Slashdot Mirror
FSF Starts Anti-ACTA Campaign
judgecorp writes "Free Software Foundation president Richard Stallman has said in a blog post that the ACTA file-sharing proposals punish users unfairly. He wrote, 'Any time there is a proposal to change things for the worse, the obvious way to oppose it is to campaign for the status quo. To campaign for the status quo suggests the approach of singing its praises; thus, praising WIPO is a natural way to highlight how ACTA is a step for the worse. However, where there have been previous changes for the worse, lauding the status quo tends to legitimize them. The past 20 years have seen global waves of harmful changes in copyright law — some promoted by WIPO. To confront a further assault by presenting the status quo as ideal means we stop fighting to reverse them. It means that our adversaries need only propose a further affront to our rights to gain our acceptance of their last affront. Instead of making the status quo our ideal, we should demand positive changes to recover freedoms already lost.' The FSF has launched a petition against the ACTA proposals."
Seriously, what the fuck is a mere petition going to do? Well, it'll get disregarded and thrown out, most likely.
Too bad for RMS that most of the world doesn't know of him or care what he says. I'm guessing this will have about as much effect as their anti-DRM campaign. That is to say, absolutely nothing.
status quo == bad
ACTA == worse
The more I pay attention, the more I realize that laws are being skewed more twards the corporations and the governement than the people. Which is why I'm heavily deciding if I should run for Congress to hopefully put a stop to this madness. I feel with every law passed like this, the people who are supposed to be our servants are not listening. If I can get it, I'm sure I'll make a difference. This difference should be for the people, not for companies. It seems to be that the current people in charge let the almighty dollar be the "success factor" which in fact it is hurting our freedoms and providing grave consequences to the nation as a whole.
That may be true but really, almost every one of his predictions has come true in one way or another. As much as I really would like to dismiss him as having unworkable policies, he has been spot on for almost everything.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
"praising WIPO is a natural way to highlight how ACTA is a step for the worse. However, where there have been previous changes for the worse, lauding the status quo tends to legitimize them"
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The best way to get a problem like copyright legislation is to use it against those who created it. Follow the trail of greed, find individuals responsible and track what copyrights they violate.
Make them turn on themselves like a bunch of rabid animals and sit back and laugh as they tear themselves apart.
Not that it would work because they don't want to fight each other they just want to pick on the little defenseless suckers that get singled out.
I thought I would just throw out my stupid idea while we are dreaming.
My concern about ACTA is not related to copyright law but to its effect on patents. Copyright law is practically always infringed by intent, while patent infringement in the field of software is in most cases inadvertent (that's the most fundamental problem I have with software patents). It would be desirable to introduce into patent law, at least in connection with software, an independent invention defense. However, ACTA in the version I saw might do quite the opposite, treating a patent infringer as a "pirate" once he is made aware of an infringement (for an example, by a cease-and-desist letter). That's unreasonable and unjust in my view. I blogged about that.
Recently I read on Twitter that the US Trade Representative told knowledge rights activist Jamie Love that the US wouldn't mind throwing patents out of ACTA and instead the US government blames the EU for wanting patents included. Since those negotiations take place behind closed doors, it's not easy to verify that claim. However, it's more likely than not to be accurate. It would be good if EU-based activists could inquire about this (especially with help from Members of the European Parliament). With pressure from inside the EU there may be a chance to get patents thrown out of ACTA altogether. I know a lot of people here are at least equally interested in copyright issues but to many of us patents are the number one concern.
For those interested in EU processes relevant to free and open source software, here's a link to a blog post on a talk I gave on the subject (not discussing ACTA per se in detail, but with a couple of slides on EU patent policy in general) at LinuxTag in Berlin last week. LinuxTag is Germany's and probably Europe's largest open source event. The blog post I just linked to contains links to the presentation.
I found the article clear and well explained. Perhaps it is a reading comprehension issue on your part?
Or perhaps you did not read the article, but are referring to the quote in the ./ story. It is not as bad as you make it out to be, but is clearer in the context of the article.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
This isn't a "law" this is an agreement, meaning it basically passes without the consent of the people. Essentially the US is letting other countries write the laws for us. This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about with "Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None".
While there is a time and place for some "binding" contracts such as bi-laterally reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles (lets face it, we don't need thousands upon thousands of warheads that could get lost/stolen/etc.), things like the ACTA and also to some degree the UN effectively force the US to give up its own sovereignty, placing lawmaking not in the hands of elected officials, but unelected delegates from not just the US but almost every other country.
Free trade is easy to accomplish, simply let people purchase goods from foreign countries just like domestic products, only using internationally recognized standards such as gold, silver, platinum, palladium, oil, etc. However, in this day and age, its hard to avoid entangling alliances that infringe on the sovereignty of the USA.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
My enthusiasm kinda dwindles when I saw that the article amounted to a simple petition. Petitions, especially internet ones, are just a way for signees to feel good about themselves while making minimal effort. Kinda like complaining on /. will change the world :P. It'd be interesting if there a more concerted effort behind the petition like showing congress critters opposed to ACTA (so we could vote for them) or raising money to actually lobby against it. Corporations have realized that lobbying, or being active in government helps bend the rules to their favor, so why can't free software institutions do so either? I'm just hoping that this petition doesn't lead to a dead end.
Then why should I not try to get that process modified? What about making a law that requires the agreement process be run through the same processes that normal laws run through? While I'm at it, make it a requirement to delay these agreements and let the public have a chance to look at them. Make the law to ensure none of these agreements could be made behind closed doors. Make it so that people have an avenue and/or mechanism to put feedback into these agreements. Why not try and do something to change it for the better rather than just bitching and rolling over and doing nothing?
Here's the first item on their list:
ACTA must respect sharing and cooperation: it must do nothing that would hinder the unremunerated noncommercial making, copying, giving, lending, owning, using, transporting, importing or exporting of any objects or works
They essentially only want copyright to prohibit making money by copying, etc., the works of others.
Richard, I love ya and everything you've done for the open source community, just want that clear. Now what the sam hell are you doing telling us to "recover" our freedoms? You don't recover freedom -- you fight for it. You disobey, you protest, you drum up support, tear down walls, and throw wrenches in the establishment. Freedom isn't free, and you won't get it by firing off strongly worded letters.
Look at it from the other side -- the ACTA is about trying to make a global police framework to try and stop file sharinng. Let them pass it. Let the government sink billions upon billions tryinng to solve the problem, while we come up with ever more clever ways to evade detection, and eat away at their bottom lines. The ACTA is about moving the costs from an industry to a global support group of governments. Now is the time to maximize damage -- gut their bank accounts, make free copies pervasive.
Slip how-to manuals into people's mailboxes, leave CDs on the bus with instructions on how to get stuff for free, build and distribute new tools that are harder to track, use stronger encryption, and frustrate traffic analysis efforts. Bury these fuckers to the point where for every dollar they can recover through this kind of legislation they have to pay five more. Keep the hurt machine running at full power.
That's how you defeat the ACTA and protect your freedoms -- by going on the offensive. If they have no rules, neither should we. They want to hand this mess over to the government and we should be only too happy to obliege them -- let's make it cost more than the combined budget of all of law enforcement to recover what little cash they're getting back now. Eventually the costs for this will make it a public spectacle and people will question why we're diverting so much money and throwing all these people in jail and ruining their lives and the general public will finally ask the question it should have been asking years ago:
Is it worth it?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Kinda like this video from Youtube which accuses Viacom of the same infringment that they claim Youtube has done?
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Because the largest party that promises to do just that, the Libertarian party, is still dwarfed by people who will automatically vote republican/democrat despite their lack of having any coherent ideals. I'm not saying don't get involved, I'm just saying if that third largest political party and one that shares similar ideals on that subject, doesn't have anyone currently in congress the chances of change are slim.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
its a farce
all of copyright law is based on a dead technological era. well, copyright law as applied to agreements between creators, say: the company that films the adaptation of harry potter and jk rowlings, for example, is still valid, because the parties in the agreement are finite
but copyright law as applied to end consumers is completely and utterly unenforceable. its not like you need to have a vinyl printing plant or a tape duplicator to spread media anymore. you simply need to be able to point and click. additionally, its completely international, and completely without economics: the cost to send 100,000 copies of lady gaga to johannesburg, novosibirsk, cartagena, etc is exactly the same as sending one copy of lady gaga across town. your agerage 15 year old today has more publishing power worldwide than bertelsmann, time warner, etc., had in 1990. this really means something, and what it means is: copyright law (as applied to end consumers), is dead, and unenforceable
so let them make ACTA as draconian as the morons want. who fucking cares? 10,000 lawyers in western countries versus 10 million media hungry, technologically savvy and, most importantly, POOR teenagers, worldwide, is no contest. of course i understand the EFF, they are protesting on the matter of principle. and to this extent, they should protest, and you should join them. but remember who we are dealing with here: the media industry. a bunch of sociopathic assholes. principles don't matter to them, so the EFF won't sway them. so i say: go ahead register your principled objections, to clear your conscience, but do not grow disheartened by a lack of response from the lizards. rejoice in the fact the lizards are at an end game, and are dying out, and that there ridiculous ACTA is a useless folly
its called disruptive technology for a reason: it disrupts the status quo. the printing press did away with monarchies, the gun did way with the feudal caste system, the automobile created suburbia, the nuclear bomb did away with world wars, etc.: technology changes society and the law. the law and society do not change technology. well, that's never stopped one shortsighted asshole after another from trying, but their efforts are always futile and pointless, just causing a lot of temporary pain for innocent bystanders. in the end, none of their posturing matters: the internet will assimilate the media industry, resistance is futile
the internet has rendered copyright law as applied to end consumers null and void, despiter all the believers to the contrary, despite all the power they hold. its a fait accompli
the media industry's job now is to embrace its obsolescence. of course, it goes down kicking and screaming instead. but again, who fucking cares? let them pass the most draconian ACTA anyone can imagine in their worst nightmares. UNENFORCEABLE. END OF STORY
RIP, vinyl record era copyright law. i'm certain you will exist on the books for a long time to come. but in terms of being an enforceable concept on end consumers in an internet-using society, you're toast
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that I asked myself when I read the GPL. why the FUCK doesn't Stallman communicate directly and get away from the obsufcated communication style that he uses.
People that write code like RMS communicates are widely hated by the poor fools that try to maintain the pile of spaghetti.
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Hurry up and sign so the soon-to-be-created Copyright Gestapo will have a good set of leads to start chasing down p2p'ers.
Actually, the US is misusing ACTA to change its own laws. All those draconian steps in ACTA were promoted and forced through by nothing less than the US Government, to protect what is essentially an economy that relies increasingly on immaterial goods after having outsourced manufacturing to China and elsewhere. Other ACTA participants are bearing the pressure of the US here, rather than vice-versa.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Well, yes, that does seem to be the case, but since the majority of this is behind closed doors, we never will really know what goes on but the principle behind it is that a country like, say, Morocco can add in a clause to it and it would pretty much have to be the law in the US.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Have to also say that an immature person is preferable to the MPAA and RIAA trying to take over the world.
Exactly but you have to go against the people not the business. If you sue Viacom no one in the company cares because it is the legal department that handles it. But if you sue the CEO of Viacom in small claims locally that would be funny. Of course you have to have a legit claim against them.
Is that the same way the bible makes predictions?
This isn't a "law" this is an agreement, meaning it basically passes without the consent of the people.
Ratified treaties are just as much "laws" as anything passed by Congress. Perhaps you need to re-read the Constitution?
This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about with "Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None".
Except that you're wrongly attributing a quote that paraphrases something Jefferson said as if all the Founding Fathers were of a similar opinion. This is not true. Amongst those that can be named, James Monroe is probably the most obvious example of disagreeing with such a notion.
They essentially only want copyright to prohibit making money by copying, etc., the works of others.
That sure sounds reasonable to me.
Palm trees and 8
Your idea is proved wrong every day in the war on drugs: costs more $ and humanity every day, still there are drugs everywhere you care to look.
They won't stop no matter the costs.
slogged through the GPL? I did, admittedly sometime in the early nineties, and I found it to be one of the most self-agrandizing masturabtory exercises in literature that I have ever encountered (even worse than that last sentence). Instead of making clear statements, RMS prefers to build a series of statements that are dependent of each other for reference or support.
I do not know if there is any real value to it, or if RMS just wants to believe that it requires a 'greater intelligence' to read his work
Wherever You Go, There You Are
requires countries to prohibit software that can break Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), also known as digital handcuffs
So if someone has a library of DRM protected Flash videos and seeks to convert them to some new HTML5 format, they are not allowed to use a simple conversion tool to convert their entire video library. They are instead required to find the original DRM-free source of each video - if it exists?
Essentially the US is letting other countries write the laws for us.
As someone who lives in another country, let me assure you it's exactly the other way around. Many of the proposals in the leaked document come directly from US law, and are being pushed down everyone else's throat with the threat of being blacklisted if we don't agree to it. For instance, Canada's new law that forbids breaking DRM, lobbied for by US groups, pressured for by the US ambassador, and written up by RIAA.
Maury
This isn't a "law" this is an agreement, meaning it basically passes without the consent of the people. Essentially the US is letting other countries write the laws for us. This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about with "Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None".
From Article 6 of the US Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The language couldn't made much plainer - and it shows damn little fear of alliances or any involuntary loss of sovereignty.
It could be... but fortunately, ACTA still needs to be ratified by all parliaments before it goes into effect. There may be some arm-twisting going on, but ultimately, every country could -- at least in theory -- just say no by not ratifying it.
Plus, what kind of pressure could Morocco exert on the US? Would they cancel the free trade agreement that gives them much more advantages than it gives the US? And why would they want to, since they have so little intellectual property to protect, compared to the US? It's not like the (beautiful) handmade stuff they're exporting is being counterfeited that they have to worry. They're just in the same ACTA boat, because the US asked them nicely to be, referring to the old Treaty of Friendship of 1789, and they politely smiled and just said: okay, we're on.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Sadly, it's pretty easy to be right when you're a cynic and don't trust people who plan on making money off of you.
Stallman might make accurate predictions (though I wouldn't say that all his predictions are all that accurate - it's just that you don't hear much about those which are not), but his suggestions as to how things should be done instead are utopian, to put it politely.
Except the CEO of Viacom isn't the one who is bothered by outrageous prices and terms on content. He can afford to pay whatever the premium rate is for the medium de jour, and he can upgrade his personal digital library when HHDDVVDD BVD comes out. Similarly, he doesn't need personal backups of his content, because he can afford to repurchase it.
I don't think using their own dirty tricks against them is a way to make much progress. They can afford to play by their own rules.
Sure, I want everything I can consume for free. So does everyone I know. Why should I pay for something when I can get it for free? I am a smart, knowledgable person with a high-speed Internet connection - that by default means I can freely pirate media, software, etc. Today my risk is that someone will track me and "discover" my IP address is sharing outbound - anything I can do to prevent that discovery means less risk.
People that are not as smart, knowledgable and do not have high-speed Internet connections today have to pay for their media. This is a pity, but about all you can say now is too bad for them.
What Mr. Stallman seems to be advocating is that as long as nobody collects any money directly for distribution that it should all be free. It means an end to all revenue (after the first distribution) of anything digital - all the first recipient has to do is "share". And why wouldn't everyone on the Internet "share" in this manner? I cannot envision any reason why there wouldn't be web services set up to assist with this, probably ad supported.
It means the end of revenue from any commercial works. I suppose there might be some pretty creative ways to trick people into paying for something later on - restricted distribution, over-the-top embedded ads and using music, movies and books as advertising for other physical-world services that can't be copied digitally. But for the most part I think the idea of commercial media would pretty much end.
Some would say that it is about time. Some folks actually employed in the production of commercial media and software might notice they are going to lose their job. But they can join Mr. Stallman in donating their newly-found free time to non-commercial (free) software development. If they aren't a programmer, well, they don't fit in Mr. Stallman's world anyway. That's why we have welfare.
They can afford to play by the rules, but they probably don't.
So the tactic may work in the short term. Do you think that music producers or Simon Cowell (or the executives lower down in the pecking order) ever pay for music that they listen to? No, they assume that they can just copy it and that the person copied from should be honoured at the possibility of getting noticed by the aristocracy. Heck, they assume they can put it into a track and sell it and worry about the "clearance" afterwards.
At the very least we should make sure that their designer living rooms are all cluttered up with multiple DVD players for each locked region so they can get a glimpse of how annoying it is.
And could you imagine if they pierced the corporate veil and chucked Bill Gates inside for the various times Microsoft has blatently infringed copyrights or patents?
Actually, the reason Morocco is involved in the ACTA negotiations (it is definitely an outlier when you look at the rest of the parties) is likely because the US already has a free trade agreement with them that includes IP enforcement provisions that the USTR points to as a basis for ACTA.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
To be fair, it works both ways. The current draft text of ACTA still includes language that permits "graduated response" or "three strikes" laws in a section that was contributed by EU countries. While the original footnote that referred specifically to three strikes was removed, neither is it explicitly forbidden.
Having gone over the draft text and the leaked version that indicated the various country positions, I'd say the US and EU are equally responsible for some of the nasty things in ACTA - just different nasty things.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Reading is hard, let's go shopping!
To someone who follows mainstream politics, and in my own words, the Libertarian Party seems horribly fragmented. There is no way to vote for the party, because each candidate has their own take on what is part of the philosophy.
I've read the definitions and distinctions between someone who has libertarian views (lower case) and is part of the Libertarian party. That there's even a distinction between the two suggests that the name was poorly chosen, or the philosohpy adapted/bastardized.
That there remains a core movement which maintains that distinction, on both sides of the issue, should be a clear warning signal that the members cannot even agree. People with similar viewpoints get into a semantic war and remain separated by a non-existent schism.
To rephrase, there isn't a party to vote for, and voters often use mental shortcuts like appearance and eloquence to choose their candidates which makes the liklihood of purely philosophical reasons. You want Libertarians to win? Foolproof plan. Get a clean-looking, well-spoken sock puppet with an attractive wife (or attractive daughter who puts herself out in the spotlight by volunteering, visiting whomever from the pet project of the future first lady, does interviews, whatever). Then just keep them from saying ridiculous stuff (stuff that can and will be ridiculed). Instant win.
you wouldn't call yourself the velvet flamebait
and here's my flame free rebuttal:
world before internet: 99% of artists were poor. 0.9% one hit wonders signed contracts with distributors in which they got pennies and a ride in a limo for a few months. 0.1% muscled in on the distributor's game and made fair money
world after internet: 99% artists are still poor (this is the way it always was and always will be). 0.5% make enough contact over the internet with their fans to make some money from gigs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail ). another 0.4% realize enough revenue from ancillary means to be moderately financially successful. the final 0.1% are still making u2 and jayz money, from all their tie-ins
sure, the ancillary revenues are tiny fractions of what the marketplace was like before the internet, but artists still make more because mos tof the cash in the pre-internet world went to distributors anyways
your problem is you fall for the contrived bullshit concept that distributors not making money anymore is the same as artists not making money anymore
but, don't believe me that distributors are a joke and artists should just go it out on their own, listen to an actual artist:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10272490.stm
so please stop swallowing the contrived lie that artists need distributors. its tired. its false. its a dead fake maneuver you are either intellectually being dishonest about or are actually quite cluelessly naive about
the truth is, distributors are parasites that only existed because someone had to manufacture the media. the internet has made that process defunct, and so distributors themselves are now defunct, no matter how hard they try to grandfather themselves into our cultural space with bullshit legal maneuvers that are destined to fail regardless
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's not a law yet, it is only a bill (C-31) but unless you (Canadians) get off your collective fat asses and start making noise about it, it will be.
..or at least the usefulness of this one, is to state clearly what is and isn't acceptable in this treaty, make people aware and get a consensus about it. I mean, there are a lot of people here who would agree with the statement, "ACTA is bad, make it go away", but it's not a very constructive way to engage with policy makers or the unaware.
The statement "ACTA must respect sharing and cooperation: it must do nothing that would hinder the unremunerated noncommercial making, copying, giving, lending, owning, using, transporting, importing or exporting of any objects or works." is a lot more specific, and lays out the rights everyone should have. I know the US Constitution is supposed to only spell out the limited rights Congress can take away, but in practice the only rights the U.S. government doesn't take away are the ones that are specifically protected (e.g. Free speech, assembly, and guns). So getting out ahead of this treaty and trying to spell out the rights we want is a good way to keep them. Even better if we can get that into law, which is easier to do if someone has spelled it out already, and everyone has agreed that's what they want.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
LOL; this coming from someone who couldn't figure out how to log in. That's rich. I think YOU are the status quo. DIAF.
Fine go after the artists, musicians, and directors that sign with the labels, whenever and wherever you can. Make it joining a label a poison.
Get ONE ridiculous but highly publicised 6 or 7 digit verdict against the poorest filesharer in court and then you can hit up other casual filesharers with two and three thousand dollar settlement offers and you have a pretty nice racket going.
The real question is, how is the first goddamn post redundant? Idiot mods.
Anyway, I'll help you out.
He says normally you resist bad policy by promoting how good things are without it.
This, however, obviously implies that things are good without it.
If things are bad and getting worse, promoting the bad in favor of something worse legitimizes the bad. All policy makers need to do to legitimize bad policy then is to simply introduce worse policy, which gets people to accept the bad in favor of something worse.
He's basically saying "Don't say 'look how good things are now, don't destroy it with new restrictions', say 'you ass-holes have been destroying our freedom for 50 years, cut it the hell out!'". In a nutshell.
It's worth noting that this is exactly what happens in politics anytime you hear someone say "Well, he's better than the alternative".
I think the little prick has a really good point here.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Netflix can keep 100,000 videos in its catalog, 20,000 on-line, and contract to have its service built in to every Internet enabled video device priced over $100.
But not even the mighty Netflix can offer Disney's Song of the South.
Change video cameras to blur copyrighted material
If video equipment makers are not required to do so by law, at least one manufacturer will take away others' business by not recognizing watermarks. This brand would look attractive to the MPAA representative who recommended camcording for classroom fair use. If they are, someone would sue to have the law overturned. The opinion of the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft hinted that fair use is the necessary part of copyright that keeps it from violating the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression.
so let them make ACTA as draconian as the morons want. who fucking cares?
If we allow copyright owners' power to expand unbridled, imagine not being able to create your own works for fear that they will be too similar to a work controlled by an incumbent publisher. Or imagine not being able to buy a home PC because all the PC makers have switched to making cryptographically locked-down appliances (like the iPad) for fear of contributory infringement liability. Only professional software developers working for established companies are eligible to buy PCs.
people that get DRMed government documents that are proof of a crime can't (by that proposal, the constitution of most places will disagree) publish that document in a format that the public or a judge will be able to read
The language of ACTA is modeled closely on that of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has an explicit exemption for circumvention related to law enforcement.
My guess is that it is actually neither. What's really happening is that highly interested parties with a shitload of money are hiring people in all involved countries (especially the US and the EU, but almost certainly in others as well) to manipulate politicians into doing their bidding.
That may be true but really, almost every one of his predictions has come true in one way or another. As much as I really would like to dismiss him as having unworkable policies, he has been spot on for almost everything
Examples? Most of things that come to mind where I think of things turning out the way the FSF wanted have done so in spite of the FSF. For example, most music is now sold DRM-free. The FSF had almost nothing to do with this. Free software is widely used--because of the Open Source movement, with RMS unable to run any of the top Linux distributions because they contain software he considers to be non-free.
RMS is very much like Richard Altmayer from the Isaac Asimov story "In A Good Cause--".
This isn't a "law" this is an agreement, meaning it basically passes without the consent of the people. Essentially the US is letting other countries write the laws for us. This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about with "Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None".
That's not actually true. The US is the one writing and pushing ACTA, and is having it written as a treaty so that it can do an end run around it's own laws that would prevent something like it passing. It's ingenious really. Can't pass a law? Get it written as a treaty and have someone else pass it for you!
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
The current draft text of ACTA still includes language that permits "graduated response" or "three strikes" laws in a section that was contributed by EU countries.
The European parliament has several times explicitly removed the concept of the "three strikes" rule. Which countries are you referring to?
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
"I'm fed up with seeing through people. It's too easy, and it amounts to nothing." (Elias Canetti)
Calling it utopian is calling improvement impossible. Calling improvement impossible makes improvement more unlikely.
If Stallman were a cynic, he wouldn't have believed that people might follow his alternatives. He would have dismissed everyone as greedy bastards and not even tried.
Stallman is used to people making money off of his stuff, and even encouraged it.
that thinking highlights a major method the establishment and private interests have been using to force public to accepting their will - put something SO far worse on the table that the public will accept the 'less' worse option, which is what they actually want us to accept. we shouldnt be passive, and just get herded. we should be active, and push for what we want.
Read radical news here
Option 2:
[Paragraph 3(a) shall not affect the possibility for a judicial or administrative authority, in accordance with the Parties legal system, requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement, nor does it affect the possibility of the parties establishing procedures governing the removal or disabling of access to information
That comes from page 21 of the official draft text available here (PDF).
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
The problem though is compounded though in the Republican and Democrat parties though. If I am a "Republican" does that mean I favor Ron Paul or John McCain? Etc. The Libertarian party has basic principles that almost all members share. At the very least a person who is in the Libertarian party or has libertarian thinking believes in a smaller government, reducing government spending, increasing freedom of speech/press/religion/expression/right to bear arms/etc. or at least not destroying those rights, etc. On the other hand there are radical differences between candidates between the 2 main parties. For example, do you have a democrat candidate like Russ Feingold who voted against the PATRIOT Act? Or a democrat candidate who votes to censor free speech?
Fragmentation is a lot more prevalent in the 2 main parties it just is ignored because there are so many voters who ignore issues and vote Republican/Democrat because that is what they have been taught.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
See you tomorrow, comrade - we're going to try that communism thing.
Well, the primary thing that I can think of is "TiVoizion" (see http://gplv3.fsf.org/pipermail/info-gplv3/2006-February/000001.html ) of taking Open Source software and then bundling it with restrictions in the hardware to prevent you from actually using the software, just look at Android for a major example and phones like the Motorola Backflip in particular.
Then look at the article on Trusted Computing ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html ) and then look at the Kindle remotely deleting copies of purchased e-books, restrictions on various cell phones, etc.
Also, look at some of the articles on non-free file formats, the same things RMS was predicting has come true not in file formats but in social networking sites like Facebook, the root cause being the same: when you entrust your information to a format you can't control you lose control of that information.
Then of course the things against software patents, the Java trap is now quickly coming to "the Cloud" and controlled marketplaces like Apple's App store, etc.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
but highly addictive drugs- meth, cocaine, heroin: these chemicals destroy freedom, they put bars in the mind
more freedom is destroyed by the taking of drugs than the most despotic totalitarian regime orwell could ever imagine in his worst nightmares. unless, of course, that regime used force addiction as a means of control
stop with the drugs are harmless routine, moron. drug addiction is perhaps the most potent freedom destroying forces in the history of mankind, and some retards like you act derive opinions about the issue completely ignoring a small tiny issue: ADDICTION
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The problem with Stallman is that he is his own worst enemy. He effectively squatted in his MIT office where he worked as an unpaid researcher, the free software song is the most painful thing i've ever heard (and bears a striking resemblance to 'the lion sleeps tonight') and his Saint IGNUcius (youtube if you haven't seen it) is just weird...like not even funny weird, just weird. The fact is the vast majority of people don't want to embrace an ideology championed by someone like that.
No, the problem with Stallman is he's our own worst enemy. His lack of tact and cooth makes pretty much anything he preaches untouchable by the decision makers. If he says he's against ACTA, it's almst guaranteed to pass because no one wants to look like they're siding with a complete nut job.
Are his predictions right? Obviously. But they're also painfully obvious.
I had hope reasonable politicians would vote against ACTA out of principle. But if Stallman makes a big enough stink, people will instead choose to stay away from it altogether as opposed to being seen "as under Stallman's thumb".
He might have good intentions, but NO ONE with any sanity would want him in their office. Listening to him is like listening to a guy wearing his underwear on the outside of his pants try to convince you that there are martians among us.
The EP is actually not directly involved in ACTA negotiations, and has in fact expressed concern over the content of ACTA. The EU delegations that are negotiating the content of ACTA have bracketed text in the agreement that implicitly refers to three strikes laws.
Yes, its the EC thats more directly involved with ACTA, but it wouldn't be the first time the non elected EC had its dictats struck down by the EP, something we'll be seeing more of after Lisbon II. Nonetheless, to say these were contributed by EU countries is very much a stretch.
I think other posters hit the nail on the head when they say its more a representation of lobbying groups than countries.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
There's is no "drugs are harmless routine" coming from me, that's for sure.
YOU are the moron if you cannot distinguish between a society that copes with illegal substances as a matter of routine police work, and one that increasingly imposes martial-law style tactics on its own population (you know, the WAR in the "War On Drugs").
What ACTA represents is a possible "War On Piracy" which could reinforce police state patterns in this and many other countries. That's a road we should just not go down.
would you kindly substantiate? that sounds like hysterical hyperbole to me
you refer to "a society that copes with illegal substances as a matter of routine police work"
ok, that's good
and that's exactly what the hell we are doing!
is that you get wrapped up in the "war on drugs" part? that's verbiage. it's ok if you don't like that verbiage. but you need to talk about actual actions that you dislike if you want to say anything useful. currently you seem to dislike fantasy "martial law style tactics" that don't actually exist
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Nonetheless, to say these were contributed by EU countries is very much a stretch.
I think other posters hit the nail on the head when they say its more a representation of lobbying groups than countries.
You can blame lobbying groups (I do too), but they are not in the room with the negotiating parties. The leaked draft text with country positions (available here) clearly indicates that this Option 2 comes from the EU party, so it's not at all a stretch to say that they've contributed it.
Also, even if that specific provision of ACTA is struck down after the fact by the EP, that's not going to make it disappear from the treaty, where it will still affect non-EU countries. I.e., if the EU proposal for this text makes it in, it's setting a precedent for the rest of the world.
If you're going to blame lobbying groups entirely for everything bad in ACTA, you may as well absolve the US government of all responsibility in this as well, since our negotiating party (the USTR) essentially parrots anything the IP industry says.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
i'm describing a technological change
your current attitude towards me is as if i have personally introduced the compact disc, and i am now forcing people by personal fiat to stop using vinyl, because i said so. that i'm taking away the right of artists too choose vinyl. wtf?
the way you describe the situation is of course ridiculous. cds replaced vinyl because they're obviously better. that's all that is happening here: the internet is replacing labels and distributors. because it's BETTER. there is no function you can describe for a distributor or label that is not done by the internet now, for far cheaper if not completely free. thus: bye bye distributor and label
the labels and the distributors will simply die, because they have been replaced, technology has replaced them, not me. distributors and labels are going away not because i dislike them, but because their existence is now unnecessary. they don't add anything of value anymore. get it?
you act like i hate horses just because i say the automobile will do away with horse transportation. no, i'm merely describing an inevitable technological change. your whole reaction to me is nothing more than shooting the messenger
labels and distributors are a dying breed. because of the internet. not because of some intrusive ideology from some guy you are arguing with on the internet. now deal with it
or continue yelling at me, as if i am the one driving this inevitable technological process. who needs adjusting to reality when you can just shoot the messenger, right? whatever
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As far as asses go, I do believe you have us beat.
I wrote to my MP (both letters and emails), and spoke to his staff on the phone. I was very polite but firm in pointing out the flaws in bill C-32 and suggesting how they could be fixed to make it balanced. I may be an ass but at least I am not a lazy one.
Now tell me, what did you do to?
Sorry, I was OT... I was referring to the size of the ass only.
I don't remember posting pictures online
Yes. You're absolutely right. In fact, most decisions in government are made in such a way that that government isn't perceived as "uncool" by siding with a complete nut job from among either their own population or the rest of the 6 billion people.
Uhuh.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
I, for one, will welcome anything after those fascism disguised as socialism and capitalism things.
i guess its easier to shoot the messenger than deal with reality
all i see is bunch of denial in your words above. at some point in your future, maybe you will realize all i am doing is describing something that's already happening, not advocating for something ideologically that we should do. there's nothing for me to enforce, or advocate for. the avalanche is already in the process of rolling down the hill. nothing you say or do will stop it
i need say no more. this whole thread is an act of intellectual charity on my part for someone who can't see what is happening. what i am describing is merely what is ALREADY HAPPENING, and it is your job to adapt, or die. currently, you seem to be choosing obsolescence. fine, what do i care?
adios, luddite. welcome to the dustbin of history
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
and i think you will find that a majority of americans don't either
if any of the issues you described above were put to vote (as the provisions actually exists, not as described with your trumped up hyperbolic propagandistic terminology), you will have to accept the results, unless it is you wish to impose your will against the desires of majority, hypocrite?
for example: more cameras in housing projects. you might be shocked to find that this is enthusiastically supported by housing project residents. so what are you supposed to about the fact that what you want clashes with what the people want?
at this point, it is revealed as to whether or not you are true person of the people, or just another asshole with a narrow, stunted interpretation of reality who wishes to impose their will against our wishes
i don't see a search for justice in your words. i see a shrill propagandized fool who doesn't understand what is really going on in the world. mainly, that people are fed up with crime. talk to their concerns about crime (or are criminals illusionary? not a problem?) and then you get your way
for example, describe your problems above to the average resident of a brazilian favela, or your average resident of a south african slum, and i think their reaction would be enthusiasm, and a desire that their government actually care about their safety as much as they do in the usa
the amount of criminals in prison is seen as some horrid american oddity? but your average resident of bangladesh or the philippines or heck, certain areas outside paris or london, who see the corruption and petty crime they are immersed in daily, would not react with joy that their prisons are so small in comparison, but that some of this american seriousness towards crime come their way too
you see prisoners behind bars, but you do not see that criminality is real, and must be fought, or it is good people who are imprisoned, in their own neighborhoods, by criminals
in the 1980s, nyc was a war zone of crime. seriously vile criminals were getting let out on technicalities, the justice system was broken. now, new york city is one of the safest places on earth. real estate is soaring. and it was all due to a get tough approach to crime. in a way, by copying the serious attitudes of places like singapore. also, with high real estate rates. people want to live in singapore and new york city... because they are SAFE
i would not trade these things for cities chock a blcok with criminals due to your concern which seems more focused on the rights of people who transgress against others, rather than on actual good law abiding citizens
you deal with crime in your ideolgoy first. or your ideology will never have traction in this world. because crime is real, and all of your concerns are secondary. deal with it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it