×

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 Calls to Liberate Cyberspace

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the waving-the-magic-wand dept.

578

Henri Poole writes "In an interview with Groklaw's Sean Daly at GPLv3 Conference in Barcelona, RMS talks with passion about the dangers of DRM. From the article: 'the point is, we shouldn't be passive victims! We should decide that it will not happen! And the way we decide that is by activism. We have to do everything possible to make sure that those products are rejected, that they fail, that they give bad reputations to whoever makes them.' He closed the interview with a far reaching goal for the Free Software Movement: 'the goal is to liberate everyone in cyberspace.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

578 comments

Typical bloody American... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603606)

"Liberate them, even if it means that it will kill thousands of innocent people[*], and even if they didn't want to be liberated in the first place!"

[*} OK, for RMS read that as businesses. Killing innocent people is a speciality of the American ruling classes.

Re:Typical bloody American... (0, Offtopic)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603617)

What the fuck are you even talking about?

RMS SUCKS SHIT OUT CUM FILLED ASSES, NEWS AT 11 (1)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603677)

In a startling revelation, subject line is true. Don't worry though, Stallment thinks shitty cum nuggets are free as free to dine on cum soaked nuggest of shit.

Serious question (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603608)

Who really cares what RMS thinks? When did he get such a cult following? Since none of his ideas even remotely make any real world sense, why is he even publicized? Oh wait, this is Slashdot, home of naive idealism.

I'll address the troll (5, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603839)

Since none of his ideas even remotely make any real world sense, why is he even publicized?

RMS [wikipedia.org] is publicized because he initiated the Free Software movement. The GNU software license, which he and Eben Moglen [wikipedia.org] created, has been used in some software projects you may have heard of: the Linux kernel, CVS, GNU Emacs, MySQL, and literally thousands of others.

More open source projects are developed under the GPL than under any other license, and companies like Red Hat, IBM, and others have built business units or entire buinesses around GNU-licensed software. When is the last time you saw IBM act out of naive idealism?

A lot of people in the open source world don't agree with everything RMS says, but he's incredibly smart, and people respect his ideas enough to pay attention to what he says. Get out from under the bridge and grapple with his ideas, instead of trolling.

The Superman thing... (0)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603611)

Was RMS wearing a Superman outfit [yahoo.com] when he made his call to liberate cyberspace.

Re:The Superman thing... (4, Funny)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603639)

Apparently not. This time he had a black leather trenchcoat, small sunglasses and was holding out 2 strangely colored pills.

Re:The Superman thing... (1)

modecx (130548) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603826)

holding out 2 strangely colored pills.

Lemme guess, the colors were Salmon Pink and Sapphire Blue? If so, RMS might have been watching too much Queer Eye for the Wannabe Messiah Figure.

Just sayin'

Re:The Superman thing... (3, Insightful)

trelayne (930715) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603684)

Well, better we have people with the courage and intellect of Superman than cowardly sheep who know how to stand and be shaved off better than standing up for themselves. Yes, let's wait for someone to hand over freedom on a platter while we criticize them for trying.

Parasomatic fellatio (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603613)

Many years ago when I was 11 /12 we lived on a farm. I would have sleep sex/wet dreams and I would masturbate to the sex dreams. I had a vivid imagination and I dreamt I had sex with my uncle, aunt, my bros and sister and my mom and dad. I usually dreamt I would masturbate while giving my dad oral sex, only I really gave him oral sex. I was asleep all the time. I slept with dad on and off for about 6 years when mom was away visiting which was often. Dad was always awake when I was giving him oral while I was masturbating while asleep, but he never woke me up. He told me about it many years later. He said he didn't want to embarass me and all. No harm done. After he told me I had another oral sex dream about him and I masturbated. I was married at the time and my wife was used to me masturbating myself and her in my sleep. I have no complaints!

                                                    Dick "Sal" Stallman

The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603615)

I always enjoy it when Richard Stallman gives interviews. He was probably the first person--many, many years ago!--to fundamentally understand that we have a CHOICE of whether we want to preserve freedoms to do whatever we want with our software, or whether we're going to let other parties take those freedoms away from us.

Also, he had the guts to stand up for his freedoms and everyone else's, to be able to do what they want with their software. He's done more than just about any other single person to try and protect those freedoms for regular folks like you and me.

Can you imagine what the software landscape would look like today without the GPL, without the FSF and without all the free software that has been licensed under the GPL (both by the FSF and by many other open-source contributors)? Even if many of us continue to use non-free systems such as Windows XP, it is nice to know we have a choice. And we WOULDN'T have that choice anymore if Richard and many others had not stood up when they did.

Lots of people criticise Richard Stallman, but in my view nearly all of those people are either (1) immature kids who wouldn't pass a real civics class if they were ever put in one, (2) people who don't understand the real issues and how fundamental they are, or (3) shills or trolls or other people with an anti-freedom agenda.

There are a small number of people who understand the issues but aren't particularly concerned about them; extreme pragmatists like Linus probably fall into this category. Still, I don't often hear Linus or others from this category criticising Stallman.

The people who criticise Richard Stallman are those who are afraid of his message.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (3, Insightful)

bunions (970377) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603640)

The people who criticise Richard Stallman are those who are afraid of his message.

In the same way that I am sympathetic to the animal rights movement yet think PETA is counterproductive, I am sympathetic to the Open Source movement yet think Stallman is, generally, overshrill for his/our own good. The idea that you have to match extremity with extremity in politics finds no home with me.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (1)

convolvatron (176505) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603650)

there isn't any place for the truth then?

Place for the truth (3, Interesting)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603717)

There's my side, there's your side, and there's the truth. Just as from a conservative perspective the truth has a liberal bias, from a liberal perspective the truth has a conservative bias.

Re:Place for the truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603822)

Reality has a liberal bias.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603687)

Stallman advocates Free Software, not Open Source Development (or at least not the latter without the former).

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603757)

In the same way that I am sympathetic to the animal rights movement yet think PETA is counterproductive, I am sympathetic to the Open Source movement yet think Stallman is, generally, overshrill for his/our own good. The idea that you have to match extremity with extremity in politics finds no home with me.

I don't think you know what extreme is.

Communism as a solution to the problems of proprietary software would be extreme, but that isn't even close to what Stallman promotes.

Stallman's position is to the proprietary software industry as the expectation of being able to open the hood of your car is to the automobile industry. No reasonable person would argue that the hoods of all cars should be welded shut and only openable by the manufacturer, so why is it extreme for Stallman to make the same argument about software?

RMS doesn't speak for "Open Source". (4, Insightful)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603801)

Then when you get around to reading the transcript of the interview or listening to it, you should be pleased to learn that Stallman is not with the Open Source movement. He takes pains to tell people that his movement, the Free Software movement, is older than the Open Source movement and pursues a different philosophy [fsf.org]. Stallman doesn't speak for the Open Source movement.

In this interview he points out one of the differences between the two movements:

Now, this is an interesting example of the difference between Free Software and Open Source. Some people promote what they call "Open Source DRM". Now, recall the difference in fundamental values between Free Software and Open Source. In Free Software, our values are freedom and community. We want to be part of a community of free people. Whereas, in Open Source, they talk about making powerful, reliable software and they promote a development model. Now, for us, the question of how a program is developed is a secondary issue. I mean, if some models work better than others, fine -- use them. But that's not what's really important to Free Software, to people who value -- who support the Free Software movement and value freedom.

So, there are people who say that they could apply that development model to developing software designed to restrict us. And maybe it's true; maybe if people study and share and collaborate in developing software designed to take away our freedom, it might become more powerful and reliable in taking away our freedom. But that's a bad thing. That's evil. It's -- in spirit, it's similar to collaborative development of a virus. If something is evil, we don't want it to be done well. We want it to be done as badly as possible.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (1)

Handover Phist (932667) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603838)

For every action an equal and opposite reaction. Politically that holds true, but most just hang out in the center and drink beer...

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (1)

Famatra (669740) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603840)

"The idea that you have to match extremity with extremity in politics finds no home with me."

How else but being extreme do you want him to be when it comes to freedom?

There seems to be some sort of political correctness occuring with regards to RMS, telling him to quite down. 'no no, don't shout too loud for your freedom, it's ok, shhhhh...'

Bullshit on people who not only *not* standing up for their freedom and rights, but also want other people to not fight for theirs either.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603644)

You spend half of your post saying that anyone who criticizes RMS is stupid, immature, etc. Can you say 'insecurity'?

RMS can and should be criticized. While his original work was helpful, he has been more of a thorn in the side of free software than a help. With RMS as a de facto leader, nothing has been done. What would the world look like without free software? Mozilla wouldn't exist and we'd be running IE 6 (without any upgrades). NT derivatives would have a larger market share. UNIX systems like AIX and Solaris would have a larger market share. X would suck ass without desktops (we'd still be using motiff wm's).

In short, not an enormous change. When I started using Linux in 95 I didn't think we'd still be this pathetic 11 years later. Granted, Linux has evolved leaps and bounds from the 1.1 kernel I started with, but it hasn't dramatically changed the world like everyone hoped. It's not because of Linus. He's the man and always has been. It's not because of ESR. He knows our limitations. It is because of RMS. He won't budge. Ever.

Where will we be 11 years from now? I'm guessing the same place because we refuse to admit our problems. The free software community has created some amazing software. People don't use the software because the GPL is so rigid. If we used Perl's Artistic License instead of the GPL we'd finally have progress. Who cares if others change your software? It's at least being used and improving the world.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603686)

And by change your software I meant put it in a proprietary program without releasing the source code. I should have said that explicitly.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603695)

If we used Perl's Artistic License instead of the GPL we'd finally have progress. Who cares if others change your software? It's at least being used and improving the world.
Amen. People who use the GPL always seemed a little control freakish to me. I think it stems from deep-seated insecurity; they'd like to retain control over anything and everything they create, if only to make sure nobody is allowed to use it in a way they don't like.

Interestingly, these are the same people who most vehemently hate the RIAAs of the world for doing the exact same thing. Can you say projection?

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (1)

jaymzter (452402) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603646)

Although RMS is certainly a hero of mine, the posters on this site are proof that a prophet is never appreciated by his community. We'll know the true score in twenty years or less.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603691)

I think what you meant to say is that we'll forget about the whole GNU/Linux thing in 20 years and Stallman will be remembered for his ideological contributions rather than the semantic quibbling where he devotes much of his energies.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (2, Insightful)

visualight (468005) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603715)

I'm just glad he hasn't given up.

On the other hand, it's a disappointment to see so many disparaging comments (mostly it seems from the same few AC trolls) whenever an RMS story is posted here. Personally, I think the "Open Source" world will continue to remain open and useful only for as long as RMS and the FSF keep it that way.

Reading his interview I kept thinking about how many times I've seen a phrase like "DRM is coming and there's nothing you can do about it so get over it". I would always think "Why does it *have* to?" It's as if there's a whole generation of people who revel in their own apathy, dreading the prospect of DRM while they continue to buy Ipods,shop at I-tunes, and go to the movies.

I tell everyone, all the time DON'T GO TO THE FUCKING MOVIES, DON'T BUY ANY CD'S, AND DON'T BUY ANY GODDAMN DVD'S, and if *most* of us on /. just did that much DRM would go away.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603735)

Why do you think people who oppose RMS post as ACs? Could it be perhaps because they'll be karma raped if they log in? Feel free to look at RMS threads with people who actually logged in with legitimate questions about RMS' leadership. Be sure to browse at -1.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (0, Troll)

senatorpjt (709879) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603767)

I tell everyone, all the time DON'T GO TO THE FUCKING MOVIES, DON'T BUY ANY CD'S, AND DON'T BUY ANY GODDAMN DVD'S, and if *most* of us on /. just did that much DRM would go away.


Most people on /. already pirate all their shit anyway. The point is that it doesn't matter what the people that care about it think if 99% of people don't.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (4, Informative)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603774)

Slashdot isn't really representative of Stallman's community. They transitioned from an Open Source site to a "Geek Culture" site some time ago.

In my speeches I often make it clear that I consider myself to be standing on Richard's shoulders. Indeed, I said that while sitting next to him on a panel at the UN World IT Summit in Tunis. And Richard immediately responded by protectively clutching his own shoulders! So, I feel that this community member isn't appreciated by his prophet :-)

Bruce

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603666)

8am - Wakes up outside the Center for Marxist Education (MIT) in Cambridge as another bum shits on him. Thinks this sucks and that he would like an apartment, but can't find a landlord with an apartment that is free as in speech and beer. Falls back asleep.

9am - Wakes up again.

9:15am - Goes to men's room at MIT to wash shit off. Gives himself sponge bath. Shit comes off (somewhat), but he really isn't clean since he refuses to take a shower.

9:45am - Decides to shave 2 inches off beard after someone in MIT restroom mistakes him for Osama Bin Laden.

10am - Goes to McDonalds for breakfast. Gets into arguement with workers behind counter after they refuse to give him a free as in speech and beer breakfast. Also gets into arguement with the manager about why McDonalds should be called GNU/McDonalds due to the fact that he eats there.

11:30am - After being thrown out of McDonalds since the staff doesn't want a DGH deterring lunch rush, RMS goes to the McDonalds' dumpster to find food. Eats a "GNU/Quarter Pounder" and "GNU/fries" covered with "GNU/mold". He consideres the food better since it is free as in speech and beer.

12:30am - Goes back to MIT to recruit MIT students into writing free software. RMS is unable to enter anyone's office since everyone has placed spider plants in their offices. (He has a phobia a spider plants.)

1pm - RMS protests GWB (George W. Bush) for not being GNU/GWB and believing in copyrights. Wanders out of Cambridge and into Waltham. Police find RMS and arrest him for violating the ordinance that says he is not allowed to enter Waltham. (All towns surrounding Cambridge have this ordinace.) Police beat him and deport him back to Cambridge.

3pm - Goes back to MIT and creates a plan for dealing with overpopulation by killing everyone who uses non-free software. Writes code into next version of emacs to implement that feature

5pm - Tries to read email. RMS finds out he is dangerously over quota due to an email from Doctress Neutopia. This email is 65 megabytes of nothing but ASCII text. It is similar to an email he gets everyday since 1995 when he and Docress Neutopia had a brief fling. The email says that she would like to have a relationship with him, but he needs to accept her lovoution, stop his polygamous goat fucking and clean off the hair, dirt, food, and feces off his keyboard. RMS responds with a 9 megabyte email (of nothing but text) explaining that he could only consider getting into a relationship with her if she changed her name to GNU/Doctress Neutopia.

5:30pm - Reads rest of his email. His email is bombarded with trolls and goatse. RMS is turned on by the goatse and beats off to it.

6pm - Still beating off to goatse

7pm - Still beating off to goatse

8pm - Still beating off to goatse

9pm - Breaks into MIT vending machine to have a free as in speech and beer snack.

10pm - Breaks into a liquor store for free as in speech and free as in beer beer. Gets drunk.

10:15pm - Walks around drunk yelling, "Use free software!!!!", "It's GNU/Linux you capitalist pigs!!!!" and "I am a goat fucker!!!!".

11:45pm - Collapses in front of the Center for Marxist Education. Goes to sleep.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (2, Insightful)

Anthony Boyd (242971) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603721)

Lots of people criticise Richard Stallman, but in my view nearly all of those people are either (1) immature kids who wouldn't pass a real civics class if they were ever put in one, (2) people who don't understand the real issues and how fundamental they are, or (3) shills or trolls or other people with an anti-freedom agenda.

Wow. Pre-emptively demonizing those who might dare disagree with the great RMS. I'm sure all those people won't post now!

I think you've illustrated the RMS cult of personality far better than you realize. Keep that mind closed! It's much safer that way!

Being a Christian, one of the things that saddened me greatly about my religion was how many believers were so unwilling to delve into religion. They didn't want to hear about any other religions, to be sure. But often they didn't even know their own, either. They'd make broad proclaimations about how their Jesus did X, Y, or Z -- even if it wasn't based on anything Biblical. They just knew Jesus didn't smoke, didn't dance, and was just like them. To quote Mandy Moore, "Jesus was white!" Probably spoke English too, I suppose.

My point is this: an unexplored faith is no faith at all. An untested faith is not much better. A faith that survives only in the absence of competing theories isn't faith, it's a security blanket, a crutch for the weak. I've seen those Christians fall apart at the first frat party they experience. I've seen them compromise themselves the first time they fell in love with someone who didn't respect their beliefs.

The strongest Christians are those who are able to hear what others believe, accept what those people feel without belittling them, and somehow manage to still find their faith to be a rock-solid foundation.

Of course, anyone could respond with snarky comments about religion, but that would miss the point. The parallel is what is important here. Mr. Coward is promoting the same sort of head-in-the-sand thinking that so many of my fellow Christians unknowingly endorse -- "a contrary opinion must be stupid, don't even entertain the thought!" And just as that kind of thinking makes for weak Christians, it makes for weak RMS fanboys. And that makes me very skeptical about the merits of their opinions.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603779)

Wow. Pre-emptively demonizing those who might dare disagree with the great RMS. I'm sure all those people won't post now!

I think you've illustrated the RMS cult of personality far better than you realize. Keep that mind closed! It's much safer that way!


You are way over-stretching your example. Anyone who has been on slashdot very long has heard all the complaints about RMS, by now its just a litany of repitition - nobody has come up with anything new to complain about RMS for long, long time.

So the guy posts first and says, "yeah, yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before and most of the arguments against RMS break down as either A, B or C." That doesn't mean he's close minded, it means he's tired of hearing the same well refuted drivel over and over again.

Anyone who wants to criticize RMS should take that as a declaration that they need to do better than they have in the past, that same tired old specious arguments aren't worth the effort to type them in.

By the way, your "cult of personality" bit - that's one of the referenced specious arguments that nobody cares about.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (1)

smash (1351) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603783)

So, because RMS had a good idea many years ago, he can never ever be wrong, is that what you're trying to say?

I call bullshit... no one is correct, 100% of the time. RMS is an idealist. In a utopian world perhaps all of his ideas would work. But that isn't the world we live in, I'm afraid.

FSF's Defective By Design (5, Informative)

Henri Poole (645047) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603623)

The FSF has recently launched the Defective by Design [defectivebydesign.org] campaign. This campaign is an initiative to provide activism opportunities for free software activists and is 'new territory' for the FSF. In the last 30 days, DefectiveByDesign has received press in Reuters, Financial Times, BusinessWeek, US News and World Report, BBC and over 40 publications in the tech space. The project was launched in response to the most recent FSF members meeting earlier this year, where many FSF members discussed ideas about bringing the fight for free software into the mainstream.

Re:FSF's Defective By Design (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603800)

Unfortunately, their website needs a major overhaul. They need to have a BIG FREAKING LINK right at the top that explains just what the hell they are talking about. We all know what it is over here, but the general public doesn't have a clue.

Ever try explaining free software to someone by saying "its free as in liberty not free as in beer" -- they just look at you with a big "what the fuck?" expression on their face. Same thing happens when you say that DRM is "defective by design" - all you get is a big "HUH?"

You can't just drop a link to the DBD website in any old non-DRM aware forum and expect people to click it and "get it" -- yet that's exactly the role the website should play. You want to join up some DBD protest somewhere? Great, but why is that the first damn thing on the site? No one is going to sign up until they know just what it is they are protesting.

Interesting read. (5, Insightful)

Mikachu (972457) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603624)

I really can't say it gave all that much new information, but he definitely made some points. DRM, in any shape or form, is essentially incompatible with the idea of Free Software. When your goal is to restrict the public, there's really no room for compromise. Richard Stallman = smart man.

DRM education (5, Insightful)

remembertomorrow (959064) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603625)

I think the biggest problem is educating the public about what DRM is.

In my experiences, after explaining what DRM is to people that I know, they think it is the dumbest thing that they have ever heard.

I am sure the public would reject it, but the problem remains then: how do we educate the public? :/

Re:DRM education (4, Insightful)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603678)

Most people know about region coding on DVD's, but they don't really care much. There are now DVD players that are region free, and the CSS thing has bascially just been forgotten. People have a short attention span, and if they are going to stand up for something, they need to see it happen to them regularly I guess.

Educating them would also mean that they would have to give more thought in technology, and from my point of view, it seems most of them just want it to work. Perhaps we can hope that the DRM makers make DRM so incredibly hard to work out that people will actually pay attention to it. Until then, we're trying to swim uphill while picking up a couple of people here and there.

Re:DRM education (1)

remembertomorrow (959064) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603711)

I worry that it will be too late by the time the public realises what is happening though.

On the other hand, it might pave the way for a new business model: companies that release (and promote) DRM-free media, and mention such in their advertising campaigns.

Re:DRM education (1)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603803)

Will the companies dare release DRM free media? I seem to recall a bit of a stir when they started releasing region free DVD players, and even now you often have to type in a certain combination to remove the region restriction.

Most likely, the alternatives will come in form of FOSS. This is, off course, harder when it comes to stand-alone players though.. Perhaps a business segment there?

Re:DRM education (4, Insightful)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603739)

A big part of the problem is that the hyperbole about the terrors of DRM seen at Slashdot and other places doesn't correspond to the reality of how people perceive their DVD players and iPods.

Admittedly, DRM could have terrible consequences, but right now a key part of the next generation DRM is the "managed copy" bits which the consumer ironically perceives as granting them *more* rights rather than less because the copying features are integrated into the product. You see this already in Apple's Fairplay system.

Actually convincing people that DRM is worse than their nifty new consumer products is a difficult problem. Arguments about pubic domain and (academic) fair use don't have much traction among consumers. And the "boiling the frog", "road to fascism" arguments honestly come off as over-the-top and kooky, even if they are plausible.

Re:DRM education (2, Interesting)

senatorpjt (709879) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603775)

Maybe iTMS hasn't been out longer than the life of a hard disk. I know I was pretty irritated when my HD crashed, and purchased music backups became useless. It would affect anybody the same way.

Paradigm Shift. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603626)

There is no reason a rockstar or record label or anyone else connected to the industry NEEDS to be a millionare.

Capitalism will continue to reign. The market needs new blood and we can let the people decide.

Industries change and empires fall. The music and film industry is in need of a paradigm shift. As a content creator, I am concerned over my content but if a client or the public is paying, I'd like for them to be able to determine my value.

Education? (5, Insightful)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603627)

Before liberation, shouldn't we educate the public first? Most people today know nothing about DRM, FSF, or that MP3 is a patented format. We all remember the Sony rootkit scandal, but the average consumer does not. The average consumer uses proprietary Windows formats and never considers the dangerous problems that closed systems present to free information. As long as the ignorant masses stay complacent and docile, and as long as consumers obsesquiently gobble up DRM-laced products, there is no chance that free software will win.

Re:Education? (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603781)

Well i dont expect Sony to be selling Xvid and OGG videos/music on store shelves... They WILL NEVER use an open format ever. It will never happen.

RMS Is Like That Guy... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603631)

RMS is like that guy one of your friends use to be friends with a long time ago in a different city that they keep trying to talk about but no one cares.

No one cares...

'the goal is to liberate everyone in cyberspace.' (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603633)

Is anyone else getting images of RMS bombing everyone in cyberspace to 'liberate' them?

RMS's remark about Flash (1)

akratic (770961) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603645)

At the beginning of the interview, RMS talks about the top priorities for GNU programmers. He remarks, "Flash was a high priority, but it's mostly done." Is this true? Is gnash [gnu.org] close to being a usable Flash player?

Re:RMS's remark about Flash (1)

Bob54321 (911744) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603732)

If you go to the link you gave you will see...

Currently Gnash is under heavy development and although many features work, not all movies play sucessfully

So not quite ready but getting there.

Re:RMS's remark about Flash (1)

akratic (770961) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603770)

I did read the page, but I found it unhelfpul. "Not all movies play successfully" isn't all that specific. Are we talking about a few movies here and there not working? Or is "Not all movies play successfully" code for "A large majority of Flash 7 files currently available on the web do not work?"

Re:RMS's remark about Flash (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603796)

how pitaful that the OSS community is desperatly trying to play flash files.

Thats not how to win this battle.

Re:RMS's remark about Flash (1)

Bob of Dole (453013) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603798)

Flash is a top priority?
Ugh. That did more to turn me off of RMS than any amount of crazy ranting.
Put me solidly in the "RMS is one crazy bitch" camp.

A very telling exclusion there... (1, Insightful)

poptones (653660) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603648)

what of the Indian peasant who, thanks to his cellphone, now has more up to date market information and, because of this, is better able to provide for his family? Should he be "liberated" from that technology because it is proprietary, non free, non gratis, owned by the evil corporate horde?

RMS says our goal should be to liberate everyone in cyberspace (whatever that is). I say our goal should be to liberate everyone on earth - from poverty and disease and whatever else needs fixin'. It may never happen, but in a world where only perhaps - at best - 20 percent of the population even has such connectivity, saying only that elite should be included in the revolution seems to me nothing more than a recipe for even greater division and oppression.

Re:A very telling exclusion there... (5, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603661)

Uh, maybe you haven't noticed that a lot of GNU activists outside of the United States are interested in the concept of Free Software because they think it might liberate them from the technological domination of a handful of firms in the U.S.. For example, Miguel de Icaza founded the GNOME project because of concern for the disadvantaged in his native country of Mexico. It's no secret that most of the world's most powerful propietary forces are based in the U.S., while GNU software is a cooperative endeavour that is international in scope. And it's not just the elite who take part; many GNU hackers in the former Soviet Union are using ancient hardware and have poor Internet connections. At least with Free Software, everyone is allowed to contribute, whereas with proprietary software it's hard for the rich and simply impossible for the poor.

we are all the elite (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603727)

Sorry, but every one of thos gnome developers is the elite. Every one of those gnome users is part of the elite. Less than 1 in 5 humans is "on the net" in any meaningful way, and a great many of those 1 in 5 are connected via things like cellphones and shared terminals.

The poor need money - they need jobs, they need health, they need hope. They don't give a shit whether the internet runs on oil or gas or whether it runs at all. Making the blanket assumption all DRM = evil is just one more extremist, unproven dogma.

http://poptones.f2o.org/?q=node/8 [f2o.org]

Re:we are all the elite (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603755)

You are contradicting the post I responded to. That post was speaking of the poor who were just adopting technology, like cellphones. My response was that there are already poor people who, in using technology, use free alternatives.

Re:we are all the elite (1)

visualight (468005) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603769)

Most of the poor working class people I've met in the U.S. and overseas are very capable of understanding the interconnected-ness (did I make that word up?) of things even if, for them, the internet is only a concept. Making a blanket assumption that it's just beyond them is just one more extremist, unproven dogma.

Think of why it is important to not "abridge" freedom of speech, the ramifications of ideas like "free speech zones". If supported by legislation, DRM = evil for similar reasons.

Re:A very telling exclusion there... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603802)

de Icaza is hardly in the anti-Microsoft camp. He wanted to work there and got turned down, and is obviously somewhat of a fan of their technologies.

Re:A very telling exclusion there... (3, Insightful)

bombshelter13 (786671) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603663)

>Should he be "liberated" from that technology because it is proprietary, non free, non gratis, owned >by the evil corporate horde?

It depends on whether you're using 'liberate' in the RMS sense or the G. W. Bush sense.

If you mean it in the Bush sense, and are liberating him by taking his technology away from him, then no, definately not.

If you mean it in the RMS sense, and are liberating him by giving him a free, gratis alternative that isn't owned by the corporate horde, that he's free to use or discard at his leisure, then yes, immediately. Yesterday, if possible.

Re:A very telling exclusion there... (1)

LittleBigLui (304739) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603670)

what of the Indian peasant who, thanks to his cellphone, now has more up to date market information and, because of this, is better able to provide for his family? Should he be "liberated" from that technology because it is proprietary, non free, non gratis, owned by the evil corporate horde?


No, he should be "liberated" so that he has the choice between proprietary and free cell phones.

Re:A very telling exclusion there... (2, Interesting)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603728)

I rather doubt RMS would disagree with any of that. He has just chosen his part of the battle to be software, which best leverages his strengths. One person can't do everything, and ignoring one front of a war because another exists is idiotic. Claiming software is unimportant and shouldn't be fought because other battles exist is dooming yourself to failure on both fronts- there's always something more important you should be working on, you need people to dedicate themselves to one battle in order to make any progress.

Re:A very telling exclusion there... (1)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603832)

OK, assume I have the means to feed the poor, for the sake of argument. I only want one thing in return: indenture. Right or wrong?

Lots of people have signed away their freedom as a means to survive in the face of overwhelming power. These days, most of us do it piece-mal, and often only in the interest of convenience. The end of the progression is slavery.

Bruce

"there is no room for DRM in Free Software" (4, Insightful)

Broadcatch (100226) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603655)

I couldn't agree more.

The fact that machines are being built to suppress what people can do with them rather than to enhance our abilities to grow and perhaps go beyond their intended purposes makes them defective by design [defectivebydesign.org]. Imagine not being able to make a copy of your music for use in your car because you already have one at home, one at your office, and three that were made for iPods (the first two of which were lost or broken). What if you wanted to include it in a mix tape [sic]?

Or it's like buying a computer that will only run M$ software - software that purposely spies on everything you do so that M$ can "protect" you from doing something their contract (that you signed when you turned the machine on) disallows.

It's FUBAR.

DRM isn't dangerous. (5, Insightful)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603659)

DRM isn't dangerous... DRM is simply encryption, and encryption isn't bad. I don't think anyone here wants encryption restricted in any way. Everyone has the right to encrypt any data in any way they want, period!

What IS dangerous is the government requiring DRM or giving it special legal protection. It is dangerous if the government mandates DRM, and makes it illegal for me to circumvent DRM. If I can crack the DRM on media, and convert it to an unprotected format for myself, without any fear of legal consequences, then my rights are not being restricted in any way.

What is also dangerous is people thinking that the government should act against DRM. Seriously, that is just as bad as DRM. It is going to come back to bite people in the ass when those anti-DRM laws start restricting how you are allowed to encrypt your own data. If I create data, I want to be able to encrypt it in any way I choose... just because you find it annoying that it takes 10 seconds to run your itunes music through a utility to convert it to mp3, doesn't mean you have the right to restrict me from encrypting my data however I want.

Basicly, keep all the legal restrictions out of it, and let people do whatever the hell they want want... that is the only truly safe thing to do.

Re:DRM isn't dangerous. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603703)

That's true..

People should be free to encrypt what they want for whatever reason. People should also be able to explore encryption scemes, be free to reverse engineer and find weaknesses... This is the only way you can hope to further the state of the art.

What they SHOULDN'T be able to do is create a sceme to milk the population for money. A sceme that is technically unsound, that is artifically creating a new market, that requires collusion between numerious large software and hardware makers in a (public) conspiracy with governments in order to encoforce it.

Re:DRM isn't dangerous. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15603749)

As I understand it, DRM is when a device encrypts your info against your will.

I don't trust the market to sort this out by itself (DVDs, cell phones, TiVo, Blu-Ray, etc). It is possible for a legislative solution to handle this without interfering with voluntary encryption (but that is a danger we should be weary of). The only other option I see is to live with it, and I for one, don't wanna.

Re:DRM isn't dangerous. (1)

smash (1351) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603762)

DRM isn't dangerous... DRM is simply encryption, and encryption isn't bad. I don't think anyone here wants encryption restricted in any way. Everyone has the right to encrypt any data in any way they want, period!

You're talking about RMS here, who has previously been against the idea of even having passwords for computer access... (http://mannu.livejournal.com/10626.html) ... you think he's going to be all for people encrypting their data? :D

Re:DRM isn't dangerous. (1)

vga_init (589198) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603814)

DRM isn't dangerous... DRM is simply encryption, and encryption isn't bad. I don't think anyone here wants encryption restricted in any way. Everyone has the right to encrypt any data in any way they want, period!

I agree with your point of view, but let's talk semantics for a moment. I'm sure none of us anti-DRM folks are against the technology of encryption. For our own personal use, that's some great power--who here doesn't use OpenSSH or kerberos? I have two examples off the top of my head, but the list goes on and on.

However, DRM specifically means "digital rights management," and its name explicitly links the technology to copyright law. Now, if you see where I'm going with this, already we're talking government enforcement. :-/

DRM is also a technology whose primary purpose is to aid software developers to limit the functionality of their clients' systems. They will say "I'll give you a piece of software that claims to allow you to enjoy your music, but it's rigged to stop you from listening to it when we don't think you should be able to."

You raise the point, "Well, I can just decrypt the thing and nobody is infringing on my personal freedoms." Ouch, well... even if technically you are not violating copyright law, for those of us in the United States of America, there is that little thing called the DMCA. The mere circumvention of DRM and other copyright enforcement methods has been made illegal, even if one is not actually violating copyright in doing so. Only in a few explicitly stated scenarios are you allowed to circumvent copyright protection.

Granted, I'm not the most educated person on these issues. I recommend picking up some books written by Lawrence Lessig, such as Free Culture [amazon.com].

Anyhow, my main response to you is this: DRM is not encryption itself, but is a larger mechanism that makes use of encryption at some point. Also, many governments do already have laws regarding how you may not use encryption. I don't like such laws myself, but you should be aware that those of us who are against DRM are asking for something a little different than outlawing the use of encryption.

Re:DRM isn't dangerous. (1)

modeless (978411) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603815)

The fact is, from a technical perspective, DRM doesn't work. It can't work. There is no need to outlaw it because it is inherently flawed as a concept; as long as it is legal to break it, it will be broken. However, we must do more than simply repeal the wrongheaded DRM laws already in existence. DRM can also be given legal protection implicitly through laws not originally designed for that purpose. For example, a patented DRM scheme cannot be legally implemented without permission, and contract law provides the means to control access to the patents. At the very least, patent law must also be reformed if we wish to fully prevent "trivial-yet-illegal-to-break" DRM schemes.

RMS says Flash is no longer an issue (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603660)

Anyone know where can I get this GNU Flash player that rocks? Anyone know where I can get a GNU Flash editor?

Thanks.

Re:RMS says Flash is no longer an issue (4, Informative)

mrbobjoe (830606) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603698)

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ [gnu.org]

As for editor, good question.

Re:RMS says Flash is no longer an issue (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603737)

that's nice.. but youtube, google video, and everyone else uses swf 8.0 now.. so this is useless.

In particular I want a version of google/youtube player which will allow me to load in flv's of my choice.

Re:RMS says Flash is no longer an issue (1)

despisethesun (880261) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603747)

How is gnash, by the way? I'm currently using the proprietary Flash player with a 32-bit browser on my AMD64 Linux machine and not only does using a non-free player leave a bad taste in my mouth, but it's really not very good. On the other hand, the last Free player I used was stuck at version 4. Any significant change since then?

Don't buy it (3, Interesting)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603665)

We should decide that it will not happen! And the way we decide that is by activism.

I was thinking don't buy it.
But if you want want to give an aspiring journalist somthing to write about, feel free.

Re:Don't buy it (1)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603712)

Not buying it is activism.

Re:Don't buy it (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603720)

I thought that was not buying it & making a big deal out of not buying it.

Re:Don't buy it (1)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603763)

"Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social or political change. This action is in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument.

The word "activism" is often used synonymously with protest or dissent, but activism can stem from any number of political orientations and take a wide range of forms, from writing letters to newspapers or politicians, simply shopping ethically, rallies and street marches, direct action, or even guerrilla tactics. In the more confrontational cases, an activist may be called a freedom fighter by some, and a terrorist by others, depending on which side of the political fence is making the observation.

In some cases, activism has nothing to do with protest or dissent: for instance, some environmentalists do not wish to confront organizations that harm the environment; instead, they seek to educate people about the practical matters at hand, such that an increased awareness of the issues might induce a change (for instance, educating children about small efforts they can make to help the environment).

Since the 2004 elections and controversy over gay marriage in the United States, "activist" has often been used as a pejorative for those who seek to redress social ills through legal rather than legislative action. Thus many conservative politicians have sought to curb the power of those deemed "activist judges" whom they claim are acting outside traditional boundaries of judicial review [1]. Some liberals contend that judicial activism is a long-standing US legal tradition, while others have responded that judicial activism is equally or more prevalent among judges deemed conservative."

From the Wikipedia. This is more inline with my views of activism than the Wordnet meaning of,"a policy of taking direct and militant action to achieve a political or social goal".

He has the right attitude. (5, Interesting)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603674)

I live in the United States. I spent yesterday looking at other countries and what qualities of government they have, because I am just plain sick of it here. Every week, I read at least one story about our rights and how they are being taken away through the back door. It was difficult to find a country where there weren't any drawbacks - all forms of government seem fundamentally flawed in (at least) one way or another. We don't NEED it on the Internet.

This world-wide network has gained a momentum, and there are people in power that are AFRAID of that momentum. With no REAL commercial core, with free speech and architecture giving itself power and stance... These people feel threatened that they will be disregarded. So they start fighting it in their world.

MPAA/RIAA lawsuits. DRM. Internet taxation. F*CK THAT.

How about open standards. Open SOURCE CODE. Open practice and ethics. These are all the backbone of the Internet, such as the Tier 1 Internet providers, Internet exchanges and other entities that share information freely. We *KNOW* how to govern ourselves. It's actually very inspiring, isn't it? No real central authority (except for standards and protocols, like the IEEE and DNS root servers)... These people who don't see how it works right now intend to change it so THEY are the ones calling the shots.

No thanks, I think we can do it ourselves.

He's right. We need to fight. Keep it in the hands of everyone, not a just a few corruptable, power hungry mother f*ckers who want to either make money from it or pat themselves on the back knowing that they are in control.

Re:He has the right attitude. (1)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603723)

I think it takes more than a day to determine whether or not other countries are more based in your personal politics and priorities. Keep looking. May I suggest Canada, where our high rates of taxation only make you sad if you honestly believe that your before-tax earnings are a real indication of what your salary is.

Why would anyone produce shows then? (1)

ABeowulfCluster (854634) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603682)

If you cannot profit from your work because people upload your tv shows and music to usenet, then it will not make economic sense to make tv shows any more. So the money making scheme is. Produce shows. Encrypt with DRM. Profit.

Re:Why would anyone produce shows then? (4, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603708)

Copyright is a very recent notion. Only in the last 400 years or so has it been enforced by government, and really only in the West until it was forced on the rest of the world. Look to other places and times. Take, for example, Rome and ancient Greece: there poets, dramatists, and orators created works of art that have lasted through the ages, and they weren't concerned about people freely copying their work. Martial, for exmaple, makes reference to free copying of his epigram in the marketplce, with no payment getting back to him, and he suggests he's fine with it as long as no one who copies it tries to claim they themselves wrote it. In India, there has always been a long tradition of copying and adapting previous material without payment, and yet it hasn't stopped a vibrant art scene. Copyright holds back the creation of art more than it spurs it.

Re:Why would anyone produce shows then? (2, Interesting)

ABeowulfCluster (854634) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603746)

Michelangelo was paid for his work. Painters and artisans are paid for their garments and paintings. Shakespeare was paid, he was part owner of the theatre company. In the India example you cite, the craftsmen who copy art get paid for their goods as well. The Roman Circus also had an admission fee, what they did not have was digital copies downloaded for free. With the digital revolution, nobody gets paid when you download.

Re:Why would anyone produce shows then? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603759)

Michelangelo was paid for his work.

But not when other artists came to the Sistine Chapel and sketched his paintings for their own benefit.

Shakespeare was paid, he was part owner of the theatre company.

But he didn't get paid when people copied his works. Some of the earliest texts we have of Shakespeare were made without his knowledge, some copied down by spectactors in the crowd as the play was going on.

the craftsmen who copy art get paid for their goods as well.

And that won't change in the digital revolution, since computer hardware will continue to cost money. Computer makers are just the modern form of "craftsmen".

Re:Why would anyone produce shows then? (1)

ABeowulfCluster (854634) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603782)

>And that won't change in the digital revolution, since computer hardware will continue to cost money. Computer makers are just the modern form of "craftsmen". BULL SHIT. There's no 'craft' in downloading a tv show.

Re:Why would anyone produce shows then? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603794)

BULL SHIT.

No need for profanity here.

There's no 'craft' in downloading a tv show.

The craft isn't in the downloading, it's in developing and producing computer technologies which allow things like sending and receiving information across a network, and in representing said information on screen or through speakers. Or do you think computers just produce themselves without human ingenuity and material resources?

Re:Why would anyone produce shows then? (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603827)

Michelangelo was paid for his work. Painters and artisans are paid for their garments and paintings. Shakespeare was paid, he was part owner of the theatre company. ...nobody gets paid when you download.

What is the problem here? They GOT PAID, they earned a living and in many cases a better than average living.

If today artists and other creators were to get paid in the same way those people in your examples got paid, then who cares if nobody gets paid when you download? That's like saying - the guys on the car manufacturing line got paid for every car they built, but everytime someone takes a trip in one of those cars nobody gets paid.

Soylent Green is people (4, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603683)

Obviously, denouncing DRM and the products and companies that sustain it is what any fair use advocate should do. But such a strategy will never work unless the unwashed masses are also made aware of how DRM negatively impacts their lives. The anti-DRM slashdot type accounts for such a small piece of the pie compared to the workaday single mom who wants to record her soaps in HD, or the 13-year-old girl who wants to record Britney's new trailer trash offering off of the radio, or the recent business school graduate who wants to save what he hears on his new XM or Sirius radio for later. All those folks will be seriously impacted by the encroachment of DRM as the digital entertainment age emerges, but none of them are aware that their fair use liberties are in danger.

Now, if each of us told our parents and siblings about the imminent mainstream DRM fiasco, and all of them told their coworkers and fellow students, and so on, then maybe - just maybe - the public outrage would reach the critical point where Congress and the electronics companies would finally see the light and tell the copyright cartels where to cram it. Until then, the nerdiest of us will just have to sit and watch as our fair use rights are taken away one by one.

By RMS's logic, we shouldn't have file permissions (0, Troll)

ABeowulfCluster (854634) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603710)

After all, the permissions built into the linux file structure is just a 'control' thing to stop everyone else from administering my computer, and that would be infringing on the freedom of all those people who want to hack my computer. I, for one, reject RMS's logic!

Join the Defective by Design campaign! (4, Informative)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603741)

We need to stop this now. If every slashdotter joins then we can.

http://defectivebydesign.org/join/fsf [defectivebydesign.org]

Re:Join the Defective by Design campaign! (1)

toddhunter (659837) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603810)

Seriously though, what are we trying to stop?
As far as I am concerned, if the record, movie industries want to put drm and the rest on what they produce why should I care? Where does it say I have the right to entertainment of any kind?
If I don't like DRM, I won't buy their products and will spend my time elsewhere.

BINGO. (3, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603765)

"the goal is to liberate everyone in cyberspace."

He's right. Now what?

Time to start Anti DRM webpages that top search engines when you search HD-DVD, Blue Ray, Vista, and Itunes?

What does one do?

Hang around best buys all day and inform people?

Obviously the media, by that i mean CNN, Fox News, SONY, etc will not be getting the word out. Its in their interest that this goes through.

The people dont really have a voice anymore. The government is worthless in the matter.

Do we stick to slashdot.org and rant to like minded people? Who will see it? Who will care?

Frankly we LOST this years ago when corporations took interest in the internet and the computer boom took foot.

We're all 30+ now. The kids today all talk like we used too when we were the minority computer geeks.

Frankly its a world where we do not have a voice. Did the war protests have any effect on stopping the war? Did you see how many people showed up to the protests world wide? MILLIONS.

We dont have those numbers... and even if we did... it wouldnt make a dam difference.

Showing up to protests, writing people, writing articles... ranting on slashdot... DOES NOTHING.

The law trickles down... not up.

There isnt much anyone can do in todays world. We should get used to it.I know we wont, and we'll tell everyone about how much DRM sucks and they'll say "Well that sucks" and then we'll all buy the products despite our beleifs.

Its the way it goes.

The only real alternative is criminal. Support the hackers... and you're a criminal... Frankly thats the only real protest option left. The brilliant minds that liberate software, DVD, music... must go on.

Let the media giants push hard, and the coders have to push back harder.

Protesting, and writing your congressman is worthless. They do not care about you. That is the simple truth. They pass laws written by lobbiests paid for by the media giants. They have access and we the people do not.

Revolutions come from wars... not silly get togethers on the capital lawn.

Isn't Net Neutrality more pressing? (3, Interesting)

Soong (7225) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603777)

Shouldn't we be more worried about the telcom lobby lying to and/or buying congress so that they can get the law changed to allow them to extort more money out of an Internet redesigned in the image of their maximum profit?

Re:Isn't Net Neutrality more pressing? (1)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 7 years ago | (#15603809)

There are many pressing issues. The folks who want to get one by you hope that you will decide to concentrate all of your energy on another issue this year.

Bruce

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...