6 ms·

RMS has been warning[1] about that specific problem for decades. Unfortunately, very few people listened. Now we have the additional problem of people already g

by pdkl95 9y ago

RMS has been warning[1] about that specific problem for decades. Unfortunately, very few people listened. Now we have the additional problem of people already giving up property rights for shiny digital baubles. -sigh- [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

scrollaway 9y ago
I'm getting a little exhausted in every thread about DRM and the likes to read about how "people don't listen to RMS". People don't listen to RMS because he makes no effort to be listened to and constantly takes absolutist stances which only harm what he defends. In the case of DRM, many people have been talking about this problem for a long time. It's not a matter of consumers not listening, it's a matter of alternatives not developing in the market. DRM in video games is a lesser problem as alternatives did develop. Steam, the #1 platform, doesn't enforce DRM. GOG and Humble Bundle have been running their platforms on mostly DRM-free games. Who do you fault for alternatives not developing/not catching on in the ebooks/video world? Consumers for making the wrong choices? Companies for not trying hard enough? Governments for not regulating consumer rights?
- pharrington 9y ago
  Stallman's a philosopher, so his precision and consistency in how he interprets the digital world is actually mandatory. Do you know the time limits for how long your games can run in Steam's offline mode?
  - jdormit 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure you can just go to the steamapps directory and run the .exes directly
    - pharrington 9y ago
      The DRM happens in the game's steam_api.dll, which the game executable is linked to.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        Could you just make your argument instead of hinting it? Not being a gamer or a full-time developer I have no desire to go off and spend hours figuring out the intricacies of how Steam works to see whether I agree with your assertions or not. You claim that DRM happens in this particular library. OK, and the practical consequences of that are...?
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        ... that the claim made above that Steam doesn't enforce DRM is wrong?
        TeMPOraL 9y ago
        The practical consequences are that Steam games will call into steam_api.dll to verify whether or not they should run, and will refuse to launch if Steam says so. E.g. if you're logged out of Steam, you'll be asked to log in. Whether or not you can launch a game without an Internet connection active depends on whether or not Steam will allow you to. This DRM scheme is probably not very solid, though, as I recall replacement versions of steam_api.dll bundled with some bootleg titles.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      You can, but - as they're linked to Steam library, like 'pharrington wrote - whether or not the game will actually launch depends on Steam's opinion on this topic. The game may e.g. refuse to launch until you log in to Steam (and refresh whatever magic DRM sauce it needs on-line).
  - dTal 9y ago
    It's the other way around. Stallman started as a software engineer. His mandatory radical consistency is what makes him a philosopher.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > People don't listen to RMS because he makes no effort to be listened to So ... you should only take advice from people who put in extra effort to specifically reach you? > constantly takes absolutist stances The concept of an absolutist stance as an accusation is nonsense, as it's orthogonal to whether it's right. If you are not willing to compromise on slavery, you are taking an absolutist stance. So should people have fought for only partial slavery in order to not harm what they defended? > Governments for not regulating consumer rights? How about governments not destroying consumer rights by making it illegal to understand how your own computer works?
  - andrewflnr 9y ago
    I can only listen to so many people. It makes sense to focus my efforts on people who are going to provide the best return on my investment of time. Meanwhile, absolutism, while not a proof, is a pretty powerful heuristic in the messy real world of economic policy. And yes, this is also a human rights issue, but mostly in the same way that a food or housing shortage is a human rights issue: the roots are economic. Slavery in particular is a red herring. In almost any other question, compromise is the way to go, so bringing up the extreme case of slavery adds more heat than light.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > I can only listen to so many people. It makes sense to focus my efforts on people who are going to provide the best return on my investment of time. And those are the people who have plenty of resources to tailor their message to you because they are funded by some marketing department and therefore are easiest to digest? > Meanwhile, absolutism, while not a proof, is a pretty powerful heuristic in the messy real world of economic policy. A heuristic for what exactly? That you shouldn't consider an argument at all? > And yes, this is also a human rights issue, but mostly in the same way that a food or housing shortage is a human rights issue: the roots are economic. I am not sure I understand this point, and maybe you can explain, but I think DRM is much closer to privacy and control over your own life as far as its human rights aspects go than to lack of resources. > Slavery in particular is a red herring. In almost any other question, compromise is the way to go, so bringing up the extreme case of slavery adds more heat than light. I disagree. Because the concept of "almost any other question" doesn't really make sense. How do you partition the world into distinct questions that you then somehow count to determine what percentage needs a compromise as the answer? The questions that you actually ask yourself are not useful for this, because you don't ever ask the questions where the status quo is something that you find acceptable and where everyone else agrees with you. But for anything that you think is perfectly fine in this world, you could easily construct a hypothetical world in which our current status quo would be deemed absolutist. So, arguably, everything that you are ok with as it is is actually an absolutist position and not a compromise. Whether something is considered absolutist has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the demand itself, but only with how far out it is from the current mainstream consensus. As soon as the consensus shifts, there is nothing absolutist about it anymore. Also, you can trivially transform any absolutist demand into a compromise by simply replacing it with a completely crazy demand. I, for example, advocate for killing everyone who has ever said a positive word about DRM. But I would be willing to compromise to only outlaw DRM for the future, so I am not an absolutist, right? Also, how is it even relevant that it is in almost every other question when you are trying to determine whether it is in the case of this specific question?
- cyphar 9y ago
  > People don't listen to RMS because he makes no effort to be listened to and constantly takes absolutist stances which only harm what he defends. I used to feel the same way quite a long time ago before I sat back and asked myself "what is the root cause of my distaste for his method of communicating his ideals?" I found that it was because I hadn't fully grasped his views on an emotional level. This argument that "even though RMS was right, the way he said it was reason not to listen to him" falls back to an appeal to emotion -- the fact he has very strong convictions is not relevant to the discussion of whether his arguments are valid. But to explain why he is so absolutist, look at things from his point of view. From his view, all proprietary software is an injustice with no exceptions. Any attempt to take away user freedom is similarly an injustice. Now, if you fully accepted that view, how would you act as RMS? Would you make concessions on your sense of morality and ethics? Personally, I wouldn't and I don't. > In the case of DRM, many people have been talking about this problem for a long time. And RMS has been talking about the more general problem of user freedom since the very beginning. Not sure what your point here is. RMS is the single reason why we have the free software movement, and that movement came from a philosophical view that is fundamentally inseparable from the other pro-user-freedom sub-movements. > Steam, the #1 platform, doesn't enforce DRM. That's blatantly false. steam_api.dll implements DRM. > Who do you fault for alternatives not developing/not catching on in the ebooks/video world? Consumers for making the wrong choices? Companies for not trying hard enough? Governments for not regulating consumer rights? Governments pandering to publishers for several decades in strengthening the power of copyright through WIPO and similar treaties. Those publishers then had an enormous amount of power over artists. Combine this with the propaganda campaign by those publishers of "intellectual property"[1] to indoctrinate people into thinking that the ethics of property are at all applicable to things that aren't property. So, at the end of the day, it's the fault of publishers making the government write laws that then unfairly strengthens the publishers' grip on the industry (where the industry is basically any artistic industry), and then using that control to convince the public that the status-quo is entirely justified and not unethical. By the way, publishers mistreat artists all the time. So literally the only people that benefit from this system is publishers, not the people who actually make the things that you enjoy. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
  - 9y ago
narrator 9y ago
There's a whole subreddit devoted to Stallman's correct predictions: http://reddit.com/r/stallmanwasright http://reddit.com/r/stallmanwasright

by pdkl95 9y ago

scrollaway 9y ago

I'm getting a little exhausted in every thread about DRM and the likes to read about how "people don't listen to RMS". People don't listen to RMS because he makes no effort to be listened to and constantly takes absolutist stances which only harm what he defends. In the case of DRM, many people have been talking about this problem for a long time. It's not a matter of consumers not listening, it's a matter of alternatives not developing in the market. DRM in video games is a lesser problem as alternatives did develop. Steam, the #1 platform, doesn't enforce DRM. GOG and Humble Bundle have been running their platforms on mostly DRM-free games. Who do you fault for alternatives not developing/not catching on in the ebooks/video world? Consumers for making the wrong choices? Companies for not trying hard enough? Governments for not regulating consumer rights?

pharrington 9y ago
Stallman's a philosopher, so his precision and consistency in how he interprets the digital world is actually mandatory. Do you know the time limits for how long your games can run in Steam's offline mode?
- jdormit 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure you can just go to the steamapps directory and run the .exes directly
  - pharrington 9y ago
    The DRM happens in the game's steam_api.dll, which the game executable is linked to.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      Could you just make your argument instead of hinting it? Not being a gamer or a full-time developer I have no desire to go off and spend hours figuring out the intricacies of how Steam works to see whether I agree with your assertions or not. You claim that DRM happens in this particular library. OK, and the practical consequences of that are...?
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        ... that the claim made above that Steam doesn't enforce DRM is wrong?
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        The practical consequences are that Steam games will call into steam_api.dll to verify whether or not they should run, and will refuse to launch if Steam says so. E.g. if you're logged out of Steam, you'll be asked to log in. Whether or not you can launch a game without an Internet connection active depends on whether or not Steam will allow you to. This DRM scheme is probably not very solid, though, as I recall replacement versions of steam_api.dll bundled with some bootleg titles.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    You can, but - as they're linked to Steam library, like 'pharrington wrote - whether or not the game will actually launch depends on Steam's opinion on this topic. The game may e.g. refuse to launch until you log in to Steam (and refresh whatever magic DRM sauce it needs on-line).
- dTal 9y ago
  It's the other way around. Stallman started as a software engineer. His mandatory radical consistency is what makes him a philosopher.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> People don't listen to RMS because he makes no effort to be listened to So ... you should only take advice from people who put in extra effort to specifically reach you? > constantly takes absolutist stances The concept of an absolutist stance as an accusation is nonsense, as it's orthogonal to whether it's right. If you are not willing to compromise on slavery, you are taking an absolutist stance. So should people have fought for only partial slavery in order to not harm what they defended? > Governments for not regulating consumer rights? How about governments not destroying consumer rights by making it illegal to understand how your own computer works?
- andrewflnr 9y ago
  I can only listen to so many people. It makes sense to focus my efforts on people who are going to provide the best return on my investment of time. Meanwhile, absolutism, while not a proof, is a pretty powerful heuristic in the messy real world of economic policy. And yes, this is also a human rights issue, but mostly in the same way that a food or housing shortage is a human rights issue: the roots are economic. Slavery in particular is a red herring. In almost any other question, compromise is the way to go, so bringing up the extreme case of slavery adds more heat than light.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > I can only listen to so many people. It makes sense to focus my efforts on people who are going to provide the best return on my investment of time. And those are the people who have plenty of resources to tailor their message to you because they are funded by some marketing department and therefore are easiest to digest? > Meanwhile, absolutism, while not a proof, is a pretty powerful heuristic in the messy real world of economic policy. A heuristic for what exactly? That you shouldn't consider an argument at all? > And yes, this is also a human rights issue, but mostly in the same way that a food or housing shortage is a human rights issue: the roots are economic. I am not sure I understand this point, and maybe you can explain, but I think DRM is much closer to privacy and control over your own life as far as its human rights aspects go than to lack of resources. > Slavery in particular is a red herring. In almost any other question, compromise is the way to go, so bringing up the extreme case of slavery adds more heat than light. I disagree. Because the concept of "almost any other question" doesn't really make sense. How do you partition the world into distinct questions that you then somehow count to determine what percentage needs a compromise as the answer? The questions that you actually ask yourself are not useful for this, because you don't ever ask the questions where the status quo is something that you find acceptable and where everyone else agrees with you. But for anything that you think is perfectly fine in this world, you could easily construct a hypothetical world in which our current status quo would be deemed absolutist. So, arguably, everything that you are ok with as it is is actually an absolutist position and not a compromise. Whether something is considered absolutist has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the demand itself, but only with how far out it is from the current mainstream consensus. As soon as the consensus shifts, there is nothing absolutist about it anymore. Also, you can trivially transform any absolutist demand into a compromise by simply replacing it with a completely crazy demand. I, for example, advocate for killing everyone who has ever said a positive word about DRM. But I would be willing to compromise to only outlaw DRM for the future, so I am not an absolutist, right? Also, how is it even relevant that it is in almost every other question when you are trying to determine whether it is in the case of this specific question?
cyphar 9y ago
> People don't listen to RMS because he makes no effort to be listened to and constantly takes absolutist stances which only harm what he defends. I used to feel the same way quite a long time ago before I sat back and asked myself "what is the root cause of my distaste for his method of communicating his ideals?" I found that it was because I hadn't fully grasped his views on an emotional level. This argument that "even though RMS was right, the way he said it was reason not to listen to him" falls back to an appeal to emotion -- the fact he has very strong convictions is not relevant to the discussion of whether his arguments are valid. But to explain why he is so absolutist, look at things from his point of view. From his view, all proprietary software is an injustice with no exceptions. Any attempt to take away user freedom is similarly an injustice. Now, if you fully accepted that view, how would you act as RMS? Would you make concessions on your sense of morality and ethics? Personally, I wouldn't and I don't. > In the case of DRM, many people have been talking about this problem for a long time. And RMS has been talking about the more general problem of user freedom since the very beginning. Not sure what your point here is. RMS is the single reason why we have the free software movement, and that movement came from a philosophical view that is fundamentally inseparable from the other pro-user-freedom sub-movements. > Steam, the #1 platform, doesn't enforce DRM. That's blatantly false. steam_api.dll implements DRM. > Who do you fault for alternatives not developing/not catching on in the ebooks/video world? Consumers for making the wrong choices? Companies for not trying hard enough? Governments for not regulating consumer rights? Governments pandering to publishers for several decades in strengthening the power of copyright through WIPO and similar treaties. Those publishers then had an enormous amount of power over artists. Combine this with the propaganda campaign by those publishers of "intellectual property"[1] to indoctrinate people into thinking that the ethics of property are at all applicable to things that aren't property. So, at the end of the day, it's the fault of publishers making the government write laws that then unfairly strengthens the publishers' grip on the industry (where the industry is basically any artistic industry), and then using that control to convince the public that the status-quo is entirely justified and not unethical. By the way, publishers mistreat artists all the time. So literally the only people that benefit from this system is publishers, not the people who actually make the things that you enjoy. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
- 9y ago

narrator 9y ago

There's a whole subreddit devoted to Stallman's correct predictions: http://reddit.com/r/stallmanwasright http://reddit.com/r/stallmanwasright