Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman Calls for Amazon Boycott
Ian Lance Taylor writes "Linux Today is reporting that Richard Stallman is calling for a boycott of Amazon because they are suing based on a software patent." RMS also says, "Amazon is not alone at fault in what is happening. The US Patent Office is to blame for having very low
standards, and US courts are to blame for endorsing them."
I encourage everyone to vote with their dollar for the business that offends the least. It isn't difficult.
With Amazon, if you buy from them and select "Do not spam me", they will anyway. I boycotted them when they started sending me 'important information'.
So then I use Barnes&Noble, where I again clicked "Do not spam me". They recently sent me a 'holiday gift' for $5. So now I don't use BN. Merry Christmas.
I'm using FatBrain now, hopefully they won't screw up either.
Your dollar holds real power in the eyes of the suits. Use it, and if you convince a few people to join you, you lend your messages (email comments usually) real power.
And it's a no-brain and no-effort task with today's competition.
-tpr
You make a number of good points, but I guess I disagree with you in principle. You're right, we probably won't have a significant effect on Amazon's bottom line. Large as we joke about the /. effect being, Amazon's client base dwarfs us. I don't think we should ignore the potential PR effect this could have, but I'm not counting on that, either.
I am proud, however, to say that I do things not because I think I will be in the majority, or because I think I will always win, but because I think they are right. I have personally been boycotting Amazon from the moment I heard about this. I'm just one man, and I'm sure Amazon doesn't even miss me, but none of that will make me change my mind. I believe what they are doing is wrong, and I am doing my part to make sure they know that.
Ben Franklin said "They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." The words may not fit exactly, but I think the sentiment is right.
--
Ian Peters
itp at gnu dot org
Not ten minutes into the article's posting and I already see Stallman bashers calling the man crazy and/or outdated and/or stubborn for his Free Software crusade and actions.
Rather than rehash the old pro-Stallman arguments, which are basically naming his many accomplishments without justifying his beliefs, I'm going to pose his beliefs in the form of an ethical dilemma: Would you act differently than Stallman, given this dilemma?
Stallman acts on the belief that it is morally wrong to hold back information that was freely given to you. Namely, no idea is formed in a vacuum. Consciously, subconsciously, intentionally, unintentionally, the society around you bombards you with ideas to draw upon. Software engineers, for example, draw upon the ideas of friends, families, former educators, and in some cases mathematical concepts that have been in the idea pot since the Ancient Greeks.
It's patently (no pun intended) absurd to consider paying royalties to the Archimedes estate -- the idea just wouldn't hold water. (pun quite intended)
In other words, ideas aren't something which we have 100% control over. You can't will a good idea. Focus groups have proven this. You can will money and time into makeing a better environment for ideas to hit you, but the key here is that ideas come from the world around you.
If Microsoft were to acknowledge this, they would either have to pay The World a hefty royalty, or sue The World for patent infringement. And if we're all in jail, who will buy Microsoft products?
To all the Stallman bashers out there, consider this: do you consider your ideas to be truly, 100% yours? Every idea anyone has ever had has a basis either in another idea, or a social concept, or a form evident in nature. Now let's narrow the field down from the abstract of 'ideas' to 'software'. Most software performs a certain goal. The 'idea overlap' here is much greater in the world of software, because of common goals et al. It's not surprising that the originality of software comes not from the mind of the original but the sharing of information among many -- both because there are no truly original ideas and because the sharing is an extension of the above. That's why Open Source works. You hear something, you see something, and blend it in together with another random idea that hits you, and voila, instant 'idea'. Aren't you glad you don't have to pay royalties to everyone who helped you with the idea?
In economic terms, you can put it thusly: There is a scarcity of everything except desires. I guess you can consider an idea as a form of desire, namely a desire to make a thought tangible. That's great, thoughts are free and infinite, because ideas are born of ideas and interact with each other to make more ideas. Materials, however, are scarce. Here, then, is Stallman's consolation to the 'free idea' manifesto: ideas are free because they are infinite, and not sprung of one source; but implementations may be sold and owned by virtue of the fact that they are scarce.
In other words, you can't 'patent' selling CD's of Linux on it as original, because others do it or have the capability to do it. You can, however, charge money because not everyone can afford a CD press machine, or the time to burn all those CD's: that's scarcity in action.
But do the Stallman bashers feel ethically alright with charging money or defending ownership of something free and unlimited that comes not from one person, but from the interactions of an infinite number of outside and internal stimuli?
I'm rambling, so I better quit. Personally, I'm playing Devil's advocate; I feel you should be able to patent software *implementations* (i.e, actual binary form) because the TIME spent in R&D and the TIME spent coding is in itself scarce. But, the idea of software, i.e, specifications for software, or protocol types, or source, patenting compression algorithms etc, is free and the result of other ideas in an educational chain that spans the ages, and to sever the chain and claim it all came from your own mindspring is both hubris and ethically questionable.
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
I have already posted this in an other thread, but it's deeply netsted, Maybe it will go unoticed, so I dare to repost it.
Here is the trick just search for the books you want to buy in Amazon (I admit they they a damn nice service, and readers review) pick up the ISBN and then go buy search for the best deal in www.bestbookbuys.com with the ISBN. You will see that Amazon are far from beeing the best deal.
Don't understimate our effect. If we can demonstrate the need for this boycott clearly and concisely we can have a very large effect. You have to understand who I mean by "we".
I don't just mean slashdot, I mean a huge, loose, globally connected network of people and groups. Slashdot is an important node in this network, a clearing house which reaches thousands of people. Many of those thousands of people hear about interesting things on Slashdot and turn around and tell their friends about it--with just one level of indirection the number of people involved becomes absolutely enormous.
This is how organizing social action on the Internet works. It's not some single website that co-ordinates action against some adversary; nor is it even a single person. Richard Stallman may start the ball rolling, but MANY people care about the abuse of the patent system.
Protest actions organized over the net have the potential to grow exponentially, and reach a huge number of people in a short amount of time. The effect of such an action has been described by the Rand Corporation as an "overwhelming pulse" or a "swarm attack" on the target. A huge number of loosely connected people, groups, organizations, politicians, mailing lists, individuals, etc., all descend on the target all at once, overwhelming it with a short, massive burst of action.
So Slashdot by itself may not be able to succeed in pressuring Amazon--but we can play an important role in generating a huge internet-style swarm all over these morons, overwhelming them before they really figure out what's going on.
Read it on slashdot, then tell your friends, families, co-workers, etc.
Hierarchies and business have not yet really figured out an effective way to respond to this kind of action.
From a commentary by Tim Phillips on the unconstitionality of the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act. This commentary, and the entire site at http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/ are well worth reading.
Jefferson did not oppose patents and copyrights altogether, but viewed them as a means to provide incentive to invent such that society benefits. It seems that recent political rhetoric has leaned the other way, viewing intellectual property protection as the natural right of the corporate author rather than a temporary priviledge bestowed by society. This is particularily true in copyright law where at the current pace of copyright extension seems designed to prevent Mickey Mouse from ever entering the public domain.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"