Linked by Linux Review on Tue 20th Mar 2012 17:07 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source It's been a while since we caught up with Stallman. But a couple months ago we took a look around at what's happening with law, politics and technology and realized that he maybe perhaps his extremism and paranoia were warranted all along. So when we were contacted by an Iranian Linux publication and asked if we would like to publish an English translation of a recent interview they had done with Stallman, I thought that it was a particularly rich opportunity.
Thread beginning with comment 511463
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Re:
by galvanash on Wed 21st Mar 2012 19:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Re:"
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

Not so simple. DRM is a preemptive policing technology intended for a very practical application. Thus it's not comparable to an abstract gun, but more to putting handcuffs on everyone, just in case someone will decide to act illegally.


Using handcuffs as an analogy is rather ironic to me - handcuffs are a tool used to inhibit a person's ability to resist. DRM doesn't inhibit this at all, if anything it has the opposite effect (it ends up promoting the exact behavior your imply it deters - primarily because it doesn't work and everyone knows it).

We are both against DRM. But I'm against it because it is used stupidly, not because it is evil. Assuming it actually worked, using it to control copying of sensitive data (that you in fact own) is not evil at all.

Demonizing technology doesn't do any good - I prefer to concentrate on the real problems... If people would stop complaining about silly things like DRM and start voting with their wallets a lot of these "issues" would resolve themselves rather quickly.

The fact is virtually no one is really happy with the rights they are granted when they buy a piece of music (DRM or not). But they buy it anyway... THAT is the problem.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Re:
by shmerl on Wed 21st Mar 2012 20:28 in reply to "RE[4]: Re:"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

People do vote with their wallets. But it looks like media companies aren't smart enough to realize that DRM doesn't help them (on the contrary).

If analogy of handcuffs isn't precise, use something akin to restrictive collars, legcuffs etc. which restrict the freedom of movement. Imagine these applied to the whole population just to inhibit agile movement (since potential criminals tend to need agile actions).

DRM is intended to restrict the freedom of access to your data. Since it's preemptive and applied unconditionally, it's immoral. That's pretty obvious.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Re:
by galvanash on Wed 21st Mar 2012 21:08 in reply to "RE[5]: Re:"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

People do vote with their wallets. But it looks like media companies aren't smart enough to realize that DRM doesn't help them (on the contrary).

If analogy of handcuffs isn't precise, use something akin to restrictive collars, legcuffs etc. which restrict the freedom of movement. Imagine these applied to the whole population just to inhibit agile movement (since potential criminals tend to need agile actions).


You keep saying that. DRM isn't applied to people, it is applied to data. The only people it affects are the ones that choose to use it (by buying it) or choose to defeat it (by breaking it).

If people would simply choose to neither buy it OR break it... Well it would go away rather quickly. Don't buy things that are not in fact what you actually want.

It isn't really about DRM - it is about the fact that the industry does not and has never actually "sold" content. To steal a line from The Usual Suspects, the greatest trick the industry ever pulled was convincing people that they actually own what they buy.

DRM is intended to restrict the freedom of access to your data. Since it's preemptive and applied unconditionally, it's immoral. That's pretty obvious.


It is NOT your data - that is my whole point. It is the right holder's data. You are willingly licensing it when you buy media - stop doing that. If you want it to be your data you have to demand that product from the industry, otherwise you are just lying to yourself, pretending that something is yours when it is in fact not.

If it was your data and it was you who wanted to control it then it is perfectly moral to apply DRM to it. You can't fight the real problem while suffering form this cognitive dissonance - DRM is not the problem, the problem is how the product is licensed...

I fully expect 90% of people who read this to impulsively want to twist my words into something they are not (a defense of DRM) - because they don't agree with my conclusions... Read it again and tell me what I said that isn't 100% factual.

Edited 2012-03-21 21:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Re:
by phoenix on Wed 21st Mar 2012 23:26 in reply to "RE[4]: Re:"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Using handcuffs as an analogy is rather ironic to me - handcuffs are a tool used to inhibit a person's ability to resist. DRM doesn't inhibit this at all, if anything it has the opposite effect (it ends up promoting the exact behavior your imply it deters - primarily because it doesn't work and everyone knows it).


It's not so much that DRM doesn't work, but that it works against those who actually follow the rules (ie, the lawful customers). DRM actually makes the lives of the very customers they are trying to keep just a little bit harder.

DRM servers go down ... paying customers can no longer access their [music|app|game|whatever] ... but the "pirates" can.

All the unskippable crap on DVDs/Blu-rays protected by DRM and other encryption just drive people nuts, to the point where they get fed up with it, and decide to download movies instead of (or, possibly, in addition to) buying them.

And so on. DRM only hurts paying customers. It doesn't hurt the "pirates". Which is completely bassackwards!

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Re:
by kurkosdr on Thu 22nd Mar 2012 09:58 in reply to "RE[5]: Re:"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

The problem with DRM is that it is mandated by law if you want to work with DRMed formats like DVD-Video and Bluray-Movie. Even software like Ubuntu is forced to include or recommend DRMed software (LinDVD) in order to legally ship to the US.

DRM doesn't have to do with proprietary or free software, get over it already. It's something the US effectively mandated with the DMCA, for proprietary AND free software, if they want to work with DRMed formats. Microsoft has already said that the reason their Media Center respects CGMS-A is because the law requires it, and the reason they did Protected Video Path was so that windows software can work with Bluray-Movie.

Outside the US, there are proprietary and open source DRM-free software DVD players. Here in Europe, there are DRM-free hardware DVD players too (yes! imported from China).

Reply Parent Score: 2