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 511467
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Re:
by shmerl on Wed 21st Mar 2012 20:28 UTC 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[7]: Re:
by shmerl on Wed 21st Mar 2012 22:36 in reply to "RE[6]: Re:"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

The only people it affects are the ones that choose to use 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.


If there would be an alternative choice - why not. Who would care about DRM in such case. But, the point is that the industry which pushes DRM tries to eliminate any alternative choice. Consider DVDs, Blu-rays and etc. If one could easily get the same stuff without DRM - that would be voting with the wallet. Can you actually do it? I.e. no reason to pretend that DRM is purely optional. Those who push it try their best to make it mandatory across the board (up to building it into the hardware). And that's immoral forcing of preemptive policing, as mentioned above.

It is NOT your data - that is my whole point. It is the right holder's data...
the problem is how the product is licensed...

Yes, yes. Everyone knows that's what they want it to be. No point even to discuss this nonsense which they push on people. In essence you buy content, and not licenses. And regardless whether IP rules and practices are all messed up, even if you say that you bought just the license, preemptive policing is still immoral.

Edited 2012-03-21 22:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5