I know it says rate-limiting, but from our logs, the accepted rate appears to be 0. We don't have that many users; certainly not enough to trigger a rate limit in the scope of the kind of rate they would be worried about.
And while we did not say "lazy" in the original article, but rather expressed our sympathies for having to grapple with the spam problem, this is not an acceptable solution. As other commenters are pointing out, this is essentially shifting the burden to much smaller entities, who now have to respond to their users' complaints.
If Google would publicly describe the problem, and the scope of it, and publicly explain what they are *actually* doing, then the rest of us could help find a solution. Right now, this definitely looks like "easiest way out for us, broader principle of federation and workloads of other entities be damned."
Yes, I have the nerve to call studies which do not publish their methodology unscientific.
I published mine, which is exactly why others have been able to find issues with it. Some of these issues are valid, and I will be writing a new analysis accounting for those issues. This is how, at least to my understanding, science progresses.
I guess you probably didn't listen to my presentation, which is fine, but in it I was very clear that I was presenting these numbers to stimulate further discussion about the issue while being conscious of the framing of the question, and I challenged people to find problems with the numbers.
I'm glad that you raised disagreement with this, but I think you
are downplaying the extent of the connection. From the Foundation FAQ:
Q: What is the difference between the CodePlex Foundation and CodePlex.com?
CodePlex Foundation is an extension of the CodePlex brand
established by Codeplex.com. Codeplex.com has not only built a strong
community, with more than 10,000 projects now hosted on the site, but
has steadily built a recognized brand. CodePlex.com launched in June
of 2006 out of a need for a project hosting site that operated in a
way that other forges didn't â" with features and structures that
appealed to commercial software developers. The next chapter in
solving for this challenge is the CodePlex Foundation (Codeplex.org).
The Foundation is solving similar challenges; ultimately aiming to
bring open source and commercial software developers together in a
place where they can collaborate. This is absolutely independent from
the project hosting site, but it is essentially trying to support the
same mission. It is just solving a different part of the challenge, a
part that Codeplex.com isn't designed to solve.
This says clearly that the Foundation was conceived as the "next
chapter", and so the name is deliberately the same. RMS's point is
that this means we can get some idea of what the Foundation will do
based on what the.com has done. It's an independent effort, but
supporting the same mission, and the overlap in mission is his point.
Given that this relates to an underlying deliberate similarity and not just a superficial one in name only, I hope you are also arguing for a change in that mission for the Foundation, and not just a name change.
As mentioned in the article, the Free Software Foundation is calling on Amazon to release the Kindle's software as free software, and drop the DRM: http://www.fsf.org/news/amazon-apologizes. The Kindle is already a GNU/Linux system running largely free software -- it would be a short step for them to do so, and the only real way to make sure this or something like it doesn't happen again. This is, after all, the 3rd time in a year they have pulled something like this, despite supposedly being sorry each time.
Our protests do include the record labels. Read through the Defective By Design history a bit and you'll see that. Also note that we collect donations for RIAA witness funds, to help people being targeted by the RIAA in lawsuits.
Silence isn't what's making Apple guilty here. Their actions are. I'll ask again, who is making Apple extend their DRM system to cover software? The record labels aren't doing that. Why does Jobs still say publicly that he thinks DRM is okay for video?
It's also the fact that they profit from the DRM. It keeps people tied to the iTunes store. It gives them better control over all the iPhones and iPods out there, which they can use to leverage deals and make profits.
These things argue against your assumption that Apple's silence is because it can't do any better.
We're not letting Apple, Microsoft, OverDrive, the MPAA, or the record labels shirk responsibility here. You're right that it's a team effort on their part -- we'll point out the ways in which each member of the team contributes to the problem, and we'll talk about the overall problem.
That's not true. We have a series of legitimate questions about Apple products. It's not like a DoS on a search engine. It's individuals who are Apple customers and potential Apple customers going in to give feedback to Apple and ask questions.
Why is that letter sufficient for you? He hasn't done what he said he was going to do, so I'm honestly puzzled. He said half the tracks on iTunes would be DRM-free by the end of 2007. Very few are.
Maybe Jobs is driving for harder terms than other people are, because of Apple's powerful position as distributor? I don't doubt that Apple is refusing terms from the record companies here -- my objection is to people who say that Apple *can't* change the situation, or that they are being bullied. They clearly can, but they are trying to maximize their own profits, and the freedom of their customers just doesn't weigh in the calculation. That's what we object to and what we're trying to change.
Let's keep in mind that any reason the record companies might be driving a harder bargain with Jobs than with others probably has to do with the degree to which Jobs is attempting to assert control over the whole market via iTunes lock-in and price control.
I dunno, I just wonder what it would take for you to believe that he was either full of it when he wrote that letter, and was trying to defuse opposition and shift blame, or that he has changed his mind since then and decided that DRM benefits him after all.
I mean, especially given the fact that you're not even talking to the right company. DRM is a condition imposed by the record labels, genius.
Do you have evidence for this? Because the existence of Amazon, Rhapsody, eMusic.com's DRM-free MP3 stores seems to say otherwise. Also, the iPhone applies DRM to *software*. Who is forcing them to do that? Seems like Apple profits from DRM because it locks people to the iTunes store. Record companies might want it sometimes too, but just because there are multiple parties involved doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold each of them responsible. Otherwise they just keep passing the buck.
DRM sucks, but it's a tradeoff that some consumers willingly buy into, and so what if they do? It's not a decision you need to make. Their choice does not adversely effect your ability to make another. Nobody dies...
You're right to an extent, and I'm not suggesting anyone hunger strike over it. But, it's more serious than you are making it out to be. DRM is being applied to public domain cultural materials and to textbooks and educational video. It really is having a tangible impact on a lot of people and it's something that's beyond a mere business decision. Remember that it isn't just some piece of software -- in the US (and other places) it's a law, called the DMCA, and it threatens people with jail time. Unjust laws should go, and I don't feel bad protesting them and those who threaten us with them (in this case, Apple).
We don't run our own company, but we do highlight those who do run businesses that sell DRM-free products. See http://defectivebydesign.org/guide.
It wouldn't be trespassing or a crime -- we booked appointments. If Apple requests that we leave, we will do so. I've never heard booking an appointment with someone being described as using force before. Also, I don't know what you mean by "protesting", but you seem to have a picture of us just shouting at them or something. We're asking Apple representatives salient questions about the technology used in Apple products. I'm not sure what judge would call that harrassment.
Apple, by the way, attempted at their Boston store opening to have us evicted from what was a public sidewalk. The police disagreed and said we could stay. So, it's worth keeping in mind here that the company you are trying to defend from harassment has no problem harassing and intimidating people who are engaging in legally protected free expression on public property. Not surprising, given that they also see no problem with wrapping public domain digital materials in DRM.
Actually it's not. We aren't threatening anyone. We are using existing channels offered by Apple to communicate with them in regard to issues about their products. That's not anything like threatening someone with violence.
Street protests block the streets and irritate people. Are they always wrong? Your logic would say yes. In fact, your logic would suggest that I should never complain to a company about anything because I might be taking away from someone else's opportunity to get technical support.
The dictator logic here is Apple's logic. "I'm sorry. I don't want to restrict your freedom, but since other people might abuse their freedom, I have no choice."
The FSF used to stand for the high ideals of freedom (that's freedom for everyone, John, not just for those politically-aligned with yourself).
Absolutely. And that's why we make an issue out of this -- DRM prevents everyone from exercising their freedom. I can understand disagreeing about the tactics but let's be clear here that the goal is not politically any different from the usual -- Apple, on the iPhone and other platforms, is actively working against free software.
Here's a suggestion, John, let those of you who oppose Apple's policies stop buying Apple products, and don't "keep quiet about it", shout it from the rooftops, declare it on your websites, start (non e-) mail campaigns, whichever method you like. I suspect you've been doing all that, and no-one who hears your message cares about it - that's the cold hard truth of the matter.
You're right that we've been doing that. The result has been a steadily growing campaign, and a general shift away from DRM in many parts of the industry -- the parts of the industry where people have objected most strongly. Obviously there have been a lot of factors for that, but certainly people speaking up together in public is an important one. But there are a few powerful holdouts, like Apple.
alternatively: The suffering of other people is a useful tool that I can use to try and get my message some more metaphorical airtime. As used by tinpot dictators throughout history.
Well, that's not what I said. Every time you speak to someone at a company you are potentially taking time away from someone else who wants to speak to them. If Apple only had one service rep, would you blame us for taking up his or her time?
Just because Apple doesn't provide enough infrastructure to handle the feedback their business model creates does not mean that we should not use the channels that they do provide. Your logic seems paralyzing and strangely deferential to a company that makes poor choices. Hold the company responsible for the consequences of those choices, not the people who object to them.
I understand your criticisms. I'm interested in what the alternatives are. How do we communicate with Apple executives? We've been trying that too. It's hard to get an appointment. Apple executives delegate communications tasks to other front-line employees. So, we are talking with the front-line employees. We are not harassing them or telling them that they are bad people. We are asking them questions that require some degree of familiarity with Apple technology and Apple policies to answer.
If Apple doesn't provide enough staff to handle the questions of customers and potential customers, then they should deploy more staff, no? They don't seem to have a problem doing that when they want to make a big media circus and create product debut situations of artificial scarcity that make just walking down the street near their stores a PITA for everyone, requiring cities to provide police presence to manage the traffic flow. And we're the ones being disruptive to ordinary folks?:) Or they should do what lots of other companies are doing in response to the customer service nightmares that DRM causes -- drop DRM.
We did encourage people who visit the stores to tell others there about Defective By Design, so they will know what's going on. They will also know why it's going on -- it's short-term inconvenient disruption in the interest of longer term pro-consumer change.
Thank you for supporting our goals, and for taking the time to think about this and speak up.
It's absolutely right that people should be polite, and we
emphasized that in the handout and instructions we wrote for
this. Being a jerk to someone just showing up to work after a
late night at the bar doesn't help anyone. And many of the
Geniuses are probably at least sympathetic to us, and they
probably think the Genius name is pretty funny too -- everyone
has to make a living.
Our goal is to communicate a message to Apple, and we use the
communications channels that Apple has provided in order to do
this. It's interesting that people criticize making life
difficult for the employees when we are doing something that
disagrees with Apple, but not of the pro-Apple crowd. What about
the 500 people waiting outside to get in when the new store
opened? I bet that "made life difficult" for the employees too.
Besides, isn't a day full of conversations about DRM going to be
a pretty easy day for the Geniuses? They don't have to debug
anything, or deal with people who are furious about not knowing
how to use their computer, or about some legitimate data loss:).
Organizations and companies are set up to deflect and channel
criticism. If we don't use the tools we have -- our voices, our
dollars, and our ability to organize with others -- nothing will
ever get changed. Organizing a concerted effort to deliver a
direct message in a respectful but firm way seems like something
consumers are supposed to do when they don't like what a big
company is doing. I'm honestly interested to hear all the
alternative suggestions out there for communicating this message
to Apple. We can't just send letters to generic customer service
addresses and wait quietly. We can't just stop buying Apple
products but not say why. I think we're past that point -- Apple
said they agreed with us a year and a half ago and yet now they
are pushing more DRM than ever.
As for taking time away from Apple customers who need tech
support, that is indeed regrettable but it's also inevitable.
Time is a zero-sum game and Apple only has so much of it. Any
customer going to the store takes time away from another. The 500
people waiting outside the store stopped me from getting in to
have the conversation I wanted to have too. The question is, who
is responsible for this? If Apple stuck to what they said they
were going to do about DRM, or if they spent a little more money
on their support services and some executives took a slight pay
cut, this wouldn't be an issue. Pointing the finger at people
using the option as provided to ask salient questions about the
way Apple technology functions of Apple employees tasked with
answering these questions is not the right answer.
So, yes -- we hope and expect that everyone will be polite, but
firm. I am sorry for the inconvenience caused to other customers but in consolation I can offer the statement that if we succeed, there will be far fewer agonizing and annoying DRM-induced computer catastrophes for all of us to deal with.
Be aware that in many cases even buying something preloaded with GNU/Linux doesn't mean you are avoiding indirectly giving Microsoft money. Vendors are often required to buy the machines with Windows licenses, then format them and install GNU/Linux before selling them to you. Maybe Dell has a different deal, but this practice is otherwise common.
For reference, the section of the rationale document that addresses this is pasted below.
The problem does need to be solved, but it can't be solved arbitrarily; it needs to be done in a way that makes sense with the principles of the license. Discussion should continue about how to address it --- everyone seems to want the same goal here.
We regret that we will not achieve compatibility of the Apache License,
Version 2.0, with GPLv3, despite what we had previously promised.
Our consideration of Apache/GPL license compatibility has focused on
the patent termination clause in the Apache license. As we explained above
in 4.1, this clause is compatible with Draft 3 because it is not a "further re-
striction." However, we overlooked another provision in the current Apache
license that, on its face, is incompatible with the GPL. Under section 9
of the Apache license, downstream redistributors must agree to indemnify
upstream licensors under certain conditions.27
Although we have studied section 9 of the Apache license at some length,
we fail to understand its precise purpose or eect. On one interpretation,
the indemnication clause should never have any consequence, since, one
might argue, the liability incurred by an upstream licensor "by reason of " a
downstream redistributor's acceptance of warranty or liability ought always
to be zero. However, we think this cannot have been the intent of the
drafters of the Apache license. Terms in free software licenses must be
assumed to have real meaning. Because the GPL gives redistributors an
unconditional right to oer warranty protection,28 and because the terms of
the Apache license appear to survive incorporation of Apache-covered code
into a GPL-covered work, section 9 of the Apache license would give rise to
an impermissible further restriction on GPL rights.
We apologize to the Apache community for having previously overlooked
the signicance of this issue. We look forward to further discussions with
the Apache Foundation in the hope of achieving compatibility in the future.
You raise some interesting points, but I wonder how people who are leery of the GPLv3 DRM provisions would define a difference between the TiVo situation -- which some people think is easy to answer because they see no inherent right to run a modified program on such specialized hardware -- and an analagous situation with a laptop or general-purpose computer, where the computer is configured at the factory to prevent modification of the free software on it.
In other words, if we allow TiVo to prevent with hardware controls the modification of free software, then how do we _not_ allow Lenovo to do the same thing on Thinkpads? Are we just counting on the market to not support such restricted computers?
(Your response was less inflammatory then my post?)
I agree that the Colorado proposal doesn't sound like that big of a deal. But they shouldn't be spending law enforcement time and money discouraging people from having open networks unless there is reason to do so, and I wouldn't want this kind of thing to be adopted in other places.
Perhaps where we differ is that I'm in favor of anyonymous Internet access. This does have downsides in that it can be abused. But I like the fact that open networks make IP addresses in RADIUS logs into poor pieces of evidence. This is a positive thing for society because individuals can speak out without fear of persecution. For every example of potential abuse (death threats to the president), there are examples of positive uses (anonymous whistleblowers, productive political dissent, ubiquitous access to information).
I don't think that the police are repressive monsters. What I'm suggesting is that they focus on more productive ways of policing.
Just being a doofus and replying to myself here to say that what I had in mind was that this program could be a prelude to restrictions, and that they shouldn't even be discouraging people from having open networks. I didn't mean to sound like I thought this program included restrictions.
The idea that an open network could be used for nefarious purposes is irrelevant. When you leave a tip at a restaurant, you might be enabling your waiter to go home later and purchase some child porn, or maybe even to buy a gun and kill somebody. There are any number of ways to connect each of us and the resources we control to criminal activities. But the ability to connect dots like this is not a sufficient justification for making policy that restricts the way we use or share our resources. Not only is it my right to share my network how I choose (assuming it's within the bounds of my ToS, although even then this is a contract issue and not one the police need to be involved in), but it is beneficial to society to allow this kind of sharing to happen, as people will use that connection for economically productive uses, and waste less time investing in security measures. It seems to me that they should be policing a little closer to the actual specific crimes they are worried about. If they are worried about child pornography, then monitoring close to the supplier is surely a lot more efficient than trying to monitor the wifi network of every single person in the county.
DRM is a solution to piracy. It isn't a great solution, but if music is free to redistribute, then very few will be original distributors. Scarcity is an essential concept in economics.
That doesn't seem to be true. There are businesses selling DRM-free music. They have been mentioned in the "Alternatives" thread, and elsewhere. As an example, eMusic is listed as the #2 retailer of downloadable music. There are many artists giving away their music or selling it directly to fans in order to get people to come to their shows. It is only a small conglomerate of labels that feels they need DRM in order to stay alive. They might be right, but do not equate the continued profits of those few businesses with the success of music and culture in general. I would be interested to see any articles or statements from non-RIAA labels in support of DRM. I honestly haven't heard any. Isn't competition also an essential concept in free market economics?
Consider for a moment that you produce an electronic product (e.g., music, movies, video games, etc). How will you get paid for your efforts? If the cost of production (and reproduction) is zero, and you have no way to limit it, you will have a hard road ahead.
You mean, how will you get paid more than 7 cents per song for your efforts? Eliminating the massive overhead that goes into distributing music via the current monopoly model will likely enable artists to be better off. Plus, it's not like all artists made a living before. Your question should actually be, "How will our few multimillion-dollar pop stars continue to get paid for their efforts?" Because an incredible number of talented musicians are already making no money under the current model. Artists will get paid because people like their music. People will pay to be the first to receive the new music, even if it can be freely distributed after that. People will pay for shows, for signed editions, and to encourage the production of more stuff they like.
It amuzes me that kids think free music is a right. It takes a lot of effort to produce a quality product (of any kind). Demanding that it be free is insane.
I'm unfortunately not much of a kid anymore, but let's not forget that DRM applies to a lot more than music. It's being used by libraries on their audio books. It is applied to eBooks, including literature and educational materials. It's applied to the software that runs, well, just about everything these days. We are letting the companies who own this DRM technology dictate under what terms we can educate ourselves (and our kids) in ways that we have never allowed before. What are the ramifications of this?
Even if it's true that we need to provide a greater incentive to people to create useful works, that would only point to a need to find a better way to do it than restricting access to those works, since such restrictions have wide-ranging impacts (like bringing down entire incredibly useful infrastructures like P2P). Copyright was conceived to be exactly such a device; something artificial to promote useful works. So we have room to come up with other such devices if need be.
It isn't "your" music.
No, but the benefit of exclusive ownership of copyrighted works to the rights-holder does need to be balanced against the benefit to society. That's what it says in the Constitution, anyway. Copyright has a limited term of ownership (even though that keeps getting longer) and is not like physical property in ways that others around here have already explained. Creation should be rewarded, but the kind of exclusive control required to justify DRM is an attempt to turn this into a kind of property it was never intended to be.
I agree that we need to have a society that supports artists and musicians. It's a littl
Slashdot Mirror
I know it says rate-limiting, but from our logs, the accepted rate appears to be 0. We don't have that many users; certainly not enough to trigger a rate limit in the scope of the kind of rate they would be worried about. And while we did not say "lazy" in the original article, but rather expressed our sympathies for having to grapple with the spam problem, this is not an acceptable solution. As other commenters are pointing out, this is essentially shifting the burden to much smaller entities, who now have to respond to their users' complaints. If Google would publicly describe the problem, and the scope of it, and publicly explain what they are *actually* doing, then the rest of us could help find a solution. Right now, this definitely looks like "easiest way out for us, broader principle of federation and workloads of other entities be damned."
Yes, I have the nerve to call studies which do not publish their methodology unscientific. I published mine, which is exactly why others have been able to find issues with it. Some of these issues are valid, and I will be writing a new analysis accounting for those issues. This is how, at least to my understanding, science progresses. I guess you probably didn't listen to my presentation, which is fine, but in it I was very clear that I was presenting these numbers to stimulate further discussion about the issue while being conscious of the framing of the question, and I challenged people to find problems with the numbers.
I'm glad that you raised disagreement with this, but I think you are downplaying the extent of the connection. From the Foundation FAQ:
This says clearly that the Foundation was conceived as the "next chapter", and so the name is deliberately the same. RMS's point is that this means we can get some idea of what the Foundation will do based on what the .com has done. It's an independent effort, but
supporting the same mission, and the overlap in mission is his point.
Given that this relates to an underlying deliberate similarity and not just a superficial one in name only, I hope you are also arguing for a change in that mission for the Foundation, and not just a name change.
As mentioned in the article, the Free Software Foundation is calling on Amazon to release the Kindle's software as free software, and drop the DRM: http://www.fsf.org/news/amazon-apologizes. The Kindle is already a GNU/Linux system running largely free software -- it would be a short step for them to do so, and the only real way to make sure this or something like it doesn't happen again. This is, after all, the 3rd time in a year they have pulled something like this, despite supposedly being sorry each time.
As the site indicates, we were making appointments for the weekend before this past one -- over a week ago. So I think your difficulty is unrelated.
Our protests do include the record labels. Read through the Defective By Design history a bit and you'll see that. Also note that we collect donations for RIAA witness funds, to help people being targeted by the RIAA in lawsuits.
Silence isn't what's making Apple guilty here. Their actions are. I'll ask again, who is making Apple extend their DRM system to cover software? The record labels aren't doing that. Why does Jobs still say publicly that he thinks DRM is okay for video?
It's also the fact that they profit from the DRM. It keeps people tied to the iTunes store. It gives them better control over all the iPhones and iPods out there, which they can use to leverage deals and make profits.
These things argue against your assumption that Apple's silence is because it can't do any better. We're not letting Apple, Microsoft, OverDrive, the MPAA, or the record labels shirk responsibility here. You're right that it's a team effort on their part -- we'll point out the ways in which each member of the team contributes to the problem, and we'll talk about the overall problem.
That's not true. We have a series of legitimate questions about Apple products. It's not like a DoS on a search engine. It's individuals who are Apple customers and potential Apple customers going in to give feedback to Apple and ask questions.
Why is that letter sufficient for you? He hasn't done what he said he was going to do, so I'm honestly puzzled. He said half the tracks on iTunes would be DRM-free by the end of 2007. Very few are.
Maybe Jobs is driving for harder terms than other people are, because of Apple's powerful position as distributor? I don't doubt that Apple is refusing terms from the record companies here -- my objection is to people who say that Apple *can't* change the situation, or that they are being bullied. They clearly can, but they are trying to maximize their own profits, and the freedom of their customers just doesn't weigh in the calculation. That's what we object to and what we're trying to change.
Let's keep in mind that any reason the record companies might be driving a harder bargain with Jobs than with others probably has to do with the degree to which Jobs is attempting to assert control over the whole market via iTunes lock-in and price control.
I dunno, I just wonder what it would take for you to believe that he was either full of it when he wrote that letter, and was trying to defuse opposition and shift blame, or that he has changed his mind since then and decided that DRM benefits him after all.
I mean, especially given the fact that you're not even talking to the right company. DRM is a condition imposed by the record labels, genius.
Do you have evidence for this? Because the existence of Amazon, Rhapsody, eMusic.com's DRM-free MP3 stores seems to say otherwise. Also, the iPhone applies DRM to *software*. Who is forcing them to do that? Seems like Apple profits from DRM because it locks people to the iTunes store. Record companies might want it sometimes too, but just because there are multiple parties involved doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold each of them responsible. Otherwise they just keep passing the buck.
DRM sucks, but it's a tradeoff that some consumers willingly buy into, and so what if they do? It's not a decision you need to make. Their choice does not adversely effect your ability to make another. Nobody dies...
You're right to an extent, and I'm not suggesting anyone hunger strike over it. But, it's more serious than you are making it out to be. DRM is being applied to public domain cultural materials and to textbooks and educational video. It really is having a tangible impact on a lot of people and it's something that's beyond a mere business decision. Remember that it isn't just some piece of software -- in the US (and other places) it's a law, called the DMCA, and it threatens people with jail time. Unjust laws should go, and I don't feel bad protesting them and those who threaten us with them (in this case, Apple).
We don't run our own company, but we do highlight those who do run businesses that sell DRM-free products. See http://defectivebydesign.org/guide.
It wouldn't be trespassing or a crime -- we booked appointments. If Apple requests that we leave, we will do so. I've never heard booking an appointment with someone being described as using force before. Also, I don't know what you mean by "protesting", but you seem to have a picture of us just shouting at them or something. We're asking Apple representatives salient questions about the technology used in Apple products. I'm not sure what judge would call that harrassment.
Apple, by the way, attempted at their Boston store opening to have us evicted from what was a public sidewalk. The police disagreed and said we could stay. So, it's worth keeping in mind here that the company you are trying to defend from harassment has no problem harassing and intimidating people who are engaging in legally protected free expression on public property. Not surprising, given that they also see no problem with wrapping public domain digital materials in DRM.
They already have it, I left a message with them :).
Actually it's not. We aren't threatening anyone. We are using existing channels offered by Apple to communicate with them in regard to issues about their products. That's not anything like threatening someone with violence.
Street protests block the streets and irritate people. Are they always wrong? Your logic would say yes. In fact, your logic would suggest that I should never complain to a company about anything because I might be taking away from someone else's opportunity to get technical support.
The dictator logic here is Apple's logic. "I'm sorry. I don't want to restrict your freedom, but since other people might abuse their freedom, I have no choice."
The FSF used to stand for the high ideals of freedom (that's freedom for everyone, John, not just for those politically-aligned with yourself).
Absolutely. And that's why we make an issue out of this -- DRM prevents everyone from exercising their freedom. I can understand disagreeing about the tactics but let's be clear here that the goal is not politically any different from the usual -- Apple, on the iPhone and other platforms, is actively working against free software.
Here's a suggestion, John, let those of you who oppose Apple's policies stop buying Apple products, and don't "keep quiet about it", shout it from the rooftops, declare it on your websites, start (non e-) mail campaigns, whichever method you like. I suspect you've been doing all that, and no-one who hears your message cares about it - that's the cold hard truth of the matter.
You're right that we've been doing that. The result has been a steadily growing campaign, and a general shift away from DRM in many parts of the industry -- the parts of the industry where people have objected most strongly. Obviously there have been a lot of factors for that, but certainly people speaking up together in public is an important one. But there are a few powerful holdouts, like Apple.
alternatively: The suffering of other people is a useful tool that I can use to try and get my message some more metaphorical airtime. As used by tinpot dictators throughout history.
Well, that's not what I said. Every time you speak to someone at a company you are potentially taking time away from someone else who wants to speak to them. If Apple only had one service rep, would you blame us for taking up his or her time? Just because Apple doesn't provide enough infrastructure to handle the feedback their business model creates does not mean that we should not use the channels that they do provide. Your logic seems paralyzing and strangely deferential to a company that makes poor choices. Hold the company responsible for the consequences of those choices, not the people who object to them.
I understand your criticisms. I'm interested in what the alternatives are. How do we communicate with Apple executives? We've been trying that too. It's hard to get an appointment. Apple executives delegate communications tasks to other front-line employees. So, we are talking with the front-line employees. We are not harassing them or telling them that they are bad people. We are asking them questions that require some degree of familiarity with Apple technology and Apple policies to answer.
If Apple doesn't provide enough staff to handle the questions of customers and potential customers, then they should deploy more staff, no? They don't seem to have a problem doing that when they want to make a big media circus and create product debut situations of artificial scarcity that make just walking down the street near their stores a PITA for everyone, requiring cities to provide police presence to manage the traffic flow. And we're the ones being disruptive to ordinary folks? :) Or they should do what lots of other companies are doing in response to the customer service nightmares that DRM causes -- drop DRM.
We did encourage people who visit the stores to tell others there about Defective By Design, so they will know what's going on. They will also know why it's going on -- it's short-term inconvenient disruption in the interest of longer term pro-consumer change.
Thank you for supporting our goals, and for taking the time to think about this and speak up.
It's absolutely right that people should be polite, and we emphasized that in the handout and instructions we wrote for this. Being a jerk to someone just showing up to work after a late night at the bar doesn't help anyone. And many of the Geniuses are probably at least sympathetic to us, and they probably think the Genius name is pretty funny too -- everyone has to make a living.
Our goal is to communicate a message to Apple, and we use the communications channels that Apple has provided in order to do this. It's interesting that people criticize making life difficult for the employees when we are doing something that disagrees with Apple, but not of the pro-Apple crowd. What about the 500 people waiting outside to get in when the new store opened? I bet that "made life difficult" for the employees too. Besides, isn't a day full of conversations about DRM going to be a pretty easy day for the Geniuses? They don't have to debug anything, or deal with people who are furious about not knowing how to use their computer, or about some legitimate data loss :).
Organizations and companies are set up to deflect and channel criticism. If we don't use the tools we have -- our voices, our dollars, and our ability to organize with others -- nothing will ever get changed. Organizing a concerted effort to deliver a direct message in a respectful but firm way seems like something consumers are supposed to do when they don't like what a big company is doing. I'm honestly interested to hear all the alternative suggestions out there for communicating this message to Apple. We can't just send letters to generic customer service addresses and wait quietly. We can't just stop buying Apple products but not say why. I think we're past that point -- Apple said they agreed with us a year and a half ago and yet now they are pushing more DRM than ever.
As for taking time away from Apple customers who need tech support, that is indeed regrettable but it's also inevitable. Time is a zero-sum game and Apple only has so much of it. Any customer going to the store takes time away from another. The 500 people waiting outside the store stopped me from getting in to have the conversation I wanted to have too. The question is, who is responsible for this? If Apple stuck to what they said they were going to do about DRM, or if they spent a little more money on their support services and some executives took a slight pay cut, this wouldn't be an issue. Pointing the finger at people using the option as provided to ask salient questions about the way Apple technology functions of Apple employees tasked with answering these questions is not the right answer.
So, yes -- we hope and expect that everyone will be polite, but firm. I am sorry for the inconvenience caused to other customers but in consolation I can offer the statement that if we succeed, there will be far fewer agonizing and annoying DRM-induced computer catastrophes for all of us to deal with.
Be aware that in many cases even buying something preloaded with GNU/Linux doesn't mean you are avoiding indirectly giving Microsoft money. Vendors are often required to buy the machines with Windows licenses, then format them and install GNU/Linux before selling them to you. Maybe Dell has a different deal, but this practice is otherwise common.
For reference, the section of the rationale document that addresses this is pasted below.
The problem does need to be solved, but it can't be solved arbitrarily; it needs to be done in a way that makes sense with the principles of the license. Discussion should continue about how to address it --- everyone seems to want the same goal here.
You raise some interesting points, but I wonder how people who are leery of the GPLv3 DRM provisions would define a difference between the TiVo situation -- which some people think is easy to answer because they see no inherent right to run a modified program on such specialized hardware -- and an analagous situation with a laptop or general-purpose computer, where the computer is configured at the factory to prevent modification of the free software on it.
In other words, if we allow TiVo to prevent with hardware controls the modification of free software, then how do we _not_ allow Lenovo to do the same thing on Thinkpads? Are we just counting on the market to not support such restricted computers?
(Your response was less inflammatory then my post?)
I agree that the Colorado proposal doesn't sound like that big of a deal. But they shouldn't be spending law enforcement time and money discouraging people from having open networks unless there is reason to do so, and I wouldn't want this kind of thing to be adopted in other places.
Perhaps where we differ is that I'm in favor of anyonymous Internet access. This does have downsides in that it can be abused. But I like the fact that open networks make IP addresses in RADIUS logs into poor pieces of evidence. This is a positive thing for society because individuals can speak out without fear of persecution. For every example of potential abuse (death threats to the president), there are examples of positive uses (anonymous whistleblowers, productive political dissent, ubiquitous access to information).
I don't think that the police are repressive monsters. What I'm suggesting is that they focus on more productive ways of policing.
Just being a doofus and replying to myself here to say that what I had in mind was that this program could be a prelude to restrictions, and that they shouldn't even be discouraging people from having open networks. I didn't mean to sound like I thought this program included restrictions.
The idea that an open network could be used for nefarious purposes is irrelevant. When you leave a tip at a restaurant, you might be enabling your waiter to go home later and purchase some child porn, or maybe even to buy a gun and kill somebody. There are any number of ways to connect each of us and the resources we control to criminal activities. But the ability to connect dots like this is not a sufficient justification for making policy that restricts the way we use or share our resources. Not only is it my right to share my network how I choose (assuming it's within the bounds of my ToS, although even then this is a contract issue and not one the police need to be involved in), but it is beneficial to society to allow this kind of sharing to happen, as people will use that connection for economically productive uses, and waste less time investing in security measures. It seems to me that they should be policing a little closer to the actual specific crimes they are worried about. If they are worried about child pornography, then monitoring close to the supplier is surely a lot more efficient than trying to monitor the wifi network of every single person in the county.
That doesn't seem to be true. There are businesses selling DRM-free music. They have been mentioned in the "Alternatives" thread, and elsewhere. As an example, eMusic is listed as the #2 retailer of downloadable music. There are many artists giving away their music or selling it directly to fans in order to get people to come to their shows. It is only a small conglomerate of labels that feels they need DRM in order to stay alive. They might be right, but do not equate the continued profits of those few businesses with the success of music and culture in general. I would be interested to see any articles or statements from non-RIAA labels in support of DRM. I honestly haven't heard any. Isn't competition also an essential concept in free market economics?
You mean, how will you get paid more than 7 cents per song for your efforts? Eliminating the massive overhead that goes into distributing music via the current monopoly model will likely enable artists to be better off. Plus, it's not like all artists made a living before. Your question should actually be, "How will our few multimillion-dollar pop stars continue to get paid for their efforts?" Because an incredible number of talented musicians are already making no money under the current model. Artists will get paid because people like their music. People will pay to be the first to receive the new music, even if it can be freely distributed after that. People will pay for shows, for signed editions, and to encourage the production of more stuff they like.
I'm unfortunately not much of a kid anymore, but let's not forget that DRM applies to a lot more than music. It's being used by libraries on their audio books. It is applied to eBooks, including literature and educational materials. It's applied to the software that runs, well, just about everything these days. We are letting the companies who own this DRM technology dictate under what terms we can educate ourselves (and our kids) in ways that we have never allowed before. What are the ramifications of this?
Even if it's true that we need to provide a greater incentive to people to create useful works, that would only point to a need to find a better way to do it than restricting access to those works, since such restrictions have wide-ranging impacts (like bringing down entire incredibly useful infrastructures like P2P). Copyright was conceived to be exactly such a device; something artificial to promote useful works. So we have room to come up with other such devices if need be.
No, but the benefit of exclusive ownership of copyrighted works to the rights-holder does need to be balanced against the benefit to society. That's what it says in the Constitution, anyway. Copyright has a limited term of ownership (even though that keeps getting longer) and is not like physical property in ways that others around here have already explained. Creation should be rewarded, but the kind of exclusive control required to justify DRM is an attempt to turn this into a kind of property it was never intended to be.
I agree that we need to have a society that supports artists and musicians. It's a littl
FSF is collecting copies of comments that people e-mail to FEMA about this. See http://www.fsf.org/news/fema.html.
The autoreply message is wrong. If you sent a nomination to that address, it was received and recorded. Sorry about the mistake.