From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../blog/articles/en/rms-on-radio-nz.html | 1038 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1038 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-on-radio-nz.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-on-radio-nz.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-on-radio-nz.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-on-radio-nz.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..384dedb --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-on-radio-nz.html @@ -0,0 +1,1038 @@ + + +RMS on Radio New Zealand - +GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

RMS on Radio NZ - October 2009

+ +

Interview between Kim Hill (presenter) and Richard M Stallman

+
+ +
+

Interesting sections

+ +
+
+ +
+
[00:00]
+KH
+
We spoke to Richard Stallman a while ago last year about his +campaign for Free Software. He's a hero, of course, of the movement; +launched the Free Software Foundation, campaigns against software +patents and extensions of copyright laws. His battle is, as he told +us last year, against what he calls extreme capitalism. His GNU +operating system with Linux was the first Free operating system that +could run on a PC. Richard Stallman says “it's all about +freedom”, a cause which goes beyond software; and we could talk +about the others he's identified, surveillance and censorship, because +he joins me now, hello.
+ +
[00:40]
+RMS
+
Hello
+ +
KH
+
Let us talk about surveillance and censorship. I've been looking +at your personal website and you're talking about fingerprinting of +air travelers, for example, which is something you're very hot +about.
+ +
RMS
+
Yes, I urge people to refuse to go to the US where they would be +mistreated that way.
+ +
KH
+
Why is that mistreatment, do you think?
+ +
RMS
+
Because it's too much information to collect about people who +aren't criminals. And by the way for the same reason I will not ever +go to Japan again unless they changed that policy, which makes me sad, +but one must …
+ +
[01:19]
+KH
+
It's not justifiable in order to make sure that terrorists aren't +getting on the plane?
+ +
RMS
+
There's no need. Basically terrorism, and by the way we don't +really know who was behind the September 11th attacks in the US, we +don't know whether it was a bunch of Muslim fanatics, or it was a +bunch of Christian fanatics and the White House. We do know that Bush +corrupted and sabotaged the investigation when he was unable to +prevent it from happening.
+ +
KH
+
So, are you an advocate of the conspiracy theories surrounding +9/11?
+ +
RMS
+
I can't say … first of all I think it's unfair — we +know that the attack was a conspiracy. All the theories are +conspiracies.
+ +
KH
+
Well, all right, the conspiracy theory for example, that has the +Bush administration staging the 9/11 attack in order to justify +…
+ +
RMS
+
I don't know. The only way there could ever be proof of that is +with a real investigation, but when you have a government not allowing +a real investigation of a horrible crime then you've got to suspect +that they're hiding something. Now I can't know for certain what +they're hiding, but I want a real investigation to be carried out with +the power to subpoena anyone possibly concerned, including Bush, and +make those people testify under oath and show them no deference that +everyone else wouldn't get.
+ +
KH
+
Putting 9/11 aside then because we haven't got time here to go +into the various theories about what could possibly have caused 9/11, +there is undoubtedly a thing called terrorism.
+ +
RMS
+
Yes, but it's a minor problem. More people died in the US in +September 2001 from car accidents than from a terrorist attack, and +that continues month after month, but we don't have a Global War on +Accidents, so basically politicians used a real danger, but not the +world's biggest danger, as an excuse for what they want to do, which +is … and remember that these governments are much more +dangerous, it's quite clear that Bush's invasion of Iraq was far more +destructive than anything non state-sponsored terrorists have been +able to do — that's assuming that those terrorists in September +2001 were not state-sponsored, which we don't know — but the +point is, what Bush did by invading Iraq, using those attacks as an +excuse, was tremendously worse and we must remember than governments +gone amok can do far more damage than anybody not state-sponsored. + +After all, governments have a lot more men under arms and they don't +have to hide the fact that they have men under arms, so they're in a +much bigger position to do damage, so we must be concerned about +letting them have too much power. A world in which the police can +easily do whatever they'd like to do is a world in which the police +are a threat.
+ +
[04:30]
+KH
+
Last time we spoke, and we were talking about the issue of Free +Software, but specifically in relation to that you doubted that +President Bush's successor, who we now know is Barack Obama, would be +pretty much any different from Bush.
+ +
RMS
+
He's a little different, but I have to say he's small change. On +human rights issues he's not very different. He's still in favor of +keeping people in prison, without charges, indefinitely, and you can't +get much worse than that in terms of human rights.
+ +
KH
+
Well except he's addressing Guantanamo Bay.
+ +
RMS
+
Well that's just one of the places where it's done, it's done also +in Bagram in Afghanistan, and I really don't see why it would be +better to move those people to Bagram. What has to be done is charge +them or release them. They're entitled to that.
+ +
KH
+
Yeah, they may be entitled to that but he's also democratically +elected President who …
+ +
RMS
+
That doesn't mean he's entitled to violate human rights.
+ +
KH
+
No, but would the American people be in favor of the release of +those …
+ +
RMS
+
I don't know.
+ +
KH
+
… that's got to be a consideration.
+ +
RMS
+
No it's not, if they're not that just makes them responsible.
+ +
KH
+
I know you're …
+ +
RMS
+
I don't think I can excuse massive violations of human rights by +saying that the public is maddened and supports it. Especially, why +are they so maddened? Because of a constant propaganda campaign +telling you “Be terrified of terrorists”, “throw +away your human rights and everyone else's because you're so scared of +these terrorists”. It's disproportionate, we have to keep these +dangers in their proportion, there isn't a campaign saying “be +terrified of getting in a car” but maybe there ought to be.
+ +
[06:23]
+KH
+
Most airline security, getting back to the fingerprinting issue, +you've said is just for show.
+ +
RMS
+
A lot of it is, not all of it is, I'm very glad that they have +reinforced the cabin doors so that hijackers can't get at the pilots, +OK, that's a sensible measure.
+ +
KH
+
But are you? I would have thought that you would have said +“why would they spend money reinforcing the cabin doors because +hijackers are a minor issue”.
+ +
RMS
+
I'm not against spending a little bit of money.
+ +
KH
+
You're saying that that issue isn't an infringement of human +rights.
+ +
RMS
+
OK, and I don't mind spending some money for safety, I even make +some compromises you know on issues of rights, I'm not saying police +shouldn't be able to get a search warrant, but they should have to go +to a Judge, to present probable cause, to keep them in check because +police are very dangerous when they run amok, as people discovered a +few months ago in London, when the police did run amok, and they +killed somebody who was trying to walk home past a protest, and he +couldn't get home because the police were just deliberately blocking +the streets, and then they hit him. And then they lied about it too, +which they typically do. Whenever the police attack someone they lie +about him, they lie about what they did, and they lie about what he +was doing, to make it sound that they were justified in mistreating +him in the first place, it's standard practice, they're like an armed +gang.
+ +
[08:02]
+KH
+
If you don't agree with surveillance, is there any way that you +would accept that it might be quite a handy thing, CCTV …
+ +
RMS
+
Wait a second, your view of surveillance is oversimplifying +things, what I see happening with computers is they make possible a +form of total surveillance which wasn't feasible in the past, even +governments like Romania under Ceaușescu, or East Germany with +the Stasi, they did a lot of surveillance but it took a lot of people +working on it and even then it was limited what they could actually +watch and record because it was so hard. Now, we're entering a kind +of surveillance society that has never been seen before …
+ +
KH
+
You're talking about digital surveillance.
+ +
RMS
+
Yes, but as people do more things using digital technology it +becomes easy to keep a record of everything everyone has done, things +that weren't done in the past and still aren't done with other media, +there's no record of who sends a letter to who for all letters, it +just isn't done. But there are records in many countries of who sends +an email to whom and those records can be saved for years and we don't +know that they'll ever be disposed of.
+ +
KH
+
If you think that governments are not to be trusted, which is a +legitimate position of course, and if you think that the police are +not to be trusted, again a legitimate position, why can't you feel +happier about digital surveillance and CCTV surveillance given that it +may well give the people more protection.
+ +
RMS
+
Oh, I'm all in favor of the right to make and record videos, such +as when you're on the street or when you're watching a protest or +whatever, I'm concerned about systematic surveillance.
+ +
KH
+
What is that, systematic surveillance?
+ +
RMS
+
Well suppose the police set up a camera that always watches the +street, and connects it to a face recognition program and make a +database of everyone who passes, that's systematic surveillance. Now +if you walk down the street and maybe you see somebody you know and +you recognize him, that's not systematic surveillance, that's a whole +bunch of people knowing something, there's nothing wrong with that, +that's just what life is.
+ +
[10:26]
+KH
+
What makes systematic surveillance more sinister to you?
+ +
RMS
+
Because we know that there's a tendency for many different +governments to treat dissenters as terrorists, and investigate them +using laws that were set up supposedly to help them prevent terrorism. +We know also that they tend to sabotage political activities, and this +is dangerous.
+ +
KH
+
What's wrong with being investigated?
+ +
RMS
+
Well, it depends if the government's investigating you because +you're a political dissident, there are a lot of things they could do +to harass you. One thing I remember was in England, a busload of +protesters, they were on they way to a protest, the police stopped +their bus and drove them away from the protest, and they cited a law +that had been passed to supposedly prevent terrorism. Well this is +sabotaging political activity. And then another thing that happens I +know in England, is people have been prosecuted for copies of texts +that they have, you know reading is sometimes illegal, it's really +dangerous. What we see is a global tendency for governments to bring +out the worst side of themselves with terrorism as the excuse, so we +must be on guard against that, that's potentially a much bigger danger +than the terrorists it's supposed to protect us from. I don't have to +say that they don't exist, or that they're no danger at all.
+ +
KH
+
No, the difficulty is being on guard against the danger that +you've cited, without giving quarter to …
+ +
[12:20]
+RMS
+
Ah, no I don't see it's any problem at all. Police have lots of +things they can do to investigate people and it's more all the time +and whenever there's a specific reason to suspect particular people +they can basically get permission to search whatever. So OK, that's +necessary, but beyond that we've got to be careful not to go, and the +digital surveillance society goes far beyond that, there's a tendency +to keep records of everything, check everything. In New York City for +instance a taxi driver told me he had been required to install a +camera which transmits by radio people's faces to the police where +they run face recognition over it. +I don't think that should be +allowed. I don't mind if they have a system that records people's +faces and keeps it for a week in case somebody attacks the taxi +driver, that's not going to do anything to us if we don't attack taxi +drivers. We can make use of surveillance technology in ways that +don't threaten people's rights but we've got to make sure we use them +in those ways.
+ +
KH
+
How come you can justify people being treated as if they're going +to attack taxi drivers …
+ +
RMS
+
But you see there the point is, those are not looked at unless +there's a crime to investigate and then they get erased if it's done +right, but the way it's actually being done in New York City is +they're sent to the police, and the police keep track of who goes +where, and that's what scares me. Having all the information about +what you do available to the police for years in the past whenever +they want to look. Well part of what I do about this is I don't buy +things with credit cards unless it's something where they demand to +know who I am anyway, I don't use a credit card or any digital method, +I use cash, and that way Big Brother's not making a database of every +place I've been, that I bought anything in, what I bought.
+ +
[14:25]
+KH
+
As a matter of principle, rather than …
+ +
RMS
+
As a matter of principle. It's not an issue of convenience.
+ +
KH
+
You don't do quite a lot of things actually.
+ +
RMS
+
Yeah, I don't carry a cellphone because I really don't want to be +telling Big Brother where I am all the time, every place I go.
+ +
KH
+
Is that why?
+ +
RMS
+
Yes, that's why. Well now there's another reason. Today, +cellphones are powerful computers and there's no way to run one +without proprietary software.
+ +
KH
+
I thought that would be your main reason.
+ +
RMS
+
Actually there is one you can get, although they're not producing +it anymore, it didn't work all that well, it's Mark One. So that's +another issue, but that didn't exist, that issue wasn't there when +cellphones first came out, people didn't install programs in them, +they were just fixed appliances, but they have always raised the issue +that they're constantly saying where you are, and I just don't want to +participate in a system like that, I think people shouldn't. It would +be very convenient for me to have a cellphone, I'm not one of those +people who would, who says “I resent the fact that people can +call me”, it's convenient when people can call me, but I'm not +going to do it that way.
+ +
[15:33]
+KH
+
It's interesting that your battle for Free Software and the issues +of freedom that you identify intersect. They didn't start out being +the same — or did they?
+ +
RMS
+
Well they didn't start out being the same. Pervasive digital +surveillance wasn't a big problem twenty-seven years ago.
+ +
KH
+
But the people who were in charge were still the people who were +in charge, the people who you identified as the people you didn't want +to see …
+ +
RMS
+
Well actually they're not the same people. Proprietary software's +mostly controlled by various private entities that are developers, +maybe Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Google, Amazon, they're all +distributing proprietary software.
+ +
KH
+
I would have thought you'd identify them all as forces of extreme +capitalism.
+ +
RMS
+
Well I'm sorry, when I say extreme capitalism I'm talking about a +philosophy, and that philosophy says “the market should control +everything, everything should be for sale, and business should be +allowed to dominate politics and get the laws it wants”, which +is very different from mere capitalism, which says “within a +society which we set up to protect peoples rights and so on, there are +lots of things that people should be free to do, and make businesses +to do them, as they wish”. That difference is why today's form +of capitalism is running wild and why we see free exploitation +treaties which basically undermine democracy and turn it in to a +sham.
+ +
KH
+
What are you talking about there?
+ +
[17:24]
+RMS
+
Well, the so-called Free Trade treaties, which I don't like to +call that, they're designed to transfer power from our governments to +companies. They all do this in one way, which is they let companies +threaten to move to another country, or move their operations; and so +any time the people are demanding that a government protect the +environment, or the public health, or the general standard of living, +or anything else that's more important than just who's going to buy +and sell what, companies can say “we're against this, and if you +do this we'll just move our operations elsewhere” and the +politicians now have a wonderful excuse for why they're not going to +do it. +Of course it was they who decided to adopt that treaty in the +first place which they shouldn't have done. But then a lot of these +treaties go beyond that, and they explicitly deny democracy. Now the +US had a law that said it wouldn't sell tuna — you weren't +allowed to sell tuna in the US if it had been caught in a way that +endangered dolphins. Well that law had to be scrapped because of the +World Trade Organization, that's just one example.
+ +
KH
+
Because it was regarded as a trade barrier.
+ +
RMS
+
Exactly. Then NAFTA, which is between the US, Canada and Mexico, +allows companies to sue the government if they believe some law +reduces their profits; effectively saying the highest value in society +is how much money a company can make, and anything that gets in the +way of that, we owe them.
+ +
KH
+
Of course, we're in favor of Free Trade here, Richard, because we +rely on it …
+ +
RMS
+
Well I'm not in favor of free trade beyond a certain point. The +people who are in favor of Free Trade say that it can make everyone +more prosperous and that's true up to a point, and that point is where +it starts subverting democracy. But the point of these treaties is +precisely to stretch free trade to the point where it does subvert +democracy. And you can see business think-tanks reporting how they +expect in a few decades governments will have much less control over +what goes on in the world and business will have more control. What +they're predicting is essentially that these treaties will march +on.
+ +
[20:08]
+KH
+
One of the other things you don't do, is you don't drive a car, is +that right?
+ +
RMS
+
No, that's not true, I don't own a car. I do have a driver's +license.
+ +
KH
+
OK, one of the other things you don't do is you don't own a +car.
+ +
RMS
+
Yeah, well that's to save money. I live in a city.
+ +
KH
+
No philosophy.
+ +
RMS
+
No, I don't think it's wrong to own a car, it's good if we all +drove somewhat less.
+ +
KH
+
I thought that it was because of the proprietary software in +cars.
+ +
RMS
+
Now that's an interesting issue. I have appliances, I have a +microwave oven which might have some proprietary software in it.
+ +
KH
+
And you fly in planes.
+ +
RMS
+
Yeah. Well I don't own a plane though. I don't boycott everybody +who uses proprietary software. If a company uses proprietary software +I say that's too bad for them, but I'm not going to punish them by +boycotting them, what I will try to do is explain to them why they +deserve to have control over their computing rather than letting +somebody else control their computing.
+ +
[21:05]
+KH
+
What are you going to tell the Library and Information Association +Conference with regard to copyright and community?
+ +
RMS
+
Well, I'm going to explain why copyright law today is an +injustice, because it forbids sharing, and sharing is absolutely +essential. People must be free to share, so the New Zealand Copyright +Law that was adopted about a year ago, and only one of several unjust +things in it was temporarily withdrawn, that went in the wrong +direction, but it was already too restrictive, people must be free to +non-commercially share exact copies of any published work.
+ +
KH
+
So just let me … how would this work, for a moment? I +write a book, I spend, you know, five years of my life writing a +book.
+ +
RMS
+
Well who knows, maybe you do it in a month.
+ +
KH
+
Maybe I don't do it in a month.
+ +
RMS
+
The point is, you do it by choice. People wrote books before +there was copyright. I think you're going about this backwards. It's +your choice whether to spend time writing, and the main reason most +writers spend their time writing is because they have something they +say they want to write and they hope people will appreciate it. It's +only a few who get enough money that it starts to corrupt their +spirit.
+ +
KH
+
Don't most societies want to, and they don't do it fantastically +efficiently, but to some extent they try to encourage people to +write.
+ +
RMS
+
Oh, I'm all in favor of encouraging people to write.
+ +
KH
+
Now how would you encourage people to write?
+ +
RMS
+
Well first of all remember that I'm not talking about abolishing +copyright on artistic works, I'm saying that people must be free to +non-commercially share them. Commercial use would still be covered by +copyright as it is now.
+ +
KH
+
If I can print off a whole book and pass it on, and they pass it +on, pass it on, pass it on, pass it on, as an author I'm not going to +sell many.
+ +
RMS
+
Well that may be so, or may not be. I've seen people claim that +it's only works that are bestsellers that are likely to sell less, +because remember if you're not a big hit and people pass along copies +what they're doing is getting you more fans. If you're not a +bestseller then what you mainly want commercially is exposure, and +this is a way you'll get more exposure, and without having to pay for +it either, and without having to give control to a company that would +take most of the profits anyway.
+ +
KH
+
So hang on, the only reason an author would want exposure would be +to increase the sales of their next book.
+ +
RMS
+
Oh no, no no no no no. Only the ones who've been morally +corrupted and are no longer yearning to be read and appreciated, +that's what they start out wanting, and a few, only a few get rich, +and then those few who get rich, when people are paid to do something +that they originally did from pleasure or a yearning, they tend to +start wanting the money more, and the thing that they used to yearn to +do, they want less.
+ +
KH
+
So if being read and appreciated is what authors want +…
+ +
RMS
+
Well they start out wanting. Those who have got rich, some of +them want to be rich.
+ +
KH
+
Well we'll forget about those because you're implying they write +bad books as a consequence.
+ +
RMS
+
No I'm not saying that they're all bad, I'm not making a simple +generalization like that, I say that their feelings have been +corrupted, that doesn't necessarily mean their books are bad, I enjoy +some of them. The point is that that's not a typical author.
+ +
KH
+
But a typical author you seem to be condemning to even more +penury.
+ +
RMS
+
Oh no I'm not, you're mistaken.
+ +
KH
+
If they cannot sell the book …
+ +
RMS
+
You're mistaken, you're making a projection which people who know +more about this disagree. Cory Doctorow who has been a bestselling +author puts all his works on the net and he doesn't even think he +sells less.
+ +
KH
+
So people still go out and buy the hard copy from the shop?
+ +
RMS
+
Yes they do.
+ +
KH
+
Even though people can pass his book from hand to hand +willy-nilly.
+ +
[25:31]
+RMS
+
They can do that anyway you know with printed books, that's the +motive for e-books. E-books are designed to stop you from doing +things like lending the book to your friend or selling it to a used +bookstore and borrowing it from a public library. They're designed to +turn public libraries into retail outlets. And the reason they do +this is they want to establish a pay-per-read universe. They're +following the twisted logic that says the most important thing is how +much money people pay and everybody who reads had a debt, now owes +money and he has to be made to pay. I think this is entirely twisted +and I'm against it, because the freedom to share must be respected. + +But I have other proposals for ways to support artists. And remember +the current system mostly supports corporations, so I don't think it +works very well. And it makes a few authors quite rich, and those get +treated with great deference by the corporations, and the rest +basically get ground into the dust. My proposals — I have two, +and another that combines them — one proposal is support artists +using taxes, it could either be a specific tax on Internet +connectivity or general funds, it wouldn't be a tremendous amount of +money by comparison with other government expenditures, and then you +divide this among artists by measuring their popularity, but you don't +divide it in linear proportion, 'cos if you did that a large portion +of this money would go to making superstars richer and it's not +needed, what I propose is take the cube root of the popularity.
+ +
KH
+
How do you assess their popularity?
+ +
RMS
+
You could do it with polling.
+ +
KH
+
How polling? Internet polling?
+ +
RMS
+
All sorts of polling, there's public opinion polling and anything, +use a sample, the point is you don't ask everybody, nobody's required +to participate. But you use a sample, and you use that to measure +popularity.
+ +
KH
+
I'm just holding that thought, popularity. You're equating +popularity with merit?
+ +
RMS
+
No I'm not, but I'm saying you don't want bureaucrats to be +deciding who gets these funds. So this is one way, you could do it by +polling, after all the current system bases it on popularity to some +extent. Take the cube root, so if A is a thousand times as popular as +B, A will get ten times as much money as B, so this way it's the +counterpart to a progressive income tax. So this way, yes if you're +tremendously successful you do get more, but you don't get +tremendously more, and most of the money goes to support a large +number of artists of mid-range popularity.
+ +
KH
+
And tell me again, where does the money come from?
+ +
RMS
+
It comes from taxes. It comes from all of us.
+ +
KH
+
General taxes.
+ +
RMS
+
Could be general taxes, or a specific special tax. Either way is +OK.
+ +
[28:42]
+KH
+
Why don't you just ask people, if you're basing it on popularity, +why don't you just ask people just to send in the money?
+ +
RMS
+
Well that's my other proposal. If every player had a button to +send a dollar I think people would do it often, after all the main +reason we don't do it is how much trouble it is. It's not that you or +I would miss a dollar, I often would be glad to send a dollar to some +artists, but how am I going to do it? I need to use a credit card and +identify myself and I need to find where to send it to them and that's +a lot of work. Well, this button, which I hope would be implemented +in an anonymous way, would take away all the work, it would be totally +painless to send a dollar, and then I think a lot of people would do +it.
+ +
KH
+
What about getting rid of taxes entirely, and giving us all the +power to direct …
+ +
RMS
+
I'm not against taxes.
+ +
KH
+
I'm not suggesting you are, but I'm asking you why not?
+ +
RMS
+
Because we need to make sure that rich people pay their fair +share, which is a bigger share than what poor people have to pay, to +keep society going. We need a welfare state, at least at our current +level of technology and the way society works, we need a welfare +state, and the rich shouldn't be exempt from funding it.
+ +
KH
+
Does it not matter that your popularity contest for artists may +let the rich completely off the hook?
+ +
RMS
+
Well, I'm not sure it matters. Supporting artists is desirable +but it's not a matter of life and death in the same way that giving +poor people food and shelter and medical care is, whether they're +artists or not.
+ +
KH
+
I don't know, I think that if you look at society it's made up of +all sorts of things that are contingent on one another for the health +of the society.
+ +
[30:47]
+RMS
+
Yes, but I don't want to have one answer for every question in +society. I'm not a proponent of a very simplistic political +philosophy, and I hope that that's visible. There are such +people.
+ +
KH
+
Yes, I'm sure there are. No, God no, I would never ever accuse +you of being an advocate of a simplistic political philosophy :-)
+ +
RMS
+

There are people who are totally opposed to copyright and +criticize me for not going far enough, but what I say is that works +whose use is to do practical jobs, these works must be Free in the +sense of the Four Freedoms that define Free Software. You've got to +be free to republish them, to modify them, publish your modified +versions, because this is what the users of the works need in their +lives. But of course there are lots of works that don't, that +contribute to society in other ways, they're not functional practical +works.

+

Art for instance, the contribution of an artistic work is in the +impact it makes on your mind, not in whatever practical job you might +figure out how to do with it sometime. And then there are works that +state people's opinions and thoughts and what they've seen, which is a +different way that works can contribute to society, and I have +different recommendations for these. But the freedom to +non-commercially share, that must be respected, and that's why the new +New Zealand Copyright Law and the old one were both unjust, and the +purpose of the new one is, specifically the punishing people by +disconnecting them from the Internet, the purpose of that is to stop +people from sharing, and it's wrong to stop people from sharing, so +even if they work out a different way of achieving this unjust goal, +the goal is what's wrong, not only the nasty methods that are, because +only draconian methods can stop people from sharing. +

+ +
[32:51]
+KH
+
How do you make your income, if you don't mind me asking?
+ +
RMS
+
From speeches; not all my speeches, a lot of them I give unpaid, +and a lot of them I get paid.
+ +
KH
+
And that's how you make your income?
+ +
RMS
+
Yes. I don't spend a lot of money.
+ +
KH
+
And you wouldn't consider that being paid for something you should +share happily? It's a donation.
+ +
RMS
+
I'd generally try to avoid having any admission charges. Once in +a while I do agree to give a speech at a conference where they're +charged people to register but often I will ask them to let the public +in to my speech. So, in general I try to have it open to the public +without charge because I want as many people as possible to come +because I'm working for a cause, after all, and I want to do as much +good as I can for this cause.
+ +
[33:48]
+KH
+
Do you think that you're winning?
+ +
RMS
+
You know, gradually we are. But of course we still have a lot of +opposition, we still have a lot to fight. You know, there's something +else in the New Zealand Copyright Law that was adopted a year ago, +which is unjust, and it prohibits in some cases the distribution of +Free Software that can break digital handcuffs. More and more +products are designed with digital handcuffs, that is features to stop +the user from doing things. So nowadays when I hear about a new +product or a new service my first thought is “what's malicious +in that?”, “how is it designed to restrict what you can +do?”. And these products are very malicious, for instance there +is the Amazon Kindle, it's an e-book reader, and they call it the +Kindle to express what it's designed to do to our books [1].
+ +
KH
+
That's not true :-)
+ +
RMS
+
But it does express what it will do with our books. The point is +this product does surveillance, it forces the user to identify herself +to buy a book, and Amazon has a list, knows exactly what everybody has +bought. Then it is also designed to restrict the user, to stop people +from sharing, from lending books to their friends, from selling them +to a used bookstore, and various things that with printed books we can +lawfully do. Even worse, it has a back door, that is Amazon can send +commands remotely and do things to you, we found out about this a few +months ago.
+ +
KH
+
Do what to you?
+ +
RMS
+
Well Amazon sent a command to all the Kindles, ordering them to +erase all copies of a particular book, namely 1984 by +George Orwell. Somebody said that they had burned up the year's +supply of irony by choosing that book. So now we know Amazon can +remotely erase your books. Now Amazon, after doing this, promised it +would never do that again, but our freedom to keep a book for as long +as we want, and read it as many times as we want, should not be +dependent on any company's goodwill.
+ +
KH
+
Where do you get your books from?
+ +
[36:13]
+RMS
+
I buy books from bookstores, yes I go to a store and I say +“I want that one”.
+ +
KH
+
And you hand money over for it? Even though you think that that's +not particularly a good system?
+ +
RMS
+
Well I didn't say that's a bad system.
+ +
KH
+
Well aren't you handing money over to the corporates rather than +the author?
+ +
RMS
+
To a large extent yes, but I'm not going to refuse to buy just +because of that, with books actually typically some of the authors do +get some money. With academic textbooks they generally don't.
+ +
KH
+
As a matter of interest we've been talking about freedoms, +surveillance and digital monitoring, does the extraordinary rise of +social networking …
+ +
RMS
+
I buy CDs of music as well even though in that case I know the +musicians are not going to get paid, so I'd rather send them some +money.
+ +
KH
+
OK. And do you?
+ +
RMS
+
I wish I could, I don't have a way, so I try to convince people to +set up the system to make it easy.
+ +
[37:16]
+KH
+
I'm sure they're sending us their addresses as you speak. Very +briefly, the rise of social networking, is that a concern in terms of +privacy for you?
+ +
RMS
+
It is, and I don't use those sites, it's more because I don't have +time, I'm busy doing other things. I don't think social network sites +are necessarily bad but they lead people into foolish activities. So +I think an ethical social network site should warn people, and every +time you connect to it it should warn you, “anything you post +here might get known to the public no matter how you set up settings +about supposed privacy. So if you don't want it published, you +shouldn't say it here.”
+ +
KH
+
That's a nice warning. Thank you, it's very nice to talk to you +Richard Stallman.
+ +
[38:08]
+RMS
+
We didn't even mention ACTA, the secret treaty that New Zealand is +negotiating to restrict its citizens, and they won't; they tell +publishers what's in the text that they're working on, but they won't +tell the public. So the point is that the; many governments, +including of course the US are conspiring in secret to impose new +restrictions on us relating to copyright and part of their latest +propaganda is they call sharing “counterfeiting”. +But the +point is that this treaty will have provisions to restrict the public, +we think, but they won't tell us. This is called Policy Laundering, +this general practice; instead of democratically considering a law, +which means the public gets to know what's being considered, gets to +talk to the legislators, sees how they voted and so on, in secret they +negotiate a treaty and then they come back and they say “we +can't change the treaty and we obviously can't refuse it, so we're all +now, we've just arranged for our country to be stuck with this +law.”
+ +
KH
+
And we may well look at that law in a couple or three weeks +time.
+
+ +
+

Footnote

+
    +
  1. [2019] We call it the Swindle +because it's designed to swindle readers out of the traditional +freedoms of readers of books.
    2. +
+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3