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?
> 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?
I am much more likely to pay attention to someone who makes at least a token effort to communicate his beliefs to human beings (including ones with very different backgrounds or values), yes. Of course. When people don't do this, it doesn't just make it harder to find common ground with them- it's evidence that they themselves are not credible or motivated by reason. The more outside the norm their message is, the more of a burden they have to figure out how to communicate that message to people who might not have the context to understand it. If they don't even make a token effort to do this, they're narcissists, not deep thinkers. Nutty people writing manifestos and going out of their way to drive away everyone who isn't 100.0% in agreement with them are a dime a dozen and generally don't make positive contributions to the world (which is fine by them, because their motivation is to write manifestos and call people out, not to make a positive difference in the world). If you truly care about this stuff, trying to prop up RMS as a spokesperson for these views is counterproductive. If you care about this stuff, you should be focused on getting better messages out there, and not even remotely concerned with trying to rationalize RMS. If anything, you should be among his harshest critics. People don't hate on RMS because they're opposed to everything he stands for, they hate on RMS because they really truly care about this stuff and he trivializes it.
You know, I agree with you that RMS might not be the most effective communicator and that maybe he should present his arguments differently in order to reach people more effectively.
What I completely don't understand is how people seem to derive from that that he owes them a certain style of communication before they agree with the content of his arguments, even though they seem to somehow understand the problem, and that the problem affects them just as much as him.
No matter how much of a nutjob or asshole or whatever else someone appears to be (or possibly is), that's not a reasonable reason for rejecting their argument once you have understood it, against all odds, especially so when they are arguing for something that is in your interest.
Well, people love the nutjobs, and want to love the assholes. Is the style of communication really RMS's problem?
I think the problem is the content itself, not its delivery. RMS seems unable to separate the good arguments from the stupid ones. For example, don't have kids because of overpopulation (good argument), and also don't have kids because parents have to do whatever someone with money tells them to do instead of what's right (breathtakingly stupid argument).
The life RMS has chosen to live is inspiring on some level, but has also warped his perspective, and therefore his arguments often miss the mark.
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.
I think the other poster sufficiently deconstructed your argument one way, but I want to point out that you haven't made any case that slavery is a red herring. Like, at all.
If this debate were taking place just prior to the civil war, there would be significant debate over whether slaves had human rights, and many making the economic case for slavery.
RMS is trying to tell you the same thing right now: that DRM is a tool that takes away some basic human rights, and instead of taking a moment to think about it, you simply dismiss it out of hand merely because you can see an economic case for it.
So take a few moments to consider the worst possible outcomes of adopting DRM, and whether history will regard the economic case for DRM as harshly as it regards the economic case for slavery.
You're responding to a bunch of things I didn't say and don't believe. I'm not a fan of DRM, just defending the position that RMS isn't the best source on it.
Also, you yourself haven't made an argument that DRM is anywhere near as bad a problem as slavery was. It's nowhere close, and to imply otherwise is to cheapen the suffering of slaves in America. Is that enough of an argument that it's a red herring?
> Also, you yourself haven't made an argument that DRM is anywhere near as bad a problem as slavery was.
This judgment was made with perfect hindsight in one case, and no hindsight in the other, so the conclusion is immediately suspect.
Like I said, consider the worst possible nightmare for DRM, and then judge whether the comparison is actually fair.
Finally, whether RMS is the best source on it is itself a red herring. If he makes a reasonable case for a nightmare outcome, his perspective is absolutely worth considering when weighing the pros and cons of DRM, regardless of how absolutist you think he is.
> 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?
> And those are the people who have plenty of resources to tailor their message to you...
No.
> A heuristic for what exactly? That you shouldn't consider an argument at all?
No.
> How do you partition the world into distinct questions that you then somehow count to determine what percentage needs a compromise as the answer?
Sample the ones that come up in practice. We're all friends here, or should be, so it doesn't need to be perfectly formal.
> you don't ever ask the questions where the status quo is something that you find acceptable and where everyone else agrees with you
You sure know a lot about me. Oh wait, no you don't. I do my best to question things, which is all you can ask.
> Also, you can trivially transform any absolutist demand into a compromise by simply replacing it with a completely crazy demand.
Yes, lots of terrible things happen when you argue in bad faith. This isn't even the worst one.
> 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?
Not much, which is another good reason not to bring up slavery. It's not relevant, which is basically all I was trying to say about it.
> You sure know a lot about me. Oh wait, no you don't. I do my best to question things, which is all you can ask.
Which is besides the point. Whether it's all I can ask or not, it doesn't give you a useful answer. And yes, I am pretty sure I know about you that you are a human being, and therefore, general human psychology most likely applies, nothing more, nothing less.
Have you ever asked yourself whether it is a good compromise that your left thumb has not been removed when you were a child because of your hair color?
You haven't, right?
You haven't because it's just a completely crazy idea that there would never be any reason for you to consider it. One of presumably at the very least millions of equally crazy ideas that you could make up that you have never thought of, because, why would you? That is, except for the completely crazy idea that one should remove part of the genitals of children because of their gender. You probably have thought about that one, right?
And that is my point: The things that you have thought about are in no way a meaningfully representative sample of the set of all facts about how society operates, simply as a result of basic human psychology.
> Yes, lots of terrible things happen when you argue in bad faith. This isn't even the worst one.
Yeah, it's even worse when people reject arguments as "absolutist", you can't really get much more bad faith than that.
> Not much, which is another good reason not to bring up slavery. It's not relevant, which is basically all I was trying to say about it.
Well, except it is. That is, not slavery itself is relevant, but what is relevant is the way how people thought and argued about slavery before it became the consensus that slavery is bad. And if you agree that they were wrong about slavery being a good thing, then maybe it would be a good idea to understand how their thinking went wrong at the time. To understand how they convinced themselves that slavery was the right thing to do. Because if the method of reasoning that they used lead them to the conclusion that slavery was a good idea, then that probably means that their method of reasoning was unreliable, right?
So, if we can understand how they arrived at their conclusion, we can maybe use that understanding to see whether there are any conclusions that we arrive at today using the same kind of reasoning, and to then examine whether those conclusions maybe are also unreliable, and possibly wrong.
Whether slavery was in any way comparable to whatever conclusion we are examining now is completely irrelevant to this. The point is not to determine whether something is as bad as slavery. The point is to determine whether the method we use to conclude that something is right is the same that people used to conlude that slavery was right. And the reason why slavery is used as the reference for this is not because it was terrible, the reason is that it's something that is familiar. People nowadays generally have some understanding of how people back then justified slavery. Noone knows how the unfair distribution of bread in the year 1537 in some spanish village was justified, so it's a useless reference point, even if it might be a closer analogue to whatever we are discussing now.
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).
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...?
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Implementing optional drm isn't the same thing as enforcing drm.
It's optional for the developer in most cases (apparently writing code without it can be harder if you want to interface with Steam's APIs[1]), but not for the user.
Not to mention that the majority of developers do use Steam's DRM, so it's a bit of a moot point. Even if they don't force developers to use it, they are hardly an "alternative".
> there is no drm free content on iTunes.
That is absolutely false -- all music on iTunes is DRM-free. That may have been true before 2009, but it is not true today. In 2007 Steve Jobs wrote an open letter about Apple's use of DRM and announced they would stop doing it, and in 2009 they had signed all of the necessary agreements with publishers to make all iTunes music DRM-free[2]. It is believed this was in reaction to an anti-trust lawsuit that started in 2005 (that eventually ruled in Apple's favour in 2014 partly because of their decision to no longer use DRM).
Since 2009, iTunes allows you to download any music you've ever purchased as a DRM-free mp3 (which is now patent-encumbered as well). Apple Music is an unfortunate reversal to that previous position (it uses DRM), and interestingly came out the year after the lawsuit was finished.
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?