I was refering to the concept of "total dominion" over our computing devices, and trying to illustrate that this a hopeless goal. Yes, you could generate your

I was refering to the concept of "total dominion" over our computing devices, and trying to illustrate that this a hopeless goal. Yes, you could generate your own power, live in total isolation off the grid, attempt to make everything in your life yourself. You would fail, but you could try. But even in this, you are not free from being subject to the laws that govern where you live. This is an old debate: where should peoples freedom of behavior be controlled to the extent that it impinges on others' "freedom." This is where RMS loses me. His concept of freedom does not seem to include the concept that people should be free to conduct business in accordance with the laws of the land. In the US we are currently free to create and distribute FOSS if we want. Isn't that enough freedom? It's not totally free (in the liberty sense) but there is still a lot of freedom to do as one please with anything that you create (if its "original"). I happen to think that there are real problems with copyright now. The concepts behind the laws were derived before digital technology, and were always intended to address the commercial exploitation of original works. Not what individuals did. We have a situation now where the copyright laws are being enforced against individuals making copies of works for personal, non-commercial reasons, which feels unjust to me. I think part of the intensity behind the MPAA's legal attacks is the perception that if they give an inch, people will take a mile. And the legal foundation of copyright would be undermined by "facts on the ground." Changing the copyright laws to reflect current technology seems like a good idea.