Stallman On the UK Digital Economy Bill 228
superapecommando submitted a blog entry written by Stallman about the UK's bandwidth initiatives. RMS says "When I read about Gordon Brown's plan to give the UK more broadband, I couldn't restrain my laughter. Isn't this the same clown now busy circumventing democracy to take away broadband from Britons who already have it? And what good would broadband do them if they're punished for using it (or even being suspected of using it)? Laying cables would be a waste of resources if people are not allowed to use them.
Brown did suggest another possible use for broadband. He said that it would enable MPs to better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want."
I'll tell you what the reason is (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hm, and it might give a nice backbone for massive enlargement of street cameras network?
We need British broadband (Score:2, Interesting)
To enable the surveillance telescreens promised us with such fanfare by Orwell in 1984. Cameras on the street really don't do the job.
Re:I'll tell you what the reason is (Score:5, Insightful)
You claim he's out of touch, yet he consistently sees dangers for what they are (or have the potential to be) long before most anyone else.
I'm always interested to read what he has to say even if I disagree with him. I find that his world of black and white doesn't map cleanly to how I view the world, but his insights are always educational.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly.
RMS is saying what we're pondering in our own minds, but don't dare say without sounding crazy. Then down the road, society realizes perhaps "That GNU lunatic" was right - and start arguing against that which has already been implemented/released/forced upon us...
Please, someone, shut RMS up for all our sakes (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS is saying what we're pondering in our own minds, but don't dare say without sounding crazy.
Well, no, he's not.
For one thing, the rest of us concerned citizens here in the UK have been following the progress of the Digital Economy Bill for months. There are several organised groups opposing the draconian penalties proposed by the more extreme advocates, there is serious opposition from many politicians, thousands of people have written to their MPs on the subject, and it has been widely covered in various parts of the media, including mainstream services like the BBC.
Moreover, as usual RMS started
Re: (Score:2)
>>>he consistently sees dangers for what they are (or have the potential to be) long before most anyone else.
I'm willing to admit I might have been too quick to judge. Can you provide some examples of what "dangers" Stallman observed that others have not seen?
Re:I'll tell you what the reason is (Score:5, Interesting)
1997:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [gnu.org]
2009ish:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090623/0415565326.shtml [techdirt.com]
Are we there yet?
So what if RMS eats foot crud? (Score:2)
Think logically. Don't allow yourself to be controlled by what society tells you. Just because other people do stuff (like live in a house rather than in
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
or maybe the security cameras need broadband. and the traffic sensors that read the rfid in your tires to track you. When they say it's to keep better track of the voters they're probably telling (part of) the truth.
Re:I'll tell you what the reason is (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
... "oiling a few door hinges" ...
Well if there's any oiling to be done then Lord Mandlemort/Voldeson is the man for the job!
Re: (Score:2)
Also bear in mind that this DEB is one of the half-dozen or so pieces of legislation that the government is going to 'rush through' parliament right at the end of their term, before the general election. Even if somebody agrees with the content of the bill, it's utterly immoral for this government (no surprise there) to ram a bill this comprehensive and game-changing through, towards the end of their tenure, in the full knowledge that they're probably doing it because they'll be kicked the hell out in the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever thought that the "gutter" press simply act as an echo chamber for what their readers are thinking, and that the greatest con is performed by Murdoch on corrupt politicians, who grant him favours for essentially doing nothing at all?
Re:I'll tell you what the reason is (Score:4, Interesting)
Then your problem, like Chomsky's, may be that you assume that everyone is stupid and easily influenced except you. Could you be wrong about this?
Re: (Score:2)
So you haven't heard about Gaussian distribution, or that only small part of the population needs to suceptible to infuence things greatly?
(note - I do think that, ultimatelly, governments, etc. are simply a reflection of society...but it's certainly a more complex web of dependancies under the hood)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, it works both ways. Old people casting vote in their likely to be last, or one of the last elections; influencing the outcome in a way that won't make much (if any) difference to them. But fraks things up for the younger.
Re: (Score:2)
Constituents who don't register to vote or don't turn up to vote are still making their voice heard by not voting. The right to make known that you think they're all a shower of corrupt bastards is as important as the right to believe otherwise. Such people may still vote, if their opinions change.
Constituents who vote to shore up a secure seat are still making their voice known by confirming that their interest is in the status quo. Such people may still vote otherwise, if their opinions change.
It's wrong
Better communicate?! (Score:2)
He said that it would enable MPs to better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want.
So, how fat a pipe do you need for that? 100 Mb/s? 1 Gb/s?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He said that it would enable MPs to better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want.
So, how fat a pipe do you need for that? 100 Mb/s? 1 Gb/s?
The answer to your question is complex and arduous to obtain, as it depends on many factors.
The main variable, would clearly be whether, during the communication itself, the constituents would be female and naked.
Re:Better communicate?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's awfully small for millions of cameras across the country.
Re: (Score:2)
.50 cal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He said that it would enable MPs to better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want.
So, how fat a pipe do you need for that? 100 Mb/s? 1 Gb/s?
The internet would be no use. You need a gas pipe.
Re: (Score:2)
If everybody can vote from home, we don't need any representatives to do the job for us.
Then the lobbyists have to grease our palms.
Well, how much bandwidth does a telescreen use? (Score:2)
And to be a bit serious. I think this is a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing.
Labour and the Conservaties have been exchanging power for so long, that they have become completely entrenched. Pretty much like the bankers. Most bankers don't even get why the public don't think they should get bonusses. They really just can't see that people might be upset about the whole economy. Surely they deserve their bonusses for all their hardwork because without that hardwork... the economy woul
Write to your MP on the Bill (Score:5, Informative)
If you're in the UK, 38 degrees have made it easy to write to your MP [38degrees.org.uk] about this bill.
Over 20,000 people have already done so [bbc.co.uk].
Re:Write to your MP on the Bill (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Right things, not always right reasons. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well put. Everytime RMS talks and rants he seems like he is playing for the people who will give him donations. Just like right wing religious makes some hard line sayings... Not to convince the general public but to keep their hard liners who will pay them the most money. RMS had some good ideas but he is now just hunting for more and new rants to fight after. If a Rant didn't help with donations he will go onto the next one.
Re:Right things, not always right reasons. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was brought up in Wales in the 1980s, I felt that Cymdeithas yr Iaith (the Welsh Language Society) were making unreasonable demands in their campaigning. And I still do to an extent.
But, in the 1960s and earlier, the right for Welsh people to speak and learn in their mother tongue was a serious civil rights issue. By the 1980s things had improved greatly, largely thanks to the activities of Cymdeithas yr Iaith.
I think that by continuing to maintain pressure, perhaps for demands that are a step too far, they prevent the pendulum from swinging back to where it was in the 60s.
I think the same goes for Stallman. Many people benefit from Free Software. Many people would be satisfied for a less pure Free Software world than Stallman demands. But without Stallman's purist stance, the average would shift to a less free position. I wouldn't want that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The value of such work time is so arbitrarily determined that there is some qualitative shift happening, yes (one which changes rules fundamentally, even if we haven't adapted to them yet)
Consider a plausible scenario: you're coding some per project or recording a song with an expectation that it should contribute to sustaining you, or in taking a bit further what you do, and that's fine of course. In 99.99+% of cases that's the best you can hope for.
But suddenly, some time later, through some fickle whim o
Post Scarcity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great analogy, because the "right" to have Welsh spoken in Welsh schools was always an emotive non-issue which only seriously affected the *very* small minority of Welsh people who don't (as opposed to won't) speak any English.
This isn't an appropriate place to have this discussion, but I don't want what you said there to be the last word. You seem to be saying that it's OK for the state to force people to be educated in their second language. OK for the state to pro-actively work to kill a language. Is it still Godwin's law if I mention the rich tapestry of languages Stalin destroyed? And we're not talking about immigrants who are bringing a non-indigenous language to the country.
Well if "sharing is good", why can't I use GPL code in my closed-source project? Stallman only wants to "share" on his own terms - same as everyone else.
A means to an end. Stallman would prefer it if th
Re:Right things, not always right reasons. (Score:4, Informative)
You are wrong.
Unlike you, Stallman recognises the difference between sharing for personal use and taking for commercial expoitation. He is also aware of how free licenses depend on copyright law and that a complete abandonment of such law would screw free software. In fact, he spoke at length to the Pirate Party UK about it, a conversation that had a fair influence on our final manifesto, which now includes special provisions for FOSS.
How does pragmatism get to the endpoint? (Score:2, Insightful)
How does pragmatism get to the endpoint? If you pragmatically go with mixing, then there's no need from those who want propriatory to go any further. So how do you get to the state you SAY (not believe) you want: all software should be Free?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
On Stallman (Score:3, Insightful)
My 1992 proposal for a special tax to be distributed to artists, with the money partly shifted from the most popular ones towards those not quite so successful, is still applicable.
Yup, I have just read that and its a pile of crap - the whole idea seems to be to reward those who are successful less and less, and reward those who are failing more. Why are those who are popular less deserving of those who are not? This isn't some politically correct playschool, where everyone holds hands to cross the line together at sports day rather than crown a sole winner - no, this is real life.
Now, I am against this Bill (and have written, faxed and phoned by MP - she will be calling for more discussion and consultation), but Stallman and his stance isn't the answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've watched Stallman's talks and while he has some good thoughts he has some completely absurd ones, and his government allocation for artists idea is one of them.
He proposed giving artists an income according to the cube root of their popularity, so smaller artists are better supported and larger ones much less supported. Do people really think this is a realistic idea? How could it be implemented? If it's done by taxes
Re: (Score:2)
If his plan goes through I shall be the richest violinist in the world! And I don't even have to learn to play.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Sharing is good" - I love how Stallman is once again so open with other peoples creations as well as his own. If you want to share, why not simply stick to sharing those things you are allowed to? But oh no, that's not good enough - the 'people' must be allowed to share *everything*
Stallman doesn't recognize the idea that other people's (digital) creations belong to their creators. They belong to the people.
Yup, I have just read that and its a pile of crap - the whole idea seems to be to reward those who are successful less and less, and reward those who are failing more. Why are those who are popular less deserving of those who are not?
So you would prefer the current system, where 0.1% of the artists are driving around in million dollar cars to their fifty million dollar mansions and getting one or two DUIs on the way while the other 99.9% are barely making a living and thus have to get a day job and only have 3-5 hours every day to actually be creating stuff? Less social inequality is good.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, I have just read that and its a pile of crap - the whole idea seems to be to reward those who are successful less and less, and reward those who are failing more. Why are those who are popular less deserving of those who are not?
So you would prefer the current system, where 0.1% of the artists are driving around in million dollar cars to their fifty million dollar mansions and getting one or two DUIs on the way while the other 99.9% are barely making a living and thus have to get a day job and only have 3-5 hours every day to actually be creating stuff? Less social inequality is good.
How is that any different to any other profession? Why are artists entitled to unequal and enforced support from their industry, and welders or seamstresses are not? What makes an unsuccessful artist more worthy than an unsuccessful teacher?
Re: (Score:2)
How is that any different to any other profession? Why are artists entitled to unequal and enforced support from their industry, and welders or seamstresses are not? What makes an unsuccessful artist more worthy than an unsuccessful teacher?
Just to add to the confusion, how do you define success?
A highly successful teacher (the children they teach grow up to be valuable members of society) might be poorly rewarded financially. A poor teacher might get a great salary (by gaming the system, for example).
An artist might be highly successful at what they set out to do. They might even by acclaimed by the critics, yet not earn very much in the marketplace.
It doesn't answer your question. But it adds nuance to it (and makes it harder to answer).
Re: (Score:2)
I do prefer something where artists have to earn their living comparably to the rest of population, yes. As was the case almost always and, as you noticed, is the case for vast majority of artists today.
That includes a system where ridiculous rewards and excesses of the few are restrained too, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said comparably to the main population. I said a choice between near poverty and relegating art to being a side hobby rather than your main job. The reality is, that's how many authors, musicians and open source programmers work, and our society is suffering because of it.
Re: (Score:2)
And can say with certainity that it's suffering...how? It seems to me you would agree that many of what we consider the greatest works of art came from "struggling idealists".
Stallman is a communist , this isn't news (Score:2, Insightful)
"the whole idea seems to be to reward those who are successful less and less, and reward those who are failing more. "
One of the main tenets of communism is that everyone is equal no matter what their actual abilities. Unfortunately
denying reality didn't work for a lot of nations but you still get plenty of tax payer funded examples of this
species of thinker in the academic world where they're sheltered from the nasty facts of reality outside the thick
walls of their ivory towers.
(I'll get modded down for th
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe RMS is a communist.
His belief in free software is pragmatic. He wanted to hack a printer driver to make it email him when his job had printed. He was shocked when he was told that the source code wasn't his to mess with. His message is, don't buy software that doesn't come with source you can modify.
I do believe he undervalues programmers' skill, including his own. I don't think he realises how few people could create GCC, glibc etc. Partly, he gives it to the community because it came relat
Re: (Score:2)
"His belief in free software is pragmatic."
Theres a big difference between "I want a driver , I'll write one myself" to "software should be given away free no matter now much work went into it". If someone wants to spend time writing their own code and give it away thats their democratic choice. But they should NOT stand on some dubious moral high ground and dictate to everyone else that they should do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
"software should be given away free no matter now much work went into it"
Nothing in RMS's credo says that.
Don't give anyone the software until you're paid for it. When you're paid for it, give them the software, the source, and the right to redistribute both.
Yes, you might need to charge more because there are fewer sales. Yes, it probably prevents you from getting wildly rich off a few months of coding. Tough. But look around, people are making an honest living on those terms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And can you point out any place where some people actually honestly tried to implement communism on a national level? (as contrasted with small, informal communities or modern-day communes, which can and do work sensibly)
Look, "communism" was just a dream, a different kind of religion if you will, that some people tried to sold here and there at few point in time; without actually any intent of implementing it (apparently it was partially succesfull, seems you bought it). Similar to, say, "Land of Opportuni
Re: (Score:2)
"And can you point out any place where some people actually honestly tried to implement communism on a national level?"
Is this a trick question? The bolsheviks were true communists and they've been followed by Mao, kim Jong Il and various other tin pot african, asian and south/central american dictatorships.
"Look, "communism" was just a dream,"
It may just be a dream but some people want to make it a reality.
"I take it you are againt socialist funding of highways"
Why would I be? Taxation to fund necessary st
Re: (Score:2)
As is my rule in many other areas - don't look at what bolsheviks (and those after them, also in other places) claimed they are, look at what they actually were. Oligarchies, not communist states. The point is that they didn't treat all people as identical, not even close. I should know very well, I live in place which was beyond the Iron Courtain...
And for that matter, I do think that communism on national level is outright unworkable (even if it can work on smaller scales), similarly to any other pure ide
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"And can you point out any place where some people actually honestly tried to implement communism on a national level?"
Is this a trick question? The bolsheviks were true communists and they've been followed by Mao, kim Jong Il and various other tin pot african, asian and south/central american dictatorships.
In fact the Bolsheviks never achieved the communist state they dreamt of.
Lenin replaced Tsarism with "the dictatorship of the proletariat" described as "An immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich: . . . and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, for the exploiters and oppressors of the people — this is the change which democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to comm
Re: (Score:2)
So what? Marx also said:
With which I believe IP supporters agree :)
-----------
Personally, I don't have a problem with people being paid according to their effort, but that's not what happens today. We're all in a race, but some start many miles ahead of the others.
Re:On Stallman (Score:5, Insightful)
(Sith) Lord Mandelson, is that you? Please enlighten us what we are allowed and not allowed to share!
Its called copyright, and you are more than welcome to create something of your own and grant permission to others to distribute it - why this overwhelming sense of entitlement about needing to be able to distribute other peoples works against their will?
I see my other post is marked as a troll - interesting how dissenting viewpoints and opinions simply aren't allowed here any more.
The argument against copyright is a fair one - but it almost completely seems to orientate around other peoples copyrighted works, and being able to distribute those works freely. Its certainly has a sense of 'I want what they are selling, but I don't want to pay them what they are asking for it, they should take what I am willing to offer and nothing else, but in any case I should still be entitled to their work' and I don't like that one little bit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To apreciate the arguments of both sides, please consider a clean slate - that is, a world without any laws but the ones of physics.
Anything on top of that is a social construct, which might or might not be useful.
To examplify your fallacy: consider the opposite argument "Nothing is new under the sun, all creative work naturally includes inspiration and parts
Re: (Score:2)
"I see my other post is marked as a troll - interesting how dissenting viewpoints and opinions simply aren't allowed here any more."
You go against the left leaning teenage group-think at your peril.
Re:On Stallman (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a much simpler argument: If a law is impossible or almost-impossible to enforce, there is something wrong with that law.
So in a hypothetical past where forensics are worthless and it's easy to get someone alone and slit their throat without getting caught, that there should not be a law against murder?
I think a much stronger argument is that when a huge segment of the population performs some act routinely without any sense of guilt, that's evidence that society as a whole doesn't consider it wrong. In a secular society, what can define right and wrong, except the consensus of the people? If the consensus is that something is not wrong, why is there a law against it?
I don't need broadband to tell my MP what I want (Score:3, Funny)
"He said that it would enable MPs to better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want."
I want them all to fuck off and die.
Painfully, if possible.
Like A Pervert in a Candy Store (Score:3, Insightful)
Governmental types simply can not stand the idea of free and open communications. I have always maintained that there would be a point where all governments would seek to stifle the net. I am not an anarchist but I do believe that even when one is lucky enough to have a good government that that same government will seek to expand and control more territory as well as to have more and more control over all people within its domain.
If I were to predict a tipping point where the iron hand becomes really visible it would be when we have easy, ultra secure, encryption. At that point the assumption will be that every communication just might be terrorist or treasonous in nature.
Of course (Score:2)
I laugh too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He generally seems to have a clue about random stuff. Like he has actually read, and commented on, the political platform of the Swedish political party Piratpartiet. I have, as a direct concequence of his comments, made a motion about sourcecode escrow for our annual meeting this month.
American vs English (Score:2)
Isn't this the same clown now busy circumventing democracy to take away broadband from Britons who already have it? And what good would broadband do them if they're punished for using it (or even being suspected of using it?
Ah, I see what the problem is; the right honourable mr Stallman is American and therefore speaks about politics the American way. This is what I believe he meant to say:
"Mr Speaker, does the Prime Minister really think that ..." and so on ...
Apart from that - it is all very well to bash Gordon Brown; the problem is that there are no real alternatives - the Tories are going to do exactly the same, the LibDems sound very nice and sensible but won't come anywhere near government, and most of the rest are the l
Re: (Score:2)
My Plaid Cymru MEP is an active member of the FFII and they seem like a fairly safe bet for the next election. Because they only run candidates in Wales, there's no chance of their gaining a majority over the whole UK - and I wouldn't want them to - but they can hopefully inject some sanity into the proceedings. When the Welsh Nationalists look like the most sane party, there's something badly wrong with the system...
I was recently sent a link to a site that lets you compare policies for the major partie [voteforpolicies.org.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced that they were ever popular with the public, there were just a lot of government-comissioned polls asking questions like "Do you want terrorists, paedophiles and rapists to be allowed to live in your neighbourhood or do you support ID cards?" that were used to *claim* widespread public support.
Why the linkage? Access !=censorship (Score:2)
Give me access to broadband, and then I'll worry about censorship, packet-sniffing/filtering and denial of service for abusive torrenting.
Granted, there are very worrying trends worldwide about monitoring and controlling people's internet access, and the UK Gov. has a poor record on respect for human rights.
But if I cannot even get onto the damn internet, then the point is moot.
Tiscali blocking emails linking TFA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite possibly related to this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/askjack/2010/apr/01/tiscali-blocking-guardian-emails [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And wouldn't be "Talk Talk" (Carphone Warehouse) that are actually blocking them?
Re: (Score:2)
The real reason for more broadband...HeMP! (Score:3, Funny)
The government in the UK is running out of public camera bandwidth. There are a lot of those cameras around, you know!
How can you keep an electronic eye on everyone if public bandwidth is clogged by bothersome subjects pirating American mass media?
A massive roll-out of British Broadband means Her Majesty's Peepers (aka HeMP) will be able to see all, and know all.
HeMP for all Britain!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Richard Stallman will always find something to complain about if something even hints at the possibility of not completely adhering to his myopic point of views and mentality. This isn't news, it's in my horoscope every day.
Look who's talking!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Extra, Extra, Stallman's Unhappy! (Score:4, Insightful)
I actually stopped reading when RMS started calling people clowns and saying that they aren't going to allow people to use their broadband. Name calling? Really? Then following it by saying they won't let people use the broadband while forgetting that they just mean people suspected of violating copyright and get accused several times? Stuff this well balanced belongs on Faux News. Sorry RMS, I didn't finish reading the article because you write like a clown. (couldn't resist...)
Fixed that for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I hate those lazy bastards that can't even be bothered to grow their own wheat and make their own bread, they're always taking the lazy way out. And don't even get me started on pre-sliced bread.
I'm really hoping that you were being sarcastic, but it's hard to tell. This isn't about laziness, it's about convenience and efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right! If it is so convenient, then why does only the most minute
fraction of the population (all with the exact same set of personality
characteristics) use it?
1) There's not many legal ways to download movies
2) Most people don't have fast enough connection yet, but they obviously will pretty soon, unless we have World War III.
I did download a couple of movies and received lots of music sent from my friends when I was a student. I buy all my stuff these days, and have even deleted basically all the stuff I was sent and acquired it legally.
I hate having to rip CDs and waste storage space on them. It's pointless. In the same vein I'd be happy to have all my movies o
Re:Don't compare (Score:4, Informative)
Bottom line is - there is a more-or-less one-to-one correlation between
the sets of people who:
1. outright violate copyright on a grand scale.
2. are poor earners, social misfits...
What a post. I'm reminded of O'Reilly, in conversation with The Daily Show's Jon Stewart [youtube.com]: "You got stoned slackers watching your dopey show every night. 87% are intoxicated when they watch..."
Tell me, do you find that outright manufacture of statistics is generally an effective mechanism in successfully debating complex issues? If you do, do you find that this mechanism is:
a) a good thing, because you get to win arguments based on totally uncited shit you pulled out of your ass, or
b) seriously concerning, because entire areas of governmental policy are set via arguments based on totally uncited shit that lobbyists pull out of their asses?
Your post is an example of extremely lazy ad hominem argumentation, and possibly also extremely lazy thinking as well. Here are some statistics for you. Given that this is a story about filesharing activities in the UK, here's a stat from the UK:
It is not impossible that 23% of individuals in the UK all share the same characteristics (poor earning, social misfits, highly vocal complainers) - although if that is the case it is surprising to me that only 20684 [telegraph.co.uk] emails (rather than the expected 7-8 million) have been sent to MPs regarding the Digital Economy Bill. But can you really characterise 23% of the population as 'a minute fraction'?
Re: (Score:2)
Because you realize you just got a worse product [geekologie.com] than if you had pirated.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK it's not 0.01%, it's around a minimum of 15% of people with internet access given a conservative estimate of 7 million pirates and internet access of 48 million, but realistically the 48 million value is lower as that include people with just dialup access, people without any home access but with library access and so forth. Also, the 7 million estimate is based on people willing to answer a survey admitting performing an illegal activity.
The stats aren't perfect, but either way, suggesting 99.99%
Re: (Score:2)
People should pay for stuff if they want it.
OTOH, DRM that denies you the freedom to make your own copies and keep them to yourself is out of line.
Especially when the RIAA says that you should just suck it up when the auth servers go down. That right there proves they don't give a shit about anything but their bottom line,a nd that they have no qualms about cheating...or extorting settlements out of people.
Re:Let RMS dogfood his economic model (Score:5, Informative)
That's a pretty incorrect understanding of RMS's economic model. He never advocated a pure donation economy and has clarified multiple times that there is nothing wrong with making a profitable business around open source software. If you want to try relying on the viability of his model, go work for Red Hat for a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty incorrect understanding of RMS's economic model.
Did you RTFA? In it, Stallman says:
My 1992 proposal for a special tax to be distributed to artists, with the money partly shifted from the most popular ones towards those not quite so successful, is still applicable. Meanwhile, many artists support themselves already with voluntary payments by their fans. If we make it easier to send these payments, with a send-one-dollar or send-one-pound button on every player, this method would work even better.
Re: (Score:2)
He says that this is a business model, not the only business model. He has described and advocated numerous others in the past as well, and supports more traditional business models based around Free software such as the one used by Redhat. You may have RTFA, but you clearly have not read Stallman's fucking essays.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I believe he has done this, and it's worked for him. Oops.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that what he does?
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you, the fact of the matter is that Stallman is so famous and he's at the top of the movement, which puts him in a far better position to get paid than other people. For example:
"Software pioneer and MIT research affiliate Richard M. Stallman has been named as a co-winner of the 2001 Takeda Award for Techno-Entrepreneurial Achievement for Social/Economic Well-Being. Stallman shares this award with Linux
Re: (Score:2)
Great straw man there, but the Conservatives *support* the punishment measures of the digital economy bill; of the "big 3", so far only the Liberal Democrats have come out against the bill.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone give a fuck what some dumbass hippy who has some cushy university job and doesn't understand business thinks?
Yes.