The only novel idea I see here is the point that copyright, which was originally a restriction on publishers, has now become a restriction on consumers. But that doesn't seem so dystopian. Everyone is a publisher now.
When you think it through, it does seem dystopian. Imagine that e-ink matures, and paper isn't that useful any more. That we no longer purchase dead-tree copies of our books, magazines, and so on. I think that can happen. I read right now a novel on my electronic reader, even though I have a dead-tree copy, because my reader is lighter and slimmer than my book.
Now, how do I lend you a book for which I have no dead-tree copy? I can't give you such a piece of dead-tree (and naturally lose it for myself). All I can do is make a copy and give it to you. And then I'm a publisher. And then what I'm doing is forbidden. And then I can't even lend you my book.
(One could imagine laws/DRM that would erase the copy I own if I ever give another copy to someone else. However, I don't think the IP Lords would want even that. They'd say it harms their revenue.)
But that's not dystopian enough. True dystopia is when the means of enforcing it kick in: the only know way right now is a "total surveillance" regime, where free software itself is forbidden.
Why can't you lend it to me on the good faith I'll return to it you when I'm done?
Edit: Aha, I misread your comment! I think because in the proceeding paragraph you mention the case of having a dead-tree book but preferring e-ink. Of course, if you don't have it you can't lend it (assuming DRM prevents you).
So the "dystopia" is the artificial disability to lend books?
How about the counter-balance that millions of books are now available everywhere with an internet connection, instantly obtainable, with no real trees sacrificed and much cheaper than print editions (that one could get better, though). And you can even get 1-2 chapters for free to check if you want to buy the book (in Amazon kindle at least). Plus, everyone can become his own publisher for his own work (no copyright problem in this case) with easy worldwide distribution and no mediators.
So, yeah, you can't lend your book (almost, see below). But you can lend your ebook reader to others in the family. And how common is dead-tree book lending anyway? How about your friend buys a digital copy for himself (possibly after downloading the free sample chapters?).
"""(One could imagine laws/DRM that would erase the copy I own if I ever give another copy to someone else. However, I don't think the IP Lords would want even that. They'd say it harms their revenue.)"""
One doesn't have to imagine. iTunes store allows you to share your songs (haven't checked about books) with 5 other accounts.
And Kindle permits you to lend books to others for 14 days: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2...
It is the inability to communicate freely.
No, that's not bad enough. But it sure leads to a dystopia. Quoting myself: "True dystopia is when the means of enforcing [copyright] kick in: the only know way right now is a "total surveillance" regime, where free software itself is forbidden."
By the way, it still applies even when Big IP do permit you to share with a few friends.
You have to admit that going digital introduces problems that aren't clear cut. If you were to reproduce a physical copy of a book and give it out en masse for either free or a fee you'd be called a bootlegger. But when that same book or movie or whatever is a digital copy then the difference between lending out a copy innocently and distribution which violates copyright gets blurred. Lending something out used to mean one copy gets passed between people. Now it means there's a copy for each person you want to share with.
I think we're just going through some growing pains. I really don't see how anyone can say any one side is right. Theyre just competing interests that we will hopefully find a happy middle ground for soon.
Since when was being prescient the sole marker of an ideas value?
What's interesting about Stallman is that he's been repeating the same material since the 80's, and it only gets more relevant. He might be a paranoid weirdo but he does seem to at least be paranoid about something that has it's roots in reality.
We might have increasing equality, and perhaps some additional freedom over our own bodies, but at the same time the wide spread deployment of mass surveillance tech has come at the same time.
> But that doesn't seem so dystopian. Everyone is a publisher now.
This is only not a dystopia if those publishers have sufficiently uncorrelated output and distribution channels. I'm not sure that's the case.
Remember - technology is only a tool and what happens with that tool is always guided by the ones who yield the most power. It was possible for Apple to eliminate DRM only because they maneuvered themselves into a position of power where media corporations were being lead by Apple and not the other way around. I think the actual reason why DRM was abandoned was because it was just not feasible, for music - remember the horror stories with Windows DRM for music, for instance. Removing DRM was both damage control by Apple and a 'hip' thing to do in the wake of consumer dissatisfaction. I have yet to see a similar push in any other field than music - extremely restrictive licensing and DRM are still alive and well in proprietary software and video content, respectively, and it doesn't seem like there is any change to that on the horizon. It probably helps that the Apple->Jobs->Pixar->Disney link is a very strong one and that video content is used fundamentally different compared to music.
Anyhow - it's always both - big corporations do have to pay attention to the market and both follow the will of the consumer and what is best for their own bottom line, which sometimes overlap. But sometimes they get weary of that and short circuit the system through politics (although that is often initiated by companies that are not primarily in technology). That's where any degree of authoritarianism is quite an asset.
I imagine we would save a lot of man-hours from defining and fighting man-made statutory IP laws that may not be beneficial after all. See the inefficiencies of the patent system, and the brilliant minds wasted(?) on circumventing man-made restrictions. Not to mention the potential for abuse by regimes, as chipsy mentions.
I believe the Free equilibrium point has a lower potential energy. Therefore I advocate it. Where the modern entrepreneur programmer fits, I'm trying to figure out.
One could say RMS is simply pointing out the obvious, the already demonstrated. Especially technical people like you and I. But remember, RMS has been ridiculed for these positions, by folks much like the author of this article who admits to dismissing RMS as a paranoid fanatic.
The salient message in this story is that the author's opinion has changed. The world has progressed further along this path and it is now quite obvious that the scenario RMS depicts is not only possible, but in some degree has already taken place.
saying that is ignoring the core problem. Since early on everyone wrote notes on textbooks and shared that. Everyone shared articles. in the 80's everyone hand out mix tapes. heck i did some movie nights at my place with more attendance than some illegal simpsons episodes get on some streaming sites.
my point, everyone always were "a publisher". That's a fallacy to ignore the main problem. it helps real publishers, i.e. someone who makes a living of that sharing/distribution, that failed to adapt to the times.
right, closed systems and draconian DRM already existed, fine. but neither were essential for our everyday lives in the way he put it back them. now it's obvious, of course. and apathy has already even ruled out anything wrong with it all.
heck people still thinks doctorow is clever for rewritting pretty much what stallman wrote years later.