DRM is about preserving the rights of content creators. Period.
If you assume that DRM's goal is to use technology to enforce copyright law, it's still about removing options from citizens. A key element of copyright law is removing options from citizens. The goal is to encourage the creation of creative works, but the actual action is to remove options. I no longer have the option to distribute copies of other people's works. In the absence of copyright law, I would still have the option. (Mind you, this restriction isn't necessarily bad. I also lack the (legal) option to deceive other people in financial matters, to take money from someone by force, or knowingly put other people in danger. I'm perfectly fine with society removing options for the larger good. I support copyright for this reason.) DRM fundamentally removes options. The options it removes may be illegal, but they do remain options.
However, let's revisit the assumption that DRM is tied to copyright. DRM certainly can have a place in situations where copyright is irrelevant. As an employee, my ability to redistribute certain internal documents may be limited by an NDA or other employement agreement (effectively protecting the document with trade secret law instead of copyright). DRM technology might be employed to ensure that I obey the agreement. If I were to get a job requiring security clearance, DRM might work to ensure that the electronic documents I handled remained secret or top secret. The goal is explicitly to remove options (illegal options, but still options).
All of this is why I chose "options" instead of "rights" or "fair use".
Put it this way: if DRM existed that preserved your fair-use rights while taking away your non-right to mass distribute copyrighted material, they would fine with it.
Clearly untrue. Certainly some publishers would be fine with it. Perhaps even most publishers would be fine with such a system. But at least a handful are interested in using DRM to try and restrict fair use to increase profits. Why are various copy restriction flags being enabled on public domain works (here's one reference)? When you're crafting law or code, you have to consider those who will abuse the spirit of the law/code while strictly following the letter of the law/code. Why is the movie industry fighting to ensure that when Casablanca enters the public domain (2037ish), I'll be allowed to copy the movie, but not allowed the tools necessary to make that copy?
DRM is about taking options away from users. This is about providing users with a new option: a strong audit trail. You can make a copy of the image using non-auditing software, but that copy of the image would lose it's "seal of approval." The original would remain valid. The end result: cops can make any copies and image manipulations they want that may help them solve a case. But in court they'll only be able to present images with the valid audit trail, ensuring that the image was never mishandled and clearly showing what manipulations were done to it. It sounds like a great idea and I strongly support this option for users. (I am suspicious that it may not be possible... but I'm happy to let people try.)
One approach that falls into the category of "why can't we all just get along", is this./. is composed of many technical, knowledgeable people (well one or two and then everyone else;), why don't we as the open source community do the unthinkable, and come up with a os technology to help the MPAA/RIAA attain their goal of making their content harder to illegally copy, but yet still allows fair use use. We regularly bash their attempts at doing this because they would rather err on the side of making the thing totally uncopyable, so why not pitch in and help to try to achieve a mutally agreeable (well as much as possible) solution.
Why not? Because an open source, "secure" system that prevents end user illegal copying is impossible. If the system is capable of showing me a movie or book, I can modify it to keep a copy that I can share, perhaps illegally. This is even true of closed source systems, but the proprietary nature of such systems makes it harder. You can provide a level of protection by moving part of the system into hardware, at which point it ceases to be open source. Ultimately, how can you stop me from changing the line display_movie_frame_to_screen() to write_movie_frame_to_gnutella_directory()? If you can stop me (or at least make it very difficult), is it really open source?
Even if you find some solution (neat trick), you still face the problem of defining what is a legal copy and an illegal copy? How can a system tell one from the other? Let's say I rip a CD I purchase to MP3 because that's the only format my portable player supports. Now I rip an MP3 copy to illegally sell. How can the system tell? You run into similar problems when ripping a DVD to Divx (say for my laptop which lacks a DVD drive). While you're considering various solutions, remember to include my desire to not introduce unnecessary quality degredation, that if the system is open source and uses watermarking I have all of the tools necessary to destroy the watermark, that I should be able to transfer my copy to someone else with reporting to any big brother, and that when, where, and what I watch is my business, not big bothers.
No one is bothering to write such a system because it's impossible. We can no more compromise on a secure distribution and display system than we can compromise on the existance of magical wish-granting fairies.
The biggest problem with libraries paying any sort of use fee is that you aren't certain you'll be able to afford it (or even allowed to do so) next week, next year, or next generation. Once a library invests in a physical book, the library has a pretty solid investment. Assuming readers are careful, it will be around in twenty years. (And if readers aren't careful, said readers will get to purchase the replacement.)
An electronic copy with any sort of Digital Restrictions Management is much less certain. Problem one: This year it's ten cents for a library to loan out a book and libraries all jump on. Five years from now, the company in question is having financial problems and jumps the price up to five dollars per loan and suddenly a library can't afford it. This can theoretically be solved by legislating required rates. Of course, publishers won't be happy about such laws and will fight tooth and nail against them. Assuming we get them passed, we run into our next problem, what happens when the publisher goes out of business? As we've seen with technologies like DIVX (the DVD competitor, not the video codec. I curse the stupid video codec people for knowingly conflicting with an existing name, making it extremely difficult to research the DVD competitor...), that this can happen, and your investment in something you don't control can be destroyed. Perhaps it's possible to technically work around the issue, but it would remain illegal (after all, you agreed to always pay for every loan when you purchased the book originally). Can this be solved? Sure, you simply have to require that it's possible to use the files if the company is unable or unwilling to unlock them. This means that the files either need to be DRM-free, or that libraries need to have a backdoor to open them. Again, the content industry will fight tooth and nail. And rightly so, any such backdoor will be eventually leveraged open to widespread illegal copies. Libraries can't afford to pay to have background checks done on librarians to see if they can be trusted with any backdoor? Even if you do the background checks, people slip through the cracks. Just ask the the government about Robert Hanssen. Eventually the secret will leak.
Any effective DRM based system is too problematic to be useful for libraries. That leaves ineffective systems, and most publishers will fight to their dying breath before trying it.
He may be out time, money, hardware, and grades, but he got revenge. Never underestimate the value of revenge.
(If I had the chance to catch someone who defrauded me, I'd do so in a second. If I knew he had defrauded many other people and would continue to do so, I'd spend a fair amount of time and effort to track him down.)
Yes, it's possible for an artist to be successful and make lots of money. Making money does not fundamentally taint your work. There are actors, musicians, and writers whose work I really enjoy, who appear to have the burning need to create, who are successful financially beyond my wildest dreams. I continue to respect them.
My point (and Tim O'Reilly's point), is that the vast majority of people who engage in creative work won't be financially successful. For whatever reason, the market can't or won't support them. They're doomed to playing small gigs in their home town, or having their web comic read by a few friends. They work "real" jobs to pay the bills. For these people having their work shared doesn't cost them anything, there is no real market to be attacked by the existance of free distribution. Instead, the free distribution can support word of mouth about the artist, increasing their fan base. Given that they have no real hope making money, most artists would rather have a larger fan base than a smaller one. (And the larger fan base may eventually reach critical mass to support a full time career at it.)
That leaves the most successful artists (that is, the minority). Will file sharing destroy them? Perhaps, but we don't know yet. Authors whose work is freely shared on the Baen Free Library actually see boosted in sales when a book is made freely available. Tim O'Reilly has noted that the free availability of his books on various sites has not significantly harmed his income. In fact, Safari, his online book site, has been increasing revenues by the insane 30% per month for books that are easily copied and shared (and he knows that are).
Contrary to what you may believe, artists do have a "make money or give away work" choice, and since most artists live in the real world, they have to make money based on their work.
For the vast majority of artists, the choice is not "make money", it's "quit my non-artistic job, work 120 hour weeks to try and sell my work and build up my fan base, tap out my savings in a few months, max out credit cards and tap friends for loans to survive a few more months, and finally move back in with parents who insist you get a 'real' job." Creating "art" is an insanely risky way to try and make a living. The vast majority of artists who try fail. The more sane artists instead get a "real" job to support themselves while they try to build up a large enough fan base to support themselves.
And it doesn't mean that, if they have the talent and the demand for their work, other people should feel free to go ahead and steal their works, since a "real artist" shouldn't care about money.
My point is not that you should go make illegal copies of works. I strongly support purchasing legal copies from artists to support them. My point multifold: 1) Filesharing is not as dangerous and its made out to be. The actual damages appear to be far smaller than threatened. 2) Artists (both big and small) should seriously consider freely distributing some or all of their works to build up fans.
What about MP3 players? Surely piracy ensures one never has to spend a dime on their favorite music. Just because they haven't caught on as much doesn't mean eventually they won't.
First, at least for the moment, CDs give a higher quality of audio. Once I own a CD, I can create MP3s at any level I want. If I switch to Ogg Vorbis, I can reencode with no transcoding artifacts. With MP3s I've downloaded, I don't have those options. Second, when someone decides that they like a piece of music, they generally want to support the artist. I've purchased a number of albums from mp3.com, music I already legally downloaded from mp3.com. The albums weren't even higher quality, they're based on the same MP3s I downloaded. So why buy? Because I respected the artists and wanted to reward them for their work.
Last I checked, pirates can hear what songs they like on the radio, and the TV, via MTV and VH1, then download them for free.
I doubt you're using O'Reilly's definition for piracy ("Piracy is a loaded word, which we used to reserve for wholesale copying and resale of illegitimate product."). After all, people engaged in wholesale copying aren't actually interested in actually listening. So I'll assume you're addressing me, someone who downloads MP3s from a variety of non-publisher-sanctioned sourced. I can hear what I like from the radio and TV? Great! Where exactly will I be hearing Blumchen, Jim's Big Ego, or Hate Department (just a handful of artists I discovered while sampling from various sources). Oh, none of them are on the radio or TV. Radio and television is dominated by big industry. A few local radio stations and perhaps you local public access channel will cover local bands, but if you want less famous artists from across the world, you're out of luck.
Despite what this article claims, pirates really can get away with music for free and it's only through advertising to those ignorant of how to pirate music, and to honest people, that the industry is, for now, not be seriously hurt.
You didn't read the article too closely, did you? He never claims that those who illegally copy works don't "get away with music for free." He claims that illegal copies don't hurt the bottom line anywhere near as badly as claimed, and that there is evidence that illegal copies can be a significant benefit for small publishers, writers, and artists. And O'Reilly isn't making stuff He has chosen to make the vast majority (all?) of the books he publishes available online in easy to copy HTML. His target market is technically advanced. If you're a potential customer for his online books, you're almost certainly capable of making and sharing a copy. Yet his online book service is thriving, growing at the astronomical 30% per month!
I just want the websites I work on viewed and enjoyed.. the money is just a bonus.
Oh wait, I have bills to pay! Excuse me if I'm greedy and want to be paid for my work.
Most musicians, painters, sculptors, and authors know that they have almost no real chance of "making it big." They know that there isn't even a real chance of making enough money to pay their bills. Yet they continue to create anyway. Why? Because they have passion for their work. They must create, even if it isn't profitable. They want to share their works with others.
Sure, they'd like to make enough money from their work to pay their bills, but that's not really a choice they have. They don't have a "make money or give away work" choice. They have a "give away work and share it with others or hoard work and have no one else ever see it". Given this choice, many would chose to give it away in a moment. (And based on the large amount of legal and free web comics, software, mp3s, and other creative works online, it looks like many people agree.)
This is the difference between your website work and the work of artists. Apparently to you it's just a way to make money. To an artist, it's something that they're driven to do, something they must do. If they can't make money, it's a shame, butthey'll take a small fan base and no money over no fans at all.
Rational Clearcase competes with Visual Sourcesafe....
Only to the extent that a bank competes with random strangers as a reasonable place to keep my money.
SourceSafe may be viewed by many as a reasonable alternative for Clearcase, but that's a horrible mistake. SourceSafe is deeply flawed and inappropriate for any but the most trivial situations.
I've written a paper on
Visual SourceSafe's many flaws. Spread the word! Friends don't let friends use SourceSafe!
Anybody who missed that shouldn't be writing a review. Then again, I'm not surprised; most of the people in the theater were too distracted by what they thought the movie was about (ooh! Clooney!).
Ah, the "if you didn't like it, you're clearly too stupid to appreciate it." defense. Do you like my expensive, tres chic clothing? It can only been seen by intelligent people.
Sometimes a movie you don't understand is just bad, not deep. Failure to transmit your message to the audience may indicate that the film's creators are stupid, not the audience.
I promise you that my personal actions will in no way affect your liberty. Which is why I will continue to use the BSD and MIT licenses for my own code. You might not agree with my choice, but my act of using them will in no way affect your life, liberty or property.
That's fine. Heck, while Stallman and the Free Software Foundation would rather that you use the GPL, they're happy with the BSD and MIT licenses and cheerfully agree that they are Free Software licenses. After all, if all the software in the world was licensed under the BSD license, they would have exactly what they wanted. You are granting us all liberty to your software; I thank you for it, and I suspect the FSF would thank you for it.
The FSF is against proprietary software. With proprietary software the publisher benefits from liberties denied to end users (the freedom to distribute copies and the freedom to modify). There is where equality comes into play. Ultimately there must be some limitations on liberty. The most obvious is when your liberty takes someone elses liberty away (which is why slavery, murder, and kidnapping are illegal). There are also times when we trade personal liberties for the betterment of society (this is what copyright strives for). However, when liberty is taken from one person and given to another, the situation deserves to be closely scrutenized and constantly reconsidered. Copyright is exactly such a case. In the absence of copyright, we would be free to make and modify copies to our heart's content. Copyright has taken away this liberty from millions of people, granting the liberty exclusively to a minority. The FSF believes that the current balance of copyright is not reasonable and should be changed. (I find Stallman's essay, "Reevaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail sums up their situation well.) As a short term work around in the area of software, the GPL and the LGPL are offered as partial solutions. ("I can't change the rest of the world's software, but I can make my software Free and ensure that it always remains Free.")
The FSF's only concern about the BSD license is that software released under the BSD license can be made proprietary external parties. This has nothing to do with the BSD license, and everything to do with copyright.
Both you and the poster you replied to are making some large assumptions yourselves, and some of those assumptions are clearly wrong.
You're assuming that most software is commericial software (that is, I write software, then offer it for sale). In practice the vast majority of programmers are writing software for internal use at various businesses. If proprietary software was outlawed, absolutely nothing would change for the vast majority of programmers. Companies would still need the internal software and hire people (or contract people) to write it. Because this code is internally used and exclusively written and used by employees of the corporation working on the company's time, it's easy enough to protect (if you feel the need) with existing trade secret law.
You're assuming that personal end users will stop buying software. Most users like the sense of security and support they get from buying from a reputable publisher. They like the ability to call the useless call center. There will still be demand for commercial software. The market may contract, but there will still be work.
Finally, you assume that the market will not adjust. Ultimately the software is desired. If the software wasn't desired, the market wouldn't be functioning now. End users have money and want software. Developers want money and can create software. Something will be worked out. It may involve selling support and warrantees ("Buy our support contract, we employ six of the operating system's developers, our competitors only employ two!") For business critical packages (like office suites) large companies may band together to develop it (because they need it themselves. Content heavy works (games particularly) may have Free Software, and Expensive Content (Sure, you're competitor can take your software and put his own content in, saving time, but your content will have been our first and you'll have better knowledge of how to integrate the content to the engine.) It may involve something radical like the Street Performer Protocol, or a tip system, or patronage, or something else entirely, but it will work out. The market will force it to. Companies like Red Hat, Cygnus, and Sleepycat show that it can work on a small scale. If the traditional route ceases to be possible, companies like Red Hat will have a chance to shine. It may be rough going while the system shakes itself out, but it eventually will. Again, the market may shrink and the number of programming position that society can support may contract, but there would still be jobs.
So thing might not be as great as they are now, but the world won't end. Now let's look at some possible (but wildly speculative) at good things that might happen. We might experience a golden age of software development. Developers would have access to phenominal amount of source to take advantage of, increasing productivity. Even if code isn't reused, ideas would be much more heavily reused, allowing software's power to grow much more quickly. (You can already see this in how quickly free operating systems borrow good ideas and hardware bugfixes from each other, often overnight.) Free software products are more likely to speak "open" file formats and protocols, making it easier for end users to switch software if their current software doesn't meet their needs, eliminating monopoly lock in and giving your little startup a fighting chance. The disappearance of licenses would eliminate huge amounts of effort wasted writing licenses, enforcing licenses, and general wasting peoples time. Because anyone can create a "clean" version of software, spyware is doomed.
I say this as a professial software engineer. I've shipped five distinct commerical products. I'm not whining as a user with nothing to risk, this is my own job on the line. My pay would probably take a hit, I'd definately need to remain flexible (but shouldn't I anyway?), but I trust in my to survive such an upheaval. That said, it's not going to happen. The reality is that Free Software is going to continue slowly growing for a long time. It may eventually hit a wall, it may not. You'll have lots of time to prepare, so don't worry about it. In the meantime, enjoy the low cost, high quality products that Free Software has provided you, and enjoy the benefits of competition now that Microsoft has a new competitor that they are afraid of.
I like equality, but I won't trade my liberty for it.
Are you willing to trade my liberty for your liberty?
The Free Software Foundation and Richard Stallman are for equality to the extend that everyone should have the same liberties; they believe that it's wrong for you to take liberties that reduce another person's liberties.
I'm saying, his philosophy is really not a software related philosophy, but it's a socioeconomic philosophy which involves all products and services, not just software.
I think you're expanding his view unfairly. He feels that many products and services aren't appropriate to cover with his views on freedom. (Stallman says as much in this Slashdot interview, "The ethical issues about copying and modifying works depend on the kind of work and how people can use it.")
Software is a special case (not the only special case, naturally, but definately a special case). Software is functional and expressive. If it was only functional, you couldn't copyright it. If it was only expressive, you couldn't patent it. As a functional device, you should be able to modify or repair software you've purchased (like you would a car or a house), but you're denied the ability to do so. As an expressive form, you should be able to deconstruct it, analyze it, and create derivative works from it, but you're denied that ability as well. For better or worse, software has ended up as a weird crossroads in law, in part because it so new laws have been clumsily thrown at it, and in part because it's a unique creative form. As such, it deserves to be discussed and considered as a special case.
There are many companies that sell products and services that you're not allowed to "modify." Renting a hotel room; leasing a car; taking a bus ride; borrowing a DVD; using cable TV and descrambler boxes; etc.
Strictly speaking, if you can't modify it, you don't really own it, you're simply getting a service, not a product. Every example you cite is a service that you temporarily take advantage of, not a product. I can't modify a hotel room, leased car, bus, rented or borrowed DVD, or cable TV box because I don't own those items. However, a DVD, book, car, or house that I purchase I'm free to modify (within the bounds of appropriate public laws, naturally).
What's wrong will selling software that can't be modified?
The same thing that is wrong with selling cars, books, or houses that can't be modified. We're moving toward a society were we don't own anything, where you live at the mercy of those holding the power. Because I can modify my car, if I own a Delorian, I can make or purchase replacement parts even though the original company is long defunct. I happen to
If my software's provider goes out of business, well, I'm out of luck. If I need new functionality, but the provider isn't interested in providing it, I'm out of luck.
If software publishers are interested in providing a service instead of a product, they could at least be honest about it. Of course if they were honest (before you pay for it, you have to sign a contract agreeing that you are purchasing a service and that you own nothing), I expect customers would react negatively because people don't like living under leases and licenses. The current technique of "selling a product", then changing the sale of a product into a license when you install it is a cruel joke that only persists because everyone ignores it.
I think it's important to point out: while the GPL isn't entirely free, it's certainly freer than the default rules for works protected by copyright. If you're going to take a hard line position than any restriction makes software non-free, even MIT/BSD licenses aren't free (They require that the copyright notice and warrantee disclaimer remain intact). Ultimately the only things that are totally "without restriction" are things in the public domain. (And regrettably, you can be liable for things you put in the public domain, which is why the MIT/BSD licenses have the restrictions that they do.) At some point you need to draw a line between free and non-free. I chose to draw it at "United States copyright law is the beginning of non-free." It sounds like you draw it at "Anything more than requiring a copyright statement and warrantee disclaimer is non-free." But I think it's important to specify where your line is.
What's the big deal with Free Software? Why can't he broaden his focus to other area's of engineering and intellectual property? Why is software the only profession that has a foundation (FSF) to make it free.
What doesn't the ACLU worry about rainforest decimation? Why doesn't the EFF broaden their focus to workers compensation?
An organziation needs a focus. If you broaden your focus too much, you dilute your message and risk alienating potential supporters who agree with part of your message but not all of it. And if you're a small organization (and compared to say the ACLU, the FSF is microscopic), you only have so much time and energy to spend. By focusing they increase their chances of doing good.
Furthermore, software has a certain special place in copyright law shared with few other areas. Software is both functional and expressive. Without the source, it's functionally impossible for an end user to modify it. I'd be hard pressed to modify my copy of Microsoft Office, but I can pretty easily modify my car or a book I've purchased.
My theory is that other professions have a much larger barrier of entry then software development. It's easy as a software developer to cheapen the value of the time it takes to write code, whereas with an airplane you can't cheapen the value of raw materials. It's sad to see that the most valuable aspect of any product - the time put in by people - is the least valued by RMS (from my perspective).
This has nothing to do with the cheapening of developer time. Remember that RMS comes from a developer background. Many Free Software supporters (like myself) are professional programmers. He highly values the time put in by people, and so do I. But the person who built my car also put in alot of time, but I'm free to modify it, install off-brand parts, and general do as I will with it. Why does the personal who wrote my software get to control how I use it?
Let's look at an idealized "perfect Stallman world" in which he gets everything he wants (as near as I can tell). It becomes hard to sell software, because once one copy is sold it will be copied and resold for increasingly smaller prices until it has a zero price. Does this mean no software will be written and software developers will starve? Certainly not. First, more software is written strictly for in-company use. There was never a goal to sell it. If the company is concerned that there are valuable secrets in their in-company software, they can use "trade secret" law to protect it from being spread just fine. This leaves the much smaller segment of software for sale. Will the market shrink? Perhaps. However, much of the value of purchased software has always been support and warrantee. (Well, that's the theory. In practice much commericial software has useless support and disclaims any warrantees, but anyway...). So there opens a market for selling support and warrantees, and who best can support and warrantee the product besides the authors? Also, if software is open, there opens a large market for developers who will assemble existing products to create customized solutions for particular clients. Ultimately, the software is needed. The people who write the software need to make money. Something will be worked out, be it the Street Performer Protocol, tips, sponsorship by a company providing support and warrantee (essentially what RedHat and many other distributors do now), or something else.
I'm a software engineer and I support Free Software, and I'm not worried in the slightest about Free Software destroying my career. I may need to remain flexible, especially when I take jobs writing software for sale, but the work will remain.
The reason the software sucks isn't that you have a PHB, it's that you lack discipline to find and fix all your bugs.
So at my last three jobs when I was explicitly told by my boss "it's good enough, no one will find any bugs that remain, stop working on it and try something else", the problem is that I lacked discipline?
Sure, there are lots of lazy programmers with a "it compiles, ship it" attitude. But there are lots of programmers who feel that their work is art that must be held to the highest standards. People who write for correctness, add lots of test cases, and carefully review their code. But those people are often in companies that are hostile to "wasting time debugging". Too many companies see something that works 90% and confuse it for a finished product.
So, for $100 more than the cost of a TiVo, which are now at $199
with a $50 rebate, he built a box that has 5 hours less recording time, a worse
encoder,a fraction of the features, and how do you even begin to discribe the
UI? Non-existant?
But a Tivo requires a subscription to their service. If you go
monthly, after a year you'll have spent $354, $54 more than he did, and get to
look forward to spending another $155 next year. (Or you can pay $249 up front
for "lifetime" service (where "lifetime" is the life of the Tivo).) So
assuming his configuration lasts at least one year, he has saved money. Also,
his configuration allows him to archive to VCD, a feature Tivo's lack. He also
got content for at least one article and a television piece out of his effort.
No a terrible deal.
All that said, I couldn't live with his configuration; I'm very happy with
my Tivo and lifetime subscription. But I respect his choice. For his
requirements (which he spells out at the start of the article) it probably does
the job just fine.
...storing about 25 hours of
programming on its hard drive...
Thus linking to a page about application development. I'm pretty sure that's not the programming in question. Automatic linking is generally a mistake.
For $DEITY's sake, they're the sneaky underhanded outfit that sends spies into all the neighboring stores with UPC scanners and laptops so they can undercut the competition by $.01 and drive them out of business.
Spies? Do they hide their UPC scanners and laptops under thier tan trenchcoats and fedoras? Do they send the stolen information to their superiors through microdots hidden in public places?
By running a business open to the general public, you are implicitly allowing anyone who wants to come in and look at your prices (there are a number of court cases protecting this right). You can personally use this to comparision shop at a few stores, a newspaper might post a study of prices across the city, a public interest group might look for price discrimination across a chain, and a competitor might try to keep his prices in line. Competition requires that competitors know the prices each other is charging so they can lower their prices to match, otherwise you're just pricing randomly.
Undercutting by one cent? Hah. I'm sure lots of people are looking at Wal-Mart's price in their advertisements and comparing it to be price their competitor charges but doesn't advertise (after all, if they advertised, Wal-Mart wouldn't need to send 007 into their store to get the information). Then, having spent the time comparing the prices decided, "Wow, I'll save a whole penny! Heck, if I save a penny on each item during my shopping trip, I'll have enough extra money to buy a gumball from the machine out front! I'm going to Wal-Mart instead!" I somehow doubt it. I'm completely willing to believe that Wal-Mart uses predatory pricy tactics including selling below cost to destroy competitors. But a lousy penny? I think not.
There are many good reasons to loathe Wal-Mart, but don't complain that they are being good free marketers and collecting information about competitors. Instead complain that they sell products at a loss to drive out competitors, then raise their prices. Complain that Wal-Mart uses their dominant market share to demand specially modified versions of video games to reduce levels of violence unacceptable to their management. Complain that Wal-Marts willingly allow their property (and by extension the properties around them) to become littered messes.
There's a difference between letting people look at your source code -- finding bugs, fixing problems -- and giving it away.
Great, I was looking for an opportunity to debug someone elses commercial software for free!
I applaud his efforts toward transparency, and restricted source is better than no source. But if I'm thinking of putting some effort into improving some software for me own use, it's an easy choice between GPG and PGP. With GPG, I know that my changes and the code that my changes are based on will be available to myself forever, and I can share my changes with others if the official source goes away.
PGP is overrated... so is GPG. If the government really wants to get you [they will]
Well, duh. However, PGP might just protect my trade secrets from being intercepted by a competitor. PGP might also protect my medical information from a private detective trying to dig up some dirt on me for a bitter ex-spouse. Competitors and private detectives don't have the resources of the United States government and PGP works just fine against them. Furthermore, PGP has most certainly been successfully used to protect human rights workers from clumsy oppressive governments. If that's not a great accomplishment, I don't know what is.
Yes the US still uses Captial Punishment, in a way it is more humane than leaving someone in prison for life....
That's a good point. Of course, since you and I aren't likely to face either life imprisonment nor the death penalty, perhaps we should check with someone with a more immediate concern. How about we ask a bunch of prisoners on death row if they would rather be executed or given life imprisonment? That should clear the whole question of which is more humane right up.
Slashdot Mirror
If you assume that DRM's goal is to use technology to enforce copyright law, it's still about removing options from citizens. A key element of copyright law is removing options from citizens. The goal is to encourage the creation of creative works, but the actual action is to remove options. I no longer have the option to distribute copies of other people's works. In the absence of copyright law, I would still have the option. (Mind you, this restriction isn't necessarily bad. I also lack the (legal) option to deceive other people in financial matters, to take money from someone by force, or knowingly put other people in danger. I'm perfectly fine with society removing options for the larger good. I support copyright for this reason.) DRM fundamentally removes options. The options it removes may be illegal, but they do remain options.
However, let's revisit the assumption that DRM is tied to copyright. DRM certainly can have a place in situations where copyright is irrelevant. As an employee, my ability to redistribute certain internal documents may be limited by an NDA or other employement agreement (effectively protecting the document with trade secret law instead of copyright). DRM technology might be employed to ensure that I obey the agreement. If I were to get a job requiring security clearance, DRM might work to ensure that the electronic documents I handled remained secret or top secret. The goal is explicitly to remove options (illegal options, but still options).
All of this is why I chose "options" instead of "rights" or "fair use".
Clearly untrue. Certainly some publishers would be fine with it. Perhaps even most publishers would be fine with such a system. But at least a handful are interested in using DRM to try and restrict fair use to increase profits. Why are various copy restriction flags being enabled on public domain works (here's one reference)? When you're crafting law or code, you have to consider those who will abuse the spirit of the law/code while strictly following the letter of the law/code. Why is the movie industry fighting to ensure that when Casablanca enters the public domain (2037ish), I'll be allowed to copy the movie, but not allowed the tools necessary to make that copy?
DRM is about taking options away from users. This is about providing users with a new option: a strong audit trail. You can make a copy of the image using non-auditing software, but that copy of the image would lose it's "seal of approval." The original would remain valid. The end result: cops can make any copies and image manipulations they want that may help them solve a case. But in court they'll only be able to present images with the valid audit trail, ensuring that the image was never mishandled and clearly showing what manipulations were done to it. It sounds like a great idea and I strongly support this option for users. (I am suspicious that it may not be possible... but I'm happy to let people try.)
Why not? Because an open source, "secure" system that prevents end user illegal copying is impossible. If the system is capable of showing me a movie or book, I can modify it to keep a copy that I can share, perhaps illegally. This is even true of closed source systems, but the proprietary nature of such systems makes it harder. You can provide a level of protection by moving part of the system into hardware, at which point it ceases to be open source. Ultimately, how can you stop me from changing the line display_movie_frame_to_screen() to write_movie_frame_to_gnutella_directory()? If you can stop me (or at least make it very difficult), is it really open source?
Even if you find some solution (neat trick), you still face the problem of defining what is a legal copy and an illegal copy? How can a system tell one from the other? Let's say I rip a CD I purchase to MP3 because that's the only format my portable player supports. Now I rip an MP3 copy to illegally sell. How can the system tell? You run into similar problems when ripping a DVD to Divx (say for my laptop which lacks a DVD drive). While you're considering various solutions, remember to include my desire to not introduce unnecessary quality degredation, that if the system is open source and uses watermarking I have all of the tools necessary to destroy the watermark, that I should be able to transfer my copy to someone else with reporting to any big brother, and that when, where, and what I watch is my business, not big bothers.
No one is bothering to write such a system because it's impossible. We can no more compromise on a secure distribution and display system than we can compromise on the existance of magical wish-granting fairies.
The biggest problem with libraries paying any sort of use fee is that you aren't certain you'll be able to afford it (or even allowed to do so) next week, next year, or next generation. Once a library invests in a physical book, the library has a pretty solid investment. Assuming readers are careful, it will be around in twenty years. (And if readers aren't careful, said readers will get to purchase the replacement.)
An electronic copy with any sort of Digital Restrictions Management is much less certain. Problem one: This year it's ten cents for a library to loan out a book and libraries all jump on. Five years from now, the company in question is having financial problems and jumps the price up to five dollars per loan and suddenly a library can't afford it. This can theoretically be solved by legislating required rates. Of course, publishers won't be happy about such laws and will fight tooth and nail against them. Assuming we get them passed, we run into our next problem, what happens when the publisher goes out of business? As we've seen with technologies like DIVX (the DVD competitor, not the video codec. I curse the stupid video codec people for knowingly conflicting with an existing name, making it extremely difficult to research the DVD competitor...), that this can happen, and your investment in something you don't control can be destroyed. Perhaps it's possible to technically work around the issue, but it would remain illegal (after all, you agreed to always pay for every loan when you purchased the book originally). Can this be solved? Sure, you simply have to require that it's possible to use the files if the company is unable or unwilling to unlock them. This means that the files either need to be DRM-free, or that libraries need to have a backdoor to open them. Again, the content industry will fight tooth and nail. And rightly so, any such backdoor will be eventually leveraged open to widespread illegal copies. Libraries can't afford to pay to have background checks done on librarians to see if they can be trusted with any backdoor? Even if you do the background checks, people slip through the cracks. Just ask the the government about Robert Hanssen. Eventually the secret will leak.
Any effective DRM based system is too problematic to be useful for libraries. That leaves ineffective systems, and most publishers will fight to their dying breath before trying it.
He may be out time, money, hardware, and grades, but he got revenge. Never underestimate the value of revenge.
(If I had the chance to catch someone who defrauded me, I'd do so in a second. If I knew he had defrauded many other people and would continue to do so, I'd spend a fair amount of time and effort to track him down.)
You missed my point.
Yes, it's possible for an artist to be successful and make lots of money. Making money does not fundamentally taint your work. There are actors, musicians, and writers whose work I really enjoy, who appear to have the burning need to create, who are successful financially beyond my wildest dreams. I continue to respect them.
My point (and Tim O'Reilly's point), is that the vast majority of people who engage in creative work won't be financially successful. For whatever reason, the market can't or won't support them. They're doomed to playing small gigs in their home town, or having their web comic read by a few friends. They work "real" jobs to pay the bills. For these people having their work shared doesn't cost them anything, there is no real market to be attacked by the existance of free distribution. Instead, the free distribution can support word of mouth about the artist, increasing their fan base. Given that they have no real hope making money, most artists would rather have a larger fan base than a smaller one. (And the larger fan base may eventually reach critical mass to support a full time career at it.)
That leaves the most successful artists (that is, the minority). Will file sharing destroy them? Perhaps, but we don't know yet. Authors whose work is freely shared on the Baen Free Library actually see boosted in sales when a book is made freely available. Tim O'Reilly has noted that the free availability of his books on various sites has not significantly harmed his income. In fact, Safari, his online book site, has been increasing revenues by the insane 30% per month for books that are easily copied and shared (and he knows that are).
For the vast majority of artists, the choice is not "make money", it's "quit my non-artistic job, work 120 hour weeks to try and sell my work and build up my fan base, tap out my savings in a few months, max out credit cards and tap friends for loans to survive a few more months, and finally move back in with parents who insist you get a 'real' job." Creating "art" is an insanely risky way to try and make a living. The vast majority of artists who try fail. The more sane artists instead get a "real" job to support themselves while they try to build up a large enough fan base to support themselves.
My point is not that you should go make illegal copies of works. I strongly support purchasing legal copies from artists to support them. My point multifold: 1) Filesharing is not as dangerous and its made out to be. The actual damages appear to be far smaller than threatened. 2) Artists (both big and small) should seriously consider freely distributing some or all of their works to build up fans.
First, at least for the moment, CDs give a higher quality of audio. Once I own a CD, I can create MP3s at any level I want. If I switch to Ogg Vorbis, I can reencode with no transcoding artifacts. With MP3s I've downloaded, I don't have those options. Second, when someone decides that they like a piece of music, they generally want to support the artist. I've purchased a number of albums from mp3.com, music I already legally downloaded from mp3.com. The albums weren't even higher quality, they're based on the same MP3s I downloaded. So why buy? Because I respected the artists and wanted to reward them for their work.
I doubt you're using O'Reilly's definition for piracy ("Piracy is a loaded word, which we used to reserve for wholesale copying and resale of illegitimate product."). After all, people engaged in wholesale copying aren't actually interested in actually listening. So I'll assume you're addressing me, someone who downloads MP3s from a variety of non-publisher-sanctioned sourced. I can hear what I like from the radio and TV? Great! Where exactly will I be hearing Blumchen, Jim's Big Ego, or Hate Department (just a handful of artists I discovered while sampling from various sources). Oh, none of them are on the radio or TV. Radio and television is dominated by big industry. A few local radio stations and perhaps you local public access channel will cover local bands, but if you want less famous artists from across the world, you're out of luck.
You didn't read the article too closely, did you? He never claims that those who illegally copy works don't "get away with music for free." He claims that illegal copies don't hurt the bottom line anywhere near as badly as claimed, and that there is evidence that illegal copies can be a significant benefit for small publishers, writers, and artists. And O'Reilly isn't making stuff He has chosen to make the vast majority (all?) of the books he publishes available online in easy to copy HTML. His target market is technically advanced. If you're a potential customer for his online books, you're almost certainly capable of making and sharing a copy. Yet his online book service is thriving, growing at the astronomical 30% per month!
Most musicians, painters, sculptors, and authors know that they have almost no real chance of "making it big." They know that there isn't even a real chance of making enough money to pay their bills. Yet they continue to create anyway. Why? Because they have passion for their work. They must create, even if it isn't profitable. They want to share their works with others.
Sure, they'd like to make enough money from their work to pay their bills, but that's not really a choice they have. They don't have a "make money or give away work" choice. They have a "give away work and share it with others or hoard work and have no one else ever see it". Given this choice, many would chose to give it away in a moment. (And based on the large amount of legal and free web comics, software, mp3s, and other creative works online, it looks like many people agree.)
This is the difference between your website work and the work of artists. Apparently to you it's just a way to make money. To an artist, it's something that they're driven to do, something they must do. If they can't make money, it's a shame, butthey'll take a small fan base and no money over no fans at all.
Only to the extent that a bank competes with random strangers as a reasonable place to keep my money. SourceSafe may be viewed by many as a reasonable alternative for Clearcase, but that's a horrible mistake. SourceSafe is deeply flawed and inappropriate for any but the most trivial situations. I've written a paper on Visual SourceSafe's many flaws. Spread the word! Friends don't let friends use SourceSafe!
Ah, the "if you didn't like it, you're clearly too stupid to appreciate it." defense. Do you like my expensive, tres chic clothing? It can only been seen by intelligent people.
Sometimes a movie you don't understand is just bad, not deep. Failure to transmit your message to the audience may indicate that the film's creators are stupid, not the audience.
That's fine. Heck, while Stallman and the Free Software Foundation would rather that you use the GPL, they're happy with the BSD and MIT licenses and cheerfully agree that they are Free Software licenses. After all, if all the software in the world was licensed under the BSD license, they would have exactly what they wanted. You are granting us all liberty to your software; I thank you for it, and I suspect the FSF would thank you for it.
The FSF is against proprietary software. With proprietary software the publisher benefits from liberties denied to end users (the freedom to distribute copies and the freedom to modify). There is where equality comes into play. Ultimately there must be some limitations on liberty. The most obvious is when your liberty takes someone elses liberty away (which is why slavery, murder, and kidnapping are illegal). There are also times when we trade personal liberties for the betterment of society (this is what copyright strives for). However, when liberty is taken from one person and given to another, the situation deserves to be closely scrutenized and constantly reconsidered. Copyright is exactly such a case. In the absence of copyright, we would be free to make and modify copies to our heart's content. Copyright has taken away this liberty from millions of people, granting the liberty exclusively to a minority. The FSF believes that the current balance of copyright is not reasonable and should be changed. (I find Stallman's essay, "Reevaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail sums up their situation well.) As a short term work around in the area of software, the GPL and the LGPL are offered as partial solutions. ("I can't change the rest of the world's software, but I can make my software Free and ensure that it always remains Free.") The FSF's only concern about the BSD license is that software released under the BSD license can be made proprietary external parties. This has nothing to do with the BSD license, and everything to do with copyright.
Both you and the poster you replied to are making some large assumptions yourselves, and some of those assumptions are clearly wrong.
You're assuming that most software is commericial software (that is, I write software, then offer it for sale). In practice the vast majority of programmers are writing software for internal use at various businesses. If proprietary software was outlawed, absolutely nothing would change for the vast majority of programmers. Companies would still need the internal software and hire people (or contract people) to write it. Because this code is internally used and exclusively written and used by employees of the corporation working on the company's time, it's easy enough to protect (if you feel the need) with existing trade secret law.
You're assuming that personal end users will stop buying software. Most users like the sense of security and support they get from buying from a reputable publisher. They like the ability to call the useless call center. There will still be demand for commercial software. The market may contract, but there will still be work.
Finally, you assume that the market will not adjust. Ultimately the software is desired. If the software wasn't desired, the market wouldn't be functioning now. End users have money and want software. Developers want money and can create software. Something will be worked out. It may involve selling support and warrantees ("Buy our support contract, we employ six of the operating system's developers, our competitors only employ two!") For business critical packages (like office suites) large companies may band together to develop it (because they need it themselves. Content heavy works (games particularly) may have Free Software, and Expensive Content (Sure, you're competitor can take your software and put his own content in, saving time, but your content will have been our first and you'll have better knowledge of how to integrate the content to the engine.) It may involve something radical like the Street Performer Protocol, or a tip system, or patronage, or something else entirely, but it will work out. The market will force it to. Companies like Red Hat, Cygnus, and Sleepycat show that it can work on a small scale. If the traditional route ceases to be possible, companies like Red Hat will have a chance to shine. It may be rough going while the system shakes itself out, but it eventually will. Again, the market may shrink and the number of programming position that society can support may contract, but there would still be jobs.
So thing might not be as great as they are now, but the world won't end. Now let's look at some possible (but wildly speculative) at good things that might happen. We might experience a golden age of software development. Developers would have access to phenominal amount of source to take advantage of, increasing productivity. Even if code isn't reused, ideas would be much more heavily reused, allowing software's power to grow much more quickly. (You can already see this in how quickly free operating systems borrow good ideas and hardware bugfixes from each other, often overnight.) Free software products are more likely to speak "open" file formats and protocols, making it easier for end users to switch software if their current software doesn't meet their needs, eliminating monopoly lock in and giving your little startup a fighting chance. The disappearance of licenses would eliminate huge amounts of effort wasted writing licenses, enforcing licenses, and general wasting peoples time. Because anyone can create a "clean" version of software, spyware is doomed.
I say this as a professial software engineer. I've shipped five distinct commerical products. I'm not whining as a user with nothing to risk, this is my own job on the line. My pay would probably take a hit, I'd definately need to remain flexible (but shouldn't I anyway?), but I trust in my to survive such an upheaval. That said, it's not going to happen. The reality is that Free Software is going to continue slowly growing for a long time. It may eventually hit a wall, it may not. You'll have lots of time to prepare, so don't worry about it. In the meantime, enjoy the low cost, high quality products that Free Software has provided you, and enjoy the benefits of competition now that Microsoft has a new competitor that they are afraid of.
Are you willing to trade my liberty for your liberty?
The Free Software Foundation and Richard Stallman are for equality to the extend that everyone should have the same liberties; they believe that it's wrong for you to take liberties that reduce another person's liberties.
I think you're expanding his view unfairly. He feels that many products and services aren't appropriate to cover with his views on freedom. (Stallman says as much in this Slashdot interview, "The ethical issues about copying and modifying works depend on the kind of work and how people can use it.")
Software is a special case (not the only special case, naturally, but definately a special case). Software is functional and expressive. If it was only functional, you couldn't copyright it. If it was only expressive, you couldn't patent it. As a functional device, you should be able to modify or repair software you've purchased (like you would a car or a house), but you're denied the ability to do so. As an expressive form, you should be able to deconstruct it, analyze it, and create derivative works from it, but you're denied that ability as well. For better or worse, software has ended up as a weird crossroads in law, in part because it so new laws have been clumsily thrown at it, and in part because it's a unique creative form. As such, it deserves to be discussed and considered as a special case.
Strictly speaking, if you can't modify it, you don't really own it, you're simply getting a service, not a product. Every example you cite is a service that you temporarily take advantage of, not a product. I can't modify a hotel room, leased car, bus, rented or borrowed DVD, or cable TV box because I don't own those items. However, a DVD, book, car, or house that I purchase I'm free to modify (within the bounds of appropriate public laws, naturally).
The same thing that is wrong with selling cars, books, or houses that can't be modified. We're moving toward a society were we don't own anything, where you live at the mercy of those holding the power. Because I can modify my car, if I own a Delorian, I can make or purchase replacement parts even though the original company is long defunct. I happen to If my software's provider goes out of business, well, I'm out of luck. If I need new functionality, but the provider isn't interested in providing it, I'm out of luck.
If software publishers are interested in providing a service instead of a product, they could at least be honest about it. Of course if they were honest (before you pay for it, you have to sign a contract agreeing that you are purchasing a service and that you own nothing), I expect customers would react negatively because people don't like living under leases and licenses. The current technique of "selling a product", then changing the sale of a product into a license when you install it is a cruel joke that only persists because everyone ignores it.
I think it's important to point out: while the GPL isn't entirely free, it's certainly freer than the default rules for works protected by copyright. If you're going to take a hard line position than any restriction makes software non-free, even MIT/BSD licenses aren't free (They require that the copyright notice and warrantee disclaimer remain intact). Ultimately the only things that are totally "without restriction" are things in the public domain. (And regrettably, you can be liable for things you put in the public domain, which is why the MIT/BSD licenses have the restrictions that they do.) At some point you need to draw a line between free and non-free. I chose to draw it at "United States copyright law is the beginning of non-free." It sounds like you draw it at "Anything more than requiring a copyright statement and warrantee disclaimer is non-free." But I think it's important to specify where your line is.
What doesn't the ACLU worry about rainforest decimation? Why doesn't the EFF broaden their focus to workers compensation?
An organziation needs a focus. If you broaden your focus too much, you dilute your message and risk alienating potential supporters who agree with part of your message but not all of it. And if you're a small organization (and compared to say the ACLU, the FSF is microscopic), you only have so much time and energy to spend. By focusing they increase their chances of doing good.
Furthermore, software has a certain special place in copyright law shared with few other areas. Software is both functional and expressive. Without the source, it's functionally impossible for an end user to modify it. I'd be hard pressed to modify my copy of Microsoft Office, but I can pretty easily modify my car or a book I've purchased.
This has nothing to do with the cheapening of developer time. Remember that RMS comes from a developer background. Many Free Software supporters (like myself) are professional programmers. He highly values the time put in by people, and so do I. But the person who built my car also put in alot of time, but I'm free to modify it, install off-brand parts, and general do as I will with it. Why does the personal who wrote my software get to control how I use it?
Let's look at an idealized "perfect Stallman world" in which he gets everything he wants (as near as I can tell). It becomes hard to sell software, because once one copy is sold it will be copied and resold for increasingly smaller prices until it has a zero price. Does this mean no software will be written and software developers will starve? Certainly not. First, more software is written strictly for in-company use. There was never a goal to sell it. If the company is concerned that there are valuable secrets in their in-company software, they can use "trade secret" law to protect it from being spread just fine. This leaves the much smaller segment of software for sale. Will the market shrink? Perhaps. However, much of the value of purchased software has always been support and warrantee. (Well, that's the theory. In practice much commericial software has useless support and disclaims any warrantees, but anyway...). So there opens a market for selling support and warrantees, and who best can support and warrantee the product besides the authors? Also, if software is open, there opens a large market for developers who will assemble existing products to create customized solutions for particular clients. Ultimately, the software is needed. The people who write the software need to make money. Something will be worked out, be it the Street Performer Protocol, tips, sponsorship by a company providing support and warrantee (essentially what RedHat and many other distributors do now), or something else.
I'm a software engineer and I support Free Software, and I'm not worried in the slightest about Free Software destroying my career. I may need to remain flexible, especially when I take jobs writing software for sale, but the work will remain.
So at my last three jobs when I was explicitly told by my boss "it's good enough, no one will find any bugs that remain, stop working on it and try something else", the problem is that I lacked discipline?
Sure, there are lots of lazy programmers with a "it compiles, ship it" attitude. But there are lots of programmers who feel that their work is art that must be held to the highest standards. People who write for correctness, add lots of test cases, and carefully review their code. But those people are often in companies that are hostile to "wasting time debugging". Too many companies see something that works 90% and confuse it for a finished product.
Tivo's changed their policy. New Tivos are paperweights unless you purchase their service. You can't even use it as a stupid VCR.
But a Tivo requires a subscription to their service. If you go monthly, after a year you'll have spent $354, $54 more than he did, and get to look forward to spending another $155 next year. (Or you can pay $249 up front for "lifetime" service (where "lifetime" is the life of the Tivo).) So assuming his configuration lasts at least one year, he has saved money. Also, his configuration allows him to archive to VCD, a feature Tivo's lack. He also got content for at least one article and a television piece out of his effort. No a terrible deal.
All that said, I couldn't live with his configuration; I'm very happy with my Tivo and lifetime subscription. But I respect his choice. For his requirements (which he spells out at the start of the article) it probably does the job just fine.
Thus linking to a page about application development. I'm pretty sure that's not the programming in question. Automatic linking is generally a mistake.
Spies? Do they hide their UPC scanners and laptops under thier tan trenchcoats and fedoras? Do they send the stolen information to their superiors through microdots hidden in public places?
By running a business open to the general public, you are implicitly allowing anyone who wants to come in and look at your prices (there are a number of court cases protecting this right). You can personally use this to comparision shop at a few stores, a newspaper might post a study of prices across the city, a public interest group might look for price discrimination across a chain, and a competitor might try to keep his prices in line. Competition requires that competitors know the prices each other is charging so they can lower their prices to match, otherwise you're just pricing randomly.
Undercutting by one cent? Hah. I'm sure lots of people are looking at Wal-Mart's price in their advertisements and comparing it to be price their competitor charges but doesn't advertise (after all, if they advertised, Wal-Mart wouldn't need to send 007 into their store to get the information). Then, having spent the time comparing the prices decided, "Wow, I'll save a whole penny! Heck, if I save a penny on each item during my shopping trip, I'll have enough extra money to buy a gumball from the machine out front! I'm going to Wal-Mart instead!" I somehow doubt it. I'm completely willing to believe that Wal-Mart uses predatory pricy tactics including selling below cost to destroy competitors. But a lousy penny? I think not.
There are many good reasons to loathe Wal-Mart, but don't complain that they are being good free marketers and collecting information about competitors. Instead complain that they sell products at a loss to drive out competitors, then raise their prices. Complain that Wal-Mart uses their dominant market share to demand specially modified versions of video games to reduce levels of violence unacceptable to their management. Complain that Wal-Marts willingly allow their property (and by extension the properties around them) to become littered messes.
Great, I was looking for an opportunity to debug someone elses commercial software for free!
I applaud his efforts toward transparency, and restricted source is better than no source. But if I'm thinking of putting some effort into improving some software for me own use, it's an easy choice between GPG and PGP. With GPG, I know that my changes and the code that my changes are based on will be available to myself forever, and I can share my changes with others if the official source goes away.
Well, duh. However, PGP might just protect my trade secrets from being intercepted by a competitor. PGP might also protect my medical information from a private detective trying to dig up some dirt on me for a bitter ex-spouse. Competitors and private detectives don't have the resources of the United States government and PGP works just fine against them. Furthermore, PGP has most certainly been successfully used to protect human rights workers from clumsy oppressive governments. If that's not a great accomplishment, I don't know what is.
That's a good point. Of course, since you and I aren't likely to face either life imprisonment nor the death penalty, perhaps we should check with someone with a more immediate concern. How about we ask a bunch of prisoners on death row if they would rather be executed or given life imprisonment? That should clear the whole question of which is more humane right up.