Why is it objectionable to not think like you?

I’d like to better understand your view but without substance or backing of any kind, I’m left with no reason to believe your words are anything but an unjustified personal attack on him.

You can understand how accusing someone of being arrogant and uncompromising and then claiming you aren’t doing that makes you appear irrational. What you call his “unfounded propaganda” so often turns out to be true, people have come to see him as well ahead of his time and cite his essays later on pointing out how he got there early. You’re using the term “propaganda” as a shorthand to imply something bad but if you take the time to read what he writes I think you’ll be hard-pressed to successfully argue against him.

This isn’t a personal attack on him, and if he reads it don’t take it personally because I’m not saying you are like that, it’s just my impression from the info, and I understand that not all people will agree with me or might interpret it that way, but he just doesn’t sound like the sort of person I’d like to be friends with!

The main reason I think “sharing” music is wrong, at least in the context of current record companies, is the fact that most of the *bands* I listen to say they don’t want their listeners to do it.

If I release code under the GPL, I don’t want somebody to ignore its terms because they think it’s “unethical”, so why would I do that to the groups I listen to.

Because not all license terms are the same and most record company licenses are far more restrictive than what people need to behave as friends. Sharing is an essential part of community and society; one of the ways people treat each other is by sharing what they have and that includes making copies of information. I don’t see how any of this changes “in the context of current record companies”.

As for the GPL: Those who commit copyright infringement with GPL’d works object to the GPL because they want to deny freedoms to their users, freedoms which they received from the GPL. This is not the same issue as some band licensing copies of their recordings to prevent even non-commercial verbatim sharing.

Licenses don’t dictate ethics, that’s a backwards way of looking at things. The FSF puts it well, “The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things upside down.”

To be honest, though, both reasons come across to me as rationalizations to cover the fact that insisting on Free firmware for every piece of hardware in the computer is just not realistic today.

People said the same thing about free software over 20 years ago: nobody would work on software without being paid for their work and you’ll never have a free operating system. Apparently they were wrong. Today there are many free operating systems and we face different challenges usually issues with people not respecting others’ software freedoms (DRM, copyright infringement of free software, and the existence of proprietary software to name a few). These problems tell us the same thing: we should keep on fighting for the future we want—a future where all published computer software is free as in freedom, and computer users defend their software freedom even if they can’t directly exercise those freedoms themselves because they understand the benefit to themselves and society as a whole.

If I may:
When the firmware is written during manufacturing in a way that can not be altered (i.e. to actual ROM, not FLASH variants) it becomes an integral part of the device.

The user does not have to worry about copyright and distribution issues because where ever the device goes the firmware goes with it.
But, if the firmware needs to be loaded during boot and is distributed as a separate driver the copyright issue suddenly becomes problematic:

The user is limited as to where he can store the driver. If he accidentally puts it in a shared folder where others can copy it he could be accused of copyright infringement.

In extreme cases, users may even be prevented from making backups for emergencies.

And what happens if a user wants to sell a piece of hardware to someone else?
Its fine to resell hardware you own, but the license for the accompanying driver may prevent transfer of rights like many application licenses do.

If you strictly follow the letter of the law the following stupidity is encountered quite often:
You and your friend have the same graphics / sound / whatever card.
Your friend lost the driver CD that came with the card but now needs to reinstall the driver.
You want to give him your copy, but legally you are not permitted.

A second version of the problem was demonstrated recently by Sony when they decided to remove a feature from the PS3 through a firmware update.
If the firmware can be changed, and the manufacturer is the only one who can do it, then users may unexpectedly wind up with hardware that does less the it did when they bought it or simply works differently.

The absurd thing is, hardware companies do not sell drivers, they are actually an extra manufacturing expanse, a side effect.

1) The main reason I think “sharing” music is wrong, at least in the context of current record companies, is the fact that most of the *bands* I listen to say they don’t want their listeners to do it.

If I release code under the GPL, I don’t want somebody to ignore its terms because they think it’s “unethical”, so why would I do that to the groups I listen to.

If the bands wanted to release their music under a Free license, then, obviously, it is no longer unethical to share it. But, until copyright law changes, it is not *our* right to determine how *someone else’s* work should be shared, and that’s what Richard Stallman seemed to be implying at the talk (though, that’s probably not what he meant to be implying).

2) When it comes to proprietary firmware, I am 100% behind Stallman’s desire that *all* firmware be Free. My complaint was that I did not see why a firmware distributed to a user in a ROM and firmware distributed to a user in a package should be treated differently. You have listed at one good reason above, and one of the commentators on my blog has listed another good reason.

To be honest, though, both reasons come across to me as rationalizations to cover the fact that insisting on Free firmware for every piece of hardware in the computer is just not realistic today. I feel that if Stallman is going to be consistent, he should argue that all firmware, whether burned into a ROM or released in a distribution, should be Free.

I do want to clarify that while copyright is on the books here (I think), it is rarely, if ever, enforced. What I found ironic is that Stallman’s views on copyright were probably considered too strict by some of those in the audience. After all, they can go to the local DVD store and buy a new Hollywood release for $3.00. Same price for a Windows 7 Ultimate Edition DVD (unlocked with who knows how many viruses that also come on the DVD).

Finally, I do want to reiterate that I’m glad Stallman came to Lebanon, and I did enjoy listening to him. The main point of my blog is that Stallman seems look at everything in terms of black and white when there are occasionally shades of gray.

Checking the Javascript running in your browser isn’t enough because that only covers what your browser does and some of what the uTorrent program does working with your browser. As with all proprietary software, without complete source code we can’t know what the program does and what the program is capable of doing. Therefore proprietary programs are all untrustworthy by default.

This isn’t just a security and privacy problem. This problem is fundamentally a software freedom problem. You deserve the freedom to inspect, share, and modify published software. You should choose software that respects your software freedom. There is no substitute for letting someone you trust inspect a program’s source code, modify that program to suit your needs, and distribute improved versions of the program.