not be "owned" in the same sense that books are "owned" by their author or art is "owned" by the artist.

The author of the article also fails to pick up on a key point about the GPL and why it exists: because there is copyright law, the FSF must use copyright law to accomplish their goals. If software was suddenly declared ineligible for copyright, there'd be no need for the GPL because no proprietary software company could prevent people with access to their source code from modifying or redistributing it, nor could they prevent people from modifying or distributing binary copies of the software. This is a small step back from the current state where the group of people with access to the GPL'd source code includes everyone with a copy of the binary, but it's a giant leap forward in eliminating all the complex legal issues around who can copy what and where.



--K

Re:abolish copyright

[Dragonslicer]

The slashdot crowd certainly seems to be pretty strongly anti-patent.

I don't think most of the Slashdot crowd is anti-patent, just as they aren't anti-copyright. I think most of the Slashdot crowd just wants copyright and patents to be handled the way they were originally intended. Copyrights are supposed to expire after a specific, relatively short period of time, guaranteeing that the work would be incorporated into society as a whole, for society's benefit. I think you'll find a lot more people that want 25-year copyrights instead of 100-year copyrights than you'll find people that want no copyrights. Patents would probably get a similar response, with most people wanting 15-year patents on useful, non-obvious inventions, instead of the tons of patents on business methods and interface designs that we get now.

You can oppose copyright ... and support BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I've never heard anyone say BSD wasn't open source.

An argument from thin air.

[reality-bytes]

The dangers of linking to someone taking a mental dump in their blog.

The author in question cites an ethereal 'anti-copyright crowd' and proposes that this 'crowd' are those who would license their software under the GNU/GPL.

I don't think I really need to point out that the reality is very different.

I've said it before

[Profane MuthaFucka]

And I've been modded down by some shifty Microsoft lovers that lurk here on this peaceful website. YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE..

Anyway, the GPL is like a Judo move. It rests on the strength of copyright law. If you make copyright stronger, then you make the GPL stronger. It's like a Judo master using his opponent's strength against him.

Ahh, straw men

[Z0mb1eman]

"How can I get people to read my blog... I know, I'll pick an extreme opinion that few people actually hold, combine it with a more popular but unrelated opinion, and write a long argument to shoot the whole thing down as self-contradictory."

Yes, mod me down -1 cynical.

Of course he's in favor of copyrights ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

From his blog:

Brain Handles © 2007 All Rights Reserved. Looks like an objective opinion to me.

Copyright

[nlitement]

Copyright is fine as long as it doesn't go to idiotic extremities such as DMCA, causing obscure censoring like that recently on Digg or Wikipedia. Everything's good in moderation.

Another sophomoric Sunday blog post.

[Bruce Perens]

It's Sunday again, and there's another out-of-left-field editorial about Open Source just like last week. I wonder if Slashdot editors have a "flame schedule" to amp up the readership during what would otherwise be slow periods.

His argument is putting up a straw man that doesn't really represent what RMS and FSF think, and then knocking it down.

The FSF stance is that good software comes with source code and with a particular set of rights which should be yours regardless of whether copyright can be used to enforce those rights or not. Perhaps it would be some other sort of law, or perhaps an ethical norm.

But IMO it would make about 100 times more sense to argue about software patents at the moment, because they are by far the worse evil.

Bruce

Re:Another sophomoric Sunday blog post.

[Bruce Perens]

Not all of us can make a living being open source gasbags, you know. If it weren't for software patents, I would be a poor man.

Prove it. I looked, and could not find any patents issued to "Anonymous Coward". :-)

And by the way, my employer makes Open Source software for Wall Street investment banking firms. I am, however, also paid by customers (usually also Wall Street investment banks, but sometimes other entities) who want me to teach or lecture.

Bruce

Duh!

[martin-boundary]

That's the whole point of the GPL. It's there to simulate the "no copyright" world within the existing copyright system. Go read some Stallman.

Re:Duh!

[martin-boundary]

Huh? Without copyright laws, there's no _need_ for the GPL or the BSD license.

Without copyright, the world works like pretty much like the GPL intends, and the BSDL is redundant since it grants nothing that isn't already allowed, whereas there's no "intellectual property" that can conceivably be subverted downstream.

It's the fact that the GPL gives the same result whether copyright laws exist or not that makes it such a solid foundation for software freedom (modulo minor bugs).

Wait

[The Bungi]

I thought the author was going to make the mistake of saying that without copyright the GPL would be useless, but he actually makes a good point. I think the problem with licenses like the GPL and the Creative Commons are all about sticking it to The Man and a sort of social statement to the effect that IP ownership laws are broken, but they rely on an imagined legal and social framework that simply does not exist yet - and probably never will, though that's just my opinion. The efectiveness of these licenses (which overwhelmingly deal with distribution rather than use) wobbles on top of the very foundation they are trying to destroy. And none of them have addressed just what exactly is going to happen after they manage to topple it down.

I'm not a big fan of the GPL, but I don't think public domain or a BSD-type deal is going to work either. But for everything I've ever read from Stallman and friends, I don't really think they have it down, either. It's as if they are sitting there hoping something will happen that will validate their position and everything will be kumbaya and honky dory. What that is they have no idea.

Stallman can rewrite his license until the cows come home, but without some real change in the legal area it won't really make much difference. And piling restrictions up on top of the GPL can only go so far. Not his fault - that's just reality.

And that's just for software... wait 'til you get into music and images and whatnot. The Creative Commons are in the same bind.

What about limited copyright?

[Antony-Kyre]

For the purpose of software only, what about limiting copyright for a period of no more than seven years? Allow a company to milk the product for all it is worth, then allow the intellectual property to be public domain. Maybe seven years is too short. Perhaps ten years is better.

How many of us use Windows 98 anymore still? How many think it should become public domain next year?

Copyright has one purpose

[mangu]

Copyright was meant to give an incentive to creators while guaranteeing the creation would become public domain at some date.

Because of that, pure binary data that has no meaning for a human being should have no copyright protection, only creations that a human can understand. No copyrights for binary executable files or data that has been copy protected or encrypted in any form, only for source code or data such as video or music that is published in a format that is open and unencumbered by any form of copy protection or secrecy.

Otherwise, how can the creation ever come into the public domain? How will one be able to read those DVDs when (and if!!!) their copyright ever expires? What's the point of granting a copyright for something that has never been published, such as the source code of commercial software?

If you use copy protection in any form, either by encryption or by a trade secret, then you are able to protect your own intellectual property, you don't need the protection that the state grants you in the form of patents and copyrights.

Right....

[bky1701]

This is kind of like saying that if you are against socialism you should be against unions, or if you are for the death penalties for murder you should be for it for assault as well.

Just because you support the GPL as a good fix in the current climate does not mean you approve of the current climate. BSD fails for many projects because a company will walk in, grab the code, edit it a little to add proprietary components, sell it and hurt the development of the free project. See wine.

While the GPL isn't ideal, it defeats the "I am going to take your code, make a small change and call it mine" that wouldn't exist if no copyright existed in the first place. If copyright didn't exist, decompiling and DRM cracks would quickly negate any attempts to restrict use of code/programs.

Take music for example. Some guy makes a background track under the GPL; people use it in their GPL songs or pay (for the development of more free background tracks) to use it in non-free songs. Then take one who puts it under something BSD-ish. The RIAA comes in, sticks Brittney Spears on top of it, makes millions of $$$ and goes around suing people that didn't pay them for what they only edited.

Not to say that's likely, but it's a good example. If all open projects used the BSD, it's more likely than not MS/Apple would have just taken the best, stuck it in a proprietary package and sold it, making it so open projects could never get ahead or even catch up. Hell Apple already did this, with BSD itself none the less. How many times do people on slashdot alone say that they used to use Linux/BSD until OS X came around that had all the best of open software, except the fact that it was truly open?

So far as I care, the only reason I use the GPL and not BSD is because I don't want someone else having a full copyright on something using what I created. That's not why I created it.

The problem with copyright...

[mehgul]

is that I can't buy a certain book published in 1900, because nobody's printing it anymore. But I can't legally copy it from the library or download it from Google books, because the author died in 1956, and therefore it won't fall into the public domain before 2026. That's the problem with copyright, not its existence.

Re:The problem with copyright...

[frogstar_robot]

The law continually gets more and more unreasonable and is pretty much abuse-by-default at this point. Mickey Mouse Preservation Act anyone? But you are right. Getting angry at the law is stupid but getting VERY angry at the tools that were greased into passing laws written for them by some lobbyist isn't.

Re:The problem with copyright...

[Dirtside]

In this case you're wrong; anything published before 1923 is now in the public domain, regardless of when the author died. Source: Cornell

exactly - straw man argument

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

I've kept up with this issue for years, and I can't think of anyone who wants to abolish copyright outright.

Ensure Fair Use? Sure.

Restrict copyright to a reasonable 20 or 30 years (even though 5 years would probably be sufficient for most purposes)? Sure.

Abolish it entirely? Well, it probably wouldn't hurt as much as some people think it would, but it wouldn't be especially useful either, as long as Fair Use is allowed and it expires after a reasonable 20 or 30 years.

Re:exactly - straw man argument

[Moflamby-2042]

I've kept up with this issue for years, and I can't think of anyone who wants to abolish copyright outright.

Allow me to be the first to discuss this underrepresented side with you then!

Part of the intent of copyright law is to allow a content producer control over how the information they create is distributed. This is done so profit isn't "lost", and to prevent plagiarism, and in the case of GPL (article topic) to keep information open (among other things). But consider if those problems that were once solved by copyright could be solved by something else that additionally doesn't have to restrict information sharing to accomplish them. Surely having all of the benefits with none of the detriments is the best case scenario!

The benefits are immediate, fair use of information extends to cover entire works (full novels, movies, news articles, journals, tv shows, etc.) and they could be sharable, commonly accessible and searchable. There could be a totally legal Google on steroids that contains the body of all known information produced by humanity. Things that hinder information distribution, DRM, DMCA, ... fall into disuse since their benefit is lost.

Now the methods to accomplish this are many and varied. Freely shared information for example can be done via a buffet-like information access system. If a chunk of federal taxes pays for information, and the people (citizens, people specializing in various fields, reputation networks, etc) can still decide which information content producers should get more profits than others, then capitalism influences are still at work. In this method the information is still treated as information and not some limited "product" by limiting the actions of everybody that comes in contact with it. The content producers are paid, people can share it all the want, there can be a great online system to automate much of this. In my mind if such a system could be worked out without the people balking at the prices for the buffet then it would easily trump any system built on artificial restrictions to information.

GPL != Open source

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Yes, GPL does use copyright law to do its heavy lifting, and the removal of copyright would break GPL. For anti-copyright/pro-GPL people this is not necessarily inconsistent as it is somewhat like legal Jujitsu - using the enemies strength to defeat themselves.

However there are other forms of open source software too, many of which do not rely on copyright in any shape or form.

Ultimately, open source software is a philosophy and changing the legal tools will not change too much. The GPL is also just a tool and even if the GPL was to be ruled invalid (or was invalidated by the removal of copyright laws) not much would change. When the Shroud of Turin was shown to be fake the nuns didn't commit mass suicide; similarly open source software will continue, with or without copyright, GPL or whatever icons.

-1 flamebait for the submission

[Vasco Bardo]

As everybody has already commented, this article is based on fundamentally flawed logic on so many levels that it is difficult to enumerate, so I'll stick to some important points.
1) You can oppose copyright and support open-source at the same time. In fact, if you do oppose copyright, you're only viable strategy IS to support open-source, while copyright is THE LAW and stuff.
2) You can also support a concept while knowing that it is unimplementable. You can find several examples in History books.
3) "members of the anti-copyright crowd cite the GPL (GNU Public License) as an alternative to copyright" is not an example of irony but of a practical stop-gap solution.
4) The "look at what happens if the GPL is unenforceable." is a bizarre glimpse into a strange world that conveniently ignores a bunch of nasty truths, all in all pretty well debunked on other comments, although I find it most revealing that the "world without GPL", does have DRM! The "dreamworld" turns out to be more like a "strawworld" .
My personal opinion is that copyright has a place, and therefore should not be abolished, in a *perfect world*. However, due to the fact that the world is what it is, I would be perfectly happy with that bloated-and-abused-out-of-proportion-sorry-excuse- for-a copyright law getting abolished. So you see, I actually support and not support the same thing at the same time, and I have not disappeared in a puff of logic.

*puff*

RTFM

[dircha]

Looks like another college sophomore just discovered the GPL.

Welcome, sir. To start, why don't you Read the Fine Manual?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The FSF is an organization committed to the advancement of Free Software. The FSF contends that proprietary (non-Free) software development and distribution is unethical and should cease because it fails to satisfy the 4 essential freedoms of software users.

Free software is software that satisfies the 4 essential freedoms of users of software. These freedoms are completely independent of Copyright's existence or non-existence. The definition of Free Software makes no mention of copyright.

Absent the voluntary or involuntary elimination of proprietary software, the Free Software Foundation generally encourages the use of Copyleft. You seem to be confused about the difference between Free Software and Copyleft. Free Software is software that satisfies the 4 essential freedoms of software users. Copyleft, on the other hand, is a licensing strategy employed wherin existing Copyright law is leveraged to further the proliferation of Free Software. There is much non-Copylefted Free Software.

You also seem to confuse Open Source with Free Software or Copyleft. These are all quite different things.

Once again, I refer you to the Fine manual:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-fr eedom.html

Having said all this, please consider taking a few minutes to inform yourself in the future before making wild generalizations about people and organizations you know nothing about. And congrats on completing sophomore year!

Causality problem

[kocsonya]

Regardless whether you agree with copyright or not, the argument that copyright is good because without it there wouldn't be a GPL is simply wrong. The GPL was born to fight closed source. Closed source was protected by copyright. RMS et al had the great idea of using the copyright law to fight its effect, they used the law-guaranteed restrictive power of copyright to guarantee that the right of copying a GPL-ed work can not be limited.

If there was no copyright there would not be a need for the GPL because there would not be a restriction on copying, modifying and redistributing the source. The GPL is a counter-measure and as such its existence is dependent on that of the measure it counters. If you agree with a counter-measure it is a logical fallacy to say that the original measure is good because without it we couldn't fight against it...

The article goes into scenarios where Big Bad Megacorp steals your code and distributes DRM protected binaries because there's no copyright. Well, first of all the 'R' in DRM would not be there if there was no copyright. They had no legal basis of using any measure to stop you to copy the program. They can use technical measures, but if you defeat them, they're out of luck.

The Big Bad Megacorp would need a different business model to rip you off. I bet they'd find a way. It wouldn't be based on their exclusive right to copy a work, that's all. The current content provider industry business model uses copyright as the basis of their revenue. They would sink and some other industry would pop up that uses some other aspect to make money. Of course the copyright lobby is scared about *their* income going down and it's no consolation for them that some other businesses would became filthy rich if copyright was abolished, so they fight to protect and extend copyright as much as possible.

The GPL fights back at least in the software segment of the copyright business. But the GPL is only good because it undoes the restrictions that the copyright places on you (by ingeniously using the very law that protects the copyright industry's content) to provide you the freedom the industry wants to deny. Without copyright there wouldn't be GPL because there would not be a need for it.

Even more?

[Peaker]

Even more secretive than "you cannot touch it, reverse-engineer it, and if you ever see it you're NDA'd to hell"? :-)

I don't think you can be more protective of source code than they are today.

Copyright

[Z34107]

Copyright simply screws everybody who didn't think of it first. It's nothing but a holdover from 19th century industrialists who wish to control everything.

Noooo, sorry, we were looking for patent. PATENTS let you screw over everyone who didn't think of it first. (For 20 years, at least - then everyone gets to use the technology you described publicly and in great detail on your patent application.)

Copyrights are necessary and important, moreso for the layman than the Evil Corporation(TM). The classical example is "You write a song and someone performed it and makes millions off of your work." Copyrights are what make that illegal, and what make the GPL and other "copyleft" schemes possible.

You might be tempted to say that without coypyright, the GPL wouldn't be necessary - everyone could use everything because there'd be no licenses of any kind to stop you. Let me knock down a straw-man for a minute and point out that the GPL and other F/OSS licenses do more than allow public-domain-style copying. The GPL, for example, requries someone who uses GPL-licensed code to release his code under the GPL, also.

Copyright laws require $big-evil-19th-century-industrialist-man to release the source code of his $program if his program uses GPL'd code. Without copyrights, he is free to take F/OSS and use them in his own $program, without giving the source code back to the community.

It's why we still burn petroleum and use lame, kludgy x86 processors while better existing technology rots on the shelf waiting for a higher price

Did somebody "copyright" (or are you still talking about "patents"?) the dark matter reactor, or the Magic Battery, or something? We use petroleum because it's a cheap (yes, it's still cheap relative to other fuels), efficient, and easily obtained fuel.

We use 8086 clones because of the insane amount of software produced for that architecture. An insane amount of software was produced for that architecture because Microsoft licensed their OS to Tandy and the like (something Apple wouldn't do), which brought cheap computing to the masses.

Better technology doesn't "wait for a higher price." If it's not worth buying, it's obviously that hot. Consumers wait for lower prices as technology improves.

Yes, I'm sure there are "better" processor architectures out there - and they're being used where the differences are actually worth the cost. Servers use all sorts of interesting procs and arrangements, where a faster server is worth dealing with the idiosyncrasies and higher costs of a more exotic chip. But, I'm sorry to say that your $359 Dell machine is not going to see a I've written machine language for x86, Z80, and 68K derivatives, and the x86 isn't all that bad - and with compilers and programming languages, how kludgey the underlying architecture is doesn't matter as long as it runs efficiently enough. Our Intel and AMD chips run fast enough, and they're cheap. The DEC Alpha was expensive, had complicated instruction set, and provided no advantages over the x86 for programmers or desktop users - so it's used on many-CPU servers and processor farms.

You managed to post to slashdot despite using an x86 machine, didn't you? I'm happy you suffered through the ordeal. The DEC Alpha "rotting on the shelf" will not help you one bit unless you start writing and posting a billion posts every second. The Itanium-series chips succeeded in the marketplace because they play nice with existing software, are cheaper, and provide the same benefits.

I'd love to see some specific examples of "better existing technology rotting on the shelf" due to patents or "19th century industrials" or whatnot.

(Score:0, Flamebait) There ya go! Send in the drones [stlyrics.com]... to fight for what they think is theirs...even when it's not. Stamp out the rabble rouser and his