Someone is Actually Reading the Things I Write...

Hello everyone. It has finally happened. I read an article, posted a response and actually got a response back from the author. This confirms that someone is actually sometimes reading the crap that I spout. Yay for me, thanks Mr.McAllister for taking me seriously enough to write back to, slow news day or do you actually do this often? All the same, here is the original article, with my and Mr. McAllisters responses posted below. What do the imaginary people I envision reading this blog post think? Has the FSF gone to far, is Mr. McAllister right in defending the corporations right to make money (simplistic version of his arguement I know) or do the RIAA and MPAA need to seriously review what they are doing and begin giving us, the end user, what we really need and want?

Emails back and Forth:

To: Neil McAllister; InfoWorld Letters

Subject: RE: Free Software Foundation: Free as in "do what I say"

Hello Mr. Mcallister,

The article you wrote in infoworld was very interesting. I agree that is it wrong to turn the FSF into some kind of radical group espousing the ideas of every person that has a bone to pick with Apple or Microsoft, using the example of DRM is not quite the place to prove your point however. Radical or not, DRM directly effects the freedom of people to use various types of software as they see fit. I agree that illegal copying and pirating are a problem for the recording and movie industries and that right now DRM is a way for them to control it, this does not make DRM inherently right though. Just because people buy something doesn't make it the only solution that can be used. The RIAA and MPAA among other companies buy into this scheme because right now they have no other clue of what to do to satisfy both customers and their shareholders/business model at the same time. So while the end user sits with a crippled song and limited options of what they can do with the property they are supposed to have some type of control over, the larger corporations are satisfied and have no incentive to really find a better solution.

This is where a group such as the FSF comes in and begins to speak for the end user that singularly has no real voice against the Goliath of major corporations. You think the success of one on-line music store and few very minor successes of digital content e-tailers is the market speaking and saying "Yes, DRM is good and we are happy with it"? That point is one sided. I'll tell your right now that people trading music and downloading illegal songs are not all eastern European hackers, they are people that just don't want to deal with the crippling nature of online music right now. And yes, sometimes the public is too stupid to know what's good for them (this includes me sometimes, I don't propose to be some type of super informed individual who always knows right from wrong). We are guided by shallow marketing campaigns and laziness, which is most of the time easier than trying to define what we want and bringing that unified front to an industry run by and for big business and excessive profit.

In your article you quote Peter Brown comparing DRM laden files with a car that couldn't steer. I wouldn't really agree with that (I wouldn't call it patently absurd either), but I would compare DRM'ed files to a car that takes only one kind of fuel grade. Not just unleaded, but one specific type of fuel grade. Imagine if there were 10-15 different fuel grades used for all cars? You think every gas station would stock every one? Right now we have 3-4 and still not all gas stations can keep up. Customers wouldn't be too happy with the situation, I guarantee it. If you bring the level down to something simpler and smaller like music files it's easier to see why people gloss over the difference but the idea is still the same, I agree that certain parts of your argument were valid. Organizations should be careful not to stray into areas that are not part of their logical work, but the FSF I believe is in bounds with their unilateral resistance to DRM. I don't know if big demonstrations where people where hazmat suits are the best idea, but at least they are trying.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Hi Adeola (do I have that name right)?

My view on the subject is this: The FSF purports to be about free software. And yet, it apparently wants to dictate to the people who create software the kind of software they're allowed to create. Does that seem consistent to you? Doesn't to me.

Make no mistake, I'm not actually for DRM for the entertainment industry. I think this is a mistaken assumption that most of those people who are inevitably going to send me hate mail are going to make. I'm no sucker. I would never pay for a DRM-encoded song, movie, what have you. But I wouldn't listen to Britney Spears either; that doesn't mean I'm in favor of preventing record companies from putting out her albums.

I believe in free speech and the free market. Mind you, I'm no libertarian. I believe there are some situations in which society needs to step in and limit, restrict or control the means and procedures of production of goods and services, for the greater good of society. What I definitely DON'T believe, however, is that society has a right to arbitrarily limit, restrict or control the WILL, RIGHT, or LIBERTY of any single organization to attempt to engage in the production of goods and services, through coercion or any other means. To my mind this is what the FSF now seeks to do with its stance on this one technology, which we know colloquially as DRM.

The larger picture here is that DRM technology is just that, technology. My argument is the "guns don't kill people" argument. I agree with Sun Microsystems, which is in the process of developing an open source DRM stack, that there are wider applications for DRM than just keeping people from copying MP3s. If we are not so shortsighted as to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, DRM could be beneficial to all of us in a time when privacy is increasingly threatened and the need to restrict the free flow of information has never been greater.

In that light, I see the FSF's current stance as being shortsighted, parochial, paternalistic, and counterproductive.

Thanks for writing.

Best,

--

Neil McAllister, Senior Editor

InfoWorld Media Group

neil_mcallister@infoworld.com 415.978.3287

From: adeola.akinola@kodak.com [mailto:adeola.akinola@kodak.com]

Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 5:17 AM

To: Neil McAllister

Subject: RE: Free Software Foundation: Free as in "do what I say"

Thanks Mr. McAllister,

For the response, I think I understand your point a little bit better than I had previously had. Also I never intended this to be some sort of hate mail and if it sounded like that I apologize. I like open discourse, thanks for providing it.

Adeola

Adeola,

Not at all, I appreciate all my mail.

Best,

--

Neil McAllister, Senior Editor

InfoWorld Media Group

neil_mcallister@infoworld.com 415.978.3287