Re: [kFW] All-Inclusivity (DRM and Kendra)

[Daniel Harris <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 19:07 04/02/02 -0600, Pat Gratton wrote:
...
>> On another hand Ella Harris, my sister, who just dropped by, sees your
>> dictum as: even if people are pissed off at you doesn't mean that you're
>> doing something wrong. An element of reassurance. How about that?
>
>True, but that's a much weaker statement than what I said.

It's funny that you picked up on my sister's comments rather than mine. I 
shall use more female intuition in future! ;-)

>> She
>> continues that sometimes development and growth can piss people off at
>> having to change. So, pissing people off could be a result of development
>> and growth, which is good, yeh?
>
>And what sane person would be against development and growth?  I think
>that's a bit slanted - which tends to hide genuine disagreement.  Put it
>this way...
>
>Many people are against the continued development of technology - they
>advocate the return to simpler times.  Some of those people are angry enough
>with the developers of technology that they want to kill them (e.g., the
>Unabomber).  Such a person would have been angry with your work as an ISP
>provider - s/he might even try to kill *you* personally (David Gerlertner
>can certainly testify to this level of anger).

Sure. There are angry people around (I've been given ear ache by a few 
"unhappy" clients in my time). I say it's best to avoid them if possible. I 
say it's best to seek out happy people. ;-)

>On the other hand, many people are very much for the continued development
>of technology.  And when lives depend on the continued development of
>technology (e.g., cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc), the people
>who care about those lives (parents, brothers, chilrden, etc.) are likely to
>get angry with attempts to stop the development of technology.

Sure.

>So, if you make *any* substantial statement on the development of
>technology, you're likely to anger at least *some* people.

Sure. I'm not disputing what you say here at all at all at all. You think 
I'm hiding disagreement? Let me explain why I don't. It's your dictum. If 
it works for you then fine. And I wish you well with it. For me to even 
start to evaluate whether it's a good dictum for you I would need to know 
what you desire in your life, whether it will take you to your goals. I 
really hope it does. And who would I be to start to tell you how to live 
your life with out even knowing who you are and what your goals are. And 
I'd be interested to know what your goals are for sure.

Now, if you were to say "Daniel, this dictum is good for you too", I would 
have to say "no it isn't, it doesn't take me to my goals, it doesn't work 
for me". I guess I'd have to *disagree* with you. Shock horror! ;-) 
Personally, I'd much rather evaluate fun and humour and happiness as 
metrics of my success in getting my ideas across.

It's all a question of balance. Assuming one has a goal of a happy and 
peaceful world. If more people are angry with one than happy with one then, 
in aggregate, one's not being a success in terms of one's goal. Conversely, 
one can be seen a success if more people are happy than angry with one's 
actions/statements. However, if one's goal is to have an angry, violent and 
unhappy world then one can switch around success metrics appropriately.

I want a happy and peaceful world and so measure my success not by looking 
for who I've assisted in pissing off but who I've assisted in making happy. 
But, sure, there's always going to be a bit of both no matter which is 
dominant.

The funny thing is that we are both happy that Richard is talking to Kendra 
Initiative about what we're doing here, regardless of the fact that we have 
different reasons for being happy. You because he's had his hackles raised 
and I because he's talking to us and so obviously thinks we're worthy of 
his time.

...
>> Well, I know I can always do better on both. Are you saying we're pissing
>> people off because we are or are not doing these things? Not sure how your
>> ideas relate here.
>
>Well, I thought that I was being pretty clear, but here goes...
>1) The only way to NOT make *anyone* angry is to NOT say anything (new or
>substantial).  Thus, if no one is angry at you, then you haven't said
>anything.  Or you have said something, but haven't heard the people who are
>angry with you.  ("Angry" or "pissed off" is (mostly) a rhetorical
>fluorish - strongly and seriously opposed to you is more likely.)
>
>2) It's not my aim in life to make people angry - any more than it's my aim
>to make carbon dioxide.  But if I'm not making CO2, then I'm dead.  And if
>what I say isn't arousing strong opposition in someone, then I must not be
>saying anything substantial.
>
>3) So, I was accusing you of coming perilously close to not saying anything.
>Specifically, you haven't put out a general architecture or design document
>(thus saying nothing).  OTOH, you have come out in support of DRM.  (And as
>proof of my principle, no one's unhappy about your design, but some people
>(RMS in particular) are unhappy about your support of DRM.)

Thanks for clarifying.

>>  >While "all-inclusivity" sounds good, the fact is that some people's
>>  >viewpoints/desires are diametrically opposed.
>>
>> Being all-inclusive is not the same as being all-in-agreement or
>> all-the-same. It's an understanding that we're all here together whether
>we
>> like it or not so we better make the best of it, eh?
>
>Hmm...  So, you're saying that agreement between everyone is not necessary?
>(Now you're getting there!)

In this case, agreement between everyone is not necessary at *every* level. 
If we had agreement between everyone at *every* level then we would all be 
carbon copies of each other and that is not what I think we should be 
seeking. I think we should be seeking to celebrate and enjoy each other's 
differences, don't you? To clarify and restate, "understanding that we're 
all here together" is a requirement of being all-inclusive and so there 
does have to be some agreement on *that* at least.

>But that's not consistent with what you said
>before:
>> This is not to say that we have to choose between one or the other:
>> between
>> the free software community or the DRM community. I refuse to choose! I
>> want both to support Kendra! We have to reconcile. We have to do this to
>> enable convergence.

I hope I'm being consistent in this case but I do generally reserve the 
right to modify my standpoint as I grow in understanding! ;-) Here I am 
stating my *desire* for reconciliation and understanding. I *want* both 
communities to support Kendra. If they don't support each other then fine. 
Both communities use the Internet and roads and breath the same air so I 
think there is hope here.

...
>> I'm continuing to learn about the world of rights and, on the face of it,
>> it does seem as if you could be correct here.
>
>:)

;-)

>> But we're only a few emails
>> in with Richard and so I think there's a way to go yet.
>
>Such a discussion with Stallman should take into account his other
>publications and statements.  E.g.,
>Stallman has already made it clear that he disagrees with DRM.  For example,
>see:
>http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/copyright.html

Thanks. It seems that Richard is not about just removing restrictions per 
say but only where he thinks it assists us to reach a "post-scarcity 
society". Freedom as a tool to make a more efficient society and not an end 
in its self. Does that open up a new thread, or what?!

Rather than quoting the whole bit if you do a search for 
"chicken-or-the-egg" then you'll see what I'm talking about. But as I've 
said before neither chicken nor egg comes first - they evolve/iterate! ;-)

>> Is not the GPL and just another instance of DRM? Isn't that what Scott
>> Pollard continues to insist?
>
>I believe that we're talking about RMS, not the GPL.  The two are closely
>associated, but not the same thing, of course.  (However: the GPL is half
>political manifesto, half legal document.  The legal side of GPL can
>probably be made to work with DRM, but the manifesto is opposed (at least
>for software).)

Very interesting. I think that what you say is fundamental somehow but not 
sure what yet. On the one hand the GPL supports the whole idea of an owner 
having rights to dictate what happens with their content but, it seems, if 
anyone else tries to assert their right to dictate what happens with their 
content in a way that doesn't fit with GNU philosophy then they are branded 
"bad".

So, therefore GNU philosophy doesn't really belive in content owners having 
rights to dictate what happens with their content but is only using the 
current-rights-legal-framework to support their own ends of free(dom) software.

>> ...
>> So, I'm not trying to persuade Richard to accept DRM but trying to learn
>> why he can't. Close but not exactly the same thing. There's more the know
>> yet. Thanks for your comments they are very helpful.
>
>What's wrong with trying to persuade someone?

There's nothing wrong with that at all. I'm just saying it doesn't work for 
me as a method for getting solutions to problems. Persuading someone means 
that one is going into (starting off) a discussion with the idea of 
changing that person to one's view no matter what. It leaves one no chance 
of changing one's own ideas mid-way if one finds that something doesn't fit 
with one's original view. It's not about solution providing and there is a 
lot of violence and force associated with it and encourages people get 
stuck in their ways and leads one to *fight* for what one think's is 
correct. And fighting is not what I am about at all.

>If someone has an idea that's
>wrong, and you persuade them of the correct idea, haven't you improved their
>life?  And haven't you improved your life by moving them to your side, and
>thus increasing your ability to carry out some task?

The end results you mention here are good ones, I agree. However, 
persuasion is a process, yes? There are many ways to obtain the end results 
you talk about that are different from persuasion.

The end result may be the same but it's just the word "persuade" that I am 
not fond of. Look at the definition of "persuade". It talks a lot about force.

Persuasion doesn't work for me in this scenario because I'm not sure of the 
desired outcome (apart from "I want what I want,..."). It's about 
discovering what people's needs/requirements are so that we can build that 
into a system that work for the Kendra end-goal and also for them.

>Certainly, the only way that Kendra is going to succeed is if users are
>persuaded that it meets their needs better than competing products.  And the
>only way that programmers will work on Kendra is if they're persuaded that
>it's a better project to work on then other projects.

If you will allow me to remove the words "are persuaded" and replace them 
with "come to realise" in both cases then you have a statement that I 
wholeheartedly agree with.

Cheers Daniel