Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RMS Responds To NPR File-Sharer's Blog

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the morally-right-vs-legally-right dept.

Piracy 634

New submitter UtucXul points out that Richard Stallman has penned a lengthy response to NPR intern Emily White for her post on the organization's site about how she failed to pay for a significant amount of recorded music, acquiring it instead through Kazaa, friends, and CDs owned by the radio station at which she was employed. (We previously discussed musician David Lowery's response; quite different from RMS's, as you might expect.) Stallman wrote, "Copying and sharing recordings was not a mistake, let alone wrong, because sharing is good. It's good to share musical recordings with friends and family; it's good for a radio station to share recordings with the staff, and it's good when strangers share through peer-to-peer networks. The wrong is in the repressive laws that try to block or punish sharing. Sharing ought to be legalized; in the mean time, please do not act ashamed of having shared — that would validate those repressive laws that claim that it is wrong. You did make a mistake when you chose Kazaa as the method of sharing. Kazaa mistreated you (and all its users) by requiring you to run a non-free program on your computer. ... However, that was in the past. It's more important to consider what you're doing now, which includes other mistakes. You're not alone — many others make them too, and that adds up to a big problem for society. The root mistake is treating a marketing buzzword, 'the cloud,' as if it meant something concrete. That term refers to so many things (different ways of using the Internet) that it really has no meaning at all. Marketing uses that term to lead people's attention away from the important questions about any given use of the network, such as, 'What companies would I depend on if I did this, and how? What trouble could they cause me, if they wanted to shaft me, or simply thought that a change in policies would gain them more money?'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

RMS thinks giving other people's shit away is good (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650931)

film at 11

Re:RMS thinks giving other people's shit away is g (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651125)

Who cares about a fucking NPR File Sharer's Blog. Children are starving in Africa and you give a shit about a fucking NPR File Sharer's Blog? Fuck you. Instead of shooting electron beams at a NPR File Sharer's Blog to see what happens these scientists should be in the wheat fields growing food for starving children in 3rd world countries. First world fuckers like yourself are decadent faggots who care more about a NPR File Sharer's Blog than humans. Those same starving children probably mined the NPR File Sharer's Blog for you so you could play with it in your lab. Fuckers.

Re:RMS thinks giving other people's shit away is g (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651165)

Children are starving in Africa and you give a shit about a fucking NPR File Sharer's Blog? Fuck you. Instead of shooting electron beams at a NPR File Sharer's Blog to see what happens these scientists should be in the wheat fields growing food for starving children in 3rd world countries.

The children are starving not because of a scarcity of food but because certain people in Africa are PREVENTING the food
from getting to the people who need it.

If you really truly want to make the world a better place, kill yourself.

Re:RMS thinks giving other people's shit away is g (4, Funny)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651263)

Wait, did you just accuse the person to whom you were responding of being an African dictator?

Re:RMS thinks giving other people's shit away is g (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651231)

this copy pasta sure smells like summer. wait, this isn't /b/? sorry, kthnxbai

Re:RMS thinks giving other people's shit away is g (5, Insightful)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651169)

RMS thinks giving other people's shit away is good

The term "giving away" implies a situation where one party is deprived of something so another person can have it. This is not an accurate representation of Stallman's views, nor is is an accurate description of copyright infringement. When a copy is made and provided to another party, both parties now have the item in question.

RMS believes the above described behavior is morally correct, and should be universally allowed. Furthermore, he believes software is an entity unto itself that has rights, just as a person has rights. I happen to disagree with him on these points, but regardless of your position on such matters, it is very important to describe them correctly. Much as RMS has a long history of attempting to redefine the word "freedom" to suit his sociopolitical agenda, I must disagree with those who attempt to make statements on important matters such as these without getting their definitions right.

Re:RMS thinks giving other people's shit away is g (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651269)

RMS also believes that he should be given money from one place or another for the work he does... This is strange. Why should he be paid for anything? Any work he does should belong to everyone. I will mail him and ask if he could send half his money to me, I have a right to any profit he makes from his work... Or so he claims.

Anyone who creates anything must own that thing and decide what is to be done with it. If you believe that sharing is correct and must be allowed, make some music and share that. Sharing your own work IS good! Forcing other to share their is not.

Re:RMS thinks giving other people's shit away is g (1)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651221)

Seeing as how copyright != ownership, I fail to see what you are talking about.

Re:RMS thinks giving other people's shit away is g (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651249)

nice adjective used, doubt RIAA thinks it is that adjective, though most of us, like you do agree, it is ....

let's hear it slashtards (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650937)

I'll say it for you: copying is not stealing.

but, copying your GPL'd program without credit is stealing

Come on retards... get it out already:

copyright applies when you take from me. It does not apply when I take from you.

Re:let's hear it slashtards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650957)

Yeah... you're a moron. Don't bother coming back with some wiseass remark about there being no comeback to your statements, as gross generalizations, and blatant mis-interpretations hardly come off as any kind of verifiable, factual ANYTHING.

Re:let's hear it slashtards (5, Insightful)

emilper (826945) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650977)

copying your GPL'd program without credit and copyrighting it is stealing

there, fixed that for you

claiming copyright on stolen music would be the same thing, simple sharing is not

Re:let's hear it slashtards (4, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651029)

So then it's okay to make a derivative work from a GPL work and distribute it without the source code, as long as you do it for free and are "sharing"? Think for just a minute about why that's not the case.

The "repressive" laws that say that sharing copyrighted content that you didn't get pemission to make distributable copies of are the exact same "repressive" copyright that makes enforcing the GPL possible.

SHUT YOU MOUTH !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651051)

You !! You !! You !! Shut you mouth !! Not same !! Not even close to same !! You misused the English to twist the truth to suit your agenda !! Sharing is good !! Copyright is not realistic in this day, no matter the age !! GPL !! It is different !! Believe me now !!

Re:let's hear it slashtards (4, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651065)

And RMS stance on that issue is that in the absence of copyright there would not be as significant a need for the GPL. The GPL is a way to mitigate the damage of copyright, it's not a substitute for abolishing it.

Re:let's hear it slashtards (4, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651081)

In the absence of copyright, and thus the absence of a GPL with any teeth, how would you force me to hand over source code when you get a binary?

Re:let's hear it slashtards (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651123)

I would very much like to know the same. If the source code isn't going to be perceived of as important in absence of copyright, why is it important while we have it?

Re:let's hear it slashtards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651203)

That is just Stallman playing his spergy word games. He wants software copyright laws replaced with a legally mandated GPL.

Re:let's hear it slashtards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651255)

Because you could modify and reverse engineer anything you pleased, it wouldn't be necessary. You couldn't see me for a single thing.

Re:let's hear it slashtards (2)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651089)

Does RMS advocate copyright abolishment, then?

Re:let's hear it slashtards (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651155)

Feel free to read this answer [fsf.org] from rms to Pirate Party proposal.

Re:let's hear it slashtards (1, Troll)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651109)

but, copying your GPL'd program without credit is stealing

That isn't stealing either. If there are people who say it is, I don't know why you'd generalize and pretend as if everyone thinks this.

The cloud ? (2)

psergiu (67614) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650941)

What 'the cloud' has to do with pira^H^H^H^Hsharing some MP3s ?

Re:The cloud ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650971)

The cloud is a big skanky bong hit that Stallman just exhaled in the face of anyone who read this.

Re:The cloud ? (1)

matunos (1587263) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651077)

That depends on where you store/share/backup those mp3s. The cloud, perhaps?

Re:The cloud ? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651275)

Until the RIAA threatens to sue, and the cloud provider starts deleting your MP3s to avoid liability.

What godawful writing. (4, Insightful)

CalRobert (2451626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650945)

Even though I am sympathetic with the author, that is some of the shittiest writing I've seen in a while, which is telling considering the level of writing on the internet. "It's not bad because it's good" is hardly a compelling argument.

Re:What godawful writing. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651017)

Sadly I have to agree.

RMS can quite happily say all this bullshit about morals and how some laws are just completely wrong, but he equally does nothing about it.
He is a film critic. A game critic. He sits by the sidelines now and just comments on things every so often.
Neither is preaching about open-source every damn day. Preachers don't get things done in any reasonable time scale.

Sitting around in some bunker 300 miles under a somehow uncharted ocean that probably exists on Mars with a tachyon modem doing some interviews isn't going to do a thing.
If he really wanted to make a point, he would torrent the "latest and greatest" Hollywood film and publicly announce so, then see what happens.
If he thinks he can get around that, he would do so.
But it won't happen. The reason it won't is because he knows he will be destroyed. The law doesn't give a damn about morals, hell, the law doesn't give a damn about LAW. If you have enough money, you could make someone walking on a street illegal!
It needs a reworking that will never happen because IT IS A BUSINESS LIKE EVERY OTHER PART OF SOCIETY AND YOU CANNOT CHANGE THAT. EVER. Deal. With it.
Society is broken at the core.

Are you nuts? (4, Informative)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651117)

RMS can quite happily say all this bullshit about morals and how some laws are just completely wrong, but he equally does nothing about it.

All he does is try to educate people about unjust laws! That's pretty much his entire gig. That was the entire point of the article we're talking about here.

Re:What godawful writing. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651171)

As usual, Stallman is wrong. Society collectively defines right and wrong. Most societies delegate those decisions to groups of people; in the US we delegate it to the US Congress. We also delegate it to state and local authorities. With checks and balances from the judicial system and implementation through the executive branch (on a federal level; similar things exist at state and local levels). Other countries do it differently - but generally in similar ways. Stallman seems to think that society doesn't have the ability to define right and wrong. Apparently he ascribes to solipsism. He thinks that HE is empowered to determine right and wrong for society. How narcissistic is that? How fortunate we are that he is not a king or something. Anyway, what the intern did was absolutely wrong by the current definitions society holds. Would we like to change those definitions? Sure. They seem skewed in favor of companies and content cartels. But if you violate the law, you are in the wrong. Also, Stallman says something else idiotic. That Kazaa harmed her by making her run a non-free program. There was no harm. She wasn't forced to run it. She chose to run it in return for the illegally acquired content it would provide. Again - no harm. Stallman used to be a little better than this. But a soliphistisc narcissist is all that is left.

Re:What godawful writing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651177)

Here's the deal with Stallman: the vast majority of the 'FOSS' developer community thinks he's a dictatorial asshole. Sure, they might show him due respect, but they want nothing to do with his 'leadership'. On an organizational level, the structures are all set up to ensure Stallman has no official power or input.

So essentially GNU leader Stallman is only in charge of gcc, emacs, some barely maintained commandline utilities, and his own cult-of-personality. In his spare time, he has become a gadfly, bothering people with his unwelcomed opinions on trivial matters.

Re:What godawful writing. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651019)

Dude, it's NPR. What do you fucking expect from NPR? They're the organization that thinks long pregnant pauses over light jazz music while talking about tree moss is compelling and erudite.

RMS supports file sharing???? (-1, Troll)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650963)

What sort of parallel world did I enter?

Does that mean that if it's okay for other people to ignore proprietary copyright, then people can also freely ignore the GPL and make and distribute derivative works of GPL products without source code?

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (2, Funny)

Cylix (55374) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650999)

A parallel world would be one in which RMS advises on how to monetize on those gains.

RMS writes, "You did make a mistake when you chose Kazaa as the method of sharing. Instead, you should have created a web site using the cloud to sale your collection."

The next 10 or so lines would be quoting Ferengi rules of acquisition. Probably some good points like exploiting family and friends for more music.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651001)

Of course not. To the GPLtards copyright is evil unless it is to GPL code. That's why taking other people's works in violation of the licensing terms is okay but you get burned at the stake for even using GPL code and accidently failing to follow every single cryptic commandment. Oh and don't dare violate the "spirit" of the GPL because then you are also evil even if you are following the license terms 100%.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651223)

To the GPLtards copyright is evil unless it is to GPL code.

When fucklords like you go to such extremes trying smear your imagined "GPLtard" adversaries, it only serves to make your own arguments look more foolish.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651003)

Correct, it's perfectly ok to ripoff GPL code, so long as your workflow is 100% free software. If you plan on pasting it into visual studio, that's a no-no.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651071)

Why would that be a no-no, exactly? What makes making derivative work to a GPL work and distributing it without the source (even for free) any less, or more, of an infringement on copyright than sharing copies that you made of somebody else's copyrighted work without permission? As far as I can see they are *IDENTICAL*.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651235)

Why would that be a no-no, exactly? What makes making derivative work to a GPL work and distributing it without the source (even for free) any less, or more, of an infringement on copyright than sharing copies that you made of somebody else's copyrighted work without permission? As far as I can see they are *IDENTICAL*.

It's simple to anyone that isn't a fucktard idiot like you. Stallman didn't say one fucking word in his letter about "software". He was talking about music. The fact that you idiots on slashdot try to make out like those are the same thing is how you end up confusing yourselves. Just because somebody somewhere decided that software and music belongs under the same umbrella, e.g., "Intellectual Property" and should be treated and thought of interchangeably doesn't make it so. Duh, motherfucker.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (1)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651241)

Because one road leads to more sharing and the other one doesn't. Remember, sharing is good.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (2, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651105)

Correct, it's perfectly ok to ripoff GPL code, so long as your workflow is 100% free software. If you plan on pasting it into visual studio, that's a no-no.

Well, given that RMS has just stated that "it's good when strangers share through peer-to-peer networks", which almost certainly violates the copyright and licensing terms on the music and movies being shared - I don't think your statement is correct.

So my takeaway from today is it's obviously okay to take GPL software and use it however I want, regardless of whether or not my use violates the terms defined within the GPL. RMS doesn't feel other licenses need to be honored, so there's no compelling reason to follow the terms of his licenses. So lets start using it in our commercial devices, modify it however we want and not bother releasing the source.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (3, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651181)

What you say you're taking away from this is pretty much what I'm seeing here as well... and to be quite frank, it confuses the hell out of me. I see no way to interpret what RMS has said here other than to presume that he advocates the abolition of copyright. But under copyright abolition, there would be absolutely nothing to force people to release source code of derivative works just because the author wanted it... which kind of goes against where I formerly understood RMS's primary stance to be in.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (5, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651009)

Does that mean that if it's okay for other people to ignore proprietary copyright, then people can also freely ignore the GPL and make and distribute derivative works of GPL products without source code?

No, that's not what he said. Don't worry, others have deliberately misconstrued what he has said on the topic in the past. Also, he's talking about music which doesn't have the "proprietary" vs. "free" distinction (the only way to have proprietary music is to never, ever share it.)

I don't believe that Stallman said anything about the copyrights themselves. His point was, again, about the implied (false) moral weight behind declaring "sharing" as being wrong (something opposite to what we're taught as children.) He then proceeds to point out fairly common failings of the music industry as a whole and the laws surrounding copyright, and basically makes the point that there are systematic flaws in the way we compensate artists and that the status quo basically feeds the machine that tries to shove crap like SOPA/PIPA down our throats.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651097)

Of course that's not what he said. If it were, he'd be inciting criminal acts. He sidesteps that by saying that criminal acts aren't immoral.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (2)

Exrio (2646817) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651027)

Comparing the wrong thing. GPL is not about lawfullness, GPL is about morals (it just happens to have a legal background, "because we can", or as I've read somewhere, "to turn copyright against itself and make it copyleft"). We think it's not moral to try to restrict the natural flow of information, which GPL promotes, and "proprietary copyright" forbids. Enough said. There are no inconsistencies in RMS's support of file sharing.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (1, Troll)

istartedi (132515) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651035)

No, it's not OK to pirate GPL'd works. You forget. Some pigs are more equal than others.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651143)

As others have implied there are two different viewpoints.
The moral and the legal.

Clearly from a moral standpoint "some pigs are more equal than others". I'd tend to agree. Coders who have contributed their work for nothing under the GPL are certainly "more equal" than greedy big media executives who exploit their artists (but maybe they are more "piggy"?).

But from a legal standpoint there is obviously equality. If the oppressive law (copyright) exists then the coders are as free to make use of it (to enforce the GPL) as the greedy executives are.

If it helps you to understand, you may consider the "moral" viewpoint a subjective one, and the legal viewpoint an objective fact.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651265)

Are you fucking retarded? You can't "pirate" GPL software. Pirating involves ships and canons and fucking shitloads of WATER. Moron.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651039)

Does that mean that if it's okay for other people to ignore proprietary copyright, then people can also freely ignore the GPL and make and distribute derivative works of GPL products without source code?

Sharing and redistributing unmodified files and modifying and distributing GPL'd material are quite obviously two entirely different things..

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651101)

He supports file sharing, but I doubt he is saying you should ignore copyright.

In an ideal world, it would be fine to share music with others - it's what people do by default. There are other ways for the artists to make money in the same way there are other ways to make money from freely shared software (e.g: value add, support/concerts, etc).

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651107)

Did you even read her shitty little article? What this "Emily" moron did was (except for a little file sharing with Kazaa in fifth grade) is trade mix-tapes and songs with -- as she stated -- "family and friends".

That is NOT the same as file sharing. That is NOT the same as bit torrent and "piracy" and "copyright infringement" (no matter what side you fall down on in those issues). "sharing mix tapes and songs from family and with friends" has generally been considered fair-use and has been done for DECADES. I am fucking shocked at the responses I've seen all over the place -- showing the extreme fucking ignorance of idiots everywhere -- acting as if trading a mix-tape or duplicating an album for your girlfriend or your brother is the same as going to the pirate bay and uploading and seeding the latest #1 billboard album.

I mean, fucking seriously, what the fuck?!

And what makes this rambling 20 year old moron's comments even dumber is that she's convinced that she did something wrong. We now live in a world where we have children CONVINCED that SHARING MUSIC WITH AN ACTUAL FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER is the same thing as operating a massive piracy/duplication crime syndicate that pumps out $5 copies of DVDs and CDs on the streets of new york and that she has somehow committed some sort of crime or even some sort of copyright infringement (she hasn't).

Fuck, I completely give up. There is no more hope. The mindless idiots have let the corporations dictate to them what is and isn't appropriate and fair use and we've passed that on to an entire generation or two of children who now just accept that it's wrong, because they don't know any better and assume that corporations get to have absolute and complete control on everything, because they say so, and anything contradicting them must be theft and must be a crime.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651149)

What sort of parallel world did I enter?

One where you haven't been paying any attention?

RMS has strongly opposed copyright for a long time, and wants to abolish it and substitute the legal requirement for anyone to provide source to any software they distribute. (In effect, tyrannically imposing a "free" license on everything.) He invented "copyleft" (and its GPL embodiment) as a temporary measure, turning copyright against its rent-seeking purpose, until such time as he can achieve his goals legislatively.

However, it's not at all clear whether he'd be okay with simply invalidating copyright (making everything public domain, aka actual freedom, but permitting binary distribution of closed- and open-source alike), or if he prefers to keep copyright+GPL until he can bring about his "utopian" laws.

Does that mean that if it's okay for other people to ignore proprietary copyright, then people can also freely ignore the GPL and make and distribute derivative works of GPL products without source code?

New here? This is RMS's (and a good chunk of /.ers') mindset:

Sharing is moral, thus he doesn't mind, whether or not you break the law to do so.
Distributing software and NOT distributing source is immoral, thus he does mind, whether or not you break the law to do so.

He's a zealot; morality (in his definition -- if you disagree, you're wrong and/or evil!) matters, law doesn't. He only cares about law inasmuch as it can be useful club to beat people with.

Re:RMS supports file sharing???? (3, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651283)

Copyright is, first, last, and *ALWAYS*, about control, not monetization. Where the creator of a work is simply wanting to retain some measure of exclusivity on who may copy the work.

Before the printing press was invented, copying was error prone and hard enough that the difficulty magnitude of doing this tended to create its own checks and balances, preventing unauthorized copying from spreading out of control. After copying became much cheaper and easier to do, however, some incentive that authors could still enjoy a limited amount of the exclusivity of control they had over their works was offered in the form of a legal social contract: copyright, wherein the general public would basically agree to not copy the work, and so the author would have incentive to publish the work in the first place, without any self-censoring, and thereby provide the public with cultural enrichment.

Owing to the effects of the legally recognized exclusivity of control on who may copy a given work creates a type of monopoly, which affects the supply-demand curve, and in a capitalistic society, this effect happens to be monetizable, but that is not the actual underlying purpose of copyright - it is to encourage authors to publish so that society and the general public can benefit. If the public does not respect the copyright, then the artist's confidence in that system to protect their interests is shaken, and they can or will resort to other means to protect them, such as reducing the amount that they publish, or restricting the types of content that they publish so that only certain people can easily acquire it. DRM, which is being used by an ever increasing number of publishers, is exactly one such response to their shaking confidence in copyright to protect their interests, and is just one form of the self censorship that copyright itself was originally created to discourage.

Mad, but not bad. (5, Insightful)

Loki_666 (824073) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650969)

The world needs people like RMS... really. I mean, he is out there on the fringe, where rational thought breaks down into fantasy, but you also have a lot of people in power who are at the other extreme and also living in a kind of fantasy bubble.... heavily subsidized by corporate players of course to ensure they see things the "right" way.

Like so many things in life, the right way isn't always the left or the right, the blue or the red, the democrat or republican, or whatever... its the middle ground where interests from all sides are considered.

On my way home, ill be driving down the central reservation, just to make this point. :-D

Re:Mad, but not bad. (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651041)

I mean, he is out there on the fringe, where rational thought breaks down into fantasy

He practices what he preaches. I don't agree with him fully, but there are few espousing ideals that can claim the same.

you also have a lot of people in power who are at the other extreme and also living in a kind of fantasy bubble.... heavily subsidized by corporate players of course to ensure they see things the "right" way.

It's funny that people attack RMS, and fail to acknowledge that the powers-that-be are pushing in, and succeeding in getting to, the polar opposite of his stance. My guess is they just feel the need to attack someone.

Re:Mad, but not bad. (1, Insightful)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651079)

People attack RMS because routinely he says stupid shit like:

Kazaa mistreated you (and all its users) by requiring you to run a non-free program on your computer.

Yeah, because the makers of Kazaa giving away for free a program that she voluntarily decided to use that gave her access to tons of free music is totally mistreatment.

Re:Mad, but not bad. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651141)

Yeah, because the makers of Kazaa giving away for free a program that she voluntarily decided to use that gave her access to tons of free music is totally mistreatment.

You really have no idea who RMS is at all do you? He's saying the end (the benefits of Kazaa) aren't justified by the means (Kazaa delivered in the form of a closed source binary). This isn't some new revelation from him as he's being singing this tune for over 30 years now. You don't have to agree with Stallman but when you espouse a fundamental ignorance of his positions it doesn't give any credibility to your arguing his opposite.

Re:Mad, but not bad. (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651151)

he says stupid shit

No, that's not stupid. That follows from his stance on all software. You know he is going to say that. It'd behoove people who disagree with him to counter his points rather than resort to the ad-hominems they usually follow with.

Re:Mad, but not bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651163)

I agree with a lot of what he's saying, if not to the degree he says it.

But I wish he could focus his arguments a little better. It's tempting to argue the grand unified theory of intellectual property horseshit, but it makes eyes glaze over. That's without even getting into the software developers should just wait tables for a living discussion...

Re:Mad, but not bad. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651111)

The only difference in the "fantasy" world that RMS lives in and the "real world" of copyright is that legislation and law enforcement have made the copyright fiction a reality.

Did you read what he wrote? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651129)

So you support his solution:

Put a tax on Internet connectivity, and divide the money among artists.

I have never pirated anything. It's a huge PIA, and Pandora is free, radio is free. You want me to pay because you think $1 for a song is too much of your money. yeah, FU asshole. Pay your own bills. You won't die if you don't hear the latest lady gaga song.

Le sigh. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650981)

When asked about how musicians and others can earn a living when their products are treated as having no value, he reminded her that everybody eats free at the foot cafe.

I don't even know what that means.

Re:Le sigh. (1)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651055)

maybe RMS is a socialist! After having extensively studied economics, I have come to the same conclusions that he has, based on the this reasoning.

1. Social justice is maximizing the minimum gain
2. Information has the most utility when its free
3. Wealth inequality causes less efficient economies
4. Media is a form of non productive consumption.

Re:Le sigh. (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651287)

1. Social justice is maximizing the minimum gain

What does this mean?

3. Wealth inequality causes less efficient economies

How so?

(Asking seriously, not snarkily.)

Re:Le sigh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651059)

... everybody eats free at the foot cafe.I don't even know what that means.

Yes you do:

Stallman eating free stuff [youtube.com]

Re:Le sigh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651185)

When asked about how musicians and others can earn a living when their products are treated as having no value

It's up to them to figure that out, just like it's up to a business to figure out how to be profitable.

Wow, Emily is a Retard. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650997)

If she ever had any credibility to begin with (she didn't), she lost it at having used Kazaa. What is this, 2002? Who even knew Kazaa was still a *thing*?

Second, the comments in the responses on that blog are fucking ludicrous. Are people really that naive and stupid? No wonder copyright lows are the way they are, now. There really is a mass of people out there who think you're a fucking felon for singing "Happy Birthday" to your kid without filing with ASCAP and paying your royalties. Fucking brainwashed, thoughtless, idiotic morons (including Emily).

Thought Exercise (0)

jeffehobbs (419930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651011)

Just imagine if instead of "file sharing," it was "beard sharing". And someone could come along and just get exactly the same length beard as you, just by wanting it! Now who's feeling threatened, not just by Alan Moore, but by all potential beardos everywhere. Now who's livelihood is under attack. Why, we'd probably be so hungry, we'd have to eat things right off our own feet.

Tempest meet teapot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651015)

She could have home-taped anything her station played on the air. It would be perfectly legal to do that.

In other news (0)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651023)

it's also OK to vandalize every building in the city because the laws against buying spray paint aren't fair. And kids should get drunk every morning before school because drinking age laws are unjust.

Re:In other news (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651147)

Destruction or damage to property harms the owner, since his once-pristine building is now vandalize & less valuable. Nobody is harmed when I copy a song, since the owner still had his original copy. (And since I never would have bought his song anyway, he's not lost a sale anyway.)

Re:In other news (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651201)

Not the point. See the second sentence if the first one is too distracting for you.

He must be joking... (1, Interesting)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651033)

You did make a mistake when you chose Kazaa as the method of sharing. Kazaa mistreated you (and all its users) by requiring you to run a non-free program on your computer. ...

Hahaha, what? And people wonder why most people think RMS is a loon when he writes shit like this? Yes, Kazaa "mistreated her" by her voluntarily deciding to download, install and use the program without any coercion from the makers of the program. One can only hope she won't be scarred for life from that heinous act.

Re:He must be joking... (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651093)

If she were like RMS, she very well might be. Assuming most people are like oneself is very common, even among extremes like RMS.

Re:He must be joking... (4, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651191)

>>>Yes, Kazaa "mistreated her" by her voluntarily deciding to download, install and use the program without any coercion from the makers of the program

Kazaa usually had tracking bots buried inside of it, or installed alongside it, without ever informing the users. So YES she was harmed by the program. That is what Stallman means by "non-free" - The program was a danger to the users due to its closed-off environment.

>>>One can only hope she won't be scarred for life from that heinous act.

Perhaps not "for life" but she would suffer shorterm scarring if Kazaa or its partners had stolen her ID, or credit card number. You sir are too trusting of the programs you download, if you believe it's okay to just download random shit to your PC w/o any harm.

Re:He must be joking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651195)

And people wonder why most people think RMS is a loon when he writes shit like this?

"Most people" don't have any idea who RMS is and for the people that do, it depends on what circle you run in what they think. Most of the people I associate with agree with many of his points and don't see him as a loon at all. Obviously you disagree but your opinion doesn't stand for what most people think. Maybe try some humility in the future, Harry.

How do get singers, musicians, engineers get paid? (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651049)

I agree with Stallman that 110 year copyrights are repressive. But so too is complete abolishment of copyrights. People like to get paid for their creations, and put food on the table. A reasonable compromise would be 10 or 20 years... just long enough to cover the audio engineer/artist/musicians' labor on the song. But short enough that it becomes part of society's shared culture.

BTW ever notice that no Roman or Greek music has survived til today? We have all their other literature but not their songs. Perhaps because there was no monetary incentive for musicians to share their work.

Re:How do get singers, musicians, engineers get pa (2)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651095)

Stallman has some suggestions at the end of the article.

Re:How do get singers, musicians, engineers get pa (5, Interesting)

Exrio (2646817) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651157)

If people want to get paid for their creations, then why do they bloody insist on giving it away for free on a $10 CD or $2 of Internet bandwidth?

Musicians just don't seem to be able to understand that they're not CD manufacturers, and they're not Internet Service Providers, they can't charge for CDs, and they can't charge for Internet copying. What they can charge for is only their music... which they're stupidly giving away. People is already being generous when they buy plastic or bandwidth from them (being able to buy it from cheaper stores) just so they get their cut and try to recover their creation costs, but that's the wrong way to go about it.

Artist, does it cost you $60,000 to make your work (include your own salary)?... Pro-tip: Sell it for $60,000, not for $0.99. If your work is really worth that, people will pay the cost. Set up a kickstarter and watch it happen. If your work isn't worth what it costs, then there's no market for you. Tough. But please stop all this lunacy, we need it to stop freaking yesterday.

-Sincerely, an audio engineer who understands what is wrong with the businesss

MOD PARENT THE FUCK UP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651215)

Do it. Now!

Re:How do get singers, musicians, engineers get pa (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651239)

YOU would be out of work too if people were able to just share music for free. There would be no funds for you to get paid for your engineering.

Re:How do get singers, musicians, engineers get pa (1)

Exrio (2646817) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651281)

Wrong. Did you even read my freaking post? I'd be getting my cut of those $60,000 acquired through crowdfunding.

Re:How do get singers, musicians, engineers get pa (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651289)

The artist gets paid $60,000 for producing the music, the artist pays the sound engineer. Since the artists and everybody that need to make a living has already been paid, the file can be shared around freely without impacting anyone.
 
Wasnt this obvious from the GP post? Did you even read it?

Re:How do get singers, musicians, engineers get pa (0)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651209)

People like to get paid for their creations

And I'd also like to have billions of dollars. Of course, it's up to me to figure out how to get it. If I can't, too bad for me.

Re:How do get singers, musicians, engineers get pa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651211)

I agree with Stallman that 110 year copyrights are repressive. But so too is complete abolishment of copyrights.

No, it's not. Because copyrights serve the middlemen, not artists. In fact, since the copyright got weakened a lot thanks to the Internet, the revenues of the artists are increasing notably [falkvinge.net] .

I know, the world really seems flat at the first glance. But sometimes, things are not what they seem to be.

Re:How do get singers, musicians, engineers get pa (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651251)

Monopoly rights are a bad way to compensate people for creations. With limited attention available and tightly controlled channels you are close to guaranteed not get jack, while the dominant players take both attention and revenue by having the channel control. Publisher deals become a prerequisite for even having a chance, and to make a good deal you need leverage. Which you have none. Even if you threaten to take your demo and go home.

If copyright was actually about compensation for creators then it would be formulated to actually give compensation to creators. It could just as well take the form of a guaranteed 50% of the proceeds of sales of any copies, like a VAT going directly to the creator while allowing anyone to copy, for example.

Any compromise that has a chance of working has to separate the monetary compensation from the right to control copying. Without that there simply will be no solution.

Re:How do get singers, musicians, engineers get pa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651253)

BTW ever notice that no Roman or Greek music has survived til today? We have all their other literature but not their songs. Perhaps because there was no monetary incentive for musicians to share their work.

Actually its bullshit!
There *are* partial scores from those times... check your facts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikilos_epitaph

Re:How do get singers, musicians, engineers get pa (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651257)

A quick Google search will turn up examples of ancient Greek music. Not many, but the statement that none survived just isn't correct.

And no we don't have all their literature. The general view is that about 1% survives.

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=2806 [roger-pearse.com]

Re:How do get singers, musicians, engineers get pa (2)

david.emery (127135) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651273)

BTW ever notice that no Roman or Greek music has survived til today? We have all their other literature but not their songs. Perhaps because there was no monetary incentive for musicians to share their work.

I have recreations of both Greek and Roman works. See http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/beginlst/ancient.html [medieval.org] for a good summary of available recordings.

Proofreading (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651063)

RMS needs a competent proofreader for the articles he posts to his site. Why do people persist in publishing text whose intended audience is the entire fucking world without bothering to make damned certain that at least grammar and spelling are correct?

Right On! Richard! (0)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651075)

I love ya for telling the truth...

if there is a god (agnostic here) i hope he (or she) blesses you, if not then good luck and may the source be with you

Sharing is caring (1)

youme (2674295) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651085)

The artists worth listening to probably don't mind if their music is being "stolen," although this does appear to be a sticky situation.

Good guys wear white. (3, Funny)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651119)

Hmmm, a black and white opinion in a world of gray. How refreshing.

Let's just take a way the right to monetize copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651167)

Since the original purpose of copyright was to grant people the right to make money on copies and give them a monopoly on those reproductions. Let's just. It would solve a lot of the problem. Only original work would have value. Musicians and arts would be employed. Copyright doesn't make sense in a world that has practically free duplication. That's why thoughts and ideas couldn't be copyrighted.

RMS saying it is cool ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651179)

pretty much just as bad as my parents saying something is cool. Today I stopped pirating music....

sharing is selfish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40651183)

war is peace and slavery is freedom

How do song-writers earn a living? (4, Insightful)

david.emery (127135) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651245)

I respect RMS' position on software, even if I don't fully agree with it. As I understand it, he says that a software developer should be able to make money by selling services, e.g. maintaining/customizing software, and there are people out there who do just that.

But I think the argument falls down for music. Sure, following the 'services' argument, performers can make a living (in theory) by performing the music. But not all song-writers are also performers. So in this case, how would RMS propose that a songwriter get reimbursed? What about the people involved in the production of music, e.g. sound engineers.

I think the "music is like software and should be just as free" analogy does no't work.

(This is not to support the RIAA's unacceptable use of the the courts to prosecute the token file-sharing user with outrageous and probably unconstitutional damage judgements.)

Unjust laws (4, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40651293)

RMS seems to be embracing a self-contradictory position.

He's all for ignoring the unjust copyright laws when they don't suit his position.

But the FSF goes after people for violation of their license which is based on the same unjust copyright laws.

http://www.fsf.org/news/2008-12-cisco-suit/ [fsf.org]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?