Stallman On the UK Digital Economy Bill

superapecommando submitted a blog entry written by Stallman about the UK's bandwidth initiatives. RMS says "When I read about Gordon Brown's plan to give the UK more broadband, I couldn't restrain my laughter. Isn't this the same clown now busy circumventing democracy to take away broadband from Britons who already have it? And what good would broadband do them if they're punished for using it (or even being suspected of using it)? Laying cables would be a waste of resources if people are not allowed to use them. Brown did suggest another possible use for broadband. He said that it would enable MPs to better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want."

Comments

I'll tell you what the reason is

[RMH101]

...it's so Peter Mandelson can hand a nice, fat-profit-inducing mess over to Murdoch and the big media companies. Crack down on things they see as threatening their revenue stream, and give people a big fat pipe from which to slurp premium content. In return, maybe there'll be some favourable coverage in the media of Labour in the run up to the election on May 6th.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[sznupi]

Hm, and it might give a nice backbone for massive enlargement of street cameras network?

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[Anonymous Coward]

or maybe the security cameras need broadband. and the traffic sensors that read the rfid in your tires to track you. When they say it's to keep better track of the voters they're probably telling (part of) the truth.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[Anonymous Coward]

Labour already have Murdoch sweet press after Blair went down under to use his Bilderberg Group network to have Murdoch change from Tory mouthpieces to lefty mouthpieces. It worked very well. Even rightwing trash rags like the Sun switched overnight, taking their gutter-press readers along with them, and 3 million voters changed "sides".

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[speculatrix]

when politicians quit or get thrown out, they like to sign up a few well-paid directorships, so "oiling a few door hinges" beforehand pays dividends in the long run when they come to knock on those doors.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[FuckingNickName]

Have you ever thought that the "gutter" press simply act as an echo chamber for what their readers are thinking, and that the greatest con is performed by Murdoch on corrupt politicians, who grant him favours for essentially doing nothing at all?

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[Anonymous Coward]

In return, maybe there'll be some favourable coverage in the media of Labour in the run up to the election on May 6th.

It's not working, Peter.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[AGMW]

... "oiling a few door hinges" ...

Well if there's any oiling to be done then Lord Mandlemort/Voldeson is the man for the job!

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[FuckingNickName]

Then your problem, like Chomsky's, may be that you assume that everyone is stupid and easily influenced except you. Could you be wrong about this?

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I've thought about it and rejected it as unlikely. These people are far too professional to not know better. You're choosing the easy explanation.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[anwaya]

Your premiss is wrong.

Then you may, like Chomsky, assume that most of the people are stupid and easily influenced except for a minority.

FTFY.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[jez9999]

Also bear in mind that this DEB is one of the half-dozen or so pieces of legislation that the government is going to 'rush through' parliament right at the end of their term, before the general election. Even if somebody agrees with the content of the bill, it's utterly immoral for this government (no surprise there) to ram a bill this comprehensive and game-changing through, towards the end of their tenure, in the full knowledge that they're probably doing it because they'll be kicked the hell out in the upcoming general election.

I hope New Labour and all their cronies fucking rot in hell.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[commodore64_love]

This Stallman dude has nothing to say that I want to hear. When a guy sits on a stage and eats crud off his own feet, it occurs to me that he understands little about humanity (or manners or society) beyond a few programming skills. His opinion about politics holds even less weight than Glenn Beck.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[Dan Ost]

You claim he's out of touch, yet he consistently sees dangers for what they are (or have the potential to be) long before most anyone else.

I'm always interested to read what he has to say even if I disagree with him. I find that his world of black and white doesn't map cleanly to how I view the world, but his insights are always educational.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[sznupi]

So you haven't heard about Gaussian distribution, or that only small part of the population needs to suceptible to infuence things greatly?

(note - I do think that, ultimatelly, governments, etc. are simply a reflection of society...but it's certainly a more complex web of dependancies under the hood)

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[kcbnac]

Exactly.

RMS is saying what we're pondering in our own minds, but don't dare say without sounding crazy. Then down the road, society realizes perhaps "That GNU lunatic" was right - and start arguing against that which has already been implemented/released/forced upon us...

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[commodore64_love]

>>>he consistently sees dangers for what they are (or have the potential to be) long before most anyone else.

I'm willing to admit I might have been too quick to judge. Can you provide some examples of what "dangers" Stallman observed that others have not seen?

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently for the torys to win the general election would require a 7% swing in their favour.
That is 7% of the people who actually vote (less than 50% of the eligible voting population and further reduced by the fact that its only a subset of the available constituencies about 100 out of about 600. Taking a guess 10% of the population is about 6 million 4 million is roughly 7% and half don't vote so thats 2 million a 1/6th of that is about 330,000 and maybe 50% of them are not registered or eligible so maybe 165,000 votes need to change in the right constituencies or 0.25% of the British population.

Can a newspaper change the minds of 165,000 people ? or 0.25% ? probably , pure coincidence but isn't that roughly the sort of response rate expected by spammers...

unfortunately there are 18 to 23 year olds who have never voted in a general election and who's only knowledge of the tories comes from family and the newspapers...

unfortunately I have family that will have to live with the choices
 

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[sznupi]

To be fair, it works both ways. Old people casting vote in their likely to be last, or one of the last elections; influencing the outcome in a way that won't make much (if any) difference to them. But fraks things up for the younger.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[Hooya]

1997:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

2009ish:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090623/0415565326.shtml

Are we there yet?

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[FuckingNickName]

Constituents who don't register to vote or don't turn up to vote are still making their voice heard by not voting. The right to make known that you think they're all a shower of corrupt bastards is as important as the right to believe otherwise. Such people may still vote, if their opinions change.

Constituents who vote to shore up a secure seat are still making their voice known by confirming that their interest is in the status quo. Such people may still vote otherwise, if their opinions change.

It's wrong to assume that the only people who matter are those who (by some magic are determined) will definitely vote and who will do so in a marginal seat. Indeed, that's an excellent way of /not/ effecting significant change.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[Anonymous Coward]

The Kindle? the DMCA?

Banning debuggers as copyright infringement technology probably won't happen, since most people don't know how to use them. However, on MacOS, dtrace probes refuse to fire while iTunes is on the processor, which is pretty much the same thing.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[Anonymous Coward]

In return, maybe there'll be some favourable coverage in the media of Labour in the run up to the election on May 6th.

With the election called today he is hoping no one will notice its introduction

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[ais523]

In the first case, spoiling the ballot paper is a much better option; I'm currently wondering about doing that myself. Much the same effect as not voting, except it shows up on the official statistics, so people know you're taking a stand rather than just being lazy.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[schon]

Banning debuggers as copyright infringement technology probably won't happen, since most people don't know how to use them

Umm, most people not knowing how to use them is exactly the reason they'd be banned.

"Only evil content pirates who want to steal our precious IP use debuggers - they should be banned!"

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[FuckingNickName]

You may be right that it's the better option, although the outcome in Parliament is the same. Indeed, many people will have spent a lot of time deciding to not turn up, and it's a shame that some people with a drum to bang (I'm not saying that you're doing this) group everyone who doesn't vote with the "lazy/ungrateful/etc" labels. It can be fairly intimidating for some to turn up somewhere to spoil an official paper, surrounded by officials - even though the vote itself is technically secret. In various elections I've done all three - a regular vote, a spoilt vote, and consciously not turning up - and the second of these has been quite a challenge.

And don't forget to NOT give your registration card to anyone when you leave the polling station - it's usually a particular Party rep trying to gather information, but whoever it is, they have no business with it.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[gilgongo]

Then your problem, like Chomsky's, may be that you assume that everyone is stupid and easily influenced except you. Could you be wrong about this?

In order to prove that people aren't stupid and easily influenced, you need to show where they are getting information about stuff that allows them to form a balanced opinion. Of course people aren't stupid, but without information, they are powerless and therefore easily led. That, in essence, is Chomksy's argument.

Or do you have a different way of looking at reality (or logic, for that matter)?

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[FuckingNickName]

In order to prove that people aren't stupid and easily influenced, you need to show where they are getting information about stuff that allows them to form a balanced opinion.

Whaaat? In order to have a convincing argument for anything, /you/ have to show evidence toward it. You can't start off by assuming that opinions come from people being easily influenced and/or stupid, then require me to show where the common folk are getting all this implied elite info from to confirm they have an informed opinion.

Where is your evidence, for example, that people agree with Fox because they watch Fox, rather than watch Fox because it repeats what they already think? Ditto for the Guardian or the Socialist Worker. Where is your evidence that so many opinions are "right" and "wrong" based on hard facts, rather than depending on arguments derived from the value system one chooses?

Anyway, what great fountain of knowledge and deep understanding of logic does Chomsky have access to which the Joe of today does not?

Try this exercise. Next time some law is proposed which to you sounds ridiculous, and you are screaming with frustration because no-one else seems to be up in arms about it, ask yourself: is it that everyone is too stupid to see what you see, or is it maybe that most people are prepared to take the small risk that this law will hurt them significantly? For in return they enjoy a government which provides them with relative comfort and protection, and endless toys to while away the hours. There's no manufacturing of consent - it's an open deal. Most tend to accept the deal; I tend to reject the deal; Chomsky tries to claim that the deal never existed.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[perryizgr8]

can you tel me just TWO dangers (out of many) that stallman warned about before anybody else? (and they really turned out to be important)
i think rms is just an attention-seeking troll.

Re:I'll tell you what the reason is

[AmiMoJo]

I think you misunderstand the purpose of newspapers. The name is deceptive - they are not there to provide news, they are there to provide opinion.

People get news from the TV and the internet. People read newspapers for opinions. Now, I'm not saying that people are all stupid and only think what the paper tells them think, but reading extremely biased reports every day over a period of years does undoubtedly have an effect on people.

A recent example for you: the reporting of the population growth of the UK. Some sources reported it as mainly a baby boom and a bit of immigration. The Daily Mail reported it as being caused by "immigrant babies". Consider that slant applied to all news, every day for decades. People are not purely rational, no matter how intelligent they are.

who cares what he thinks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone give a fuck what some dumbass hippy who has some cushy university job and doesn't understand business thinks?

That dumb prick should grow up, shave and geta fucking job like the rest of us. Including those who work to produce content that dumbass hippy thinks should be free.

Get a clue stallman.

Re:who cares what he thinks?

[colinrichardday]

Does anyone give a fuck what some dumbass hippy who has some cushy university job and doesn't understand business thinks?

Yes.

Re:who cares what he thinks?

[Ltap]

As well, the fact that he doesn't make too much of an effort to try and deal with businesses on their own level is what makes him such a convincing speaker. We don't all need to be RMS, but just about every movement needs an RMS to be successful.

Re:who cares what he thinks?

[ClosedSource]

"We don't all need to be RMS, but just about every movement needs an RMS to be successful."

Sure, where would those 900 members of the People's Temple be without Jim Jones. And where would Slasdotters be without the phrase "Drinking the Kool-Aid"?

Re:who cares what he thinks?

[russotto]

"We don't all need to be RMS, but just about every movement needs an RMS to be successful."

Sure, where would those 900 members of the People's Temple be without Jim Jones. And where would Slasdotters be without the phrase "Drinking the Kool-Aid"?

The fallacy of denying the antecedent, on Slashdot? Horrors. As for the second question we'd be somewhat lacking in ways to sneer at Mac users, but otherwise be unchanged.

Re:who cares what he thinks?

[ClosedSource]

You're going to have to explain in P's and Q's. I can't see the dta fallacy there.

Re:who cares what he thinks?

[colinrichardday]

So Stallman's demands to see source code as opposed to trust binaries are the same as Jones' demands for blind faith? Hmmm..., why am I not convinced?

Re:who cares what he thinks?

[ClosedSource]

The relevant comparison is that they both have followers who will believe whatever they say and do whatever they ask. Jim Jones is just an extreme example of the same phenomenon.

Re:who cares what he thinks?

[russotto]

The phrase "Every movement needs an RMS to be successful" can be translated to
P -> Q
where
P = Movement lacks RMS
Q = Movement is unsuccessful

Jim Jones's movement was unsuccessful, despite having an RMS (Jim Jones). But this is only significant if
NOT P -> NOT Q, that is, if having an RMS implies the movement is successful. That's not true; that's the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

If you translate it instead as
P': Movement is successful
Q': Movement has RMS
P' -> Q'
then the fallacy is that of affirming the consequent, but it's logically equivalent.

Re:who cares what he thinks?

[colinrichardday]

Are there people who would literally drink the Kool-Aid for Stallman? Again, I'm skeptical.

Extra, Extra, Stallman's Unhappy!

[WrongSizeGlass]

Richard Stallman will always find something to complain about if something even hints at the possibility of not completely adhering to his myopic point of views and mentality. This isn't news, it's in my horoscope every day.

Re:Extra, Extra, Stallman's Unhappy!

[middlemen]

Richard Stallman will always find something to complain about if something even hints at the possibility of not completely adhering to his myopic point of views and mentality. This isn't news, it's in my horoscope every day.

Look who's talking!

Re:Extra, Extra, Stallman's Unhappy!

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually stopped reading when RMS started calling people clowns and saying that they aren't going to allow people to use their broadband. Name calling? Really? Then following it by saying they won't let people use the broadband while forgetting that they just mean people who violate copyright and get caught several times? Stuff this well balanced belongs on Faux News. Sorry RMS, I didn't finish reading the article because you write like a clown. (couldn't resist...)

Re:Extra, Extra, Stallman's Unhappy!

[kestasjk]

How is this offtopic?

Re:Extra, Extra, Stallman's Unhappy!

[digitig]

I actually stopped reading when RMS started calling people clowns and saying that they aren't going to allow people to use their broadband. Name calling? Really? Then following it by saying they won't let people use the broadband while forgetting that they just mean people suspected of violating copyright and get accused several times? Stuff this well balanced belongs on Faux News. Sorry RMS, I didn't finish reading the article because you write like a clown. (couldn't resist...)

Fixed that for ya.

Re:Extra, Extra, Stallman's Unhappy!

[perryizgr8]

its offtopic to criticize rms on slashdot. didn't you read the terms and conditions at the registration page?

Better communicate?!

[qmaqdk]

He said that it would enable MPs to better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want.

So, how fat a pipe do you need for that? 100 Mb/s? 1 Gb/s?

Re:Better communicate?!

[Thanshin]

He said that it would enable MPs to better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want.

So, how fat a pipe do you need for that? 100 Mb/s? 1 Gb/s?

The answer to your question is complex and arduous to obtain, as it depends on many factors.

The main variable, would clearly be whether, during the communication itself, the constituents would be female and naked.

Re:Better communicate?!

[brindleboar]

For anything that politicians will actually pay attention to, I should think that a 56Kb dialup would be sufficient.

Re:Better communicate?!

[Draek]

.50 cal?

Re:Better communicate?!

[Yvanhoe]

Depends... how fat a pipe do you need to upload a pitchfork or a torch ?

Re:Better communicate?!

[digitig]

He said that it would enable MPs to better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want.

So, how fat a pipe do you need for that? 100 Mb/s? 1 Gb/s?

The internet would be no use. You need a gas pipe.

Re:Better communicate?!

[sznupi]

That's awfully small for millions of cameras across the country.

Re:Better communicate?!

[nospam007]

If everybody can vote from home, we don't need any representatives to do the job for us.
Then the lobbyists have to grease our palms.

Re:Better communicate?!

[kcbnac]

At least ;-)

Then you don't have to get close enough to possibly become tainted, or smell them. (Corruption stinks, badly!)

Note to FBI/CIA/Conspiracy theorists: The above is meant as humor.

Re:Better communicate?!

[cbiltcliffe]

Crack pipe.

Get it right.

Write to your MP on the Bill

[mdwh2]

If you're in the UK, 38 degrees have made it easy to write to your MP about this bill.

Over 20,000 people have already done so.

Re:Write to your MP on the Bill

[TheRaven64]

I don't know who 38 degrees are, but MySociety have already received government funding to make it easy to write to all of your elected representatives. So far, my MP has failed the Turing Test three times. I am tempted to run a 20-line Prolog program against him at the next election.

Re:Write to your MP on the Bill

[mjwalshe]

more to the point loby a Lord (member of the upper house)as now the election has been called every thing goes into the washup.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markdarcy/2010/03/washup_politics.html

Re:Write to your MP on the Bill

[shutdown -p now]

Finally, a real-world use case for Brainfuck!

Re:Write to your MP on the Bill

[mdwh2]

Thanks for this - I've been struggling to find out what the "wash up" process actually is. One advantage of writing to Lords is that you aren't limited by who you can write to, unlike with MPs - you can write to as many as you wish.

Re:Write to your MP on the Bill

[mjwalshe]

its the process (just started) to get important legislation though that is uncontroverisal before the parliment is disolved.

On the BBC's wetminster hour program they comented that the Digital Britten Bill might be one that had problems.

Re:Write to your MP on the Bill

[Cato]

I'm written to my MP, and I suggest writing to David Cameron, since the Conservatives have a big say in the "wash-up" process now that this bill passed its second reading yesterday in just 90 minutes. Yay, democracy...

The UK government has bypassed the normal line by line debate in committees etc and there is a strong chance this bill will become law in the next few weeks, in closed meetings between party leaders as part of this "wash-up" process - already, the Conservatives have got a specific broadband tax (to fund fiber to the home) removed, in return for a concession on an unrelated bill. So it's quite possible to get specific clauses removed even now.

The proposed law will essentially enable the copyright holder to get warning letters sent to those who are believed to be illegally sharing files - these go to the broadband account holder, and if the incidents continue, they can be disconnected (or other unspecified "technical measures" may be taken). It doesn't matter if a family member or guest did the file sharing, or someone freeloading on your WiFi.

Oh yes, this also means the death of open WiFi hotspots, because the hotspot may well be disconnected when someone using it does illegal filesharing. So they either need to sign up users individually (imagine a cafe doing that), outsource to a paid hotspot service, or close their hotspot.

Another provision makes it possible to have websites blocked by ISPs if they are deemed to be breaching copyright - Youtube will be an interesting example.

See http://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/disconnection/why-care for more details and what to do about this.

If you live in the UK, write to your MP or David Cameron now via 38degrees - it only takes a few minutes, just put in your postcode. I think it's pointless to write to government ministers as they will toe the party line.

For those who are not in the UK: Similar laws are being passed or planned in many other countries - search for "three strikes" or "graduated response" plus "broadband" and the name of your country.

Don't compare

[AbbeyRoad]

Don't compare the 0.01 % of clowns that "do nothing but download garbage all day because they are too lazy to walk down the block to the DVD rental" with the 99.99 percent of normal people that use their Internet connection in a moderate and intellegent way.

Re:Don't compare

[somersault]

Yeah I hate those lazy bastards that can't even be bothered to grow their own wheat and make their own bread, they're always taking the lazy way out. And don't even get me started on pre-sliced bread.

I'm really hoping that you were being sarcastic, but it's hard to tell. This isn't about laziness, it's about convenience and efficiency.

Re:Don't compare

[Anonymous Coward]

99.99%? In a moderate and intelligent way? Sorry to burst your bubble, but we're not in August 1993 anymore.

Re:Don't compare

[AbbeyRoad]

no, I'm not being sarcastic

      "This isn't about laziness, it's about convenience and efficiency"

Yeah right! If it is so convenient, then why does only the most minute
fraction of the population (all with the exact same set of personality
characteristics) use it?

Bottom line is - there is a more-or-less one-to-one correlation between
the sets of people who:

    1. outright violate copyright on a grand scale.

    2. are poor earners, social misfits, highly-vocal-complainers-about-
          the-woe-of-the-planets-intellectual-property-legislation, and complain
          endlessly about the-rights-of-poor-me-being-afringed-by-the-evil-gods-
          of-BigCorp, and ALSO feel real pain whenever they pay for a DVD.

Now why on earth would someone feel pain paying for a DVD?

And why on earth would this someone also want to use the jurisprudance
arguments of "rights" and "freedom" to enable him to not have to pay.

Gee I wonder.

-paul

Re:Don't compare

[mjwalshe]

But its always the "loonies" tm Max Mosley who mess it up for the rest of us - its the tragedy of the commons again. The trouble is 99% of Politicians don’t get computers and the other 1% consider them selves an expert because they know where the on switch is for their home PC.

The trouble is that the business case for the average user to have more bandwidth than the average ADSL line just doesn’t exist and what would the average user do with 100Mbs - Those who do need higher bandwidth are actually professionals who should really be paying for their bandwidth and not whining that pensioners and the state should be paying a levy to speed up their BB connections. You cant run a countries telecoms infrastructure for a few edge cases.

BTW BT 20 years ago suggested a fibre to the cab roll out to the then Tory government – but the “free market” zealots wouldn’t let BT have a decent payback for the vast sums they would have invested.

Re:Don't compare

[somersault]

Yeah right! If it is so convenient, then why does only the most minute
fraction of the population (all with the exact same set of personality
characteristics) use it?

1) There's not many legal ways to download movies
2) Most people don't have fast enough connection yet, but they obviously will pretty soon, unless we have World War III.

I did download a couple of movies and received lots of music sent from my friends when I was a student. I buy all my stuff these days, and have even deleted basically all the stuff I was sent and acquired it legally.

I hate having to rip CDs and waste storage space on them. It's pointless. In the same vein I'd be happy to have all my movies on a media server, but I really cba ripping them all right now, and don't even have the tech to rip my blu-rays yet (nor do I want to waste money on a blu-ray drive just for ripping them when I already have a blu-ray player). I pay a flat fee each month to watch as many movies at the cinema as I wish - I'd be very happy to do the same thing with a streaming service for movies. Not everyone who wants convenience is a pirate.

Re:Don't compare

[Xest]

In the UK it's not 0.01%, it's around a minimum of 15% of people with internet access given a conservative estimate of 7 million pirates and internet access of 48 million, but realistically the 48 million value is lower as that include people with just dialup access, people without any home access but with library access and so forth. Also, the 7 million estimate is based on people willing to answer a survey admitting performing an illegal activity.

The stats aren't perfect, but either way, suggesting 99.99% of people don't do it is way out. Even as a figure out of thin air to make a point, it clearly fails, as it misses the point that a large proportion of the population are pirating media and it isn't just a negligible minority.

I'd be willing to bet too, that out of such a sizeable proportion of the population, there's a fair few in there that use their internet access in a far more intelligent way than you do also, even if they do pirate too.

Re:Don't compare

[kaiidth]

Bottom line is - there is a more-or-less one-to-one correlation between
the sets of people who:

    1. outright violate copyright on a grand scale.

    2. are poor earners, social misfits...

What a post. I'm reminded of O'Reilly, in conversation with The Daily Show's Jon Stewart: "You got stoned slackers watching your dopey show every night. 87% are intoxicated when they watch..."

Tell me, do you find that outright manufacture of statistics is generally an effective mechanism in successfully debating complex issues? If you do, do you find that this mechanism is:

a) a good thing, because you get to win arguments based on totally uncited shit you pulled out of your ass, or
b) seriously concerning, because entire areas of governmental policy are set via arguments based on totally uncited shit that lobbyists pull out of their asses?

Your post is an example of extremely lazy ad hominem argumentation, and possibly also extremely lazy thinking as well. Here are some statistics for you. Given that this is a story about filesharing activities in the UK, here's a stat from the UK:

Harris Interactive conducted research among the UK general public aged 16-54 from February to March 2009, which gave a 23% incidence of music file-sharing using peer-to-peer networks in the UK population aged 16-54, or 8.3 million file-sharers based on ONS population data. This number omits people under 16 completely.

Additionally, Jupiter Research conducted consumer research on behalf of the BPI in August 2007, which predicted 6.7 million peer-to-peer file-sharers during 2008, and 7.3 million for 2009.

Source: http://www.theunsignedguide.com/news/795/facts-about-file-sharing/

It is not impossible that 23% of individuals in the UK all share the same characteristics (poor earning, social misfits, highly vocal complainers) - although if that is the case it is surprising to me that only 20684 emails (rather than the expected 7-8 million) have been sent to MPs regarding the Digital Economy Bill. But can you really characterise 23% of the population as 'a minute fraction'?

Re:Don't compare

[icebraining]

Now why on earth would someone feel pain paying for a DVD?

Because you realize you just got a worse product than if you had pirated.

Right things, not always right reasons.

[headkase]

Stallman does the right things but the way he relates his thoughts don't really map well onto others. He is too rigid when it comes to Free software, ideally all software should be Free but until the transition is over - say another 20 years - then some mixing is pragmatic for the now to enable functionality: like binary blobs in the Linux kernel. I like a lot of what Stallman has to say but I always translate it into less dogmatic terms and take the hard edges off. Free is the ideal Open is the pragmatic, he kicked off Free and that led to Open and Open is not as dogmatic as Free - things evolve. Open also markets better.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[jellomizer]

Well put. Everytime RMS talks and rants he seems like he is playing for the people who will give him donations. Just like right wing religious makes some hard line sayings... Not to convince the general public but to keep their hard liners who will pay them the most money. RMS had some good ideas but he is now just hunting for more and new rants to fight after. If a Rant didn't help with donations he will go onto the next one.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[slim]

When I was brought up in Wales in the 1980s, I felt that Cymdeithas yr Iaith (the Welsh Language Society) were making unreasonable demands in their campaigning. And I still do to an extent.

But, in the 1960s and earlier, the right for Welsh people to speak and learn in their mother tongue was a serious civil rights issue. By the 1980s things had improved greatly, largely thanks to the activities of Cymdeithas yr Iaith.

I think that by continuing to maintain pressure, perhaps for demands that are a step too far, they prevent the pendulum from swinging back to where it was in the 60s.

I think the same goes for Stallman. Many people benefit from Free Software. Many people would be satisfied for a less pure Free Software world than Stallman demands. But without Stallman's purist stance, the average would shift to a less free position. I wouldn't want that.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[headkase]

Very good point. I'd like to also mix in that Open as a model is firmly on its feet now. It would take an act of law saying it is illegal to share your effort with your neighbor to stop it. Stallman was and is needed as you say: today he has more voices harmonizing with his message in different flavors. He's succeeded, they can't all be silenced now.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[Richard_at_work]

The problem is, Stallman isn't talking here about sharing *your* effort, hes talking about sharing *other peoples* effort, regardless of their wishes.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[headkase]

And perhaps he's right: maybe we should be basing our economies off of real things instead of building a house of cards to come crashing down at some future date. "Intellectual Property" could be just another bubble when China decides to collect on its trade surplus in real things.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[Richard_at_work]

So my time is worthless if its spent creating something on a computer or with a microphone, as opposed to a hammer?

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

No he isn't. He has nothing against proprietary systems when they're used in-house, he's against that code being distributed without the receiver being able to study and change it. Any professional developer with real work experience is likely to have hit the situation where they're using something from a supplier that has issues or bugs, and it can't be fixed locally, and the supplier, despite having a commercial support license, won't fit it or will only give you a work-around. Even the might IBM does this. Now factor in smaller suppliers that collapse, you now have dead software in your company that cannot be updated. Sometimes a small system can be replaced, but when the package costs a few hundred grand and has business rules rules linked to parliamentary legislature, you get into very unpleasant situations. You need to think beyond the toy PC applications, and consider what happens in small businesses that are at the mercy of suppliers.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[headkase]

Only in relation to what others are doing. If everyone is cooperating in a communal manner then yes. Real goods on the other hand behave better with money because scarcity applies to them - that makes them must more resilient to being Free.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much, yes. Who are you to say any different?

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great analogy, because the "right" to have Welsh spoken in Welsh schools was always an emotive non-issue which only seriously affected the *very* small minority of Welsh people who don't (as opposed to won't) speak any English.

Just as the right to pirate music is a non-issue affecting a somewhat larger class of people who don't want to pay for music, but only seriously affects those who literally cannot afford to (and hence don't even own an iPod).

This has nothing to do with Free Software. Stallman's movement relies completely on copyright being observed. Yet here he is condoning piracy ("sharing is good"). Well if "sharing is good", why can't I use GPL code in my closed-source project? Stallman only wants to "share" on his own terms - same as everyone else.

The man is a charlatan and a hypocrit.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[bmo]

>pragmatic

No. RMS would not be RMS if he was pragmatic. He also wouldn't have created the GPL if he was pragmatic.

I used to be in the same camp as you, as a KDE user. I have seen the wisdom of his thinking now that KDE is now freer than GNOME and that GNOME has embraced Miguel's Trojan horse called mono.

Fuck pragmatism.

--
BMO

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[headkase]

I'm Gnome so maybe I'm just not enlightened yet ;)

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[slim]

Great analogy, because the "right" to have Welsh spoken in Welsh schools was always an emotive non-issue which only seriously affected the *very* small minority of Welsh people who don't (as opposed to won't) speak any English.

This isn't an appropriate place to have this discussion, but I don't want what you said there to be the last word. You seem to be saying that it's OK for the state to force people to be educated in their second language. OK for the state to pro-actively work to kill a language. Is it still Godwin's law if I mention the rich tapestry of languages Stalin destroyed? And we're not talking about immigrants who are bringing a non-indigenous language to the country.

Well if "sharing is good", why can't I use GPL code in my closed-source project? Stallman only wants to "share" on his own terms - same as everyone else.

A means to an end. Stallman would prefer it if there were no copyright, including on his own creations. As long as there *is* copyright, the GPL takes advantage of it.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[sznupi]

The value of such work time is so arbitrarily determined that there is some qualitative shift happening, yes (one which changes rules fundamentally, even if we haven't adapted to them yet)

Consider a plausible scenario: you're coding some per project or recording a song with an expectation that it should contribute to sustaining you, or in taking a bit further what you do, and that's fine of course. In 99.99+% of cases that's the best you can hope for.

But suddenly, some time later, through some fickle whim of societal dynamics, your application or song becomes a huge hit. Mind you, your product was not bad of course...but is it really thousands times better than countless those which, while good or even much better, will remain obscure?

Did that event suddenly made the time you've spent worth thousands time more?

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[damburger]

You are wrong.

Unlike you, Stallman recognises the difference between sharing for personal use and taking for commercial expoitation. He is also aware of how free licenses depend on copyright law and that a complete abandonment of such law would screw free software. In fact, he spoke at length to the Pirate Party UK about it, a conversation that had a fair influence on our final manifesto, which now includes special provisions for FOSS.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

indeed. This is because he is a communist, a hippy, and fucking irrelevant to the modern world.
Hurry up and die stallman.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

"A means to an end. Stallman would prefer it if there were no copyright, including on his own creations. As long as there *is* copyright, the GPL takes advantage of it."

Stallman is just a huge hypocrite. BSD licenses don't have those silly restrictions GPL has.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[Reservoir Penguin]

This sound a lot like 'communism' we had in the good old Soviet Union. Private usage of things was allowed as long as it was for 'personal use' (it was called personal property). But as soon as you tried to use you personal car to moonlight as a cabbie it became private property which was not allowed. (because private ownership of means of production was a taboo under communism as it was the root cause of exploitation). Now we know of course that 'commercial exploitation' is what gives us all the wonderful variety of things , including software. I am now playing DA:Awakening (which in RMS's terms means I am being horribly enslaved by the game), please wake me up when anything remotely of the same quality emerges from the Free Software developers.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[Baki]

I think it is good to have someone who provides a clear and unambiguous opinion on these matters; and he has been proven right over and over again. In practice and for most people, a more moderate view is more appropriate; but without Stallman most of us wouldn't even realize what the real problem is.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[dangitman]

But suddenly, some time later, through some fickle whim of societal dynamics, your application or song becomes a huge hit. Mind you, your product was not bad of course...but is it really thousands times better than countless those which, while good or even much better, will remain obscure? Did that event suddenly made the time you've spent worth thousands time more?

Doesn't seem like a relevant question, as the same applies to physical objects. Normally, a rock with a couple of plastic googly eyes glued to it would be worthless. But if some quirk of society happens to strike at the right time, your Pet Rock is suddenly valuable. This happens all the time - a $2 piece of fabric might be worth $2,000 if you are a hot fashion designer, and be worth less than the cost of materials otherwise.

There's no right or wrong about it, that's just how the world works.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[sznupi]

Don't pretend it's to such a degree for physical objects, the distinction about which it was about (physical vs. intellectual products; fashion designs are an example of the latter, btw, too...)

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[dangitman]

Stallman would prefer it if there were no copyright, including on his own creations.

Really? I'd like to see your source for this assertion. Stallman's idea of Free Software requires some sort of control and enforcement of software licenses. If copyright didn't exist, Free Software would be difficult.

Stallman places copyright notices on all of his own web pages. That doesn't seem like the act of someone who is opposed to copyright.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[Mathinker]

> Stallman would prefer it if there were no copyright

I believe he's come out several times with exactly opposite opinions, that it is dangerous to weaken copyright too much because it takes the teeth out of the GPL. I think you are missing Stallman's real ideal:

=> Stallman would prefer it if there were no closed sources (of information
=> which could benefit mankind if they were open)

But, yes, as I think you were trying to say, if there were also effective laws forbidding keeping beneficial information secret, I believe Stallman would probably be in favor of abolishing copyright (as the GPL would be unnecessary).

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[dangitman]

Don't pretend it's to such a degree for physical objects,

I'm not pretending anything. It's just the truth.

fashion designs are an example of the latter, btw, too...

So, you're saying that a physical piece of clothing is the same as intellectual property? That doesn't make any sense. When people buy clothes, they aren't buying the concept of those clothes, they are buying the physical object.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[sznupi]

cNo, physical objects can't be copied at whim; for starters. Arbitrary values don't apply to them to such a degree (notice I said exactly that, not "at all")

And yes, that includes also clothes. You really don't know that people are buying also into the brand? Into the design? ("fashion" of the moment...which has not much to do with costs of production; but all to do with intellectual work that went into designing it)

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[twmcneil]

I've long thought of RMS's stance as a far point on one side of the pendulum's swing, pretty much as you have said but you put it better than I can. We do need people like him advocating the extreme position of Free sometimes to counter-balance those on the other end of the spectrum.

In other words, I agree with what you say, thank you for your post and yeah, I'm out of mod points.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[dangitman]

No, physical objects can't be copied at whim; for starters

Actually, they can be.

You really don't know that people are buying also into the brand? Into the design? ("fashion" of the moment...which has not much to do with costs of production; but all to do with intellectual work that went into designing it)

Yes, I know people buy into the brand, but that would mean nothing without the physical object.

but all to do with intellectual work that went into designing it)

So, you're actually arguing that intellectual property is valuable? Make up your mind, man!

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[sznupi]

I simply don't see it as black and white. You know, apart from dismissing any value of intellectual property, attaching rigid one or accepting overinflated one there's also an option of trying to assing proper value to it, differing one depending on circumstances, to boot... ("how?" is an unresolved problem; you migth argue that the market will take care of it; I was arguing at the beginning that it's failing at that)

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[damburger]

The communism 'we' had? Did you live in the USSR? Or are you just reading stuff off Wikipedia?

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[Reservoir Penguin]

I live in Russia now and I lived in the USSR for long enough of my childhood to remember how things were. I hope this satisfies your curiosity. I know that the idea of building anything resembling Marx's communism died with Lenin and Trotsky but that was not the point of my post. I was commenting on the silliness of the 'good' sharing and 'bad, commercial' sharing. You know from my experience workers in the USSR free from commercial exploitation did not go on to create a variety of amazing things, most just took the situation as a chance to seat around idly most of the work day. Anything consumer, more complicated than a loaf of bread was sold broken right at the store, was not uncommon at all to come to the store and find every TV set in stock to be non-functional, then buy it anyways and then spend weeks or months procuring electronic components to fix it yourself. Sound a lot like Free Software, doesn't it? IMHO Free Software has run out of steam, beyond several high profile projects (that land actual paying jobs or fame) Free Software just does not provide enough motivation for people both to do interesting tasks (If I am good at something that is interesting to me, I'd rather do it at a place that pays me money for it) and for mundane tasks (who wants to do testing and good support with actual ETAs for free?).

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[dangitman]

I simply don't see it as black and white

That's weird, because your first post in this thread was pretty black-and-white about it, and I was arguing for more shades of gray.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[perryizgr8]

Stallman does the right things but the way he relates his thoughts don't really map well onto others. He is too rigid when it comes to Free software, ideally all software should be Free but until the transition is over - say another 20 years - then some mixing is pragmatic for the now to enable functionality: like binary blobs in the Linux kernel. I like a lot of what Stallman has to say but I always translate it into less dogmatic terms and take the hard edges off. Free is the ideal Open is the pragmatic, he kicked off Free and that led to Open and Open is not as dogmatic as Free - things evolve. Open also markets better.

i don't agree. ideally, all software authors' will should be respected by everyone. if someone wants you to pay for his work, you should pay. if someone is okay with letting you have it for free and do anything with it, then you can do that.
the problem now is that companies like microsoft think they are doing something so magical in their software that every single individual should pay for using it. and that editing code should be out of bounds for anyone not employed by them. but this contract is broken by pirates. and people like rms want to impose their ideologies and will over others

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[perryizgr8]

umm, no. you can't decide how i want to sell my software, and what contract i want my customers to agree to. if you don't like my conditions, i will not force you to buy my product. why do you force me to change my agreement as YOU see fit?
point is, maybe you're right and i'm wrong. but i have the RIGHT to be wrong unless i hurt you.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[perryizgr8]

oh no! you can't make the microphone argument with these guys. they believe every artist/band should make money ONLY fromm live concerts.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[sznupi]

Not at all...

Recognising that, in current system, benefits of semi-random whim of popularity are strangely overblown (most pronounced when applied to immaterial works, suddenly giving your past time ridiculously large value (and you might not even know it for some time...heck, you might be dead by then); there should be of course some benefits...but to such ridiculous degree?), while many great works remain obscure; saying that value of many things is skewed...and most importantly not pointing to any clear solution (I simply don't know) really seems to you like a definitive, black-and white view?

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[damburger]

'Troll' seems harsh but I really don't think this is a valid comparison. Whereas its still a specialist tool for the desktop, free software is a roaring success in industry (especially the web industry, where I have worked) and is generally not delivered 'broken' like a communist telly. I don't know where you've been, but Ubuntu works out of the box for most hardware these days. My personal experience of people is that few are blindly motivated by gain - I strongly suspect that apathy amongst Soviet workers probably had many other causes that everybody thinking 'if only I could become an entrepreneur' because few workers in western countries want to take that option.

Re:Right things, not always right reasons.

[Larryish]

Yes, it does.

Well-known gets the work done now, in real time.

"Coulda" doesn't count.

The world is a real place, and it is perfect.

It has to be.

On Stallman

[Richard_at_work]

"Sharing is good" - I love how Stallman is once again so open with other peoples creations as well as his own. If you want to share, why not simply stick to sharing those things you are allowed to? But oh no, that's not good enough - the 'people' must be allowed to share *everything*.

My 1992 proposal for a special tax to be distributed to artists, with the money partly shifted from the most popular ones towards those not quite so successful, is still applicable.

Yup, I have just read that and its a pile of crap - the whole idea seems to be to reward those who are successful less and less, and reward those who are failing more. Why are those who are popular less deserving of those who are not? This isn't some politically correct playschool, where everyone holds hands to cross the line together at sports day rather than crown a sole winner - no, this is real life.

Now, I am against this Bill (and have written, faxed and phoned by MP - she will be calling for more discussion and consultation), but Stallman and his stance isn't the answer.

Re:On Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

(...) why not simply stick to sharing those things you are allowed to? But oh no, that's not good enough - the 'people' must be allowed to share *everything*.

(Sith) Lord Mandelson, is that you? Please enlighten us what we are allowed and not allowed to share! Ask mr. Geffen to fête you again if you're unsure.

Re:On Stallman

[Richard_at_work]

(...) why not simply stick to sharing those things you are allowed to? But oh no, that's not good enough - the 'people' must be allowed to share *everything*.

(Sith) Lord Mandelson, is that you? Please enlighten us what we are allowed and not allowed to share!

Its called copyright, and you are more than welcome to create something of your own and grant permission to others to distribute it - why this overwhelming sense of entitlement about needing to be able to distribute other peoples works against their will?

I see my other post is marked as a troll - interesting how dissenting viewpoints and opinions simply aren't allowed here any more.

The argument against copyright is a fair one - but it almost completely seems to orientate around other peoples copyrighted works, and being able to distribute those works freely. Its certainly has a sense of 'I want what they are selling, but I don't want to pay them what they are asking for it, they should take what I am willing to offer and nothing else, but in any case I should still be entitled to their work' and I don't like that one little bit.

Re:On Stallman

[kestasjk]

Welcome to slashdot, where if you disagree with the majority you are modded troll.

I've watched Stallman's talks and while he has some good thoughts he has some completely absurd ones, and his government allocation for artists idea is one of them.
He proposed giving artists an income according to the cube root of their popularity, so smaller artists are better supported and larger ones much less supported. Do people really think this is a realistic idea? How could it be implemented? If it's done by taxes how do you stop artists going overseas? Do people really want such strict government control on art of all things? How popular would you have to be to get the minimum artists income subsidized by the highest earners?

Can't we agree/disagree with ideas rather than agree/disagree with people? Just because he made some software you use and like is absolutely no reason to give his political views any more weight than someone ranting on a street corner.

Re:On Stallman

[selven]

"Sharing is good" - I love how Stallman is once again so open with other peoples creations as well as his own. If you want to share, why not simply stick to sharing those things you are allowed to? But oh no, that's not good enough - the 'people' must be allowed to share *everything*

Stallman doesn't recognize the idea that other people's (digital) creations belong to their creators. They belong to the people.

Yup, I have just read that and its a pile of crap - the whole idea seems to be to reward those who are successful less and less, and reward those who are failing more. Why are those who are popular less deserving of those who are not?

So you would prefer the current system, where 0.1% of the artists are driving around in million dollar cars to their fifty million dollar mansions and getting one or two DUIs on the way while the other 99.9% are barely making a living and thus have to get a day job and only have 3-5 hours every day to actually be creating stuff? Less social inequality is good.

Re:On Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a much simpler argument: If a law is impossible or almost-impossible to enforce, there is something wrong with that law. You can't stop copying now without placing unacceptable restrictions on technology, so the only remaining option is to find a way to live with it.

Re:On Stallman

[Richard_at_work]

Yup, I have just read that and its a pile of crap - the whole idea seems to be to reward those who are successful less and less, and reward those who are failing more. Why are those who are popular less deserving of those who are not?

So you would prefer the current system, where 0.1% of the artists are driving around in million dollar cars to their fifty million dollar mansions and getting one or two DUIs on the way while the other 99.9% are barely making a living and thus have to get a day job and only have 3-5 hours every day to actually be creating stuff? Less social inequality is good.

How is that any different to any other profession? Why are artists entitled to unequal and enforced support from their industry, and welders or seamstresses are not? What makes an unsuccessful artist more worthy than an unsuccessful teacher?

Re:On Stallman

[redhog]

By using the phrase "other peoples" you define the ownership, and any observations about people not respecting said ownership is therefor a tautology.

To apreciate the arguments of both sides, please consider a clean slate - that is, a world without any laws but the ones of physics.

Anything on top of that is a social construct, which might or might not be useful.

To examplify your fallacy: consider the opposite argument "Nothing is new under the sun, all creative work naturally includes inspiration and parts from previous works. Locking new works under a monopoly to reproduce is theft from the collective".

Now, I don't expect you to accept that argument, certainly not, but from a pure logical point of view it is as true as yours. They just happen to be incompatible. So, to derive any kind of objective truth in this matter, the source of the argument must come from outside the domains of these two statements.

Re:On Stallman

[drinkypoo]

My 1992 proposal for a special tax to be distributed to artists, with the money partly shifted from the most popular ones towards those not quite so successful, is still applicable.

Yup, I have just read that and its a pile of crap - the whole idea seems to be to reward those who are successful less and less, and reward those who are failing more. Why are those who are popular less deserving of those who are not? This isn't some politically correct playschool, where everyone holds hands to cross the line together at sports day rather than crown a sole winner - no, this is real life.

I don't really know how I feel about this issue, but it is one of the most pressing that we face as a result of our technological prowess. As time passes, less and less work is needed from man, at least in the so-called first world. But as we are not being paid more and more for less and less work, and as the cost of living is actually rising at this time, people have to work more jobs with all the overhead that implies, leaving less time for creativity. If we value creativity in our society then it makes sense to spend some of our money (money, after all, being a sort of shorthand for time and effort) on producing additional creativity. As many artists are never appreciated until after their deaths, supporting unsuccessful artists is a sort of hedge fund of greatness; if you support enough of them, statistically you'll get some gems out of it.

I don't know who wrote this jam, but John F. Kennedy perhaps said it best at Amherst College on October 26, 1963:

If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him. We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth. And as Mr. MacLeish once remarked of poets, there is nothing worse for our trade than to be in style. In free society art is not a weapon and it does not belong to the spheres of polemic and ideology. Artists are not engineers of the soul. It may be different elsewhere. But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation. And the nation which disdains the mission of art invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

Re:On Stallman

[Viol8]

"I see my other post is marked as a troll - interesting how dissenting viewpoints and opinions simply aren't allowed here any more."

You go against the left leaning teenage group-think at your peril.

Re:On Stallman

[slim]

I have a much simpler argument: If a law is impossible or almost-impossible to enforce, there is something wrong with that law.

So in a hypothetical past where forensics are worthless and it's easy to get someone alone and slit their throat without getting caught, that there should not be a law against murder?

I think a much stronger argument is that when a huge segment of the population performs some act routinely without any sense of guilt, that's evidence that society as a whole doesn't consider it wrong. In a secular society, what can define right and wrong, except the consensus of the people? If the consensus is that something is not wrong, why is there a law against it?

Re:On Stallman

[sznupi]

I do prefer something where artists have to earn their living comparably to the rest of population, yes. As was the case almost always and, as you noticed, is the case for vast majority of artists today.

That includes a system where ridiculous rewards and excesses of the few are restrained too, of course.

Re:On Stallman

[slim]

How is that any different to any other profession? Why are artists entitled to unequal and enforced support from their industry, and welders or seamstresses are not? What makes an unsuccessful artist more worthy than an unsuccessful teacher?

Just to add to the confusion, how do you define success?

A highly successful teacher (the children they teach grow up to be valuable members of society) might be poorly rewarded financially. A poor teacher might get a great salary (by gaming the system, for example).

An artist might be highly successful at what they set out to do. They might even by acclaimed by the critics, yet not earn very much in the marketplace.

It doesn't answer your question. But it adds nuance to it (and makes it harder to answer).

Re:On Stallman

[nomadic]

He proposed giving artists an income according to the cube root of their popularity, so smaller artists are better supported and larger ones much less supported.

If his plan goes through I shall be the richest violinist in the world! And I don't even have to learn to play.

Re:On Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

Why this overwhelming sense of entitlement that makes you think you should be able to own and control everything you "create". We are all standing on the shoulders of giants. Why should your small contribution to the top of this mountain be yours and yours only? Your creation is relying on thousands of years of human though and creation, face up to it!

Re:On Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't some politically correct playschool, where everyone holds hands to cross the line together at sports day rather than crown a sole winner - no, this is

The law of the jungle? Might makes right?

Re:On Stallman

[selven]

I never said comparably to the main population. I said a choice between near poverty and relegating art to being a side hobby rather than your main job. The reality is, that's how many authors, musicians and open source programmers work, and our society is suffering because of it.

Re:On Stallman

[sznupi]

And can say with certainity that it's suffering...how? It seems to me you would agree that many of what we consider the greatest works of art came from "struggling idealists".

Re:On Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

The great moral question of the twenty-first century is this: if all knowing, all culture, all art, all useful information can be costlessly given to everyone at the same price that it is given to anyone; if everyone can have everything, anywhere, all the time, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone?

Eben Moglen
The DotCommunist Manifesto, UNC-Chapel Hill, Howard W. Odum Institute, November 8, 2001

Re:On Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

Less social inequality is good.

Speaking as someone who works full-time in I.T. as a software developer in order to finance the "3-5 hours every day" I have left to spend doing all of the artistically creative things (writing, songwriting, recording, digital animation, etc.) I'd rather be doing ... give me more social inequality, any day. It's the only way to "buy your way out of" having to deal with proles (not artists) who are poor, violent, and brutally intolerant because they're stupid.

So yeah, I'd far prefer a meritocratic system where anyone who's talented enough and who works hard enough has a shot at being in the "0.1%" that drives around in million-dollar cars, than your pathetic "spread the wealth around" mediocrity. I say that as someone who was poor enough from 2006 to 2008 that I'd qualify for "subsidized artistic housing" in a recent development (Artscape Triangle Lofts) in Toronto. (No, I won't be pursuing it.)

Re:On Stallman

[chthonicdaemon]

Copyright is not an immutable part of nature that we just have to deal with. Laws can be changed and they only get changed by people speaking out against them and buy garnering support for them. When Stallman voices his opinion that people should be allowed to share programs, he is not suggesting that everyone unlock their doors. His focus is pretty much on software, which has only enjoyed legal protection quite recently. Algorithms are still not patentable in many parts of the world and copyright, while pretty universal in spirit, is quire differently applied in different countries. If everyone just accepted the law as it was and refused to try to change it, we would still have many laws that are crazy to imagine today. Also, note that Stallman has never advocated breaking the law -- he works within it to implement open software equivalents to closed software.

Re:On Stallman

[Reservoir Penguin]

Good thing the Brits have already discovered and switched to a democratic form of government. If what you say s true what's preventing them from voting for the Pirate party in the coming elections and doing away with the copyright law? Seriously the fundamental problem is that we have not found a way to integrate non scarce resources into the economy based on scarcity. Software, movies and music can be instantly and infinitely copied at almost no cost but the creators need a way to benefit from their work to consume scarce resources, thus we must introduce artificial scarcity.

Re:On Stallman

[The End Of Days]

How is the fact that it could be copied easily justification that it should be provided for free? I can easily copy your bank account numbers, should I have the right to access your money? I see no substantive difference between the concepts at all, since all property whether tangible or intellectual exists only as a mutual agreement to respect the right to own the property. If I refuse to respect your right to keep a store of money, why should I be beholden to the idea that what is yours is also mine?

Re:On Stallman

[Blakey Rat]

I think a much stronger argument is that when a huge segment of the population performs some act routinely without any sense of guilt, that's evidence that society as a whole doesn't consider it wrong.

Not necessarily. It could just indicate that you're reading Slashdot as a source of your information, and therefore you're simply not exposed to large communities who oppose the things Slashdotters do regularly without guilt.

I mean, I get your point, but don't make the mistake of equating Slashdot to society-at-large. I'm certain I've never seen any real evidence that the majority of people are perfectly ok with copyright infringement.

Re:On Stallman

[slashdotjunker]

Copyright arguments revolve around distributing other people's copyrighted works because we don't recognize their ownership of the copyright. We feel entitled to their work, because it doesn't actually belong to them. The original crime was the assignation of the copyright. Just as France refuses to recognize Scientology as a religion, I refuse to acknowledge the assignation of many kinds of copyrights.

I am not happy about being in this state, but after many years of seeing the effect of copyrights and other intellectual property entitlements on the computer industry and entertainment media my conclusion is that these forms of copyright do not benefit society. Like a CA gone bad, I have essentially put these copyrights on my ignore list. Like jaywalking across an empty street with clear visibility, I will infringe on any unjust copyrights when that infringement causes no harm to society and does not deprive anyone of their livelihood.

Telling me that I'm wrong because some human being in Washington D.C. stamped a form is not going to change my mind. Might does not make right. Stamping a form does make you the owner of something. True ownership comes when society recognizes the stamped form as valid and just. Do you understand the issue now? It's not about what constitutes infringement or piracy. It's about whether or not copyright assignments are just.

Re:On Stallman

[slim]

I'm not using Slashdot as a guide. I have no idea what correlation there is between /. users and warez. The argument comes from the UK Pirate Party, who were using government figures.

Sorry, I don't have a reference.

Re:On Stallman

[slashdotjunker]

Grr. Why doesn't Slashdot let you fix typos?

Replace: Stamping a form does make you the owner of something.

With: Stamping a form does not make you the owner of something.

Re:On Stallman

[ultranova]

I think a much stronger argument is that when a huge segment of the population performs some act routinely without any sense of guilt, that's evidence that society as a whole doesn't consider it wrong. In a secular society, what can define right and wrong, except the consensus of the people? If the consensus is that something is not wrong, why is there a law against it?

Because huge segment of population also engages in selfish behavior routinely without any sense of guilt, thus it's okay for politicians to make laws against common good if their corporate buddies are willing to pay them for them.

Re:On Stallman

[brit74]

I think a much stronger argument is that when a huge segment of the population performs some act routinely without any sense of guilt, that's evidence that society as a whole doesn't consider it wrong. In a secular society, what can define right and wrong, except the consensus of the people? If the consensus is that something is not wrong, why is there a law against it?

Not sure that I care for that system, either. I can think of lots of things in history that were wrong, but enjoyed majority support. Everything from slavery and segregation to the Holocaust to genocide to witch burnings to killing "infidels". Sometimes laws should be created and enforced because it's for the benefit of society as a whole* and because it protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

* Society might not realize what is for it's own benefit, and society might also be in a situation where they think "everyone does it, therefore, so can I - therefore I shouldn't feel guilty", even though the best situation is that nobody does it. In other words, they might realize that "it's better if everyone followed law X", but still don't follow it themselves because it's in their own interest not to.

Example: Someone decides that they don't feel guilty about cheating on their taxes because lots of people do it. Problem: society as a whole would be better of if everyone paid their taxes. If it were easy to cheat on your taxes or not pay your taxes, and a lot of people started doing it, then, by your argument, the government should eliminate laws that people are required to pay taxes. At this point, even fewer people would pay, and there would be no way for the government to enact laws to pay taxes because a majority of people don't feel guilty about not paying.

Re:On Stallman

[mjwx]

the whole idea seems to be to reward those who are successful less and less, and reward those who are failing more.

Congratulations, you've just described the music industry.

Money goes to the publishers and the publishers decide what songs get played and what artists become famous. Indies artists don't get a word in sideways, let alone airtime unless they sign a horribly lopsided contract that guarantees 90%+ of revenue to the publisher for an unreasonable time (10, sometimes 20 years).

So I really would rather Stallmans system. Unlike your knee-jerk anti-government reaction it will not reward those who are failing but rather see that quality content is created, you know, like how the BBC operates.

Re:On Stallman

[agrif]

How is that any different to any other profession? Why are artists entitled to unequal and enforced support from their industry, and welders or seamstresses are not? What makes an unsuccessful artist more worthy than an unsuccessful teacher?

In the digital age, what artists produce is not a scarce commodity. They can produce infinite copies of their songs (or whatever), and sell each copy. Inevitably, random artists will sell some huge amount of one of their songs and profit off of each sale.

Welders, seamstresses, teachers and most other professions all provide scarce goods or services. Yes, some will become very successful, but when they do, they can't just produce infinite product in a split second and make absurd megabucks.

Re:On Stallman

[perryizgr8]

"Sharing is good" - I love how Stallman is once again so open with other peoples creations as well as his own. If you want to share, why not simply stick to sharing those things you are allowed to? But oh no, that's not good enough - the 'people' must be allowed to share *everything*

Stallman doesn't recognize the idea that other people's (digital) creations belong to their creators. They belong to the people.

Yup, I have just read that and its a pile of crap - the whole idea seems to be to reward those who are successful less and less, and reward those who are failing more. Why are those who are popular less deserving of those who are not?

So you would prefer the current system, where 0.1% of the artists are driving around in million dollar cars to their fifty million dollar mansions and getting one or two DUIs on the way while the other 99.9% are barely making a living and thus have to get a day job and only have 3-5 hours every day to actually be creating stuff? Less social inequality is good.

yes.
if everyone is at the same/nearly same socio-economic level, ambition will be eradicated and the human race will stagnate.

ohh

[NEDHead]

"better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want." and what they are doing...

Re:ohh

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up, free webcam-equipped laptops.

Let RMS dogfood his economic model

[wombatmobile]

Instead of a weekly paycheck, RMS should work for free and accept donations. There should be a button on every article he writes to donate a dollar to the author. In a couple of years, if RMS is convinced of the viability of his model, and his children have grown up healthy and strong, I'll give it a try too. Until then, I'm not convinced that RMS's world is anything more than an untested speculative fantasy.

Re:Let RMS dogfood his economic model

[shentino]

People should pay for stuff if they want it.

OTOH, DRM that denies you the freedom to make your own copies and keep them to yourself is out of line.

Especially when the RIAA says that you should just suck it up when the auth servers go down. That right there proves they don't give a shit about anything but their bottom line,a nd that they have no qualms about cheating...or extorting settlements out of people.

Re:Let RMS dogfood his economic model

[selven]

That's a pretty incorrect understanding of RMS's economic model. He never advocated a pure donation economy and has clarified multiple times that there is nothing wrong with making a profitable business around open source software. If you want to try relying on the viability of his model, go work for Red Hat for a few years.

Re:Let RMS dogfood his economic model

[Omnifarious]

Well, I believe he has done this, and it's worked for him. Oops.

Re:Let RMS dogfood his economic model

[Anonymous Coward]

So, MIT doesn't pay him?

Re:Let RMS dogfood his economic model

[wombatmobile]

That's a pretty incorrect understanding of RMS's economic model.

Did you RTFA? In it, Stallman says:

My 1992 proposal for a special tax to be distributed to artists, with the money partly shifted from the most popular ones towards those not quite so successful, is still applicable. Meanwhile, many artists support themselves already with voluntary payments by their fans. If we make it easier to send these payments, with a send-one-dollar or send-one-pound button on every player, this method would work even better.

Re:Let RMS dogfood his economic model

[maroberts]

No, it doesn't. AFAIK, he quit MIT in 1984, so you're a bit out of date.

Re:Let RMS dogfood his economic model

[Sir_Lewk]

He says that this is a business model, not the only business model. He has described and advocated numerous others in the past as well, and supports more traditional business models based around Free software such as the one used by Redhat. You may have RTFA, but you clearly have not read Stallman's fucking essays.

Re:Let RMS dogfood his economic model

[nomadic]

Instead of a weekly paycheck, RMS should work for free and accept donations.

Isn't that what he does?

Re:Let RMS dogfood his economic model

[brit74]

Instead of a weekly paycheck, RMS should work for free and accept donations....

While I agree with you, the fact of the matter is that Stallman is so famous and he's at the top of the movement, which puts him in a far better position to get paid than other people. For example:

"Software pioneer and MIT research affiliate Richard M. Stallman has been named as a co-winner of the 2001 Takeda Award for Techno-Entrepreneurial Achievement for Social/Economic Well-Being. Stallman shares this award with Linux inventor Linus Torvalds and TRON open architecture developer Ken Sakamura. Each of the winners will be awarded 100 million yen, currently about $830,000, at a ceremony in Tokyo on December 4."

Stallman said he plans to keep the prize money and “invest it one way or another.” He said his primary goal is to live off the prize money so that he can devote his time to continue his not-for-profit work...

In 1990, Stallman was awarded a $240,000 fellowship by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, often known as a “genius grant.”
http://tech.mit.edu/V121/N59/59stallman.59n.html

His work with free software has made him rich - far richer than the average Joe doing the same thing. I wonder if Stallman is a millionaire at this point. I wouldn't be surprised. I'm sure it's that much easier for him to believe in his own ideas when they make him rich.

In one video, I saw Stallman saying that copyrighted software might make you rich, but it was morally wrong. Given that most copyrighted software won't make you rich (it will only give developers sufficient money to survive) plus Stallman's claim that copyrighted software earns a lot more than open-source, the message that I took away from his little speech was that open-source was a really bad way to earn a living. Funny, how Stallman confirmed my thoughts about open-source.

Re:Let RMS dogfood his economic model

[shutdown -p now]

RMS is convinced of the viability of his model, and his children have grown up healthy and strong

Richard Stallman doesn't have any children, and, given his personality, I very much doubt he is ever going to.

(I'm sorry if this offends any FOSS advocates, but if you ever saw RMS in person, a lot of things about the man and his habits are annoying, and some are downright disgusting.)

I don't need broadband to tell my MP what I want

[obnoxio]

"He said that it would enable MPs to better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want."

I want them all to fuck off and die.

Painfully, if possible.

Keep track?

[Anonymous Coward]

"He [Brown] said that it would enable MPs to better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want."

Oh, wait. I get it. Two-way TV in every home like in '1984'?

Re:Keep track?

[headkase]

With the British Panopticon experiment of CCTV everywhere... Well... Not so far fetched as I would have thought 10 years ago.

Re:Keep track?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was always against the spread of cameras across the UK. When one was placed in a council car park across from my house I objected and had a stop put on it so it could not turn far enough to overlook my property.

Over the last few months our local counciller & a couple of our local community leason police have talked me (nicely) into letting them remove the stop on the camera. Since the stop has been removed it has helped in about 5 local crimes across from my house. Most recently there were some youths trying to break into an office building across the road. We called it in to the police but the camera already had them spotted & they were taken away in about 5 mins.

Frankly the cameras work & I was wrong.

We need British broadband

[Philip K Dickhead]

To enable the surveillance telescreens promised us with such fanfare by Orwell in 1984. Cameras on the street really don't do the job.

Re:We need British broadband

[tomhudson]

RMS mis-quotes Gordon Brown.

Re:We need British broadband

[Philip K Dickhead]

Beautiful confirmation of my cynical - and unerring - suspicions.

Re:We need British broadband

[perryizgr8]

true, true.

Re:We need British broadband

[16Chapel]

*clicks stopwatch*

16 minutes from posting of UK story to mention of Orwell. Not bad!

Competition and Access

[Anonymous Coward]

This topic is just another pro-Conservative Party whine. The Digital Economy bill is very good in a lot of ways but would certainly benefit from being balanced with reform of competition law and increased access. At the time of writing Labour have proposed that Trading Standards look into reforming competition law, and Labour is aiming for universal access to broadband. In contrast, the Conservative party only this week opposed a bill to combat corporate corruption and will give a free ride to ISP's by allowing them to cherry pick investment which only favours the slice of the population living in high density urban areas. Conservative opposition to a growth led recovery and forcing victims of the recession onto workfare will rip what internet access and work opportunities people do have.

Re:Competition and Access

[Spad]

Great straw man there, but the Conservatives *support* the punishment measures of the digital economy bill; of the "big 3", so far only the Liberal Democrats have come out against the bill.

Like A Pervert in a Candy Store

[b4upoo]

Governmental types simply can not stand the idea of free and open communications. I have always maintained that there would be a point where all governments would seek to stifle the net. I am not an anarchist but I do believe that even when one is lucky enough to have a good government that that same government will seek to expand and control more territory as well as to have more and more control over all people within its domain.
                    If I were to predict a tipping point where the iron hand becomes really visible it would be when we have easy, ultra secure, encryption. At that point the assumption will be that every communication just might be terrorist or treasonous in nature.

Re: Like A Pervert in a Candy Store

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get fooled into thinking the underlying goal with this (or any expansion of government) is control. Control is only a stepping stone to what government really wants: more money. How do I know that government's ultimate goal is profit, like any other business? Because year after year, government costs more, spends more, and borrows more. The natural trend of government is to expand in both revenue and power over the people -- over the entire lifetime of the government -- and a quick reality check tells me this isn't because "the people" asked for it.

So let's call a spade a spade: The reason government expands is because the bigger government gets, the more lucrative government is for the people who make their fortunes in the business of government.

Of course

[WindBourne]

It can also be used to add LOTS more monitoring. With narrow pipes, it is easy for all to see the monitoring. With fat pipes, it will be become difficult for the regular ppl to know.

How does pragmatism get to the endpoint?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does pragmatism get to the endpoint? If you pragmatically go with mixing, then there's no need from those who want propriatory to go any further. So how do you get to the state you SAY (not believe) you want: all software should be Free?

Re:How does pragmatism get to the endpoint?

[headkase]

I think it boils down to network effects. As more proprietary vendors open their code - especially in drivers - it will just make sense for others to do so as well feeding back on itself. I don't think closed software is ever going to go away but I do believe we will see an inversion where it becomes that most software is open and some is closed versus todays most closed and some open. For what is in use.

I laugh too

[petes_PoV]

when I hear Stallman wittering on about politics in a country he has no clue about

Re:I laugh too

[redhog]

Sorry, but he seems to have this time.

He generally seems to have a clue about random stuff. Like he has actually read, and commented on, the political platform of the Swedish political party Piratpartiet. I have, as a direct concequence of his comments, made a motion about sourcecode escrow for our annual meeting this month.

Re:I laugh too

[Dan Ost]

Clearly you have a deep knowledge of the issue he's commenting on. Perhaps you could explain to us how is understanding is in error.

RMS dogfoods his economic model

[maroberts]

Instead of a weekly paycheck, RMS should work for free and accept donations......

most of the stuff he has produced is available free, and if you want to donate, the Free Software Foundation will happily accept any donation you care to give. I presume his income from the Free Software Foundation, plus any other speaking engagements, ensures that he is not sleeping on your street corner. I also think the $240k he received in prize money in 2000, plus the $830k he received in 2001 help a little :-)

American vs English

[jandersen]

Isn't this the same clown now busy circumventing democracy to take away broadband from Britons who already have it? And what good would broadband do them if they're punished for using it (or even being suspected of using it?

Ah, I see what the problem is; the right honourable mr Stallman is American and therefore speaks about politics the American way. This is what I believe he meant to say:

"Mr Speaker, does the Prime Minister really think that ..." and so on ...

Apart from that - it is all very well to bash Gordon Brown; the problem is that there are no real alternatives - the Tories are going to do exactly the same, the LibDems sound very nice and sensible but won't come anywhere near government, and most of the rest are the likes of BNP and UKIP, who to be honest tend to crumble if exposed to sunlight; that leaves Plaid Cymru, I suppose, or Sinn Fein. But which one to choose, that's the question, always.

Re:American vs English

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is that there are no real alternatives [...] the LibDems sound very nice and sensible but won't come anywhere near government

Unless we hang the parliament. That should give time to build up enough public opposition to the bill that one of the other parties will jump on the bandwagon with the Lib Dems and block it. This strategy worked well with ID cards, which were initially popular with the British public but are now opposed by the Tories as well as the Lib Dems.

Re:American vs English

[Spad]

I'm not convinced that they were ever popular with the public, there were just a lot of government-comissioned polls asking questions like "Do you want terrorists, paedophiles and rapists to be allowed to live in your neighbourhood or do you support ID cards?" that were used to *claim* widespread public support.

Re:American vs English

[TheRaven64]

My Plaid Cymru MEP is an active member of the FFII and they seem like a fairly safe bet for the next election. Because they only run candidates in Wales, there's no chance of their gaining a majority over the whole UK - and I wouldn't want them to - but they can hopefully inject some sanity into the proceedings. When the Welsh Nationalists look like the most sane party, there's something badly wrong with the system...

I was recently sent a link to a site that lets you compare policies for the major parties (seems to be down at the moment). They give you snippets from manifestos (without attribution) and you select the one you think makes the most sense. At the end, it tells you which party you agree with the most. According to that, I most agree with the Green Party, which surprised me a bit.

Re:American vs English

[dangitman]

that leaves Plaid Cymru, I suppose, or Sinn Fein. But which one to choose, that's the question, always.

There's never any question: you choose Cthulu, or Cthulu chooses you.

Why the linkage? Access !=censorship

[Bearhouse]

Give me access to broadband, and then I'll worry about censorship, packet-sniffing/filtering and denial of service for abusive torrenting.
Granted, there are very worrying trends worldwide about monitoring and controlling people's internet access, and the UK Gov. has a poor record on respect for human rights.
But if I cannot even get onto the damn internet, then the point is moot.

UK

[mfh]

It was reported today that the United Kingdom will now be referred to as the Yuletide United Kingdom, or YUK for short.

Tiscali blocking emails linking TFA

[ikoleverhate]

So I sent a link to article to my mum and girlfriend, both of who are with the ISP Tiscali. It came back with "Unnacceptable Mail Content". Tinfoil hat engaged, I sent a few more variations to see exactly what they're blocking. As far as I can tell, it's any link to a guardian.co.uk url. Interesting, given there's an election coming up... Try it for yourself if you know anyone on tiscali - send a mail with a guardian.co.uk URL in the body.

Re:Tiscali blocking emails linking TFA

[Spad]

It's quite possibly related to this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/askjack/2010/apr/01/tiscali-blocking-guardian-emails

Re:Tiscali blocking emails linking TFA

[ikoleverhate]

aha, thanks!

Re:Tiscali blocking emails linking TFA

[sa1lnr]

And wouldn't be "Talk Talk" (Carphone Warehouse) that are actually blocking them?

Uk is not democratic

[Anonymous Coward]

You make the assumption that the politicians will do anything about it. I wrote to my MP a couple of years ago about something related to copyright law, and was basically told "our party takes the opposite view from you".
So much for democracy.

Re:Uk is not democratic

[LordAndrewSama]

Because they disagree with you? No, that's perfectly democratic. you write back and say "My vote takes the opposite view from you" and then vote for some other party. If no party does what you want, you can start your own. If enough people agree with you, you will get what you want. the only thing undemocratic about the UK is the voting system, which is, frankly, toilet.

Re:Uk is not democratic

[mdwh2]

I'm not making any assumption. Firstly not everyone has your MP - some may be luckier. Secondly, large numbers of people writing to MPs still has some chance. Tell us, do you have a better way of protesting this, in the same amount of time it takes to send off an email? What good will writing a comment on Slashdot do about it, as you've just done?

There's also the secondary issue that even if it doesn't stop things now, it raises far better awareness long term, if groups can say 10s of thousands of people have opposed the law.

Stallman is a communist , this isn't news

[Viol8]

"the whole idea seems to be to reward those who are successful less and less, and reward those who are failing more. "

One of the main tenets of communism is that everyone is equal no matter what their actual abilities. Unfortunately
denying reality didn't work for a lot of nations but you still get plenty of tax payer funded examples of this
species of thinker in the academic world where they're sheltered from the nasty facts of reality outside the thick
walls of their ivory towers.

(I'll get modded down for this by some standard issue right-on teenage group-thinker but c'est la vie)

Re:Stallman is a communist , this isn't news

[slim]

I don't believe RMS is a communist.

His belief in free software is pragmatic. He wanted to hack a printer driver to make it email him when his job had printed. He was shocked when he was told that the source code wasn't his to mess with. His message is, don't buy software that doesn't come with source you can modify.

I do believe he undervalues programmers' skill, including his own. I don't think he realises how few people could create GCC, glibc etc. Partly, he gives it to the community because it came relatively easy to him. When programmers say "I should get big bucks for my creations", RMS, I believe, just doesn't consider their creation to be such an great achievement.

(Or perhaps he values programmers' skill correctly. There are a lot of programmers out there. We're not all irreplaceable.)

Re:Stallman is a communist , this isn't news

[sznupi]

And can you point out any place where some people actually honestly tried to implement communism on a national level? (as contrasted with small, informal communities or modern-day communes, which can and do work sensibly)

Look, "communism" was just a dream, a different kind of religion if you will, that some people tried to sold here and there at few point in time; without actually any intent of implementing it (apparently it was partially succesfull, seems you bought it). Similar to, say, "Land of Opportunity".

(btw, I take it you are againt socialist funding of highways (hence few industries getting unfair advantage), airports (again) or military?)

Re:Stallman is a communist , this isn't news

[Viol8]

"And can you point out any place where some people actually honestly tried to implement communism on a national level?"

Is this a trick question? The bolsheviks were true communists and they've been followed by Mao, kim Jong Il and various other tin pot african, asian and south/central american dictatorships.

"Look, "communism" was just a dream,"

It may just be a dream but some people want to make it a reality.

"I take it you are againt socialist funding of highways"

Why would I be? Taxation to fund necessary structures both real and social to keep society ticking along is as old as civilisation. Thats completely different to treating people as identical jelly mold robots.

Re:Stallman is a communist , this isn't news

[Viol8]

"His belief in free software is pragmatic."

Theres a big difference between "I want a driver , I'll write one myself" to "software should be given away free no matter now much work went into it". If someone wants to spend time writing their own code and give it away thats their democratic choice. But they should NOT stand on some dubious moral high ground and dictate to everyone else that they should do the same.

Re:Stallman is a communist , this isn't news

[slim]

"software should be given away free no matter now much work went into it"

Nothing in RMS's credo says that.

Don't give anyone the software until you're paid for it. When you're paid for it, give them the software, the source, and the right to redistribute both.

Yes, you might need to charge more because there are fewer sales. Yes, it probably prevents you from getting wildly rich off a few months of coding. Tough. But look around, people are making an honest living on those terms.

Re:Stallman is a communist , this isn't news

[sznupi]

As is my rule in many other areas - don't look at what bolsheviks (and those after them, also in other places) claimed they are, look at what they actually were. Oligarchies, not communist states. The point is that they didn't treat all people as identical, not even close. I should know very well, I live in place which was beyond the Iron Courtain...

And for that matter, I do think that communism on national level is outright unworkable (even if it can work on smaller scales), similarly to any other pure ideology - picking what works from many is much better (as US does...); but it's better to be precise in terminology...

And you know, in those examples it's not just taxation and keeping society ticking along...those are hidden, massive subsidies to only very few industries, very few social groups. Well, but I guess they have equal right to succeed as others, even if their business model is unsustainable...right?

Re:Stallman is a communist , this isn't news

[slim]

"And can you point out any place where some people actually honestly tried to implement communism on a national level?"

Is this a trick question? The bolsheviks were true communists and they've been followed by Mao, kim Jong Il and various other tin pot african, asian and south/central american dictatorships.

In fact the Bolsheviks never achieved the communist state they dreamt of.

Lenin replaced Tsarism with "the dictatorship of the proletariat" described as "An immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich: . . . and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, for the exploiters and oppressors of the people — this is the change which democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism.”

Lenin, Trotsky etc. believed that there had to be some harsh times, during which enemies of the revolution had to be taken out of the equation (massacred, sent to the Gulag, whatever), during which the proletariat would be re-educated (to destroy the religion and royalism that was supposedly keeping them chained), creating the conditions under which a utopian communist state would emerge, as Marx and Engels predicted, whereupon the dictatorship could cease, not being required any more.

They were idealists, but they were ruthless idealists and they performed atrocities in pursuit of their dream. We can agree, I'm sure, that the anticipated ends did not justify the means. Then Stalin took over, a ruthless, paranoid, corrupt madman, and really wrecked the whole thing. It's likely however, that no matter who had been involved, they'd have succumbed to inevitable corruption and madness.

As the GP said, aside from some village sized communes, genuine communism has never been achieved.

Plenty of dictatorships modelled after the Soviet Union though. I'll give you that.

Re:Stallman is a communist , this isn't news

[Viol8]

"Yes, you might need to charge more because there are fewer sales. Yes, it probably prevents you from getting wildly rich off a few months of coding. Tough. But look around, people are making an honest living on those terms."

Well thats alright then. As long as its only a salt-o-the-earth honest living , don't want anyone earning a dishonest living from selling their closed source code they've spent months writing and getting rich now do we because then some freeloading student couldn't hack it up and steal the ideas.

FFS.

Re:Stallman is a communist , this isn't news

[icebraining]

So what? Marx also said:

The product of mental labor - science - always stands far below its value, because the labor-time necessary to reproduce it has no relation at all to the labor-time required for its original production.

With which I believe IP supporters agree :)

-----------

Personally, I don't have a problem with people being paid according to their effort, but that's not what happens today. We're all in a race, but some start many miles ahead of the others.

Re:Stallman is a communist , this isn't news

[shutdown -p now]

One of the main tenets of communism is that everyone is equal no matter what their actual abilities.

Not quite - the actual tenet is that everyone should have equal access to resources no matter what their actual abilities. In order to achieve this, communism requires a society with no resource scarcity. The whole point of the socialist stage (according to Marxism-Leninism, anyway) is to get rid of that scarcity. Of course, no-one has actually ever got there, and it seems very doubtful that it is even possible at all.

How this will be translated

[houghi]

The way this will be seen and abused by others will be a bit like the following:
Stallman is somebody who is for Open Source. Stallman also said that downloads are mainly illegal. Ergo: Open Source is illegal.

And this means that not only must the governement outlaw Open Source. Also there must be greater punishment to the people who do this and give the money to those who are affected.

So in the end everybody will be happy. Well, at least the music companies. As a middle way, why not tax the extra broadband directly and give that money to the music and movie industry who still are recovering from VHS and cassettes.

Post Scarcity

[headkase]

I disagree. I believe he happened to hook onto what Information technology allows: the eradication of scarcity. Free and Open software is only possible because of information networks that make the cost of its distribution trivial. Open Source and the "Stone-Soup" parable it encapsulates is something to be studied and lessons drawn from for the inevitable period when we turn all our manufacturing over to machines and the scarcity of human labor no longer applies. What are we going to do then? I would hope that post-scarcity lessons from information networks translate well over to post-scarcity in goods and services. Otherwise we're in for a rocky ride, well that probably anyway.

The real reason for more broadband...HeMP!

[daemonenwind]

The government in the UK is running out of public camera bandwidth. There are a lot of those cameras around, you know!

How can you keep an electronic eye on everyone if public bandwidth is clogged by bothersome subjects pirating American mass media?
A massive roll-out of British Broadband means Her Majesty's Peepers (aka HeMP) will be able to see all, and know all.

HeMP for all Britain!

RMS? FSF ring any bells?

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS? FSF ring any bells? Lets see YOU eat your own dogfood: DO NOT use anyone else's intellectual work without paying them. No flushing the toilet without a micropayment to pay for the continuing benefit of no jobbies in your toilet. No maths or english unless you pay your teachers for their expertise in teaching you.

YOUR kids dont deserve dogfood

[Anonymous Coward]

no no they deserve shit BIG PILES of it you lazy turd

and

[unity100]

why so anonymous ? are you afraid of your views ? so, you dont have the guts to express your feelings openly in public, but you have the guts to puke shit out of your mouth anonymously ?

let me show you an example of decent, honest, thorough opinion expression :

morons like you, who still are content with groveling at the feet of big feudal capital overlords as if you were in middle ages and a serf to a local baron, should go back to fucking middle ages so that we, the people of modern 21st century, can actually live with rules and policies that befit our time. for, due to brainless fools like you, there are still politicians who are able to push capital overlords' will in lieu of the people, degrading us to being mere serfs working for them through the laws they buy for themselves. yea, you have a 'job', and you talk about it as if this is something good. well, it isnt. serfs were job holders too, working perpetually for their bigger overlords. if you are content with being in that position, really, fuck off to middle ages.

here. an open, straight, outright, blunt, plain expression of opinion. not anonymous. accepting all the negative karma hit it will bring.

if you want to criticize someone for the shitty bullcrap you are going to spurt out, at least first acquire the decency to say them with your own identity.

Wow. Get that sequia out your eye.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Get that sequia out your eye. "eats crud off his own feet"???

Citation needed or you're FAR FAR *FAR* worse than someone who calls Gordon Brown a clown...

Re:Wow. Get that sequia out your eye.

[kcbnac]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ

Simply Google 'RMS eats foot' - you'll find articles on it.

Re:Wow. Get that sequia out your eye.

[commodore64_love]

Ick.

Everytime I think about it, I feel like gagging. If you're looking for anti-government dangers/threats, there are other people you can look too like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones or MEP Daniel Hannan, who don't pick their noses or eat their feet crud.

Re:Wow. Get that sequia out your eye.

[ultranova]

Everytime I think about it, I feel like gagging.

So don't think about it. Think about what he has to say instead.

If you're looking for anti-government dangers/threats, there are other people you can look too like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones or MEP Daniel Hannan, who don't pick their noses or eat their feet crud.

What's an "anti-government threat" - a libertarian who's gone off the deep end ?-)

Whatever it is, it can't be very serious, since you're concentrating on someone picking their nose instead.

far away

[Anonymous Coward]

Brown just wants to keep his constituents as far away ( physically ) as he can. Visions of tar, feathers, and maybe even pitchforks come to mind.

Amish Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman talking about broadband? That's like Amish talking about modern cars.

Please, someone, shut RMS up for all our sakes

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

RMS is saying what we're pondering in our own minds, but don't dare say without sounding crazy.

Well, no, he's not.

For one thing, the rest of us concerned citizens here in the UK have been following the progress of the Digital Economy Bill for months. There are several organised groups opposing the draconian penalties proposed by the more extreme advocates, there is serious opposition from many politicians, thousands of people have written to their MPs on the subject, and it has been widely covered in various parts of the media, including mainstream services like the BBC.

Moreover, as usual RMS started out with hyperbole and extreme positions that don't necessarily correspond to reality. He is the last kind of person we want wading into this discussion, and if he continues mouthing off in his usual way, the only thing he can possibly do is lend credibility to the other side of the debate with moderate politicians who are somewhat aware of the views but very aware of how to spot a quack when they see one.

Please, someone, shut the guy up, or at least stop repeating his words as if he has any significance whatsoever in this context.

So what if RMS eats foot crud?

[rcb1974]

So what if RMS eats crud off his own feet? They're his feet, it is his choice. If it bothers you, don't watch. The question you should ask yourself is why should it bother or not bother you? Many people on this planet fail to determine what should matter to them and what should not. That kind of mentality causes:

1. Money to get wasted
2. Poverty
3. Suffering

Think logically. Don't allow yourself to be controlled by what society tells you. Just because other people do stuff (like live in a house rather than in a tent, a cave, airplane, RV, boat, whatever) doesn't me you should too. Just because other people don't do stuff (like eat crud off their feet) doesn't me you shouldn't too. Open you mind. The fact that RMS who is brilliant can eat stuff off his foot in public just proves that he thinks deeply about what matters and what doesn't. Maybe by eating stuff off his foot he is deliberately trying to get you to expand your mind.

Some primates groom each other by picking stuff off each others backs and eating it. Perhaps there are benefits to doing that you just don't know about. Maybe RMS knows what those benefits are and you don't. RMS might be able to think more clearly when he picks at his feet. Thinking clearly is a good thing even if it means consuming some harmless foot crud. Millions of people eat crud and they don't even recognize it as such (high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, etc).

Re:So what if RMS eats foot crud?

[commodore64_love]

>>>So what if RMS eats crud off his own feet? They're his feet, it is his choice. If it bothers you, don't watch.

Too late once the act has been seen, and become part of my memory. - And yes I agree with you. He can sit there and eat his own poop if he wants. That's called freedom. LIKEWISE I have the freedom to open my mouth and comment on it.

You tell me that I should keep my mouth shut (censorship), but I disagree. Freedom applies to both Mr. Stallman AND me. Just as he can sit and eat his foot crud, I can flap my mouth and exercise my voice. Freedom works in BOTH directions, not just one.

Well, how much bandwidth does a telescreen use?

[SmallFurryCreature]

And to be a bit serious. I think this is a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing.

Labour and the Conservaties have been exchanging power for so long, that they have become completely entrenched. Pretty much like the bankers. Most bankers don't even get why the public don't think they should get bonusses. They really just can't see that people might be upset about the whole economy. Surely they deserve their bonusses for all their hardwork because without that hardwork... the economy wouldn't have crashed... the logic ain't there, but luckily nobody in their inner circle is going to point this out.

4 Labour and 1 conservative were trapped willing to accept bribes, and they haven't even been arrested on suspicion of high treason. Cash for questions, the declerations scandal, the sleeze has been going on for decades across both parties.

Some of the people in power are corrupt and worse, think that this is right and proper. And the rest are completely detached from reality. And we the voter vote for them time and time again.

You think Americans were stupid for electing Bush twice? Then how about Blair? Berlusconi? Balkenende? All dismal leaders that ruined their country and all impossible to get rid off.

Re:Well, how much bandwidth does a telescreen use?

[ais523]

At least in the UK there's a theoretical third possibility; the Liberal Democrats have a sufficiently high positive number of seats that even though there's little chance they'll actually win, they could certainly force a tie or "hung government" in which two of the parties need to agree to force legislation through (any two). This is one of the big differences between the UK and US systems, I think; in the US, you basically only have Democrats and Republicans making a hung government almost impossible without a rebellion from one or more individual senators. Unfortunately, it's looking rather like the Conservatives will win outright at the moment.

Harming the case against the bill

[xelah]

Articles like this will make people think the opponents of the bill are against it because it will stop them infringing copyright. You won't find many people here who will agree that it should be legal to just take music and films without paying for them. Richard Stallman is essentially smearing his own side and compromising the bill's opponents' ability to convince the public that there are other good reasons for rejecting it.

Isn't that a non-sequitor

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that a non-sequitor AND an ad-hom argument? After all that has NOT ONE THING to do with whether Gordon Brown is a clown nor about whether DEB is a POS legislation (why does it HAVE copyrights in there at all, for example? What does it have to do with photographs?)

I've heard of drinking FOSS koolaid but..

[ClosedSource]

You have to be a pretty big zealot to go from "eating foot crud" shouldn't matter to "Maybe RMS knows what those benefits are and you don't."

Your own identity

[ClosedSource]

Did your parents name your older brother unity99?

Re:Your own identity

[unity100]

no he was unity3^3

Re:I don't need broadband to tell my MP what I wan

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a flaw in your plan: if they did that, we'd all have a good laugh, but contemplate the aftermath. The unelected rulers -- such as the Lord of Lies, Mandelson -- would be the only ones left ...

Politicians? RFC1149's plenty

[billstewart]

It's actually more effective, because it lets you deliver a piece of actual dead-tree paper, and while the politician still isn't going to read it, the avian carrier has several alternate communication interfaces to deliver your message.

Meanwhile, what are you doing with that extra bandwidth that's interesting or useful? 1.5 Mbps is plenty for watching YouTube or running BitTorrent (though more is always better) or video chat or gaming, but the big carriers who keep ranting about wanting to get subsidized to build 100+ Mbps connections to our houses are really just trying to sell us television in competition with the cable and satellite companies, which is a lame and boring thing to do with the bandwidth. What cool stuff can you do to make us need the speed?

RFC1149 Jumbo Packet Extensions?

[billstewart]

Pitchforks definitely don't comply with the RFC1149 limit of 256mg, and any torches would need to be very small LEDs with solar cells, which probably wouldn't have the desired effect. RFC2549 doesn't explicitly add jumbograms either, but it's possibly that they could be accommodated in the Concorde priority class.

So you're going to be limited to terrestrial transmission systems - I'd recommend at least a 30cm diameter pipe for pitchforks, and torches may be tricky, though there are a wide range of 155mm delivery systems for alternative incendiaries.