Friday 72-year-old Richard Stallman made a two-hour-and-20-minutes appearance at the Georgia Institute of Technology, talking about everything from AI and connected cars to smartphones, age verfication laws, and his favorite Linux distro. But early on, Stallman also told the audience how "I despise DRM...I don't want any copy of anything with DRM. Whatever it is, I never want it so badly that I would bow down to DRM." (So he doesn't use Spotify or Netflix...)

This led to an interesting moment when someone asked him later if we have an ethical obligation to avoid piracy.. First Stallman swapped in his preferred phrase, "forbidden sharing"...

I won't use the word piracy to refer to sharing. Sharing is good and it should be lawful. Those laws are wrong. Copyright as it is now is an injustice.

Stallman said "I don't hesitate to share copies of anything," but added that "I don't have copies of non-free software, because I'm disgusted by it." After a pause, he added this. "Just because there is a law to to give some people unjust power, that doesn't mean breaking that law becomes wrong....

Dividing people by forbidding them to help each other is nasty.

And later Stallman was asked how he watches movies, if he's opposed to DRM-heavy sites like Netflix, and the DRM in Blu-ray discs? "The only way I can see a movie is if I get a file — you know, like an MP4 file or MKV file. And I would get that, I suppose, by copying from somebody else."

Sharing is good. Stopping people from sharing is evil.

Abstract credit: https://slashdot.org/story/451774

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 69 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

I won't use the word piracy to refer to sharing. Sharing is good and it should be lawful. Those laws are wrong. Copyright as it is now is an injustice.

Once again, I'm impressed by Stallman's focus on not accepting a bad faith arguement at face value.

We didn't always have shitty laws about when we can copy a file.

Some of us remember when creators had to get creative how they monetized their work, instead of bludgeoning fans with the threat of jail time.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Copyright as it is now is an injustice.

At best, copyright with a limit of 25 years, the law before Mark Twain fucked all of us over, would suck a lot less.

At worst, corporations would still exploit it to totality, because they have money, and you don't.

Copyright was created with an agreement that the public would receive their public domain dues in a timely manner. The corpos broke that contract with the public. Therefore, piracy is not only justified, but a moral duty to preserve what corporations casually throw away, or exploit with mindless memberberries.

I would not be sad at all to see the entirety of copyright completely abolished. Open source is already doing a damn good job, and AI might end up hammering the final nail.