If you define wanting to defend the ability of people to freely share as "ideological", then sure. But he is driven by extremely strong principles that he's unwilling to compromise on, as distinct from his being driven by slavish adherence to some doctrine, which is the suggestion that clearly comes through in your post.
I have never met Stallman and so cannot comment on the assertion that he's somehow like a crazy person. But this is irrelevant in any case. His ideas are relevant. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not Stallman is as crazy as Hunter S. Thompson on a binge or is the epitome of 'normal'--his arguments are either sound or not.
His views on copyright are clearly consistent with his views on software. While the addition of anti-DRM principles to the GPL 3 is debatable and perhaps ill-advised, it's also clear that patents and DRM could be used to circumvent the intent of the GPL while legally following it, and Stallman is attempting to address this.
Whether or not the views on any of this are 'mainstream' is also fairly irrelevant, and further is rather difficult to prove. The 'mainstream' appears simply uninterested in the subject, rather than actively supporting the status quo or the move towards ever-greater restrictions. Stallman would definitely support the move back towards the original constitutional limited copyrights, so I'm not sure why you contrast this view with his view. Yes, he wants the freedom for anyone to share any published work, and yes, this may effectively mean 'distribution', but it's certainly not easy to find a reasonable balance between the original conception of copyright, the technological advances that have radically altered the landscape, and the fact that limiting distribution effectively means limiting sharing (and handing all kinds of power to the big copyright holders). Stallman's ideas in reaction to those tensions are consistent with his views, and that they are perceived as 'radical' indicates how ridiculous the status quo is and the degree to which the parties with vested interests in strong anti-sharing mesaures have managed to control discourse on the subject.
Stallman may in fact be wrong about DRM and the GPL (although I'm not convinced of this) and wrong in his push for absolute right of distribution of copyrighted works (I'm not convinced of this either), but in neither area has he abandoned or altered his principles, nor is either argument inconsistent with his previous expressions of those principles. Accordingly, I have no idea where your claims that he's "lost his sense of perspective and his grasp on reality" are coming from--unless you have always disagreed with the principles he's espoused and are using ad hominem attacks to make them seem untenable due to the fact that they're promoted by 'a crazy person'.
Obviously, there are certainly groups who wish 'you' to be paid less, where 'you' constitutes the average worker. I say 'obviously' because companies make money by selling whatever for more than it cost them to produce whatever. Labor costs are significant, and people who wish to run companies at maximal profit levels (i.e. people who run companies) will naturally seek to lower them. This is hardly controversial. Put groups of people who runs companies together, and they will naturally try to band together to achieve their goals (this shouldn't be controversial either). Therefore there is a class of people (quite powerful people) who do want 'you' to be paid less. This is not malice--it's not like they have something against "you". This is simply their pursuit of their economic interest. It would appear that RMS understands this, and that doesn't look 'silly' to me.
As for what 'free trade' and 'global economy' actually mean, that's also up for debate. I doubt that RMS would argue against either as pure concepts, but a particular implementation of them, the one that is being applied at the moment, is definitely objectionable on many fronts. Including worker wages. When you deride wages that are "artificially propped up", do you mean that there should be no lower limit on wages whatsoever? What about benefits (presumably no lower limit on benefits either, as that's really a form of pay)? If so, you must understand that these are not universally popular views, although they are held by particular (very powerful) interests. Therefore, again, your claims that RMS is 'blind' or 'silly' reflect not merely a particular bias on your part but an assumption that this bias is near-universal (or that contrasting views aren't worth consideration).
If you're actually interested in this stuff, and a view of 'free trade' / 'free markets' / 'globalization' that's different from the sources you're apparently relying on, try (for example) Sharon Beder's Power Play, which covers the history of 'deregulation' of electricity markets. It doesn't address wage pressure directly, but definitely gives an insight into the kinds of pressures that RMS is referring to--and not naively, or blindly, either.
Are you nuts? His 'silliness' far exceeds his accomplishments? RMS contributed (and still contribuetes) in absolutely critical ways to the rise of free software. Contributing the idea of the GPL on its own would outweigh an incredibly vast silliness.
That's not even addressing the idea that he's 'silly' when he's simply holding to his principles strictly--principles that are clearly admirable.
Finally, your last sentence is ridiculous. I have RTFA and no "shallow" political beliefs of his stick out so far that there's no need to even cite what they are. Your lack of any support for that statement, betraying an apparent assumption that everyone who isn't 'silly' will agree with you, makes it look like your own political beliefs are rather lacking in depth.
I'm usually in agreement with qualms about the language used around these issues. For example, "intellectual property", "piracy", and "copy protection" are all misleading and slanted, and shouldn't be used. However, "Digital Rights Management" seems to be perfectly accurate - it allows the movie companies et al. to manage your rights, digitally.
"Digital Rights Management" isn't really newspeak. It does exactly what it says: it allows the big media/entertainment (and now computing) companies to manage your rights, digitally.
I'm pretty sure it's a hoax. The other stories (the one on Game Theory, for example) are too ridiculous to be real, and apparently there is no Fellowship University. However, it appears that the perpetrators have managed to fool the hosting service (which is 'Christian'). In addition, the authors link to a number of actual Christian sites, but that's just a way of making it more credible. I wouldn't be surprised if this were another spoof by the people who did Landover Baptist.
Jabber works fine with AIM for me (I run my own server). Are you running your own server or are you connecting to one of the large public servers? If the latter, try to find a smaller one to use; AOL don't block Jabber clients per se, they block the larger Jabber servers.
I have some problems with ICQ, but I suspect I could fix those if I wanted to put in the effort (another poster commented that ICQv7 support is hard to set up but works fine after that). Yahoo! IM works fine, and MSNIM is good apart from not showing me as online to other MSNIM users (even though we can exchange messages). Again, I'm sure that I could fix that if I really wanted to.
Perhaps interoperability isn't Jabber's main function, but it's a major attraction for most people and a great way to make people aware of the program. And it works well if you take the time to work on it. The only other alternative for Windows that I know of is Trillian, which isn't free software.
Lessig clearly states in the article that a commons can be regulated:
Neutral or equal restrictions may apply to it (an entrance fee to a park, for example) but not the restrictions of an owner. A commons, in this sense, leaves its resources "free."
One of his key points relates to the difference between 'neutral' and 'ownership' restrictions. (Since you appear to have missed it the first time, that's in the first paragraph under the "The Neutral Zone" heading)
So at least in its current form, your first point goes bye-bye.
Your second point is disingenuous... the US is the biggest proponent of the 'IP protection' pushed by GATT and TRIPS. US pressure definitely influenced the treaties in question, so it's entirely fair to call those patent laws a 'US creation'. This is particularly obvious when you note that the EU, whose constituent countries are signatories to TRIPS and to the GATT treaties, have different patent laws. (As was discussed in the article...)
'No country was forced to sign either document' - but signing those treaties is rather important to being able to participate in international trade with the industrial world, so there's an awful lot of pressure to sign. Your second point doesn't stand up either.
I don't like to be bitchy, but I strongly suggest that before you go out and accuse someone else of an 'unresearched view of the world', you should do some research of your own, and at the very least read carefully the article which you are commenting on.
Perhaps this is futile, but I felt it might be a good idea to write back to Feistein with a rebuttal. And perhaps get other people who haven't written to her to write to her and _include_ the rebuttal in their letter to point out that they've already heard those arguments. Here's a first draft of a response; I'd love to get comments on how to make it more effective (I know it's weak in places). Specifically, references/quotes from good other material (Lessig essays, for example) would be helpful. What I'm aiming to achieve is a calm and rational response that cannot be dismissed as zealotry but doesn't lack punch (yes, I know that some of the first draft doesn't reach that standard - that's why I want suggestions!)
--
I have always believed that the protection of intellectual
property rights is as important as the protection of any other
property right.
Perhaps it is as important; however, there are fundamental differences between "intellectual property" and other property. The primary one is that "intellectual property" can be possessed by many people simultaneously without difficulty or conflict (except in certain specific circumstances) whereas the same cannot be said for physical property. This difference means that analogies between "intellectual property" and physical property are generally misleading and unhelpful--in this instance, your statement is evidently meant to impress upon voters that strengthening copyright law is somehow similar to strengthening laws that protect a home from burglars. This is disingenuous, and I hope that you do, in fact, understand the difference.
Moreover, the protection of intellectual property is vital to a flourishing economy--particularly in California.
This is probably true. It is necessary to ensure that the creators of artistic and intellectual works are fairly compensated for their work. The key word, however, is 'fair'. Obviously their compensation, and any laws enacted to protect it, must co-exist well with the free and open exchange of ideas, something also vital to a flourishing economy--particularly in California, which has such a rich history of collaborative development (see BSD Unix as one example; there are many more).
America's music, movie, and software industries are second to
none, and we export far more intellectual property than we import.
This is misleading, and simply cannot be held to be true. This is because you are falling into the mistake of equating "intellectual property" with artistic works put up for sale. In fact, under current law, all ideas, texts, images, tunes, etc. are "intellectual property", even if they're public domain. This letter, for example, is under my copyright by virtue of my writing it. That makes it intellectual property. The same goes for almost any form of communication. So your above statement claims that the US communicates to the rest of the world more ideas than it receives. This may sound right, but if you think about it you should see that there is no ways to quantify ideas and therefore no way to measure them, and therefore no way to test your assertion exists.
This is good for employment, and good for consumers.
That strong "intellectual property" protection is good for consumers is difficult to assert. After all, stronger consumer rights (for example, the right to play their own legally--purchased DVDs on whatever platform they choose, and the right to backup said DVDs) are also good for consumers. The current balance is tilted very far in favor of the large copyright holders, such as the music and movie industries. A fairer balance would be better for the consumer, and for America in general. As for the employment issue, this is a red herring, perhaps to prepare future claims that we have to somehow 'choose between jobs and consumer rights' in the same way that we somehow have to 'choose between jobs and environmental protection' when the profits of timber companies are threatened.
Without strong copyright protections, the incentive to
innovate would be diminished.
Perhaps. As I stated above, there is a need to ensure that creators and innovators are fairly rewarded for their work. However, this incentive, again, must be balanced with the rights of others. Also, innovators and creators are not driven merely by economic incentives. Many great artists and musicians created for the love of the work, not out of profit motive. And this is still true today, even in the most modern areas--perhaps you've heard of Linux, an operating system created entirely by volunteers, that now rivals Microsoft's products in number of important categories?
In fact, this issue was so important
to the Founding Fathers that the ability of Congress to protect
copyrights is actually written into our Constitution itself.
True. But this is also disingenuous. The Founding Fathers did, after all, envision a copyright time limit of 14-28 years, and did not foresee the ridiculously long copyright terms we have today. These are clearly in place to protect the profits of major corporations such as Disney rather than to encourage innovation/creation.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was Congress'
attempt to address the issue of copyright protection in a new,
digital age.
As such, it is terribly flawed, kowtowing to corporate interests and upsetting the balance of consumer rights versus "intellectual property" rights. It gives the copyright holders more power than ever before, cripples free speech in regard to areas like encryption technology, and allows the copyright holders to make an 'end run' around fair use rights.
As new technologies have developed over the past few
years, it has become increasingly difficult to protect intellectual
property from illegal copying and distribution.
True. It has also been increasingly difficult for the older profit models to remain in place in the face of this new technology. And so the owners of those models turn to legalistic efforts like the DMCA to protect themselves--not from 'piracy' but more often from the deleterious effects of being outmoded.
It is a delicate
balance, to be sure--nobody wants to restrict the development of
new and exciting technologies, but we must work to prevent the
creation of perfect, digital copies of copyrighted works which can
be illegally distributed throughout the world.
There's an easy way to do that--make the distribution of copyrighted works legal rather than illegal. This is not a facetious argument. "Illegal distribution" is by definition a legal construct. While working to change the laws, we should look at all of them and ensure they are reasonable--not simply take some of them as sacred and then warp the others to suit those.
Please be assured that I understand your concerns, and I will keep your views in mind.
I am not entirely convinced that you do understand my views, simply because I'm not sure that you understand all of the technological ramifications of the DMCA. I would, however, be entirely willing to answer any questions on them that you may have, and I invite your response.
WTO-style protests may be counter-productive, but peaceful, organized, and non-violent protest is one of the most effective ways of getting the public to focus on a given issue, and history is full of examples.
The WTO protests _were_ peaceful, organized and non-violent. The exceptions in Seattle involved only a) property damage (not peaceful but it's also debatable to call it 'violence') and b) violent police action. And if I recall correctly, a) only followed b), and a) was done by a very, very small minority of the protesters (but, for some reason, was picked up and covered heavily by the media...)
You are correct in principle about peaceful protests, but do not slander the anti-WTO protesters by assuming that they did not intend peaceful protest, and also think about how difficult it is to maintain peaceful, organized protest after being tear-gassed and baton charged (and worse, in fact; some of the video footage shows pretty horrific police violence) by police.
You're right, it is really about control than anything else. I don't think that it's a result of the weak egos involved, or that it's a holdover from early days of factory business - it's simply part of the system. The fear is that treating people with respect and giving them freedom will allow them to work well together - without needing managers. And the higher-ups at the company don't take the step of eliminating managers because they're afraid that productive, creative, autonomous groups of workers will realize that they can make more money by striking out on their own (or bargaining for more pay).
Slashdot Mirror
"driven by ideological goals"
If you define wanting to defend the ability of people to freely share as "ideological", then sure. But he is driven by extremely strong principles that he's unwilling to compromise on, as distinct from his being driven by slavish adherence to some doctrine, which is the suggestion that clearly comes through in your post.
I have never met Stallman and so cannot comment on the assertion that he's somehow like a crazy person. But this is irrelevant in any case. His ideas are relevant. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not Stallman is as crazy as Hunter S. Thompson on a binge or is the epitome of 'normal'--his arguments are either sound or not.
His views on copyright are clearly consistent with his views on software. While the addition of anti-DRM principles to the GPL 3 is debatable and perhaps ill-advised, it's also clear that patents and DRM could be used to circumvent the intent of the GPL while legally following it, and Stallman is attempting to address this.
Whether or not the views on any of this are 'mainstream' is also fairly irrelevant, and further is rather difficult to prove. The 'mainstream' appears simply uninterested in the subject, rather than actively supporting the status quo or the move towards ever-greater restrictions. Stallman would definitely support the move back towards the original constitutional limited copyrights, so I'm not sure why you contrast this view with his view. Yes, he wants the freedom for anyone to share any published work, and yes, this may effectively mean 'distribution', but it's certainly not easy to find a reasonable balance between the original conception of copyright, the technological advances that have radically altered the landscape, and the fact that limiting distribution effectively means limiting sharing (and handing all kinds of power to the big copyright holders). Stallman's ideas in reaction to those tensions are consistent with his views, and that they are perceived as 'radical' indicates how ridiculous the status quo is and the degree to which the parties with vested interests in strong anti-sharing mesaures have managed to control discourse on the subject.
Stallman may in fact be wrong about DRM and the GPL (although I'm not convinced of this) and wrong in his push for absolute right of distribution of copyrighted works (I'm not convinced of this either), but in neither area has he abandoned or altered his principles, nor is either argument inconsistent with his previous expressions of those principles. Accordingly, I have no idea where your claims that he's "lost his sense of perspective and his grasp on reality" are coming from--unless you have always disagreed with the principles he's espoused and are using ad hominem attacks to make them seem untenable due to the fact that they're promoted by 'a crazy person'.
Obviously, there are certainly groups who wish 'you' to be paid less, where 'you' constitutes the average worker. I say 'obviously' because companies make money by selling whatever for more than it cost them to produce whatever. Labor costs are significant, and people who wish to run companies at maximal profit levels (i.e. people who run companies) will naturally seek to lower them. This is hardly controversial. Put groups of people who runs companies together, and they will naturally try to band together to achieve their goals (this shouldn't be controversial either). Therefore there is a class of people (quite powerful people) who do want 'you' to be paid less. This is not malice--it's not like they have something against "you". This is simply their pursuit of their economic interest. It would appear that RMS understands this, and that doesn't look 'silly' to me.
As for what 'free trade' and 'global economy' actually mean, that's also up for debate. I doubt that RMS would argue against either as pure concepts, but a particular implementation of them, the one that is being applied at the moment, is definitely objectionable on many fronts. Including worker wages. When you deride wages that are "artificially propped up", do you mean that there should be no lower limit on wages whatsoever? What about benefits (presumably no lower limit on benefits either, as that's really a form of pay)? If so, you must understand that these are not universally popular views, although they are held by particular (very powerful) interests. Therefore, again, your claims that RMS is 'blind' or 'silly' reflect not merely a particular bias on your part but an assumption that this bias is near-universal (or that contrasting views aren't worth consideration).
If you're actually interested in this stuff, and a view of 'free trade' / 'free markets' / 'globalization' that's different from the sources you're apparently relying on, try (for example) Sharon Beder's Power Play , which covers the history of 'deregulation' of electricity markets. It doesn't address wage pressure directly, but definitely gives an insight into the kinds of pressures that RMS is referring to--and not naively, or blindly, either.
Are you nuts? His 'silliness' far exceeds his accomplishments? RMS contributed (and still contribuetes) in absolutely critical ways to the rise of free software. Contributing the idea of the GPL on its own would outweigh an incredibly vast silliness.
That's not even addressing the idea that he's 'silly' when he's simply holding to his principles strictly--principles that are clearly admirable.
Finally, your last sentence is ridiculous. I have RTFA and no "shallow" political beliefs of his stick out so far that there's no need to even cite what they are. Your lack of any support for that statement, betraying an apparent assumption that everyone who isn't 'silly' will agree with you, makes it look like your own political beliefs are rather lacking in depth.
I'm usually in agreement with qualms about the language used around these issues. For example, "intellectual property", "piracy", and "copy protection" are all misleading and slanted, and shouldn't be used. However, "Digital Rights Management" seems to be perfectly accurate - it allows the movie companies et al. to manage your rights, digitally.
"Digital Rights Management" isn't really newspeak. It does exactly what it says: it allows the big media/entertainment (and now computing) companies to manage your rights, digitally.
I'm pretty sure it's a hoax. The other stories (the one on Game Theory, for example) are too ridiculous to be real, and apparently there is no Fellowship University. However, it appears that the perpetrators have managed to fool the hosting service (which is 'Christian'). In addition, the authors link to a number of actual Christian sites, but that's just a way of making it more credible. I wouldn't be surprised if this were another spoof by the people who did Landover Baptist.
Jabber works fine with AIM for me (I run my own server). Are you running your own server or are you connecting to one of the large public servers? If the latter, try to find a smaller one to use; AOL don't block Jabber clients per se, they block the larger Jabber servers.
I have some problems with ICQ, but I suspect I could fix those if I wanted to put in the effort (another poster commented that ICQv7 support is hard to set up but works fine after that). Yahoo! IM works fine, and MSNIM is good apart from not showing me as online to other MSNIM users (even though we can exchange messages). Again, I'm sure that I could fix that if I really wanted to.
Perhaps interoperability isn't Jabber's main function, but it's a major attraction for most people and a great way to make people aware of the program. And it works well if you take the time to work on it. The only other alternative for Windows that I know of is Trillian, which isn't free software.
One of his key points relates to the difference between 'neutral' and 'ownership' restrictions. (Since you appear to have missed it the first time, that's in the first paragraph under the "The Neutral Zone" heading)
So at least in its current form, your first point goes bye-bye.
Your second point is disingenuous... the US is the biggest proponent of the 'IP protection' pushed by GATT and TRIPS. US pressure definitely influenced the treaties in question, so it's entirely fair to call those patent laws a 'US creation'. This is particularly obvious when you note that the EU, whose constituent countries are signatories to TRIPS and to the GATT treaties, have different patent laws. (As was discussed in the article...)
'No country was forced to sign either document' - but signing those treaties is rather important to being able to participate in international trade with the industrial world, so there's an awful lot of pressure to sign. Your second point doesn't stand up either.
I don't like to be bitchy, but I strongly suggest that before you go out and accuse someone else of an 'unresearched view of the world', you should do some research of your own, and at the very least read carefully the article which you are commenting on.
Perhaps this is futile, but I felt it might be a good idea to write back to Feistein with a rebuttal. And perhaps get other people who haven't written to her to write to her and _include_ the rebuttal in their letter to point out that they've already heard those arguments. Here's a first draft of a response; I'd love to get comments on how to make it more effective (I know it's weak in places). Specifically, references/quotes from good other material (Lessig essays, for example) would be helpful. What I'm aiming to achieve is a calm and rational response that cannot be dismissed as zealotry but doesn't lack punch (yes, I know that some of the first draft doesn't reach that standard - that's why I want suggestions!)
--I have always believed that the protection of intellectual property rights is as important as the protection of any other property right.
Perhaps it is as important; however, there are fundamental differences between "intellectual property" and other property. The primary one is that "intellectual property" can be possessed by many people simultaneously without difficulty or conflict (except in certain specific circumstances) whereas the same cannot be said for physical property. This difference means that analogies between "intellectual property" and physical property are generally misleading and unhelpful--in this instance, your statement is evidently meant to impress upon voters that strengthening copyright law is somehow similar to strengthening laws that protect a home from burglars. This is disingenuous, and I hope that you do, in fact, understand the difference.
Moreover, the protection of intellectual property is vital to a flourishing economy--particularly in California.
This is probably true. It is necessary to ensure that the creators of artistic and intellectual works are fairly compensated for their work. The key word, however, is 'fair'. Obviously their compensation, and any laws enacted to protect it, must co-exist well with the free and open exchange of ideas, something also vital to a flourishing economy--particularly in California, which has such a rich history of collaborative development (see BSD Unix as one example; there are many more).
America's music, movie, and software industries are second to none, and we export far more intellectual property than we import.
This is misleading, and simply cannot be held to be true. This is because you are falling into the mistake of equating "intellectual property" with artistic works put up for sale. In fact, under current law, all ideas, texts, images, tunes, etc. are "intellectual property", even if they're public domain. This letter, for example, is under my copyright by virtue of my writing it. That makes it intellectual property. The same goes for almost any form of communication. So your above statement claims that the US communicates to the rest of the world more ideas than it receives. This may sound right, but if you think about it you should see that there is no ways to quantify ideas and therefore no way to measure them, and therefore no way to test your assertion exists.
This is good for employment, and good for consumers.
That strong "intellectual property" protection is good for consumers is difficult to assert. After all, stronger consumer rights (for example, the right to play their own legally--purchased DVDs on whatever platform they choose, and the right to backup said DVDs) are also good for consumers. The current balance is tilted very far in favor of the large copyright holders, such as the music and movie industries. A fairer balance would be better for the consumer, and for America in general. As for the employment issue, this is a red herring, perhaps to prepare future claims that we have to somehow 'choose between jobs and consumer rights' in the same way that we somehow have to 'choose between jobs and environmental protection' when the profits of timber companies are threatened.
Without strong copyright protections, the incentive to innovate would be diminished.
Perhaps. As I stated above, there is a need to ensure that creators and innovators are fairly rewarded for their work. However, this incentive, again, must be balanced with the rights of others. Also, innovators and creators are not driven merely by economic incentives. Many great artists and musicians created for the love of the work, not out of profit motive. And this is still true today, even in the most modern areas--perhaps you've heard of Linux, an operating system created entirely by volunteers, that now rivals Microsoft's products in number of important categories?
In fact, this issue was so important to the Founding Fathers that the ability of Congress to protect copyrights is actually written into our Constitution itself.
True. But this is also disingenuous. The Founding Fathers did, after all, envision a copyright time limit of 14-28 years, and did not foresee the ridiculously long copyright terms we have today. These are clearly in place to protect the profits of major corporations such as Disney rather than to encourage innovation/creation.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was Congress' attempt to address the issue of copyright protection in a new, digital age.As such, it is terribly flawed, kowtowing to corporate interests and upsetting the balance of consumer rights versus "intellectual property" rights. It gives the copyright holders more power than ever before, cripples free speech in regard to areas like encryption technology, and allows the copyright holders to make an 'end run' around fair use rights.
As new technologies have developed over the past few years, it has become increasingly difficult to protect intellectual property from illegal copying and distribution.
True. It has also been increasingly difficult for the older profit models to remain in place in the face of this new technology. And so the owners of those models turn to legalistic efforts like the DMCA to protect themselves--not from 'piracy' but more often from the deleterious effects of being outmoded.
It is a delicate balance, to be sure--nobody wants to restrict the development of new and exciting technologies, but we must work to prevent the creation of perfect, digital copies of copyrighted works which can be illegally distributed throughout the world.
There's an easy way to do that--make the distribution of copyrighted works legal rather than illegal. This is not a facetious argument. "Illegal distribution" is by definition a legal construct. While working to change the laws, we should look at all of them and ensure they are reasonable--not simply take some of them as sacred and then warp the others to suit those.
Please be assured that I understand your concerns, and I will keep your views in mind.
I am not entirely convinced that you do understand my views, simply because I'm not sure that you understand all of the technological ramifications of the DMCA. I would, however, be entirely willing to answer any questions on them that you may have, and I invite your response.
Yours, etc.
--WTO-style protests may be counter-productive, but peaceful, organized, and non-violent protest is one of the most effective ways of getting the public to focus on a given issue, and history is full of examples.
The WTO protests _were_ peaceful, organized and non-violent. The exceptions in Seattle involved only a) property damage (not peaceful but it's also debatable to call it 'violence') and b) violent police action. And if I recall correctly, a) only followed b), and a) was done by a very, very small minority of the protesters (but, for some reason, was picked up and covered heavily by the media...)
You are correct in principle about peaceful protests, but do not slander the anti-WTO protesters by assuming that they did not intend peaceful protest, and also think about how difficult it is to maintain peaceful, organized protest after being tear-gassed and baton charged (and worse, in fact; some of the video footage shows pretty horrific police violence) by police.
You're right, it is really about control than anything else. I don't think that it's a result of the weak egos involved, or that it's a holdover from early days of factory business - it's simply part of the system. The fear is that treating people with respect and giving them freedom will allow them to work well together - without needing managers. And the higher-ups at the company don't take the step of eliminating managers because they're afraid that productive, creative, autonomous groups of workers will realize that they can make more money by striking out on their own (or bargaining for more pay).