I’m a long-time supporter and enthusiast of the FSF but I’m taken aback by what looks to me to be dangerous misdirection on the part of the FSF and I would like a reply, even if short, to my concern:
Apple’s general use of DRM is a mixed bag. In being a company that strives to create computers “for the rest of us”, the decision to have an App Store with approved apps-only, while controversial, accomplishes that goal. I can see how the FSF would be offended at that. They really should have a free (as in libre) software platform.
But the remaining DRM, that which used to be found on music and is now found on movies and possibly e-books, is being attacked by the FSF in an entirely misguided effort.
Apple is in the business of selling hardware; a recent report revealed that while the iTunes store(s) are popular, they are not that profitable: they’re designed to help sell more hardware.
Apple is not the company demanding DRM on movies and books: it’s the content creators. The FSF should be targeting the large content creators over these issues, not Apple.
It worries me when the FSF, an organization I expect to stand above the crowd and intelligently ignore the pointless trends of the day, begins viewing the world as a black and white place. Worse, the recent attacks against Apple for DRM demanded by content providers, and not Apple, only proves that the FSF is looking for publicity, not truth.
I do understand your concerns; I worry about your methods.
No Trackbacks
You can leave a trackback using this URL: http://chris.luethy.net/blog/2010/01/28/an-open-letter-to-the-fsf-defective-by-design-is-flawed/trackback/
4 Comments
On the other hand, the content creators are massive scared corporations who are desperate to cling to an outdated and obsolete pricing system for their content. Content which has to be played on hardware. If the hardware companies don’t have the guts to refuse DRM then how can the message ever get across to the content creators that DRM hurts profitability and it’s actually openness and sharing that drives up profit more than anything else in this web driven age. Apple as the clear leaders in portable media playing hardware ought to be leading the way in pushing for a DRM free world as they have the enviable position of actually having some sway and credibility. I say this even though I loath apple for making what I feel is substandard hardware for a ridiculously inflated price for idiots who couldn’t tell good hardware from bad. I realise some of their products *are* worth buying (macs basically) if you need that kind of system, but the iPod has always been crap compared to most other players. That’s a fact. Maybe it’s improved but it’s still not the best. It is the most popular though and that is all that really matters, so why don’t Apple use their fanbase to push for the increased profits for all that the lack of DRM would bring?
Also, how can you say it’s just about the content creators when there’s no way for people who make their own content to share their creations without also having to have Apple’s DRM forced on them?
I realise the FSF and the GNU etc. are also stupid with laws and licences. I mean if you look at the GPLv3, then technically if you have a program under that licence and make a rule in your house about anything, you’ve broken the terms of the GPL. It’s poorly worded and therefore also crap. It’s a very hard thing to get the balance right between openness and reasonable protection from theft and imitation, but it’s that reason that seems to be lacking.
@Urioxis , you bring up some good points.
My main concern is the FSF getting too dogmatic and forgetting to understand the world as shades of grey.
With the exception of the App Store, it is not true that Apple forces DRM on anyone. Podcasts on iTunes don’t have DRM, small bands, even yourself if you record in your garage, can release music on iTunes without DRM. It may apply to movies; I’m unaware of how one publishes movies to iTunes but I know via video podcasts, one can use non-DRM formats.
While it would be a good idea for Apple to demand non-DRM in an ethical sense, economically it’s suicide. The more pragmatic approach is to do exactly what was done with music: start with DRM and widdle it away over time as these older corporations start to feel safer in the digital age.
That said, I agree with you: new groups need to publish; the old companies can’t keep up, and are hurting us. And hopefully, those new companies will use open formats.
I guess it’s just the same old story. Keep waiting, hoping and spreading the word about every experiment someone does where they let people pay what they want to for something making stupid amounts of money for that something’s creator. I’ve seen at least 3 examples of that and all made far more money for the creators than any restriction could have. *dreams*
Hrm. A few points:
* I don’t know how well pay-what-you-want pricing works. Radiohead is not a fair sample due to the immense interest in what they do. A variable price range seems logical though, perhaps even paying for better quality. At the end of the day though, our problems are in restricting us, not paying. We should pay for content if the creator wants it.
* I do have to take issue with the accusation that Apple makes poor hardware. I was at a marketing meeting with Dell to purchase a VM server cluster, and the Dell folks noticed a lone Xserve (Apple server) sitting on the desk. They laughed at it. We mentioned that we’ve had no major issues with OS X server & they admitted Apple at least made fine consumer electronics. And it’s true. The iPhone is brilliant (hardware-wise). The Macbook Pro has the best build & screen quality I’ve seen, and I’m in the position to purchase quite a bit of hardware for work.
Nevertheless, you bring up good points. Except the hardware one.