
"In the physical world, we have the right to print and sell books. Anyone trying to stop us would need to go to court. That right is weak in the UK (consider superinjunctions), but at least it exists. However, to set up a web site we need the cooperation of a domain name company, an ISP, and often a hosting company, any of which can be pressured to cut us off. In the US, no law explicitly requires this precarity. Rather, it is embodied in contracts that we have allowed those companies to establish as normal. It is as if we all lived in rented rooms and landlords could evict anyone at a moment's notice."
Recommended reading. I'm no fan of Stallman, but despite a bit too much dramatisation towards the end, this article aptly illustrates in layman's terms why the 'net needs to be free, open, and unregulated.
Member since:
2008-06-02
And yet, you still replied.
Why would I want to do that? If the purpose of my post & username was trolling, then it's clearly worked on you.
You think that RMS isn't paid? "
As you have some problems with basic reading comprehension, allow me to repeat that sentence, this time with emphasis on the part that you conveniently ignored.
"the only real difference between RMS and Steve Jobs is that Jobs gets paid to be an obnoxious ideologue"
To get published initially there are barriers in both places. However, once a book has been published in the physical world it is far, far harder to 'retract' it, whereas in the digital world it's pretty easy (streisand effect notwithstanding). "
The detail that completely invalidates your point is "notwithstanding"? Well how wonderfully convenient!
Get your own material, kid, I don't need you riding my coattails.
Because he notes a difference between the online transfer of money and the meatspace transfer of money you think he must be being disingenuous? "
Stallman's being disingenuous by trying to imply that, in contrast to the internet, anonymous transfer of money is the norm in meatspace (that wasn't true even before credit cards, last I looked cheques and money orders aren't anonymous either).
And how exactly do you suggest we implement anonymous online funds transfers? Or for that matter, how do you suggest we make ANY non-cash funds transfer truly anonymous?
Obviously you don't grasp the difference between you attacking someone and someone else attacking you. If I take open software and use it maliciously, I'm harming someone else deliberately. That's on me. If I run closed software, innocently or maliciously, someone else is harming me. Stallman isn't trying to prevent you from behaving criminally, though it's a shame, he's trying to protect you from others who are making a specific kind of attempt to harm you. "
So you're saying that you consider the "harm" caused by non-malicious closed source software to be worse or on par with the harm caused by software such as LOIC (which is specifically and blatantly intended to be used maliciously), so long as the source is available for the malice-enabling applications? Do you have any notion how ridiculous that sounds?
Oh, and I have to pick out this little gem:
Hahaha, seriously? And can you give any specific example how that harms you? Sorry, but the "evils of proprietary software" rhetoric starts to ring a bit hollow when you're comparing them to actual, tangible harms (such as the harm caused by DDoS attacks)