Re: [Fsfe-uk] Richard Stallman 1st seminar

[Ramanan Selvaratnam]

> "Rogue M.Vox" wrote:
> >[....] listen to RMS arguments in
> > support of music sharing... I was not particularly impressed by that part

Correction!
What RMS eloquently put forward  was a suggestion in the form of  a 
_proposal_ to legalise music sharing, so that better and efficient publicity 
would be generated for the musicians, which the music companies wrongly claim 
as their positive input.
Anyway it was clear (atleast to me) that music sharing was not at all the 
issue instead how _even_ such a questionable method of distribution, when 
legalised was a better alternative to the corporate music industry.

> > to be honest. If the FSF has for goal to achieve freedom for the
> > consumers in that area, maybe they should consult some insiders before
> > spreading a message. 

As a prooven master of *distibution* of works on the digital networks I 
believe the man is well placed to talk about it especially when the existing 
global monopoly on what is defined as music!! is full with words like 
insiders and outsiders modelled purely on commercial terms.

In my opinion the planet should entitled to be free to listen to its great 
heritage instead of EMI's threats (on global control on noise pollution).
 
> > record companies applied today would completely kill the average
> > semi-professional musician and as a result not benefit the public at all!

I would very much like to hear more about this via a private email. 
Presently I am invovled in providing support to the new age creative 
industries through free software and would like to know more on extending the 
free thoughts.

On Tuesday 03 December 2002 10:06, Simon Waters wrote:
>
> I suspect we need to distinguish the role of publishers in
> making copies of information (hardly difficult these days) for
> the other roles a publisher may fulfil - promotion, recording
> facilities etc.
The problem I see here is that they might have different departments for the 
above but they market it as one thing and rely on every treacherous digital 
method out there to render them as one indistinguishable entity.
The future, with TCPA and cousins looks more freightening . One would not be 
able to see/hear the published work because  of the way it was promoted, 
recorded etc.

>
> > I liked his distinction on the type of work and the approach necessary in
> > order to reform copyright in each case though.
>
> For those not attending the suggestion was to classify all
> copyrighted works based on their main use as "functional",
> "entertainment", and a third category (for which I forget

"Representative" -- As  for Memoirs, Essays, Scientific papers, Catalogues 
etc. where Verbatim copying (only) is possible 
(to preserver the intergrity ... I suppose) 

He did er a bit here after mentioning three categories of purpose, then going 
on about two and coming back to the third a lot later -- he was so tired .

> Richard's terminology) which includes opinion. Different rules
> were proposed for each category

It was nice to see that RMS conceding with a 'I am not sure' on the 
"entertainment" category after defining it as the ' Sensation you get from 
perusing works of ....

The seminar turned out to be speech that lasted only an hour.
RMS somehow carried on for another half hour then there was question time 
with the usual what is free; do you do open source type of questions.

Except for an interesting (I did not hear it well) misunderstanding!
Some one from the balcony above asked to the tune,
'So, is not this 'community' on another  world domination trip ... (or 
somethiong like that)  for which RMS replied with a smile that the community 
as in Copyright vs Community is not about the the free software communiity 
but what we all know it to be.

I tought AFFS could have done much better by having a stall with the usual 
paraphenalia outside to alleviate such misunderstandings. There was a small 
table with FSF leaflets with $ tags for GNU gear.
There was welcome sign of greater organisation structure and others involved 
with the FSF but unfortunatelky in the form of FSF Speakers' Bureau . A hint 
of local activity would have gone a long way.

Ram
Software manufacturer ;-)