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

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

I did explain that in the very first sentence, by mentioning that your scenario would not be legally possible.

what the fuck are you talking about? what scenario is not legally possible? adults fucking kids? YEAH, NO KIDDING, THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION. adults fucking kids are not legally possible, and yet, some people, including richard stallman, defend it.

and you come with some scenario that is not discussed as if it has to mean something for the discussion? what are you trying to achieve here?

also, do you call not being pro-pedo extremely prudish?

[–] Spectrism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

According to your own comment, Stallman literally said "NOT INDISCRIMINATELY", which to me can only mean Romeo and Juliet laws and/or only after mandatory sex education. Do you fucking know what words mean? Your scenario is completely made up in your head and not something Stallman advocates for, at least not according to the quotes you yourself provided.

except romeo was not 70 yo creep secretly longing to fuck 12 years old.

So this scenario is something that YOU made up. He also said 14 according to the quotes provided, not 12. Interesting how you're moving the goal posts.

And defending the age of consent to be 14 is not "pro-pedo", and there is no such thing, because as I just explained, pedophilia is a state of something that can't be okay or not okay, favoured or not favoured, it just is. Also it refers to children below that age, so you really need to upgrade your vocabulary and learn the definitions of words in it. Defending this age barrier is called having a fucking brain. So yes, attacking people for saying that 14 is a reasonable age of consent, especially when also mentioning Romeo and Juliet laws, is extremely prudish.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

he specifically uses term “voluntarily pedophilia”, which means an adult fucking kid.

the whole romeo and juliet is you trying to defend a pedo and you are not good at it.

He also said 14 according to the quotes provided, not 12. Interesting how you’re moving the goal posts.

i am not moving anything, it is just that you can't read. see below.

I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)

for your pedo hero, some kids are ready to be fucked by an adult sooner than at 14.

So yes, attacking people for saying that 14 is a reasonable age of consent

this discussion is not about age of consent, that is just your desperate attempt to steer the debate.

this discussion is about the fact that according to stallman, voluntarily pedophilia does not harm children and according to him, lot of children are ready to be fucked by an adult sooner than at the age of 14.

especially when also mentioning Romeo and Juliet laws

i did not bring that up. you did, multiple times, in spite of that not being relevant at all. only you know why you are so bent on defending fucking children.

i am done with you, glorious pedo defender, no need to reply, you are in my ignore list, and please don't approach any children, since you are obviously heavily confused about what is acceptable around them.

[–] Spectrism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

He uses the term wrong, but yes, that's what's implied.

Okay, I'm going to spell it out for you, because clearly you have no fucking idea what Romeo and Juliet laws are. These laws allow teenagers to have sex with others in a similar age group, for example between 14 and 16, but not above. So these laws don't make it legal for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old. Now first: What's bad about "defending a pedo"? For fucks sake, use your words correctly, what you mean is "defending someone who thinks that sexual acts between children and adults are okay", which isn't really happening here. Stallman questions the damage done by sexual acts with children as related to other factors besides the sexual acts themselves, which I disagree with because of the lack of physical development alone, but it's a fair thought to have about things like supposed mental harms.

it is just that you can't read.

I can, I just interpreted the sentence differently. To me it sounds like he uses "some people are ready earlier." in relation to the current age of consent in the US. Hard to say which interpretation is correct here without context or clarification from Stallman himself.

this discussion is not about age of consent

Uhm, yes it is? When Stallman mentions that people ought to be allowed to have sex at age 14, that is leading to a discussion directly tied to the age of consent. He didn't even make the claim that sexual acts with children should be allowed (besides possibly our differentiating interpretation in question), he merely questioned the belief that they are inherently harmful.

i did not bring that up. you did, multiple times, in spite of that not being relevant at all. only you know why you are so bent on defending fucking children.

It was YOUR quote of Stallman regarding his point that 14 is an acceptable age. So it's only logical for me to bring this up to prove to you that it's not an unpopular take. And not once have I defended fucking children here, you're seeing ghosts.

i am done with you, glorious pedo defender, no need to reply, you are in my ignore list, and please don't approach any children, since you are obviously heavily confused about what is acceptable around them.

Well, I already explained above why "pedo defender" defender is not the insult you think it is. And sure, run away from anything that questions your world view, because yours is the only correct one. No wonder why the average person is so stupid. Your baseless assumptions about me are also pretty lame.