In which way is it useful to you if you had to watch RMS drinking water over and over again in the uncut version of that speech ? You don't know ? Me neither ... ;)
@ratmfreak05 Haha, I love how wanna-be trolls always have to ask if you're mad. Sorry big guy, I don't even know who this fat man is, what he's talking about or how I found my way to this video. You, however, are still retarded. And also a bad troll, sorry bro
With them trying to push through the wicked SOPA act (aka kill the internet act), it shows how true what he was saying here is. He foresaw that this was the ultimate progression, that taking away rights in the area of copyrighting would lead to bigger rights being taken away, and he was right!
I'm a developer, and after hearing this, and seeing the developments with this SOPA act, I'm intent to only produce Open Source software.
This is POWERFUL stuff. I never knew the O.S. idea ran so deep!
Despite Stallman's good point regarding the term 'intellectual property' I would really recommend people read Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella - it is great.
Livinglegend1187, look at the ratings of this video... Does that look like your opinion would stick as a significant contribution to the comments against this speech?
You Tube should make it possible to edit the close captioning because the auto-captioning does murder to the speech.. It should be possible to stop the video at any point and edit the captioning directly, and then continue playing.. In this way it would be possible for the hearing impaired to understand more conveniently what is being said. Also a wiki style version of the script should be available, with timing markers so that proofreading can be done quickly.
"Free" software would handcuff users. The idea that end users would check and change source code is silly and unrealistic. Most end users can barely turn on a user.
"Free" software is generally less usable and less powerful than nonfree software.
i think the way he talks about hardware is wrong(he defines it right though),
he said like free hardware is not our concern at present and near future, it's obviously wrong
object can set backdoor which you don't even notice, and every object need to provide its blueprint(source code), which is sufficient to let you make(compile) the identical object and give you right to do so.
do what stallman says and computer technology will grind to a halt. big profits means greedy companies will want to improve on and push the boundaries of technology to bring ppl bigger and better technological advances. at the end of the day it is us who chose to depart with our money. sheeple yes, but that is life
@NathanGNU i have built the same thing previously with a LINUX FROM SCRATCH manual ( but lost it due to a seagate drive firmware issue ) i documented part of rebuilding what i had before, and the postings are cross compatible in many cases. talking to richard via email he's said the same thing about ubuntu not being free. to be honest i dont like apt, and would rather stick to source only/gentoo next time, but my temporary build became a bit more permanent than id like.
@5:54 - In truth, Stallman doesn't care about freedom; he only cares about forcing people to use open source software. But a part of freedom is being able to run anything you want, even if it's not open source. If using closed source software is against your religion, then fine... don't use it. But don't try to dictate what others are/are not allowed to use. Why? Because that's not real freedom.
Most software licenses are moving away from GPL & LGPL, take BSD for example which has grown a lot. Applying his "4 rules" to hardware is a poor one. For example, lets say I would buy a BMW, deconstruct it, and then proceed to copy it ( even though quite an undertaking ), would that be ethical? I would say absolutely not. The inventor of an item, virtual or real, must have some degree of control. BMW is not selling just the service of assembling a car.
How is being the only one able to use the mickey mouse character a monopoly? Is Ford a monopolist because they're the only ones that can make Ford cars?
Bottom line, software is not hardware, it should not be treated as hardware,,, I like to think of software in the same way as Music.. You still have to pay, but once you do, you can listen it with anyone, or modify it in whatever way you want, as long as it is non-commercial :)
to all the fucking morons out there who complain that gpl limits them as developers... do your own fucking work independently and license it any way you fucking like. just because you people are lazy and incompetent fucks, we don't have to give you the right to steal code from the community and turn a quick profit. after all, it is you who wants to benefit from the state enforced monopoly rights, you might as well deal with it when some mental-aikido by a genius has your number.
i really don't care that this is edited to exclude breaks... as long as the original exists easily on the internet... which it does... i prefer to have a choice between having original and one with no breaks... so thanks for uploading this :)
@Renegen1 Original footage can be found at Internet Archive, if you want to listen/watch a version with pauses intact. Search archive - dot - org for : Richard Stallman UofC
Just watch the documentary movie "zeitgeist moving forward" here on youtube. You'll see much better way for many points in people life, and spread the word that things are going to change
These are the crappiest subtitles I have ever come across, they are wrong and meaningless more often than they are right. Whoever wrote them should be shot.
Richard cannot see financial incentive for copyright extensions (26:00) "Escapes me completely...... but not to anybody rational, because economists will explain that the discounted present value of twenty years of copyright starting 75 years from now is so small it is not going to be a factor”. Contradiction (27:15) "The only motive for this law was to preserve the lucrative monopolies". So Richard, are extended copyrights worthless? He contradicts himself in 2 minutes.
@Uprightfan Your taking things out of context. What Richard Stallman talked about at 26 minutes was incentives for AUTHORS to create more. What he talked about at 27:15 was lucrativie monopolies for CORPORATIONS for both PAST and present works. If a past work doesn't go into the public domain after 75 years of copyright the corporation will be able to maintain their monopoly on the work, but the creator/author won't care because he'll be retired or dead. (benefits corp but worthless for author)
@Uprightfan Now the reasons corporations extend copyright for future works as well is partially because even though the benefit is small it is easy to do (they got the courts to do it for past works so what makes future works different?) However, it is also partially because corporations have potentially unlimited lifetimes while authors do not. But the main problem here is you fail to distinguish between his statements about worth for corporations and worth for authors and past and present work
@thunderpheonix33 It takes a very specific set of skills to even create a program. Just make it harder to duplicate easily. However, most people cant alter programs so for them. They will all buy ready made products always. Fear mongering is putting out a fear objection that are simply red herrings. There is no reason to keep copyright laws.
This guy is a genius and so right. Copywrong is terrible. If I buy clothes I can alter them all day long and indeed sell my alterations.Fake Gucci Bags come to mind.
@thunderpheonix33 : I don't see why. I'm a programmer and a designer myself and I don't see why anyone would be out of a job if copyrights were abolished. There will always be high demand for both custom programs and custom designs and no amount of free software and designs would change that.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker That's a great point. If you want something done custom, it isn't as though it's always easy to do. There would still be a market for skilled works that have yet to be created.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker That's a great point. If you want something done custom, it isn't as though it's always easy to do. There would still be a market for skilled works that have yet to be created.
As a programmer I don't like the GNU license because it limits ME as a programmer. A library or framework using ANY code released under the GNU license has to be released under the same license, which IMO does not equal freedom. I want the freedom to use any license I want and have individuals or companies using my code to have the same amount of freedom. As such, I prefer the MIT, X11, MPL, Apache and other TRUELY free licenses over Stallman's actually pretty restrictive GPL license.
@inscrutabledirt : Maybe so, but as long as proprietary software is legal and makes up the majority of software out there, I see no benefits in not giving them them access to my code as long as credit is given. That's what I consider freedom. It is beneficial for me because it helps spread my name and it is beneficial for society because it stimulates progress. Stallman wants to limit access to his code and as such limits progress as well as my freedom.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Using the GPL doesn't mean you can't spread your name, and it doesn't inhibit "progress." If you don't want to release a program under the GPL, don't use any GPL code. It's as simple as that. If you do want to use some GPL code, then what do you lose by using the GPL as opposed to the MIT license or the BSD license? They're all free software licenses, and none of them prevent you from receiving credit.
@inscrutabledirt : The problem is that I want EVERYONE to be able to use my code if they feel like it, whether they want to use it for proprietary applications or free applications. It is precisely by being free for EVERYONE that frameworks like Zend or JQuery became so popular among hobbyist programmers and companies alike. Unlike the MIT or BSD license, the GPL code does not grant me that option and thus I feel limited to using only code released under MIT, BSD or similar licenses.
@inscrutabledirt : I'm not planning to. I just hate Stallman insisting the GPL is free when in fact it puts such major restrictions on you. It's ridiculous that I should license an entire framework, CMS or custom app under the GPL because it contains a single GPL-licensed library, yet that's exactly what I'm supposed to do. That's not what I consider freedom but just another form of totalitarianism.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Most libraries are licensed under the LGPL, which allows linking with proprietary software. I agree that the GPL places occasionally onerous restrictions on developers. But the point of the GPL is to give _users_ the four freedoms. If it didn't have that characteristic, GPL software wouldn't last long in a world that is still, unfortunately, dominated by proprietary software.
@inscrutabledirt : The GPL probably helped popularizing open source software during its first decade because of its "viral" nature, but today open source software is hard to ignore any more and now the GPL seems more of a nuissance and a restriction than a benefit. I agree that many libraries are released under the LGPL, MIT or other truely free licenses but I nevertheless found quite a very very interesting ones still under the GPL license, which is a pity...
@inscrutabledirt : Just for the record, I object to both "copyleft" and "copyright". Both severely limit whatever someone can do with someone else's creation and as such limit progress. To me, freedom implies the lack of restrictions and this I find in various licenses (MIT, Apache, BSD, MPL, LGPL, ...) but NOT in the GPL.
@inscrutabledirt : In this age of blogging, copyright on journalism is a major restriction as well. With regards to scientific documents, the peer review process should be sufficient protection. I don't see the need for copyright at all.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I should have specified; I think it's useful when a work's integrity is beneficial to society. Interviews, news articles with quotes from important persons, public policy works, manuals with instructions for potentially dangerous activities--I think copyright serves these fairly well. Their distribution shouldn't be limited, but for some works, prohibiting modified distribution is in everyone's best interest. (Software obviously doesn't fall under this category.)
@inscrutabled: What's the benefit of applying copyrights? Don't people benefit from interviews, news articles, public policy works, manuals, etc. to be spread freely by anyone who can? Sure, one might attach a criterium that such works can only be spread when referencing the original work, but I don't see any benefit in limiting their spread by others through copyright. I don't see any benefit in making modifications illegal either, because modifications can be improvements just as in software
I came to think of the current controverse between my internet/TV provider and some random monolithic copyright organization. SVT is the national television station, meaning I pay taxes to access their programming. This organization has somehow weasled itself into this system and actually owns the rights to streaming SVT programming. Now they made absurd demands on my TV provider which means I can't stream programming I have already paid for until this is settled!
@SVCFrost31 I haven't seen the part you're talking about because I haven't gotten there yet. But quick correction: Linux is the kernel that GNU/Linux runs on top of. Very different from a OS such as Debian or Gentoo.
@SVCFrost31 "Open source software" is software that is distributed under a license that meets the criteria of the Open Source Definition (which is actually the Debian Free Software Guidelines). "Free software" is software that is distributed under a license that meets the criteria of the Free Software Foundation (created by the Free Software Foundation). There are some differences and some software meets one definition and not the other. But in general, they tend to refer to the same thing.
@DaluZwasUnavailable I edited out pauses so it was shorter. Not everyone likes that approach, so I've turned it down from eleven to ten in my later video projects. Thanks for the feedback.
@gordonmcdowell Came here to say I loved the editing on this video. I've seen recordings of several Stallman speeches, and this one is clearly the best. The editing creates a smoothly flowing video which is extremely enjoyable to watch.
When we get the ability to copy hardware almost as easily as we can copy information and culture today, no one will have to protect their sole rights to produce and sell certain hardware, because it will be available to everyone, which means price goes down to near zero, and everyone can have as many copies they wish, and so that will be the end of scarcity and poverty. Why we have not started on that when it comes to things we *can* copy today is a mystery to me.
IF society IS based ON taking away anything except for your ability to make Your future happen they are in fact using what others have made possible for their own use, ergo copying former thinkers thought patters.
The idea of a spawning tree will be a perfect example. The difference is that a nature don't care about what ONE do. It isn't conserend with what anyone do of anyone, be it computer or human or whatever. Existance IS, the difference is what YOU do in this now. //peace
joking aside, he is smart although I don't exactly agree w/ him. it doesn't really clash well with the invisible hand model of economics which operates most of the time and i think what he wants to cannot be sustainable.
someone should teach that guy in the second row to take his hat off inside a meeting place in the presence of a guest. or maybe im wrong and i shouldnt dis american culture
@claudiomarpi I used MACHINE TRANSCRIPTION to create VERY flawed English subtitles. You should be able to now select MACHINE TRANSLATION to show Italian. It will be very glitchy though. If anyone can help fix transcriptions or translations, give me your email I'll send you a copy of the machine transcription file.
@gordonmcdowell PS: If you're interested I can help you ti translate subtitles in correct italian, I'm very interested in Stallman's videos, but on YT is very hard to find some subtitled videos, all non-speaking-english italians are forbidden to know his vision from his actual words.
I want to agree with Mr. Stallman, I really do. But I can't bring myself understand how one may freely give something on the one hand, but on the other may not ask for something in return.
@nbtrap In some scenarios the overhead friction of financial transactions (or building infrastructure & enforcing such transactions) is a bigger obstacle than the work being accomplished. You didn't pay to share your opinion in YouTube here, you shared it because you wanted to share it and don't care about being compensated for it.
Sometimes people do things because they WANT to, and figuring out a compensation mechanism is not worth the trouble.
@gordonmcdowell I agree with everything you have said, but I don't think it addresses the problem I have. I disagree with Stallman because I think his proposal for copyright on certain publications is too restrictive, because by telling someone he cannot sell what he rightfully owns (I refer to material objects, for one cannot possibly own an idea) amounts to either violating his freedom or denying he owns what he intends to sell in the first place.
@nbtrap i think i can elaborate. by something you mean there is 'some' 'thing' - meaning there is in existance at least one or many 'things'. software is not a physical object that you weld together. fact is the US as far as i know is the only country to have software copyright and its a big money wasting mess. to answer Q: there are ways of making money off free software (e.g. mozilla, redhat & mark shuttleworths company that sold for millions).
@nbtrap Richard Stallman and many other people have proved that this can be done...he has written some awesome programs that need lot's of time and imagination in order to be accomplished and gives them away for free...
@nbtrap At the beginning of the video, Stallman said that the point of free software is not about free as in not having to pay anything, but free in the sense that you have the freedom to acquire and use software code however you want to. In other words, software may still cost money, but you are not restricted to personal use of it only.
as a web developer i find a lot of stallman's ideas very interesting. i have always been a believer in giving power to the individual through openness of information, but it seems like today the individual is not interested in "information" as we once defined it, they are more interested in putting all of THEIR personal information online for the world to see... in particular, the generation graduating today. to not have an online presence is akin to never having been born.
@egadw The same video is posted to Internet Archive which transcoded it to Ogg Theora. Stallman insisted the video be available in an open format.
I've posted it to YouTube too so people not already familiar with the arguments for free software have an opportunity to actually hear what he has to say.
@gordonmcdowell I know you made it available in a free format, and that's good for the promotion of free software*(!). However the HTML5 beta of YT won't show this video for me and redirects me to Flash. So I presume HTML5 won't work for this video and you must use Flash as a result thereof, if you see this video on YT :P.
@egadw Well I'd never tried HTML5 YouTube before, and it appears to work for me, even for this Richard Stallman video. It did take a little LONGER to start playing than my other shorter videos.
Well now I finally know what HTML5 YouTube looks like.
@gordonmcdowell I think assemblyassembly means that there's a lot of cuts in the vid. It kind of annoyed me, but otherwise a great video. I learned a lot :D
Absolutely wonderful!, Excellent !
wilhelmschumann 1 week ago in playlist Liberate Your Mind
Like!
jimmyzoger 3 weeks ago
Excellent
BelaFleckFan 3 weeks ago
@Renegen1 :
In which way is it useful to you if you had to watch RMS drinking water over and over again in the uncut version of that speech ? You don't know ? Me neither ... ;)
1Nephelyn 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
stallman need to lose weight.
vivaelguapoforever 1 month ago
Comment removed
vivaelguapoforever 1 month ago
Thank you very much for uploading, Stallman tells his argument very well
ZirconCode 1 month ago
Like, like, like. This man is correct, and he is dedicated to his cause. Considering what's going on with windows 8, let's hope people listen.
TheMikkifish 1 month ago
Great video, Gordon. Thank you for posting it.
subtlearray 1 month ago
god hes so fat
ratmfreak05 2 months ago
@ratmfreak05 You, sir, are an asshat!
TheMikkifish 1 month ago
@ratmfreak05 Congratulations, all you've managed to glean from an hour long video is that he's fat. Brilliant.
SirGordonRamsay 3 weeks ago
@SirGordonRamsay mad? implying i watched the whole hour. Microsoft 4 LyFe
ratmfreak05 3 weeks ago
@ratmfreak05 Haha, I love how wanna-be trolls always have to ask if you're mad. Sorry big guy, I don't even know who this fat man is, what he's talking about or how I found my way to this video. You, however, are still retarded. And also a bad troll, sorry bro
SirGordonRamsay 3 weeks ago
question for stallman: what does any of this have to do with vietnam?
ranchersam69 2 months ago
With them trying to push through the wicked SOPA act (aka kill the internet act), it shows how true what he was saying here is. He foresaw that this was the ultimate progression, that taking away rights in the area of copyrighting would lead to bigger rights being taken away, and he was right!
I'm a developer, and after hearing this, and seeing the developments with this SOPA act, I'm intent to only produce Open Source software.
This is POWERFUL stuff. I never knew the O.S. idea ran so deep!
Coolworldleaderguy 2 months ago 2
im sorry rms i love my ps3 im a gamer.. i dont like microsoft or nintendo but i gotta have my games sorry.... i am a linux user though
emewify 2 months ago
There are no source code for physical objects?
What about blueprints??
LordZozzy 2 months ago
@LordZozzy Those aren't typically made available to customers.
cozmoz365 2 months ago
wow richard stallman really cares about his society. too bad windows and macs dont have the same view
vibol03 3 months ago
That wire clipped to the podium: Nostril Cam
porjo38 3 months ago
Donate button: Bitcoin?
sharperguy 3 months ago
Despite Stallman's good point regarding the term 'intellectual property' I would really recommend people read Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella - it is great.
sharperguy 3 months ago
Livinglegend1187, look at the ratings of this video... Does that look like your opinion would stick as a significant contribution to the comments against this speech?
kiernanh98 3 months ago
Comment removed
kiernanh98 3 months ago
Comment removed
kiernanh98 3 months ago
Comment removed
kiernanh98 3 months ago
Comment removed
kiernanh98 3 months ago
Comment removed
kiernanh98 3 months ago
Comment removed
kiernanh98 3 months ago
Comment removed
kiernanh98 3 months ago
Comment removed
kiernanh98 3 months ago
You Tube should make it possible to edit the close captioning because the auto-captioning does murder to the speech.. It should be possible to stop the video at any point and edit the captioning directly, and then continue playing.. In this way it would be possible for the hearing impaired to understand more conveniently what is being said. Also a wiki style version of the script should be available, with timing markers so that proofreading can be done quickly.
kiernanh98 3 months ago
"Free" software would handcuff users. The idea that end users would check and change source code is silly and unrealistic. Most end users can barely turn on a user.
"Free" software is generally less usable and less powerful than nonfree software.
livinglegend1187 3 months ago
what's macos ten?
blobvision 3 months ago
@39:30 or so. How the fuck can you get up and walk out on Richard Stallman. I would Kill to see him.
azedot 3 months ago
This video was viewed on Free OS with a Free browser and a free plugin. FREEDOM!!!!
nightowl217 3 months ago
i think the way he talks about hardware is wrong(he defines it right though),
he said like free hardware is not our concern at present and near future, it's obviously wrong
object can set backdoor which you don't even notice, and every object need to provide its blueprint(source code), which is sufficient to let you make(compile) the identical object and give you right to do so.
lolnameless 3 months ago
Comment removed
lolnameless 3 months ago
do what stallman says and computer technology will grind to a halt. big profits means greedy companies will want to improve on and push the boundaries of technology to bring ppl bigger and better technological advances. at the end of the day it is us who chose to depart with our money. sheeple yes, but that is life
takewhole 3 months ago
macos
iPhonemod702 3 months ago
@NathanGNU i have built the same thing previously with a LINUX FROM SCRATCH manual ( but lost it due to a seagate drive firmware issue ) i documented part of rebuilding what i had before, and the postings are cross compatible in many cases. talking to richard via email he's said the same thing about ubuntu not being free. to be honest i dont like apt, and would rather stick to source only/gentoo next time, but my temporary build became a bit more permanent than id like.
666threesixes666 4 months ago
check it out richard =D
ubuntuforums t=1836890
666threesixes666 4 months ago
I love Richard Stallman and his ideals. Thanks for posting this.
FeedbackMonitor 4 months ago
whoa! I will delete my M$ Windows and use GNU/Autism instead! thank you stallman!
EnixForce 4 months ago
@5:54 - In truth, Stallman doesn't care about freedom; he only cares about forcing people to use open source software. But a part of freedom is being able to run anything you want, even if it's not open source. If using closed source software is against your religion, then fine... don't use it. But don't try to dictate what others are/are not allowed to use. Why? Because that's not real freedom.
worknman2k 4 months ago
@worknman2k Why anybody would want to use closed source software?
riuspablo 4 months ago
I feel terrible for any deaf people trying to read the subtitles. Terrible. +10 for RMS tho. Great speech.
TheSqueakyWaffle 4 months ago
turn on transcribe audio 1:12:41 OLLLOLOLOLOL
izbm666 4 months ago
If I stumble one more richard stallman video, I'll personally murder his useless ass myself.
elwood180 4 months ago
Most software licenses are moving away from GPL & LGPL, take BSD for example which has grown a lot. Applying his "4 rules" to hardware is a poor one. For example, lets say I would buy a BMW, deconstruct it, and then proceed to copy it ( even though quite an undertaking ), would that be ethical? I would say absolutely not. The inventor of an item, virtual or real, must have some degree of control. BMW is not selling just the service of assembling a car.
Saironyn 4 months ago 2
How is being the only one able to use the mickey mouse character a monopoly? Is Ford a monopolist because they're the only ones that can make Ford cars?
saginata 5 months ago
Bottom line, software is not hardware, it should not be treated as hardware,,, I like to think of software in the same way as Music.. You still have to pay, but once you do, you can listen it with anyone, or modify it in whatever way you want, as long as it is non-commercial :)
pythagoras2010 5 months ago
this guys is the biggest joke of the history of computing
leccine 5 months ago
Very interesting lecture, hopefully the germans got the message.
hcsuarnefeiT 6 months ago
Comment removed
hcsuarnefeiT 6 months ago
to all the fucking morons out there who complain that gpl limits them as developers... do your own fucking work independently and license it any way you fucking like. just because you people are lazy and incompetent fucks, we don't have to give you the right to steal code from the community and turn a quick profit. after all, it is you who wants to benefit from the state enforced monopoly rights, you might as well deal with it when some mental-aikido by a genius has your number.
ufster81 6 months ago
The true and only messiah of all good and honest neck-beards.
oblivion476 6 months ago
i really don't care that this is edited to exclude breaks... as long as the original exists easily on the internet... which it does... i prefer to have a choice between having original and one with no breaks... so thanks for uploading this :)
fisch246 6 months ago
Stallman and his antics...
isthisnickvalid 6 months ago
I dont like the editing and cutting his speech.
Renegen1 7 months ago 14
@Renegen1 Original footage can be found at Internet Archive, if you want to listen/watch a version with pauses intact. Search archive - dot - org for : Richard Stallman UofC
gordonmcdowell 7 months ago 4
@Renegen1
nor do I, that is censorship. Damn university students. :(
oceanborn333 2 months ago
What is he talking about when he says "The negative effects of using proprietary software on the community"?
HamburgerExplosion 7 months ago
GENTOOO.
exmerion 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just watch the documentary movie "zeitgeist moving forward" here on youtube. You'll see much better way for many points in people life, and spread the word that things are going to change
stamstuff 8 months ago
0:01:35 Ooops, bad angle.
pinterd0703 8 months ago 17
@pinterd0703 I actually went back to see what u were on about. hilarious! LOL
samosapowis 1 week ago
Comment removed
houseofkrazies 8 months ago
Comment removed
houseofkrazies 8 months ago
Comment removed
houseofkrazies 8 months ago
what was the gift?
inivonwini 8 months ago
These are the crappiest subtitles I have ever come across, they are wrong and meaningless more often than they are right. Whoever wrote them should be shot.
eXz9 8 months ago
GREATEST MAN ALIVE
GenoSkill 9 months ago 2
Richard cannot see financial incentive for copyright extensions (26:00) "Escapes me completely...... but not to anybody rational, because economists will explain that the discounted present value of twenty years of copyright starting 75 years from now is so small it is not going to be a factor”. Contradiction (27:15) "The only motive for this law was to preserve the lucrative monopolies". So Richard, are extended copyrights worthless? He contradicts himself in 2 minutes.
Stallman is wrong.
Uprightfan 9 months ago
@Uprightfan Your taking things out of context. What Richard Stallman talked about at 26 minutes was incentives for AUTHORS to create more. What he talked about at 27:15 was lucrativie monopolies for CORPORATIONS for both PAST and present works. If a past work doesn't go into the public domain after 75 years of copyright the corporation will be able to maintain their monopoly on the work, but the creator/author won't care because he'll be retired or dead. (benefits corp but worthless for author)
felixtheratruns 9 months ago
@Uprightfan Now the reasons corporations extend copyright for future works as well is partially because even though the benefit is small it is easy to do (they got the courts to do it for past works so what makes future works different?) However, it is also partially because corporations have potentially unlimited lifetimes while authors do not. But the main problem here is you fail to distinguish between his statements about worth for corporations and worth for authors and past and present work
felixtheratruns 9 months ago
I mean "past and future works"
felixtheratruns 9 months ago
@Uprightfan Monopolies only benenfit those who own monopollies. Can we agree on that?
I think he makes a very valid point by suggesting to limit copyright to a shorter duration.
I think 5 years would be enough for the vast majority of authors.
Evem if he would be wrong about one thing (which he isn't) it doesn't mean he's wrong in general.
But I must admit his line of thinking is pretty different from what we've been tuaght, which is why so many of us may object at first.
bassbacke 6 months ago
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED & ® COPYRIGHT 2011 © BY GORDONMCDOWELL
Just kidding
Pathfinder17MD 9 months ago
Comment removed
Pathfinder17MD 9 months ago
Comment removed
Pathfinder17MD 9 months ago
In the end I thought he was taking off his shoe to smash the framed gift because it was using a non-free typeface.
197022007 9 months ago
Does this guy make a lot of porn or am I just mistaken
ranchersam69 9 months ago
@ranchersam69 That's Ron Jeremy...
197022007 9 months ago
I want to take a razor to him so, so bad.
SirHprdgn 9 months ago
@thunderpheonix33 It takes a very specific set of skills to even create a program. Just make it harder to duplicate easily. However, most people cant alter programs so for them. They will all buy ready made products always. Fear mongering is putting out a fear objection that are simply red herrings. There is no reason to keep copyright laws.
Fr33d0m4a11 9 months ago
This guy is a genius and so right. Copywrong is terrible. If I buy clothes I can alter them all day long and indeed sell my alterations.Fake Gucci Bags come to mind.
Fr33d0m4a11 9 months ago
The subtitles say silly things.
Invisibrah 10 months ago
this guy is taking away my freedom to watch dvds
vokuheila 10 months ago
@vokuheila I don't understand. Please explain.
kunstsein 9 months ago
@thunderpheonix33 : I don't see why. I'm a programmer and a designer myself and I don't see why anyone would be out of a job if copyrights were abolished. There will always be high demand for both custom programs and custom designs and no amount of free software and designs would change that.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker That's a great point. If you want something done custom, it isn't as though it's always easy to do. There would still be a market for skilled works that have yet to be created.
wall0645 10 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker That's a great point. If you want something done custom, it isn't as though it's always easy to do. There would still be a market for skilled works that have yet to be created.
wall0645 10 months ago
@thunderpheonix33 : There's nothing wrong with being a hippy. Some of the most interesing people I've met in my life are hippies.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
As a programmer I don't like the GNU license because it limits ME as a programmer. A library or framework using ANY code released under the GNU license has to be released under the same license, which IMO does not equal freedom. I want the freedom to use any license I want and have individuals or companies using my code to have the same amount of freedom. As such, I prefer the MIT, X11, MPL, Apache and other TRUELY free licenses over Stallman's actually pretty restrictive GPL license.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker The freedom to exploit users isn't a freedom that Mr. Stallman (or I) think you (or anybody) deserve.
inscrutabledirt 10 months ago
@inscrutabledirt : Maybe so, but as long as proprietary software is legal and makes up the majority of software out there, I see no benefits in not giving them them access to my code as long as credit is given. That's what I consider freedom. It is beneficial for me because it helps spread my name and it is beneficial for society because it stimulates progress. Stallman wants to limit access to his code and as such limits progress as well as my freedom.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Using the GPL doesn't mean you can't spread your name, and it doesn't inhibit "progress." If you don't want to release a program under the GPL, don't use any GPL code. It's as simple as that. If you do want to use some GPL code, then what do you lose by using the GPL as opposed to the MIT license or the BSD license? They're all free software licenses, and none of them prevent you from receiving credit.
inscrutabledirt 10 months ago
@inscrutabledirt : The problem is that I want EVERYONE to be able to use my code if they feel like it, whether they want to use it for proprietary applications or free applications. It is precisely by being free for EVERYONE that frameworks like Zend or JQuery became so popular among hobbyist programmers and companies alike. Unlike the MIT or BSD license, the GPL code does not grant me that option and thus I feel limited to using only code released under MIT, BSD or similar licenses.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
Comment removed
inscrutabledirt 10 months ago
@inscrutabledirt : I'm not planning to. I just hate Stallman insisting the GPL is free when in fact it puts such major restrictions on you. It's ridiculous that I should license an entire framework, CMS or custom app under the GPL because it contains a single GPL-licensed library, yet that's exactly what I'm supposed to do. That's not what I consider freedom but just another form of totalitarianism.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Most libraries are licensed under the LGPL, which allows linking with proprietary software. I agree that the GPL places occasionally onerous restrictions on developers. But the point of the GPL is to give _users_ the four freedoms. If it didn't have that characteristic, GPL software wouldn't last long in a world that is still, unfortunately, dominated by proprietary software.
inscrutabledirt 10 months ago
@inscrutabledirt : The GPL probably helped popularizing open source software during its first decade because of its "viral" nature, but today open source software is hard to ignore any more and now the GPL seems more of a nuissance and a restriction than a benefit. I agree that many libraries are released under the LGPL, MIT or other truely free licenses but I nevertheless found quite a very very interesting ones still under the GPL license, which is a pity...
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
Then don't put any GPL code in your program. Or only use LGPL code.
inscrutabledirt 10 months ago
@inscrutabledirt : Just for the record, I object to both "copyleft" and "copyright". Both severely limit whatever someone can do with someone else's creation and as such limit progress. To me, freedom implies the lack of restrictions and this I find in various licenses (MIT, Apache, BSD, MPL, LGPL, ...) but NOT in the GPL.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Fair enough. I think copyright is useful in some areas, like journalism and scientific documents.
inscrutabledirt 10 months ago
@inscrutabledirt : In this age of blogging, copyright on journalism is a major restriction as well. With regards to scientific documents, the peer review process should be sufficient protection. I don't see the need for copyright at all.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker I should have specified; I think it's useful when a work's integrity is beneficial to society. Interviews, news articles with quotes from important persons, public policy works, manuals with instructions for potentially dangerous activities--I think copyright serves these fairly well. Their distribution shouldn't be limited, but for some works, prohibiting modified distribution is in everyone's best interest. (Software obviously doesn't fall under this category.)
inscrutabledirt 10 months ago
@inscrutabled: What's the benefit of applying copyrights? Don't people benefit from interviews, news articles, public policy works, manuals, etc. to be spread freely by anyone who can? Sure, one might attach a criterium that such works can only be spread when referencing the original work, but I don't see any benefit in limiting their spread by others through copyright. I don't see any benefit in making modifications illegal either, because modifications can be improvements just as in software
OutOfTheBoxThinker 10 months ago
INSTALL GENTOO
sushlet 11 months ago
Wow, what a great video.
I came to think of the current controverse between my internet/TV provider and some random monolithic copyright organization. SVT is the national television station, meaning I pay taxes to access their programming. This organization has somehow weasled itself into this system and actually owns the rights to streaming SVT programming. Now they made absurd demands on my TV provider which means I can't stream programming I have already paid for until this is settled!
HerrKnitler 11 months ago
Omfg... rootkits? Srysly? Now I regret having a sony mp3 player >_>
6006133 11 months ago
Towards the end of the video he states that he is not for open-source, yet what is Linux?.. is it not an open-source operating system?
SVCFrost31 11 months ago
@SVCFrost31 I haven't seen the part you're talking about because I haven't gotten there yet. But quick correction: Linux is the kernel that GNU/Linux runs on top of. Very different from a OS such as Debian or Gentoo.
MrFarklefreak 11 months ago
@SVCFrost31 "Open source software" is software that is distributed under a license that meets the criteria of the Open Source Definition (which is actually the Debian Free Software Guidelines). "Free software" is software that is distributed under a license that meets the criteria of the Free Software Foundation (created by the Free Software Foundation). There are some differences and some software meets one definition and not the other. But in general, they tend to refer to the same thing.
inscrutabledirt 10 months ago
Wat´s up with the editing? It looks like he said many diferent sentences that were atached togheter later.
DaluZwasUnavailable 11 months ago 5
@DaluZwasUnavailable I edited out pauses so it was shorter. Not everyone likes that approach, so I've turned it down from eleven to ten in my later video projects. Thanks for the feedback.
gordonmcdowell 11 months ago 10
@gordonmcdowell Came here to say I loved the editing on this video. I've seen recordings of several Stallman speeches, and this one is clearly the best. The editing creates a smoothly flowing video which is extremely enjoyable to watch.
themantheman91 11 months ago
@gordonmcdowell Personally I like judicious use of this tool. Even a great speaker like RMS has a few pauses in his otherwise fluent speech.
d46512 9 months ago
@gordonmcdowell : For the record I actually enjoyed the edit.
manasdotnine 5 months ago
@DaluZwasUnavailable I think the editing is awful and it ruins the video.
houseofkrazies 8 months ago
When we get the ability to copy hardware almost as easily as we can copy information and culture today, no one will have to protect their sole rights to produce and sell certain hardware, because it will be available to everyone, which means price goes down to near zero, and everyone can have as many copies they wish, and so that will be the end of scarcity and poverty. Why we have not started on that when it comes to things we *can* copy today is a mystery to me.
kablamo9999 11 months ago
Klaatu barada nikto!
mrbilken 1 year ago
IF society IS based ON taking away anything except for your ability to make Your future happen they are in fact using what others have made possible for their own use, ergo copying former thinkers thought patters.
The idea of a spawning tree will be a perfect example. The difference is that a nature don't care about what ONE do. It isn't conserend with what anyone do of anyone, be it computer or human or whatever. Existance IS, the difference is what YOU do in this now. //peace
adewulf 1 year ago
picks out a wedgie at 1:38 .
SergeantLedge 1 year ago
he looks like a f*king stereotype.
joking aside, he is smart although I don't exactly agree w/ him. it doesn't really clash well with the invisible hand model of economics which operates most of the time and i think what he wants to cannot be sustainable.
javadog33221 1 year ago
Richard Stallman is a good man.
AimiriZ 1 year ago
someone should teach that guy in the second row to take his hat off inside a meeting place in the presence of a guest. or maybe im wrong and i shouldnt dis american culture
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa78815 1 year ago
Grisly old Mr. Stallman and some fag shows up in a vest and bowler
windslip 1 year ago
I like him, he reminds me of Booger from revenge of the nerds.
REDWINGSRED36 1 year ago
I feel bad for using windows now :(
smartguy9765 1 year ago
Comment removed
inscrutabledirt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So try using GNU+Linux instead. :D
inscrutabledirt 1 year ago
@smartguy9765 hey smart guy use what ever it is that you want to use, but just letting you know you have a choice to run alternative software
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa78815 1 year ago
@smartguy9765 yes, you should
GenoSkill 9 months ago
@GenoSkill
No, i shouldn't. It's just an operating system.
smartguy9765 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Q: What do you call an empty jar of Cheeze Whiz?
A: Cheeze Whuz.
m4lvolio 1 year ago
Can I ask for some italian subtitles? Does anyone know if it exists somewhere?
It's a little tricky for me to understand every part.
claudiomarpi 1 year ago
@claudiomarpi I used MACHINE TRANSCRIPTION to create VERY flawed English subtitles. You should be able to now select MACHINE TRANSLATION to show Italian. It will be very glitchy though. If anyone can help fix transcriptions or translations, give me your email I'll send you a copy of the machine transcription file.
gordonmcdowell 1 year ago
@gordonmcdowell Thank you so much for your work!! :)
The machine translation works quite well, but the english subtitles are enough for me. Thank you again :)
claudiomarpi 1 year ago
@gordonmcdowell PS: If you're interested I can help you ti translate subtitles in correct italian, I'm very interested in Stallman's videos, but on YT is very hard to find some subtitled videos, all non-speaking-english italians are forbidden to know his vision from his actual words.
claudiomarpi 1 year ago
I want to agree with Mr. Stallman, I really do. But I can't bring myself understand how one may freely give something on the one hand, but on the other may not ask for something in return.
nbtrap 1 year ago
@nbtrap In some scenarios the overhead friction of financial transactions (or building infrastructure & enforcing such transactions) is a bigger obstacle than the work being accomplished. You didn't pay to share your opinion in YouTube here, you shared it because you wanted to share it and don't care about being compensated for it.
Sometimes people do things because they WANT to, and figuring out a compensation mechanism is not worth the trouble.
Ethics and morality of GPL aside.
gordonmcdowell 1 year ago 11
@gordonmcdowell I agree with everything you have said, but I don't think it addresses the problem I have. I disagree with Stallman because I think his proposal for copyright on certain publications is too restrictive, because by telling someone he cannot sell what he rightfully owns (I refer to material objects, for one cannot possibly own an idea) amounts to either violating his freedom or denying he owns what he intends to sell in the first place.
nbtrap 1 year ago
@nbtrap i think i can elaborate. by something you mean there is 'some' 'thing' - meaning there is in existance at least one or many 'things'. software is not a physical object that you weld together. fact is the US as far as i know is the only country to have software copyright and its a big money wasting mess. to answer Q: there are ways of making money off free software (e.g. mozilla, redhat & mark shuttleworths company that sold for millions).
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa78815 1 year ago
@nbtrap You are free to ask for something in return, but people are not obligated to give you what you ask.
Trezker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nbtrap You are free to ask for something in return, but people are not obligated to give you what you ask.
Trezker 1 year ago
@nbtrap Richard Stallman and many other people have proved that this can be done...he has written some awesome programs that need lot's of time and imagination in order to be accomplished and gives them away for free...
rabidmachine9 1 year ago
@nbtrap take it for example as a hobby,
maybe there is a specific software you need and you want to write it in your free time. it doesnt cost you
anything if you want to share it, cause once written it is there. the programmer gets software he needs,
becomes better at programming and helps other users out there. To me that is a win-win situation
(does only work if it is software youre interested in, most of the time)
Julien1345 1 year ago
@nbtrap At the beginning of the video, Stallman said that the point of free software is not about free as in not having to pay anything, but free in the sense that you have the freedom to acquire and use software code however you want to. In other words, software may still cost money, but you are not restricted to personal use of it only.
Nathan54AB 1 year ago
I like the part where he picks his wedgie.
RickyTomatoes 1 year ago
I like his belly ^_^
bozzioisgod44 1 year ago
I wept.
inivonwini 1 year ago
Great
zyrgzyrg 1 year ago
Briliant Speech by a Brilliant Person.
gaurav1086 1 year ago
Good quality of sound and good quality of the video... and of course great speaker !
Thanks for bringing this video to us !
nickst0ne 1 year ago
as a web developer i find a lot of stallman's ideas very interesting. i have always been a believer in giving power to the individual through openness of information, but it seems like today the individual is not interested in "information" as we once defined it, they are more interested in putting all of THEIR personal information online for the world to see... in particular, the generation graduating today. to not have an online presence is akin to never having been born.
sunyate 1 year ago
Can you please tell me how to upload Longer videos Like this please please please tell me i am very great full to for this act of kindness????
Thanks
SANA8362 1 year ago
I love em
jeroeniskoning 1 year ago
It's a bit ironic, that we are using a proprietary piece of software to see this clip :P
egadw 1 year ago
@egadw The same video is posted to Internet Archive which transcoded it to Ogg Theora. Stallman insisted the video be available in an open format.
I've posted it to YouTube too so people not already familiar with the arguments for free software have an opportunity to actually hear what he has to say.
gordonmcdowell 1 year ago 4
@gordonmcdowell I know you made it available in a free format, and that's good for the promotion of free software*(!). However the HTML5 beta of YT won't show this video for me and redirects me to Flash. So I presume HTML5 won't work for this video and you must use Flash as a result thereof, if you see this video on YT :P.
egadw 1 year ago
@egadw Well I'd never tried HTML5 YouTube before, and it appears to work for me, even for this Richard Stallman video. It did take a little LONGER to start playing than my other shorter videos.
Well now I finally know what HTML5 YouTube looks like.
gordonmcdowell 1 year ago
@gordonmcdowell Must be my installation then :(
egadw 1 year ago
@egadw There's an embedded link in this video and they don't have a good way to create theora with those. So no html5 version for this video yet.
JonJahren 1 year ago
Great video!
EthanODanielTV 1 year ago
my love <3
loldongslol1 1 year ago
man, the guy has a mighty impressive pot belly on him :D
in all seriousness though, great talk, very interesting!
jacderida 1 year ago
This guy is awesome. I use a free software desktop with firefox blinding fast.
bootiack 1 year ago
Stay Gold
fredynek3 1 year ago
isn't he just talking about creative commons? I think he's talking about something that already exists...
martylakewood 1 year ago
that's a homeless man.
Smart people who lecture have good grooming!
garycalgary 1 year ago
Check out 1:36 he picks an atomic wedgie, LOL.
Other than that - it's always nice to hear from Mr. Stallman.
misconfiguration 1 year ago
he was right about the time is not money in the 30's at time 17:00 approx.
SawyerLX 1 year ago
If just Mr. Stallman could be the president of the U.S ;)
Adavur 1 year ago 2
@gordonmcdowell I think assemblyassembly means that there's a lot of cuts in the vid. It kind of annoyed me, but otherwise a great video. I learned a lot :D
Adavur 1 year ago