Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Jan 2012 19:12 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Late last year, president Obama signed a law that makes it possible to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects without any form of trial or due process. Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities. Initiatives like SOPA promote diligent monitoring of communication channels. Thirty years ago, when Richard Stallman launched the GNU project, and during the three decades that followed, his sometimes extreme views and peculiar antics were ridiculed and disregarded as paranoia - but here we are, 2012, and his once paranoid what-ifs have become reality.
Permalink for comment 502169
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

"Someone who advocates freedom would not attempt to deny other people's freedom to choose

freedom is relative to a subject. It makes no sense in your sentence. When used as an empty word like in your sentence, it is just a propaganda tool that rings a bell in some weak people minds.
Some people want to be free to preach their religion. Some other people want to be free from religious propaganda.
Abortionists want the freedom to kill their fetus. Anti abortionist want their fetus to have the freedom to live.
"

Don't be silly - the freedom to choose to buy something with DRM (with full knowledge of the restrictions) vs. the freedom to prevent other people from making informed choices?

I don't like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Does that give me the right to prevent anyone else from making, buying, eating or enjoying peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? Definitely not - there's no harm in allowing people to make their own choice (and living with the consequences of their choice).

Microsoft probably doesn't like open source software. Does that give Microsoft the right to prevent anyone else from making, buying, using or enjoying open source software? Definitely not - there's no harm in allowing people to make their own choice (and living with the consequences of their choice).

Richard Stallman doesn't like DRM. Does that give Richard Stallman the right to prevent anyone else from making, buying, using or enjoying content with DRM? Definitely not - there's no harm in allowing people to make their own choice (and living with the consequences of their choice).

Your entire argument is "I don't want anybody to be able to do something just because I don't want to do it myself".

If a large company creates a movie and lets people buy the movie for $40 with no DRM, but also allows people to buy the movie for $20 with DRM; is the company evil or good? Would the company be less evil if they didn't give people a choice and forced everyone that wanted the movie to pay $40?

Now, how about the opposite: Should you be able to protect yourself from identity theft by using DRM to prevent strangers from opening your resume without your permission? Should you be able to use DRM to prevent other people (except your current Doctor) from accessing your medical records? If you take a photo of yourself naked and give it to your spouse, should you be able to make sure that the photo can't be uploaded to Facebook? It's your resume, your medical records and your photo - surely you have the right to do whatever you want with them.

- Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 2