taler-merchant-demos

rms-aj.html (32649B)

---

 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" -->
 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
 <title>Richard Stallman Interviewed The Day After SOPA/PIPA Global Protests
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-aj.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
 <div class="article reduced-width">
 <h2>Richard Stallman Interviewed The Day After SOPA/PIPA Global Protests</h2>
 
 <div class="infobox">
 <p>Transcript of an interview conducted on January&nbsp;19,&nbsp;2012, the day
 after the global web blackout protests took place against the controversial 
 SOPA and PIPA copyright bills. The GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation
 <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120118201902/http://www.gnu.org/">
 joined the protest</a>.</p>
 
 <p>At the time of the interview, the controversial positions of the interviewer 
 were not widely spread and not known to Richard Stallman. Since then, Jones's 
 views have become more extreme and well-known, and Stallman strongly disagrees 
 with them.</p>
 </div>
 <hr class="thin" />
 
 <dl>
 <dt>Alex Jones</dt>
 
 <dd>
 
 <p>Okay, my friends, we've got a real treat for you&mdash;they talk
 about the top ten people out there in Internet land who've really
 changed our perspective on so many things, it's Dr.&nbsp;Richard
 Stallman.  He's a software developer and software freedom activist, he
 graduated from Harvard in '74 with a BA in physics and received many
 awards, doctorates and professorships for extensive work.</p>
 
 <p>In January of '84 he resigned from MIT to start the GNU or
 [pronounced] &ldquo;guh-new&rdquo; operating system, meant to be
 entirely free software, and has been the project leader ever since.
 Dr.&nbsp;Stallman also launched the free software movement.</p>
 
 <p>In October of '85 he started the Free Software Foundation (and thank
 god, because nothing would work if we were running off of Microsoft
 still, and I don't know anything about Internet, but I know that), and
 in 1999 Stallman called for development of a free online encyclopedia
 with a means of inviting the public to contribute articles so he was the
 progenitor of Wikipedia.</p>
 
 <p>During his college years he also worked as a staff hacker at the MIT
 artificial intelligence lab learning operating system development by
 doing it.</p>
 
 <p>Stallman pioneered the concept of &ldquo;copyleft&rdquo; and is the
 main author of the GNU General Public License, the most widely-used free
 software license.  This is why since the mid-90s Stallman has spent most
 of his time in political advocacy for free software and spreading the
 ethical ideas as well as campaigning against both software patents and
 dangerous extensions of copyright laws.  That's why he's probably the
 best guest we can get on to discuss Russia, China, the US: they're all
 using copyright, and later admitting they're using it to shut down free
 speech.</p>
 
 <p>SOPA's just one manifestation of this.  And this monster's receding
 for now but it's guaranteed to come back very soon, in fact in a few
 weeks.  Here's the Associated Press; &ldquo;Supreme Court Rules Congress
 Can Re-Copyright Public Domain Works&rdquo; that have been out for
 hundreds of years, this is amazing, so here to break down the different
 horrors of the expansion of copyright&mdash;to where you can't even use
 [some] words now, they're saying&mdash;is Professor and
 Dr.&nbsp;Stallman.  Thank you for coming on with us, sir.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>Richard Stallman</dt>
 
 <dd>Hello.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Hello.  Well, let's go over it I mean what do you make of what's
 happening right now?</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Well, I haven't read any details about today's Supreme Court
 Decision, I haven't seen that yet.  But previously other Supreme Court
 decisions said it was unconstitutional to recopyright anything that was
 in the public domain.  But this is a very pro-business Supreme Court, we
 can't trust it to protect human rights.  They're going to give those
 human rights to corporations, and protect the rights of corporations,
 but not the rights of humans in any practical sense.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Yes, sir. What got you started developing the ideas that have become
 the free software movement that you kicked off?</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>I lived in a free software community in the 1970's, although we
 didn't use that term, when I was working at the artificial intelligence
 lab at MIT.  It was part of a community where we shared the software that
 we developed, and all the software that we used was the software of the
 community, and we were happy to share it with anyone that was interested
 in it, and we hoped that if they improved it they would share it back,
 and often they did.</p>
 
 <p>But this community died in the early 80's, leaving
 me face to face with the proprietary software world, which is the way
 everyone else was using software.  And by comparison to the life of
 freedom I was used to, proprietary software was ugly&mdash;morally
 ugly.</p>
 
 <p>So I balked at that, I said I am not going to accept the life of
 proprietary software, I would be ashamed of my life if I did that, so I
 decided to build a new free software community.  Since the old one was
 based on software for obsolete computers, it was necessary to start
 again from scratch.  So I launched that project, and now there are free
 operating systems, now it's just barely possible to use computers and
 not be subjugated by software developers of nonfree software.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>But expanding that, with just basic text copyright, take Righthaven,
 they've been absolutely destroyed in court, they sued a lot of people
 across the spectrum for even taking a paragraph in a comment board where
 it was clearly a third party that had even done it, and they were backed
 by the Associated Press and others, I mean that is really creep to have
 the Associated Press and others actually suing, you know, quadriplegics
 and community activist groups helping homeless people because they had
 one paragraph of their article and clearly were discussing in many cases
 their own&mdash;they were in the news article, they were posting it on
 their blog about them for humanitarian discussion, couldn't get any more
 clear [that it's] free speech, and they were being sued.</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Well, if they went to court they might win, the defendants might win
 on the grounds of fair use, the problem is it's hard to tell in advance
 and it costs you a lot of money to go to court and find out, so those
 people probably didn't have enough money to stand up for what are
 possibly their rights, plausibly their rights.  But because of the way
 fair use is defined in copyright law it's not a clear permission.  It's a
 rather vaguely-drawn defense against charges of copyright infringement.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Yeah, case by case.  Shifting gears, overall, specifically on SOPA is
 it heartening for you to see the big blackouts, to see&hellip;</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>It is.  And what this means is, that we can sometimes defeat the
 copyright lobby when it demands increased power.  Of course, we haven't
 defeated them yet.  We are at least coming close to defeating them, and
 maybe we'll defeat them, but everybody listening to this, you've got to
 phone your senators today, because they're going to vote next week.  So
 at least even if we don't actually defeat them  we'll have mounted a
 campaign that will have come fairly close.</p>
 
 <p>This is the first time it's been such a fight.  When the Digital
 Millennium Copyright Act was passed, the law that censors software that
 you can use to decode encrypted publications, that you can use to break
 digital handcuffs; that was passed in the House of Representatives
 without an explicit vote, it was considered totally uncontroversial,
 there were just a few of us saying that this is an injustice.</p>
 
 <p>And that's why Digital Restrictions Management or DRM is such a pain
 nowadays, because of that law that the copyright lobby purchased in
 1998, which bans the software capable of breaking the digital handcuffs.
 So I am against anything that the copyright lobby wants until they start
 undoing some of the injustices they've already imposed on us.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Doctor, let me try to quantify that from my layman's perspective and
 correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I see as the injustice:
 they're talking about their rights as they attempt to put a preemptive,
 non-deliberative, no due process, guilty until proven guilty
 system&hellip;</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Guilty until proven innocent, I think you meant.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Well, I was being sarcastic, I mean you're guilty basically, period.
 Yeah, guilty until proven guilty, I was being sarcastic&hellip;</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Oh, OK.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>But I mean you're guilty up front.  And they're basically just
 gobbling up the Internet, gobbling up what people have created, gobbling
 up everything like they're masters of the Universe, and until they
 become reasonable, there's no point in discussing anything with them,
 because they're not giving anyone quarter.</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>I agree.  But furthermore, the more subtle thing that they're doing
 is that they're trying to focus attention on their problems as if their
 problems needed to be catered to while distracting away from the
 problems they have already imposed on us.</p>
 
 <p>I hope we completely defeat SOPA.  But don't forget that copyright
 law in the US already gives them too much power.  Of course they're not
 satisfied, they always want more, that's what the 1% do to the 99%, but
 even if we stop them from getting more, that's not enough.</p>
 
 <p>We've got to aim for more than just preventing them from making it
 worse.  We've got to undo some of the injustices they have already done
 to us.  We have to put an end to the war on sharing, which is a cruel
 war that attacks all of us.</p>
 
 <p>Now, when I say sharing, I mean something specific.  I mean
 non-commercial copying and redistribution of published works.  Exact
 copies, that means, not modifications.  That's a rather limited freedom,
 but that's a freedom all must have so that the war on sharing ends and
 copyright ceases to be tyranny.</p>
 
 <p>Now, that means they've got to stop using digital handcuffs.  Lots of
 products nowadays are designed with digital handcuffs.  Every DVD player
 you can buy has digital handcuffs&hellip;</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>Let me give people an example.  I have a TV studio, I have a TV show,
 I make films.  I buy prosumer and professional equipment, and half of
 our technical difficulties with digital TVs, monitors, cameras is having
 the right software keys, everything talking to each other plugged in, it
 has to authenticate that I'm allowed to run a video through it, it's all
 spying on me and screwing up my entire operation, my whole life is about
 complying with this stuff, and I bought it and I'm in here using it to
 produce TV, and as the 80 inventors of the Internet pointed out, this
 SOPA would cripple the Internet by putting all these pre-restrictions on
 things.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>Well, yes.  The worst thing in SOPA is that it becomes easy to shut
 down any website where the public is posting things.  It just takes an
 accusation that somebody posted something that was infringing copyright
 and it becomes almost impossible for that site to keep operating.
 That's why Wikipedia decided to go black yesterday, because it would be
 impossible to operate something even vaguely like Wikipedia under the
 rules of SOPA.</p>
 
 <p>Now, after the show's over I'd like you to tell me more about the
 precise details of your problems with these TV systems or have your
 technical person tell me because that's an area I don't know about, and
 I want to know about the details of that.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Sure, if you'd like that, Doctor, I actually have two engineers
 here, and they can explain it to you, but you know we have TV sets
 behind me on the nightly news and they're digital, and just to run feeds
 to them to talk to a guest on Skype or to have a blue background behind
 me, all the TVs you buy that are prosumer or even professional now, it
 has a gate in it that scans to see if I'm even streaming something over
 it that's copyright, and then it's endless&mdash;to use software, you've
 got to have the dongle in the machine, and then that screws
 up&hellip;</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>Well that's 'cause you're using proprietary software.  See with
 software there are just two possibilities&mdash;either the users control
 the program or the program controls the users.  What you're seeing is
 that with proprietary software, the software controls the users.</p>
 
 <p>Now, what's proprietary software? That's any software for which the
 users don't have the freedom to run it as they wish, study and change
 the source code, and redistribute it either with or without changes.
 So&hellip;</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Sure, just to be clear, doctor&hellip;</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>&hellip;control.  But with Windows or MacOS or Skype the software
 controls the users.  That's why I will not use any of that.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Well, it is the machine surveying us, preemptively turning us into
 slaves.  A lot of our operation is run on Linux systems, I'm not a tech
 guy&hellip;</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Uh-uh, they're not Linux systems, they're GNU systems, and you're
 talking about my work there.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>You're right, you are the progenitor of that with GNU that other
 things grew out of.  So GNU systems, we do have a lot of those, one of
 our IT people just absolutely loves your work and has tried to build a
 lot of things around here like that.</p>
 
 <p>But separately, when I've got a pretty big operation&mdash;it's not
 that big, like 34 people&mdash;sometimes we've gotta hurry, we've gotta
 buy software to run TV shows, we've got to get equipment, I'm talking
 about solid state stuff that won't work as well.  All I'm saying is that
 it screws everything up.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Hardware can be malicious too.  And the encryption of video between
 a computer and a monitor is an example of a malicious hardware feature
 that has been put into essentially all modern PCs by a conspiracy of
 corporations&hellip;</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Yeah!</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>&hellip;including hardware companies and media companies, so you can
 see it! They buy laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to
 forbid people to escape from these things, and then they can design our
 technology to abuse us however they wish.</p>
 
 <p>So what you can see is that proprietary software&mdash;even when
 there's hardware that's malicious, the software has to make use of the
 malicious features, so the proprietary software's involved also.  And
 when software's proprietary, it is likely to have malicious features in
 it to spy, to restrict, and there's even back doors that accept remote
 commands to do things.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>That's what I was about to get to, sir.  We're talking to Richard
 Stallman, free software inventor, creator, guru, Obi-Wan Kenobi type, so
 much of what we live with today that is the only alternative to what the
 big corporate borg are oppressing us with, did come out of his
 ideas.</p>
 
 <p>But expanding on this, doc, that's what I'm saying.  I've tried to get
 the freer systems and I'm saying in many cases it does not exist.  I
 don't have the money to hire an army of people that are trained in free
 software to be able to even attempt it, and what you said is true.
 There's all these trojan horses built into everything, and I'm even
 paying for it, and it's junk no matter how expensive because the whole
 thing is tied down with these handcuffs, and it just absolutely stifles
 innovation as you said thirty years ago.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Mmn-hmmn.  Although it does worse than stifle innovation.  You see,
 innovation is the sacred cow of people who claim that they need to be
 allowed to restrict us.  They say if they can restrict us they'll do more
 innovation.  But innovation can be good or bad.  Democracy was once an
 innovation.  Tyranny was once an innovation.  So innovation can serve us.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Bioweapons were once an innovation.</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Innovation will only serve us if we have control over what
 innovations we'll accept and what innovations we'll reject.  So I do not
 accept innovation as sufficiently important to justify taking away our
 freedom.  Yes, I'd like innovation all else being equal assuming we have
 freedom.  But when somebody argues, &ldquo;give up your freedom so we can
 have more innovation,&rdquo; that is literally a trojan horse.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Well that's well said, but my point is, they are&mdash;I mean,
 everybody knows Microsoft stuff works horribly because it's all got back
 doors, spy systems, and it's just total crap.  Because, excuse my French
 there, because they're obsessed and control freaks; Bill Gates!</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Yup.  But it's not just Microsoft.  I've got to point out that Apple
 is even worse&hellip;</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Oh yeah.</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>And Amazon is horrible.  The Amazon &ldquo;Swindle&rdquo; and eBook
 reader has known spy features, of course it has digital handcuffs, and
 it has a back door for deleting books.  Did you know that Amazon remotely
 deleted thousands of books in 2009?</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Yeah, 1984!</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Right.  Someone wrote they used up a year's supply of irony
 demonstrating the Orwellian nature of their product, which they call the
 Kindle because it's designed to burn our books&nbsp;[<a href="#f1">1</a>].
 But they demonstrated it by deleting Orwell's book.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Oh, that's another point.  They've got this Kazaa thing
 [Note&mdash;Youtube's content fingerprinting system was actually
 licensed from AudibleMagic in 2007] where I've had rights to music, I've
 uploaded it, but because it's in some registrar, suddenly it shuts down
 the audio on my videos that millions of people are watching, and even
 though I have letters sending them to Youtube that I have license here,
 it doesn't matter because the computer recognizes and did that, and they
 now admit they could erase my voice off of these major systems in a
 matter of hours with the same technology&mdash;I mean, you talk about
 dangerous having all the books digital, they could just hit a
 button&hellip;</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>That's why I won't use such systems, I will never use anything like
 the Amazon Kindle for my books, because I want to have books that I can
 read without any proprietary technology, I want to buy them without
 identifying myself, and I'm not willing to sign a contract to get them.
 If I buy a paper book, I can do it with cash in a book store, I don't
 sign a contract, and my eyes without any aid at all, or at most perhaps
 some lenses, can see the letters.  I'm not required to get some secret
 technology just to see what the letters in the book are.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Wow.</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>So I will never use those eBooks under any circumstances, and I hope
 that the rest of you will join me.  If you want to read more about this,
 look at <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/ebooks.pdf">
 http://stallman.org/articles/ebooks.pdf</a>, and at the bottom of that
 there's a link to a place you can sign up to participate in our campaign
 against tyrannical eBooks systems.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>I had read some of your writings on this, but the way you put it, we
 can really see it being put into function.  I mean, this is a tyranny,
 they've designed the current web system as a tyranny, consciously, as
 you said, the big corporations, and the sick part is when we pay the
 licenses and buy the equipment, we're paying for their own trojan horse
 for them to engage in beyond Orwellian behavior.</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Well, I wouldn't say beyond Orwellian, after all Oceania did things
 even worse than destroying books, they just murdered people, but the
 point is we have to reject these systems, and that's the basic idea of
 the free software movement&mdash;I won't accept the systems that are
 designed to take away my freedom.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>OK, Doctor, I'm going to try to get you in touch right now with one
 of the engineers to give you any of that information you want, and I'll
 say bye to you during the break, perhaps you could even come back for a
 couple more minutes on the other side and tell us more about solutions,
 but, just intriguing to hear you on with us and all the points that you
 bring up, it absolutely makes sterling sense.</dd>
 
 </dl>
 
 <p>[Break.]</p>
 
 <dl>
 
 <dt>Alex Jones</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>Well, Richard Stallman, Dr.&nbsp;Richard Stallman, free software
 creator of the GNU system that everything is pretty much based on today,
 Linux, you name it, is our guest for five more minutes.  He's going to
 be gone for a while, but hopefully coming up in a few months, we'll be
 able to get him on for a full hour because everything he talks about
 just totally clicks; because I'm not an IT person, but I live
 12&ndash;14 hours per day around it, we're an Internet operation pretty
 much, we're on commercial radio as well and XM, but I live it and I've
 experienced what he's talking about and all the points he makes ties
 right in to what I'm just organically seeing as a lay person here, but I
 was bringing up some intriguing stuff to him during the break.</p>
 
 <p>We have the articles we had the Time-Warner executives send us the
 internal documents after we surmised it, an example of these trojan
 horses.  The TiVo systems, the Time-Warner cable systems and others.</p>
 
 <p>When they censored the Jesse Ventura TV show, it aired once, congress
 went crazy on the FEMA camps, ordered them not to air it again, that
 later came out in congress, it was a big scandal, suddenly off of DVRs
 nationwide, cable systems you name it, it disappeared.  We confirmed it
 through one Time-Warner office that they were ordered to put the command
 in.  They'd never seen that before.</p>
 
 <p>But the point is, you pay for cable, you have a DVR, you record on it
 and then they go in and erase.  And I know you want to see the proof of
 that, we'll get it to you, Doctor, but if true, what do you make of
 that?</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>Richard Stallman</dt>
 
 <dd>It's just another example of how nonfree software is a restriction
 on the users, and it's an injustice.  So if you look around at any
 nonfree software you've heard of, you know, various products that have
 nonfree software in them, every one of them should not be that way.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Yeah, it's very very sad that this is all going on, we're paying for
 our own prison.  In just 3 or 4 minutes, because I know you've got to
 go, Doctor, what are some other solutions or things we can start doing
 to weaken the power of the corporate borg?</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>Well, all across the various areas of life we can see corporations
 taking control of our government and using that power to hurt most
 people.  Of course, there's the financial crisis, and all the Americans
 are facing foreclosures.  A lot of these foreclosures are fraudulent,
 the banks are committing fraud when they foreclose, and right now we're
 pushing Obama not to let them off the hook, which is what he wants them
 to do.  There are a few states where the Attorneys-General are trying to
 pursue the banksters for their fraudulent foreclosures, and there are
 protests run by Move On, today, I'm going to go to one of them this
 afternoon, but that's just one example.</p>
 
 <p>Of course, the banks created the downturn by purchasing deregulation
 in Congress.  And then if we look at, for instance, agribusiness which
 has basically crushed family farming in the US and now gets tremendous
 subsidies to these corporations, subsidies which were originally meant
 to help family farmers, and that made sense.  But nowadays, it's just
 subsidies to big business.  And then you look at the private prison
 industry, which is a great reason [&hellip;]</p>
 
 <p>They use the prisoners, they have the prisoners work, but it's the
 company that gets the money.  The prisoner gets paid like 50 cents a
 day, which is even better for them than hiring somebody in Mexico or
 China.  And so, that's a reason to imprison more Americans because
 they're effectively slave labor.</p>
 
 <p>And then we will get the oil companies, and they push for burning up
 our planet.  You may have followed the fight to block the Keystone XL
 planet roaster pipeline, and that's not dead either.</p>
 
 <p>So what is it these things have in common?  What they have is,
 corporations have power so we need to clean up politics.  We need to get
 corporate money out of politics.</p>
 
 <p>And I got a book yesterday, let me read the exact title, it's
 &ldquo;Corporations Are Not People&rdquo; by Jeffrey Clements, and this
 proposes a constitutional amendment to say &ldquo;no, when the
 constitution gives rights to people or persons it's not talking about
 corporations.&rdquo;</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>Well, the power to give corporations rights so they can then stomp on
 our rights, it's very very frightening, and for those who don't know,
 you couldn't even have corporations in this country the way they are
 until about the last 130 years or so, before that they had limited
 duration to build a bridge or to do some type of program.  And I
 understand a little company having a corporation so you can have
 different people involved together, but the idea of giving it more
 rights than the humans, and then having these crooks that run it.</p>
 
 <p>I mean, take Mitt Romney: he's got most his money in the Cayman
 Islands, and he's running around lecturing everybody, and he's paying
 almost no taxes.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Well, he said that corporations are people and someone pointed out
 that if that's true, then he's a serial killer.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Ha-ha, yeah I saw that!</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>I don't want to abolish corporations either, but we must abolish the
 political power of business.  In this country, it's taken for granted
 that powerful business has a veto over everything.  And that means it's
 taken for granted that we've lost our democracy.  No one should think
 about that without feeling disgusted and saying this must be
 changed.</p>
 
 <p>Get that book, because he explains how it's not an accident that the
 Supreme Court gave corporations unlimited power to pay for political
 ads.  It's the culmination of a 40-year or 35-year perhaps campaign for
 giving human rights to corporations.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>It is very very dangerous, and now those corporations are destroying
 our sovereignty, our local control.  Dr.&nbsp;Stallman, thank you so
 much for spending time with us and again give us your website and any
 other websites you think are important for people to look at.</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>For free software, look at the Free Software Foundation site, that
 is <a href="https://fsf.org">http://fsf.org</a>, and you can join, if you
 wish.  For my other political causes, look at <a
 href="https://stallman.org"> http://stallman.org</a>.  And if you want to
 join our fight against digital handcuffs (DRM), go to <a
 href="https://www.defectivebydesign.org"> http://defectivebydesign.org</a>.
 And for the danger of eBooks and how they take away our freedom, look at
 <a href="https://stallman.org/articles/ebooks.pdf">
 http://stallman.org/articles/ebooks.pdf</a>.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Alright, doc, thanks for the time, but in the final statement, just
 reiterating you think it's really exciting that there's such an
 awakening to the power grabbing of the copyright industry and the fact
 that Hollywood and others just think they control the known Universe,
 and this has certainly gotten their attention, what do you expect them
 to do now?  How will&hellip;</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>They'll find another way.  You see, whether we defeat SOPA or not,
 even if we defeat it, it'll be clear that we defeated it because the
 measures they wanted to take were going to cause tremendous damage to
 everything around them.  But if they propose something else that'll give
 them more power, but won't hurt other companies, they might still get
 away with it.</p>
 
 <p>So what that means is we still have a long way to go in building up
 our opposition to the point where we can start to undo some of the
 injustices they have already put into copyright law.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>So it was just so ham-fisted and so brazen bull in a china cabinet,
 they were unable to get it, but they will come back.  And it does show,
 I mean, remember five years ago, when McCain said &ldquo;let's pass a
 bill where no judge, no jury, no proof we just kill your computer if we
 think you did something copyright,&rdquo; I mean, this is overthrowing
 our entire Magna Charta, our entire constitution.  I mean, it's
 tyrannical on it's face, Doc.</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Absolutely.  But that's what big business is like.  Big business
 just wants power and has no respect for anything.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Wow. Well, I look forward to speaking with you again, thank you so
 much, Doctor.</dd>
 
 <dt>RS</dt>
 
 <dd>Happy hacking! Thanks for giving me the chance.</dd>
 
 <dt>AJ</dt>
 
 <dd>Yeah, thanks for being with us.</dd>
 
 </dl>
 
 <div class="column-limit"></div>
 <h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3>
 <ol>
   <li id="f1">[2019] We call it <a
 href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">the Swindle</a>
 because it's designed to swindle readers out of the traditional
 freedoms of readers of books.</li>
 </ol>
 </div>
 
 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
 <div class="unprintable">
 
 <p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
 the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
 
 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
         replace it with the translation of these two:
 
         We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
         translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
         Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
         to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
         &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
 
         <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
         our web pages, see <a
         href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
         README</a>. -->
 Please see the <a
 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
 of this article.</p>
 </div>
 
 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
      files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
      be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
      without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
      Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
      document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
      document was modified, or published.
      
      If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
      Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
      years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
      year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
      being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
      
      There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
      Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
 
 <p>Copyright &copy; 2012, 2021, 2022 Richard Stallman and Alex Jones</p>
 
 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
 $Date: 2022/06/18 18:55:21 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
 </body>
 </html>