Monday, July 09, 2007
Richard M Stallman
RMS spoke at Waterloo recently. His topic: the role of copyright in light of advances in computer networks.
RMS is an engaging speaker. One thing I noticed immediately was his lack of hesitation - no ums or ahs to be heard anywhere during the 90 minute talk. He pointed out many flaws in arguments for prolonged copyright, chiefly that there is very little marginal incentive for the artist -- they're liable to be dead and won't care if their works are copyrighted.
That said, RMS is also a dangerous speaker. Not because his views don't mesh with mine, but because he doesn't play fair: he used rhetoric better suited to Internet trolls than to someone who has contributed so much to the computer science community.
Lines in particular that stood out:
- he asserted that Microsoft put in a backdoor for the NSA in Windows, circa 1999. This was widely debunked, including by noted cryptologist Bruce Schneier.
- he called the United States government a terrorist organization.
- he claimed Linus Torvalds wasn't interested in the rights and freedoms of users (while Linus doesn't see sufficient value in GPL v3 over GPL v2 to change the kernel licensing terms, surely that alone doesn't merit such a blanket statement?)
- he redefined "Digital Rights Management" as "Digital Restrictions Management"
- he suggested it should be a crime to cease supporting I/O devices
He also used the standard communications techniques -- negative, anthropomorphic words when describing things he didn't like (kill, strangle, tighten the chains).
Beyond the words, there was the content of his lecture, which seemed about on par for what I have read about RMS.
Firstly, he spent about fifteen minutes discussing why Linux should be called GNU/Linux. This part contained the accusation that Linus doesn't care about users' freedoms as well as calling the kernel only a smart part of an operating system. While it is technically true that the kernel is but one piece of the overall system, calling a 6,000,000 line piece of code "small" was ironically petty.
He then discussed his plans for copyright reform, motivating it through frequent reference to occasions when artists were not protected by copyright, but rather were harmed by their production company wielding a contract over their head. I fail to see how shortening the duration of copyright protects people from signing dangerously one-sided contracts.
He also proposed that copyright basically not be enforced for non-commercial, person-to-person sharing of music and videos. He claimed this would not harm Hollywood because
a) theatres and airlines, being commercial entities, would still pay royalties;
b) Hollywood's costs are artificially inflated (see Hollywood accounting on Wikipedia for more)
c) most Hollywood movies are crap, and use expensive special effects to cover up this fact. If movies earned less, they'd be forced to be less crap. I'm quoting him when I use the word crap.
I question the validity of the statement that says royalties will not be harmed. The triple release format of movies is what makes them profitable -- going first to theatres, then to rentals, then on sale. Since RMS advocates replacing advertising budgets with people advertising for the company -- by playing the work of art to their friends -- I assume this triple release model must be done away with. Instead, the work will be released to theatres and to the public simultaneously.
Which, in my mind, means people will set up free, public screenings with projectors. Which means no one will go to the theatres. Which means no income for the movie. (Unless, ironically, it used lots of special effects which would be best enjoyed in a theatre.)
Overall, the audience of some 300 students seemed to enjoy his talk. I enjoyed his alternative views but he came off as too much of a demagogue for me to take his views seriously.
RMS is an engaging speaker. One thing I noticed immediately was his lack of hesitation - no ums or ahs to be heard anywhere during the 90 minute talk. He pointed out many flaws in arguments for prolonged copyright, chiefly that there is very little marginal incentive for the artist -- they're liable to be dead and won't care if their works are copyrighted.
That said, RMS is also a dangerous speaker. Not because his views don't mesh with mine, but because he doesn't play fair: he used rhetoric better suited to Internet trolls than to someone who has contributed so much to the computer science community.
Lines in particular that stood out:
- he asserted that Microsoft put in a backdoor for the NSA in Windows, circa 1999. This was widely debunked, including by noted cryptologist Bruce Schneier.
- he called the United States government a terrorist organization.
- he claimed Linus Torvalds wasn't interested in the rights and freedoms of users (while Linus doesn't see sufficient value in GPL v3 over GPL v2 to change the kernel licensing terms, surely that alone doesn't merit such a blanket statement?)
- he redefined "Digital Rights Management" as "Digital Restrictions Management"
- he suggested it should be a crime to cease supporting I/O devices
He also used the standard communications techniques -- negative, anthropomorphic words when describing things he didn't like (kill, strangle, tighten the chains).
Beyond the words, there was the content of his lecture, which seemed about on par for what I have read about RMS.
Firstly, he spent about fifteen minutes discussing why Linux should be called GNU/Linux. This part contained the accusation that Linus doesn't care about users' freedoms as well as calling the kernel only a smart part of an operating system. While it is technically true that the kernel is but one piece of the overall system, calling a 6,000,000 line piece of code "small" was ironically petty.
He then discussed his plans for copyright reform, motivating it through frequent reference to occasions when artists were not protected by copyright, but rather were harmed by their production company wielding a contract over their head. I fail to see how shortening the duration of copyright protects people from signing dangerously one-sided contracts.
He also proposed that copyright basically not be enforced for non-commercial, person-to-person sharing of music and videos. He claimed this would not harm Hollywood because
a) theatres and airlines, being commercial entities, would still pay royalties;
b) Hollywood's costs are artificially inflated (see Hollywood accounting on Wikipedia for more)
c) most Hollywood movies are crap, and use expensive special effects to cover up this fact. If movies earned less, they'd be forced to be less crap. I'm quoting him when I use the word crap.
I question the validity of the statement that says royalties will not be harmed. The triple release format of movies is what makes them profitable -- going first to theatres, then to rentals, then on sale. Since RMS advocates replacing advertising budgets with people advertising for the company -- by playing the work of art to their friends -- I assume this triple release model must be done away with. Instead, the work will be released to theatres and to the public simultaneously.
Which, in my mind, means people will set up free, public screenings with projectors. Which means no one will go to the theatres. Which means no income for the movie. (Unless, ironically, it used lots of special effects which would be best enjoyed in a theatre.)
Overall, the audience of some 300 students seemed to enjoy his talk. I enjoyed his alternative views but he came off as too much of a demagogue for me to take his views seriously.
