Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Lessig, Stallman in New Documentary

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the but-only-if-you're-in-nyc dept.

110

Alternative Freedom is a documentary on intellectual property rights featuring lots of interviews with folks like Stallman and Lessig, as well as people like DJ Danger Mouse (creator of the Grey Album). They have a trailer available, but if you're in NYC the movie is now showing. If anyone manages to go, I'd love to see some real reviews of it.

cancel ×

110 comments

Quicktime? (5, Interesting)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214707)

From TFL
Viewing the trailer requires Quicktime. If your browser does not support embedded files you can dowload the .mov directly here.
Whoa! RMS is going to crack it! [zmag.org]
It falls to me to tell them they are doing so, that they with their own actions are giving certain large companies more power. When you send someone a ".doc' file, a "Word' file, or an audio or video file in RealPlayer or Quicktime format, you are actually pressuring someone to give up their freedom. Perhaps because I constantly have to bring this up, people believe I don't have a sense of proportion.

Sometimes people take for granted that I will participate in those activities with them. Thus, when I webcast a speech, I have to ask which format it is going to be webcast in. I am not going to go along with a webcast of my speech about freedom that you have to give up your freedom in order to hear or watch. Once I put my coat over a camera before giving my speech, when I learned it was webcasting in RealPlayer format. [emph mine]
Note - I am not making fun of RMS here - I greatly admire his principals even if I am too lazy to always follow them myself.

Oh - and anyone interested in hearing the grey album mentioned in the /. summary, a torrent. [mininova.org] It is an amazing album.

bootleg anyone (4, Funny)

EccentricAnomaly (451326) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214749)

If anyone manages to go, I'd love to see some real reviews of it.

bring in a cam-corder too while your at it :)

Re:bootleg anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15215199)

Anyone got a torrent

Re:Quicktime? (2, Insightful)

Odocoileus (802272) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214770)

I am interested in seeing the movie. I do not live in NY, nor did I see any mention of a way to obtain a copy. Does anyone know when private copies will be available?

Re:Quicktime? (4, Funny)

jtvisona (971081) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214790)

I have an advanced copy, but the DRM seems insurmountable...

Re:Quicktime? (1)

IAmTheDave (746256) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215260)

Hold a sharpie in your hand, bang it on the DVD, and shout "Arise, chicken, arise!"

Instructions from BillyWitchDoctor.com [ytmnd.com]

(If it doesn't work, you may be holding the Sharpie upside down.)

Re:Quicktime? (1)

Cal Paterson (881180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215042)

If you remove the v and switch the i and the r, you'll get it a lot faster. And you'll have freedom too.

Alternative Freedom, indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214772)

Had the exact same reaction. Alternative freedom, indeed. Guess I'll have to wait until someone liberates the movie...

Closed formats shut people out - why else would they be closed if they weren't supposed to?

Re:Quicktime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214792)

What free-software and/or patent-free movie format do you propose using in lieu of Quicktime?

Re:Quicktime? (4, Informative)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214872)

RMS usually prefers Ogg Theora. All the stuff on audio-video.gnu.org is in that format.

Re:Quicktime? (1)

Cal Paterson (881180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215076)

FFmpeg's lavc/lame is probably best (currently; the xiph.org stuff isn't quite done yet imo, although functional), but RMS is too public a figure to break the law, so theora/vorbis would be his choice.

Re:Quicktime? (2, Interesting)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215286)

I always wondered what his position would be for using non-free/patented codecs and algorithms in countries that don't have software patents. For instance, if I live in the EU, is it morally permissible in RMS's eyes to use mp3s? As you say, lame is a good choice and is LGPL, so it should be permissible to use it under such a jurisdiction. Using mp3s doesn't hinder freedom in that respect, although a tangential argument would be that in some countries mp3s rely on patented technologies, so the program wouldn't be free the world over, which is a goal of the free software movement.

Re:Quicktime? (2, Interesting)

Cal Paterson (881180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215819)

I agree. It's an interesting grey area. I, also, get the impression that RMS's view that mp3 is less than desirable because it is patented in some countries.

Personally, I agree in. However, mp3 has Free Software tools available for it, and so does MPEG4. Lame and ffmpeg are both good pieces of software. While the mp3 format is technically proprietary, I feel that in reality the format has now been forced open by lame. When it's worth doing, I use ogg (ie when I am doing the original encode of a file) for this reason. I don't however, transcode mp3s into ogg (unless space is an issue). However, the current issue is that ogg isn't brilliantly supported. I also like FLAC (the audiophile is shining through ;))

I can see the Ogg formats taking over eventually. They're nice, and they're small, and imo, they're a hell of a lot better than aac in most instances.

Re:Quicktime? (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214896)

Oh - and anyone interested in hearing the grey album mentioned in the /. summary, a torrent. It is an amazing album.

That, sir, is a matter of opinion. While I appreciate the work involved and the samples were interesting, Jay Z is devoid of any talent at all. I once read "Jay Z never writes down his lyrics". Translation - "he makes crap up on the spot". It sounds like it. Here is a Jay Z-type rap lyric of my own:

Don't do the crime
If you can't do the time
Gotta get a lime
At the 5 and dime

Listen to The Black Album and you will see that my "lyrics" are just as profound (ha ha ha) as the vast majority of his lyrics. His lyrics rhyme, yes, but do they make any sense? For the most part, no. Forced rhymes abound everywhere. I am absolutely amazed that some people consider this guy a genius when he is quite probably the most untalented rapper on the scene. This is all subjective so I am not saying that you are wrong in praising the album, I am just offering an alternative viewpoint.

Re:Quicktime? (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214994)

I gotta tell you, objectively, Jay Z has you beat big time. The objective part comes in due to the fact that your lines have no consistent meter, which is an important part of rhyming.

Re:Quicktime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15215187)

As with any artist, different portions of their works are of different qualities. I have a degree in English and some of Jay-Z's rhymes are on par with the quality, if not exceeding, of some of the poetry I had to study. Sometimes things feel forced because of the nature of the medium but then again one sees the same thing in 'normal' poetry.

Re:Quicktime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15215289)

Let's see, you got as far as "Hop on Pop" in English, right?

Re:Quicktime? (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216815)

I know I already replied, but you struck a chord (ha!) and I have more to say about this:

Just because you don't have the necessary tools to appreciate something, that doesn't mean it can't be appreciated by others who understand what makes it good.

Re:Quicktime? (1)

Milton Waddams (739213) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215007)

Heh, yeah I thought that was a bit ironic all right that the trailer was in QuickTime format and not OGM. I wonder if they'll put their money where their mouth is and release the film on the internet for free

RMS is just a whiny old hippy (1, Troll)

sentientbrendan (316150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215050)

>I am not making fun of RMS here - I greatly admire his principals
Why?

Seriously, he's not Ghandi. He just doesn't *pay for software* That doesn't exactly make him a saint.

I like open source too, but these are not the grand principles he makes them out to be. It's just a way of distributing *computer software*, which isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. Computers in general are not a major source of tyranny in the world.

I admire the EFF because they are trying to fix some broken laws. To the extent that I admire RMS, it is because he started the FSF, which has turned out some great software. To the extent that I *revile* RMS, it is because he tries to spread this nonsense that software development is a *social movement*.

Just because a few lawyers do pro bono work some of the time, doesn't mean that all lawyers want to work for free all the time. Additionally, just because some people write software and *essentially donate it to the public* doesn't mean that they intend to, or are obligated to, always do such a thing. Open Source is *Not* *NOT *NOT* a social movement. Developers are highly skilled professionals, and they are free to use their skills to make whatever software, and distribute it by whatever means they feel will benefit them the most personally.

RMS is the only person in open source development *that I know of* that actually thinks there's some kind of *moral obligation* to make software free. Its great to use open source software... but by refusing to use *any* software that is commercial, you aren't helping anyone. Certainly not developers.

Re:RMS is just a whiny old hippy (4, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215111)

Seriously, he's not Ghandi. He just doesn't *pay for software* That doesn't exactly make him a saint.
Perhaps if you understood his principles, you might understand why other people admire them. RMS is perfectly happy to pay for software, he just wants the freedom to be able to change and redistribute that software to anyone who needs it and his changes to it.

It's about being able to help one's fellow man, and about avoiding software that prevents that. That's something to be admired, especially when you consider how impractical what RMS was demanding was when he created the GPL.

Re:RMS is just a whiny old hippy (2, Insightful)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215424)

If the GPL was about 100% freedom and choice, it would be called the BSD license.

The GPL (especially the latest draft) has less to do with freedom than it does promoting RMS' (and by proxy the FSF) personal ideology.

Re:RMS is just a whiny old hippy (0)

Ethan Allison (904983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215608)

Remember kids: being able to choose whether software you make is free or not is a freedom

Re:RMS is just a whiny old hippy (4, Insightful)

bentcd (690786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216039)

If the GPL was about 100% freedom and choice, it would be called the BSD license.

Well, there's freedom and then there's freedom. It is generally not desirable that people have the freedom to take other people's freedom away, and this is what the GPL addresses which BSD does not.

Re:RMS is just a whiny old hippy (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15217214)

Right, which is about maximizing the number of users with freedom [insomnia.org] . BSD-like licenses are an attempt to make developers more free to do what they want with a piece of source code they come across. It's an admirable goal, but it falls down because 99% of us are not developers. The end goal of the BSD license is a sort of guild where developers are free to use any other developer's code to exploit users.

Re:RMS is just a whiny old hippy (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215132)

Thank god, someone HAD to say it eventually...

Re:RMS is just a whiny old hippy (4, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215153)

Seriously, he's not Ghandi. He just doesn't *pay for software* That doesn't exactly make him a saint.

He pays for software with his time. He created GCC - without it the vast majority of software you use would not be possible.

I like open source too, but these are not the grand principles he makes them out to be. It's just a way of distributing *computer software*, which isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. Computers in general are not a major source of tyranny in the world.

1) Stallman has got nothing to do with Open Source.

2) Computer software is the aspect of life where Stallman feels he can make a difference. And he does - rather then bitching about other achievements.

but by refusing to use *any* software that is commercial, you aren't helping anyone. Certainly not developers.

Here you display a complete lack of understanding for Stallman's beliefs. He isn't trying to help developers. He's trying to help users.

In short your post is an ill-informed troll. There are better anti-rms trolls out there. Please read up on them before posting here again.

WTF? (2, Insightful)

C10H14N2 (640033) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215363)

Stallman has nothing to do with Open Source? Fine, he has a major semantic hair up his butt about the term "Open Source," but the whole idea of "Free Software" is his raison entière d'etre. Methinks this is why some people roll their eyes. Okay, we "get it." Now can we stop splitting hairs over it, puhhhleeaase without devloving into some asininely pedantic semiotic circle-jerk?

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15215967)

If everyone gets it then why do they keep getting it wrong?

He'll stop splitting hairs about it when people actually do get it!

Re:WTF? (1)

codehead78 (452976) | more than 8 years ago | (#15217695)

If everyone gets it then why do they keep getting it wrong?

Because they care so little about his point that they can't see it.

Re:WTF? (1)

broeman (638571) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216412)

Richard Stallman believes in Free software, which is an ideology (though possible through the GPL). Open Source was founded by people, which weren't ideologist, like Eric S. Raymond, which likes the BSD-license a lot more.

Also, saying people shouldn't care about the difference, is the same as saying people shouldn't care about the difference in Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Rights (okay, I overreacted there ;)

Re:WTF? (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216705)

"Now can we stop splitting hairs over it, puhhhleeaase without devloving into some asininely pedantic semiotic circle-jerk?"

No.

Re:RMS is just a whiny old hippy (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 8 years ago | (#15217694)

Stallman's beliefs. He isn't trying to help developers. He's trying to help users.
Even those that don't have a password or have ID to get into the building.

He's had some brilliant ideas but we don't have to follow him on every issue - and to the newbies out there, neither he nor the gnu team wrote linux. The LiGnuX name and the later gnu/linux name were efforts to make people aware of gnu project. The only "gnu/linux" is "debian gnu/linux" because debian get to choose the name and not someone imposing MIT staffroom politics on the wider world.

Re:RMS is just a whiny old hippy (1)

Ethan Allison (904983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215557)

[It's] great to use open source software... but by refusing to use *any* software that is commercial, you aren't helping anyone. Certainly not developers.
P.S.: If people didn't think computers could make money, I'd bet nobody would have ever made them.

Re:RMS is just a whiny old hippy (1)

codehead78 (452976) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215627)

I agree on some points. The problem with Stallman is his principles don't scale beyond UNIX commands, which are atomic in nature. If I want control over how a UNIX command works, I need the source. As software gets larger and more extendable, the less I need the source code to make it do what I want. I can write a Firefox extension, an Apache module, etc. without looking at the source code.

So as programs become more extendable, the less Stallman's reasoning make sense, the less his goals outweight the need to make a living (for me they never did).

Re:RMS is just a whiny old hippy (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 8 years ago | (#15217371)

But what if you want to change Firefox or Apache itself?

Re:RMS is just a whiny old hippy (1)

codehead78 (452976) | more than 8 years ago | (#15217536)

You might, but you're more likely screw something up than have it do what you want. Both programs come with very flexible extension framework.

It's like saying, what if I don't want to just change the wheels? What if I want to replace the frame? What do I do then?

Re:RMS is just a whiny old hippy (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 8 years ago | (#15217900)

If you want to replace the frame, as opposed to the wheels, then you better have access to the source code. What if the changes you want can't be done by means of extensions? Also, if you don't want to change the frame, there is still no harm in having the source code.

Re:Quicktime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15215056)

I am not making fun of RMS here - I greatly admire his principals

But do you ever get used to the smell?

Re:Quicktime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15215339)

It gets better. The Alternative Freedom site is distributing music previews from their store [alternativefreedom.org] that are only available in MP3 format. Some people just don't get it.

I suggest sending an e-mail [mailto] to question their use of proprietary file formats on a website meant to promote a documentary on digital freedom.

Re:Quicktime? (1)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216250)

Quicktime is openly documented and available for anyone to use royalty-free. [wikipedia.org] Vlc [videolan.org] plays this particular quicktime trailer quite nicely.

Re:Quicktime? (1)

kwark (512736) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216590)

How nice to have the an open container when the content stream are patented (divx in this case)!

LESSI G! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214709)

His name is not LESSING!

Re:LESSI G! (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214953)

LESSI G?

Is that Ali G's younger sister? ;-)

Re:LESSI G! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15215253)

Its Ali's sister (who is way hotter btw)

Less Lessig is Lessening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214712)

Lessing?

Sheep Shears (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214717)

I learned something amazing today. Did you know that you can get a set of electric Sheep Shears [sheepshear.com] for a mere $249? This particular model even has a thermal overload sensor to prevent damage to the device while cutting extremely thick and wiry coats. The website claims it can not only cut Sheep hair, but also the longer, more difficult hair of a Llama.

MOD PARENT UP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214776)

+5 Informative

Re:Sheep Shears (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214785)

Hah! No kidding! One would almost think that Stallman is trying to hide his identity behind all that hair. An adversion to public scrutiny, perhaps? One way or another, he'd definitely put a better face on the OSS movement if he trimmed a bit.

P.S. Parent is not offtopic. Maybe a little trollish, but not offtopic.

Re:Sheep Shears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214819)

Re:Sheep Shears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214836)

Well, that's shorter at least. You can kind of see him through all that hair. Still a long way from groomed, though.

Re:Sheep Shears (2, Interesting)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214971)

Stallman isn't behind the "OSS movement", but anyway, we don't need a cult of personality at this point. We need people who are thinking for themselves to realize that freedom is important. This is slowly happening (and the pace is picking up, even) but what people are afraid of is that the laws and technology will increasingly make it difficult to show people the tangible reasons why freedom is important.

Re:Sheep Shears (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215485)

We need more practical, logical arguments in favor of free software and fewer ideological windbags who deal in absolutes.

Re:Sheep Shears (1)

gnud (934243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216254)

No. If you've got some clearly defined ideological goal, hiding it behind "practical, logical arguments" won't help (also, it's called having a hidden agenda, which is considred a Bad Thing(tm)).
What if it's proven that statistically, closed source is more secure, more innovative, cheaper etc than open source. Then the Open Source Initiative is out of arguments as to why open source is a good idea. The FSF, on the other hand, can keep using the same arguments they are now.
Of course, if you disagree with the ideology, and only care about the practical, logical arguments, you won't mind giving up on open source in such a scenario. I would, though.

Re:Sheep Shears (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216925)

Stallman et. al. aren't Open Source advocates. Free Software != Open Source. If Stallman had his way, nobody would make money from producing software since it would all be freely available.

For some, that's a worthwhile goal. However that's never been the purpose behind OSS.

Re:Sheep Shears (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15217348)

If Stallman had his way, nobody would make money from producing software

Bullshit. It wasn't true when RMS wrote the GNU Manifesto [gnu.org] , and it isn't true now [gnu.org] .

since it would all be freely available.

Again, that is a steaming pile of non sequitur [wikipedia.org] crap. Reality dictates that people are paid to work on free software. Deal with it.

Re:Sheep Shears (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218279)

Yeah, I've read his crap. He goes on about how programmers should be allowed to make money from their work, but doesn't EVER explain how they are supposed to do so under a system in which their work is freely distributed.

Re:Sheep Shears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15215501)

You know that a movement is in trouble when they start trying to distance themselves from their leaders.

Re:Sheep Shears (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216229)

Huh? Exactly how am I "trying to distance" myself from RMS?

Yes but... (1)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214894)

Will this also work on yellow sheep? Inquiring minds need to know.

Gads (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214733)


I think I'll wait until this one comes out on video....I for one don't relish being cooped up in theater, wedged shoulder-to-shoulder, with the hygiene-challenged social misfits who would find a documentary of Richard Stallman interesting.

Re:Gads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214838)

Don't be so sure. "Fahrenheit 9/11" was aimed at pretty much the same crowd, and it pulled in millions.

(BTW, Michael Moore made like $12 million on that film -- has anybody else profited more from the war in Iraq?)

Re:Gads (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214921)

(BTW, Michael Moore made like $12 million on that film -- has anybody else profited more from the war in Iraq?)

Ya, I can think of a few people in Washington that have.

No sir! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214946)

"Fahrenheit 9/11" was aimed at pretty much the same crowd"

Fahrenheit 9/11 was aimed at the "I'm too stupid to actually educate myself on policy, so I'll watch this movie by a fat sweaty retard and then ACT like I know what the fuck is going on crowd"

While they occasionally overlap, the RMS people are usually fatter (but slightly smarter)

Re:No sir! (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215331)

Fahrenheit 9/11 was aimed at the "I'm too stupid to actually educate myself on policy, so I'll watch this movie by a fat sweaty retard and then ACT like I know what the fuck is going on crowd"

That "fat sweaty retard" made $12,000,000 making fun of the government?? What is retarded about that?

As for the movie, yup, it was over the top, but so what? (And yes I called it a movie not a documentary on purpose!) The pro-war-on-terror bullshit and rhetoric that spews from Washington is just as over the top, and has made Dick Cheney and friends far more money, at the expense of the American public both in dollars and in lives.

Moore made a movie, that's what he does for a living, that's no secret. That it raised some important questions is all the better. The worst thing anyone can say about it is that its been marketed as a genuine documentary; but on some level I find it that its part of the parody -- like "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" being dressed up as a news show.

That some people take it as the 'gospel truth' is unfortunate, but even that is far less damaging to America than beleiving what the governments been telling you.

People don't watch "serious documentaries" in America. Perhaps the *best* way to generate awareness that something is wrong is with comedy, parody, and over the top nonsense -- at least its entertaining enough that lots of people will watch it, and if people talk about it, or start having conversations about just what was true what wasn't, and just how over the top it was, it will accomplish far more than some dry documentary presented on the history channel that nobody watched and nobody talks about ever has.

Re:No sir! (1)

marko123 (131635) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216976)

The scariest thing I heard on the news the other day is that some spokesguy in America said that a "Hollywood blockbuster was the best way for America to move the 9/11 story forward."

WTF does that mean for people? Do we trust Hollywood to tell the truth more than the media...

HAHAHAHAHHAHA, I can't believe I just wrote that.

Re:Gads (4, Insightful)

Rolan (20257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215852)

(BTW, Michael Moore made like $12 million on that film -- has anybody else profited more from the war in Iraq?)

Haliburton comes to mind easily.... Add A few dozen politicians, just about anyone in the "defense" industry.....

If only the MPAA sued somehow (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214759)

Now all we need is to get the MPAA to sue the "property rights" movie for distributing pirated info or something, and the universe will implode!

Hey editors... (4, Informative)

SpectreHiro (961765) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214782)

I know y'all like to leave the submissions relatively untouched, but...

Lessing?

In the freaking headline?

fer[sic] christ's sake...

I also realize this is a tech site, and 90% of people here are familiar with the gentlemen in question, but it'd be nice to reference their full names at some point in the blurb.

Lawrence Lessig [wikipedia.org]
Richard Stallman [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hey editors... (2, Interesting)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215003)

The overlooked problem is that the article doesn't look like it was submitted by anyone. It looks like Taco just wrote the summary himself. If that is the case, Taco is drunk or just pulled off one hell of a troll.

lets pirate this movie (3, Funny)

sentientbrendan (316150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214810)

for the *irony*.

Also, what's with the free Zarathustra thing at the beginning of the trailer? What does Neitzsche have to do with intellectual property rights?

Re:lets pirate this movie (4, Informative)

OECD (639690) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214860)

What does Neitzsche have to do with intellectual property rights?

His work is in the public domain.

Re:lets pirate this movie (1)

zcat_NZ (267672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215457)

Only until they extend copyright to 'forever, minus one day' like Jack originally wanted!

Relevance of Neitzsche Re:lets pirate this movie (1)

Randym (25779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218866)

What does Neitzsche have to do with intellectual property rights?

What doesn't destroy intellectual property rights makes them stronger.

Like, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use [wikipedia.org] .

GODDAMIT! (1, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214813)

Can't we PLEASE get an articulate spokesman who doesn't look like the Unabomber "before" pictures?

And what's that burning smell?

Re:GODDAMIT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214846)

And what's that burning smell?

Smells like a waste of post to me chief.

Re:GODDAMIT! (1)

vga_init (589198) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215474)

I've read a lot of Stallman's writing, and I've listened to him speaking on several occasions. Say what you will about his appearance and persona, but when it comes down to what he's saying, he is actually one of the most articule speakers I've ever witnessed. The man is always clear and consistent in what he says, is proper in his speech, and always operates based on logic--I've never known him to appeal to emotions.

New word ordured... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15218915)

...most articule speakers...

Hey, nice neologism!

...clear and consistent in what he says, is proper in his speech, and always operates based on logic...

If only all his articules were espritten like this...

Request (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15214816)

Alternative Freedom is a documentary on intellectual property rights featuring lots of interviews with folks like Stallman and Lessig, as well as people like DJ Danger Mouse

Please link Danger Mouse [dangermouse.org] correctly.

Thanks

NYT has reviewed it (4, Informative)

joshdick (619079) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214884)

"If anyone manages to go, I'd love to see some real reviews of it."

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v _id=345768 [nytimes.com]

Putting aside your personal feelings on copyright, that review is enough to make me want to stay away from it. As the review points out, I would be better served by reading Lessig's blog, among others.

Re:NYT has reviewed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15215127)

Re:NYT has reviewed it (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215875)

What a perfect headine: In 'Alternative Freedom,' Balancing the Freedom of Innovation With Copyright Laws

In other words, copyright law is used to restrict the freedom to innovate. This is the same as those who say we must balance the right to privacy with national security. here again, using national security to restrict our rights. So, to those of you who insist that IP law promotes innovation, I say, 'You're full of it.' It promotes nothing of the kind.

Re:NYT has reviewed it (1)

Cal Paterson (881180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215205)

Thank god NYT has hired a reviewer who actually knows his shit and can tell the difference between a bad film and a bad idea. I'm not in the US, and haven't read this paper before, but I'm pretty impressed. Identifying the ideas from the direction is more than I generally expect of the kind of low level journalistic goon hired to write reviews of tiny political documentaries.

Re:NYT has reviewed it (1)

thisissilly (676875) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215384)

Time Out New York has a more favorable short review [timeout.com] .
Alternative Freedom
Dirs. Twila Raftu and Shaun Cronin. 2006. N/R. 68mins. Documentary.

An indictment of the "war" on free culture, this collagelike doc examines the current copyright crisis. A handful of surprisingly fascinating talking heads--including free-software pioneer Richard Stallman and Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig--criticize corporations for preventing technology sharing and experimentation. To punctuate their arguments, the directors intersperse ironic movie and news clips (which, given their unabashedly biased point of view, they probably didn't secure the rights for). Although the effect is at times overwhelming, the film smartly continues the debate about an important issue. (Opens Thu; Pioneer.) --Raven Snook

I saw the movie (1)

senis (971439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218464)

New york times review is what you would expect from somebody with cursory interest and even less understanding of the issues discussed.

The movie has it's drawbacks. Production is very low budget, and theater setup is worse (they show it from vhs). There's not much eye candy as the movie is mostly interviews with some public domain clips mixed in.

But there are positive sides that easily outweight the negatives. Lessig, RMS, bunnie and others present intersting, inteligent, well thought out discussion of the current copyright laws. Even if you're familiar with all the issues, the strong coherent arguments in the movie are a pleasure to watch.

Support the moviemakers, go see it (they've spent over a year full time making the movie). If you don't want to/can't - wait 30 days. The movie is made under creative commons license and will be distributed free over the internet after the movie theater showings end.

Embedded video crap (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214887)

If your browser does not support embedded files you can dowload the .mov directly here. [Link provided].

Thank you! I'm so tired of having to hit "view source" just to get an URL for some proprietarily-encoded video.

Re:Embedded video crap (1)

BobRainGod (31096) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215622)

If you are Firefoxing, check out the Greasemonkey [mozdev.org] script Embedded Media Linker [userscripts.org] . Might muck up some "precise" websites, but it's a ton more convenient than the "view source" method.

Re:Embedded video crap (1)

Allnighterking (74212) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216136)

I couldn't agree more. However I've come across a really neat extension for Firefox that will help a lot. It's called unplug (and I'm not the developer either) available at https://addons.mozilla.org/addon.php?id=2254 [mozilla.org] Enjoy! (I do)

Hmmmm.... (1)

AriaStar (964558) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214900)

At what point do intellectual property rights cross into freedom of information?

Re:Hmmmm.... (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215950)

Since the inception of the concept. IP rights have always been about restricting access to information. That was its intent since the very beginning. It was originally a tool to silence government and corporate critics. To restrict their access to a printing press, which is a very dangerous machine when it's in the "wrong" hands. Copyright was effectively a license to use a press.

DJ Dangermouse (2, Informative)

El Nombre (970691) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214934)

FYI, DJ Dangermouse is one half of Gnarls Barkley (along with Cee-Lo), the band who reached UK's #1 chart spot with a download only single "Crazy". See the slashdot story here: http://slashdot.org/articles/06/04/02/2232226.shtm l [slashdot.org]

Most people here made fun of their names and assumed they are trash. They're worth checking out however, St. Elsewhere, their debut album, just leaked and should be released soon. Dangermouse is a talented guy.

And for those who haven't heard the Grey Album, I'd suggest giving it a listen too. (For those who don't know its a mix of the Beatles' White Album, and Jay-Z's Black Album.

Re:DJ Dangermouse (3, Interesting)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215152)

I'd also mention that he did a lot/most of the production work on Gorillaz' last album, Demon Days. (EMI, apparently, shat themselves when they heard of Gorillaz' choice, as they were the ones who sued Danger Mouse over the Beatles sampling...)

Free Culture at NYU? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15214993)

Hmm. From the NYC movie info link:

"Free Culture at NYU presents:
ALTERNATIVE FREEDOM"


Yet tix range from $6.50 to $9.00 per. I guess that would be Free-as-in-speech, not Free-as-in-beer, Culture at NYU.

If anyone local is going, I'll be getting a pint or two at Bleecker Bar (Bleecker & Lafayette) and then walking over, the box office opens at 8:30 for the 9:00 showing tonight.

Re:Free Culture at NYU? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215077)

If I give you a digital copy of my movie it costs me almost nothing. If I give you a cushioned seat in a room of NYC real estate for 68 minutes it's going to cost me a lot. Hence the movie's not free as in beer.

Re:Free Culture at NYU? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215146)

Free Culture is a national organization, the NYU chapter is presenting the film, and yes of course it costs money to hire out the Pioneer, which the group has to recoup. The point is the irony of the name "Free Culture at NYU," which is due to the double meaning of the word... oh never mind.

But if you're in the neighborhood, a few pints rarely kills anyone...

Re:Free Culture at NYU? (1)

110010001000 (697113) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215701)

Great, so please send me a digital copy of your movie, plus all the production notes and anything else that I need to recreate it. I also can movie resell and show the movie without restrictions.

After all, thats what you are asking software developers to do right?

And "Dangermouse" is doing the same thing with all his albums and the albums he works on too, right?

Re:Free Culture at NYU? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215826)

Uh... yes, actually. Read the licenses.

Email your theatres (2)

iplayfast (166447) | more than 8 years ago | (#15215034)

I just emailed cineplex to ask them if they would be showing it.
here [cineplex.com]

This type of movie only get's shown if there is a demand for it.

isn't it cynical? (1)

AlgorithMan (937244) | more than 8 years ago | (#15216068)

isn't it cynical to make a movie about free open source software and publish the trailer in the quicktime format?

Better than Revolution OS? (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15217724)

I hope so, 'cause I didn't really care for that one.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...