"When Richard Stallman learned that a compiler architect from ATI would be speaking at MIT, he immediately started organizing a protest against ATI's damaging free software policies. It all started, like most good protests, with a trip to Kinko's printing to make a sign. The request came from Richard Stallman for a 3'x2' sign, mounted and able to be carried with one hand easily. Several frustrating minutes with Inkscape, two trips to the store and one foam-core backing later, we had our sign, and it stated our message clearly in black letters on white background."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-15
I respectfully disagree. You're thinking of what the law allows them to do in the U.S. - in that sense, you're right, there are more regulations on them. However, I'm reflecting on the global power that transnational corporations have today, one of them being the ability to easily move operations and capital outside of the country when wages are too high (or working conditions too good) for their taste.
I'm talking raw economic power and influence, not U.S. corporate regulations. In that sense, it is true that their power has increased, while that of democratic institutions has decreased (mostly due to lack of interest from the population, truth be told).
Yes, I was speaking of US law, but the comment extends to multinationals. The ways in which multinational companies are gaining and extending power are different now than in the past, but again, the extent of that power is cyclic. Consider the Dutch East India Company, (the original corporation, by the way) and the power they had.
What is different about modern multi-national companies is that they no longer even pay lip service to any idea of national allegience whereas in the past the multinationals were an extention of national imperialism.
Member since:2005-07-02
Yes, I was speaking of US law, but the comment extends to multinationals. The ways in which multinational companies are gaining and extending power are different now than in the past, but again, the extent of that power is cyclic. Consider the Dutch East India Company, (the original corporation, by the way) and the power they had.
True, butthere was little democracy in those days, so it's hard to relativize the power of these early corporations from the people's point of view. They were quite powerful as well, however there were fewer of them. That said, I do see your point.
What is different about modern multi-national companies is that they no longer even pay lip service to any idea of national allegience whereas in the past the multinationals were an extention of national imperialism.
Exactly. Also, while nations have become increasingly democratic, the structure of these corporations hasn't changed much. They are still autocratic structures, except that now (as we've discussed in the other post) they have more rights and less responsibilities than individuals...
This is quite interesting, but a bit off-topic, so I'll leave it at that. :-)
Member since:
2005-07-02
I did not say it was. I said it made me sad that people confuse what they're allowed to do in protest with what they're allowed to do at a commercial presentation.
Had I known it woud cause confusion I would have struck "against the government". (It was meant as an example, not an exhaustive description of free speech rights.)
All right, my mistake, sorry about that. I still think that RMS's action were legitimate. Of course, one can agree or disagree if this is a good fight or not (I tend to agree with him, if only because it's a minor annoyance that the drivers are not updated at the same time as the kernel).
It is a myth that corporations are increasing their power as democratic instutitions lose theirs. The relative power waxes and wanes. Corporations in the United States had far more power in the early 20th century than they do in the early 21st,
I respectfully disagree. You're thinking of what the law allows them to do in the U.S. - in that sense, you're right, there are more regulations on them. However, I'm reflecting on the global power that transnational corporations have today, one of them being the ability to easily move operations and capital outside of the country when wages are too high (or working conditions too good) for their taste.
I'm talking raw economic power and influence, not U.S. corporate regulations. In that sense, it is true that their power has increased, while that of democratic institutions has decreased (mostly due to lack of interest from the population, truth be told).
democratic institutional power probably peaked in the US during WW-II, and has been swinging back down since.
Yes, which is exactly what I was saying.