
The Right to Read (1997) - tobyjsullivan
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
======
qntty
On the one hand, sometimes I think that Stallman's predictions of where
technology is going aren't so novel because they're just a special case of
where capitalism always goes.

On the other hand, I remember reading someone who said that one property of
brilliant ideas is that when other people hear them, they think "well I could
have thought of that."

~~~
candiodari
> where capitalism always goes.

Unfortunately that's just another way of saying "what people want". Even more
than just want, because it's not like world peace, where people want it, they
just don't want to pay for it. This, they're looking to pay for (perhaps not
the product itself, but the other qualities of the product that get made in
order to promote their DRMed format they certainly want, and authors want the
DRM. Yes, authors. Not just publishers)

But people want to pay for these products that only get made if DRM
protections are made for them.

And I wonder if you can kill one without the other.

~~~
rexpop
Nooo, noo, markets claim to offer information about what people want but the
way they are laid out right now, with all the manufactured consent peppering
choices, it's not really fair to claim that capitalism reflects "what people
want" in the industrialized world, today.

~~~
edanm
Errrr, why? I mean, I don't think markets literally tell us what everybody
wants in that there are plenty of coordination problems, ridge cases, etc.

But on the whole I think markets do a great job and, more importantly, I don't
know of a better mechanism.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The basic mechanism of market economy does in fact an excellent job of
figuring out what people want at the very moment, and how much they want it
relative to each other.

The important thing is, this mechanism does not exist in vacuum. It doesn't
really distinguish between sources of "wants", i.e. whether a consumer wants
something because that is their genuine need, or because it's a manufactured
marketing-based need, or whether they're forced by circumstances into choosing
this particular product (e.g. lack of choice).

I think we should both appreciate the effectiveness of this system and also
talk about its failure modes when employed in the wider context of human
society.

~~~
zeamaize
«manufactured marketing based need»

This reeks of paternalism and fascism. You claim you know what people actually
want despite their own claims to the contrary?

So what, you'll tell people when they "don't really want" what they say they
want?

~~~
TeMPOraL
There are only two possibilities - either it's what people actually want, at
which point the whole half-a-trillion-dolar marketing industry is a huge waste
of time, or marketing actually works and people want different things than
they'd want if not influenced by it.

I don't think it's "paternalistic" to recognize the power imbalance present
here. I think it's stupid not to.

~~~
kqr
This is an oversimplified view on marketing.

Imagine there is a human desire X in some people, and there are three products
A, B and C designed to fulfill that desire. Do you honestly think the
marketing industry is stupid enough to primarily be engaged in trying to sell
product B to people who DON'T have desire X? Of course not. The idea is to
convince people that product B does a better job of fulfilling desire X than
competing products A and C. Or at least that it optimises some other variable
– it might not be universally better, but it may be a whole lot cheaper, or
easier to get a hold of, or have better customer support.

Real[1] marketing is mostly concerned with finding the people who have a
particular need, and making sure they are aware of a product that fulfills
that need, and what the strengths of that product are.

Marketing is fundamentally about increasing sales as much as possible with as
little expenses as possible. The most efficient way to do this is to find
people who already would have wanted your product if only they were aware that
it exists, and make them aware that it exists. Convincing people to buy things
that fulfills needs they never had is possible, but takes a lot of effort. Too
much to be worth it, in most cases.[2]

\----

[1] This may sound like I'm moving the goalposts, but all I'm really trying to
do is guard myself against the obvious "but I got this viagra marketing spam
email which does not fit your description" rebuttal.

[2] Yes, there are plenty of "artificial needs" to go around, but most of them
are created by culture, of which only a smaller part is marketing. They're
rarely created by a single, hugely effective marketing campaign. (I say
rarely, because De Beers comes to mind...)

~~~
rexpop
[1] no true scotsman is exactly what you are doing. [2] it's nonsense to say
"artificial needs are created by culture, of which only a smaller part is
marketing," when marketing, consumerism, and commercialism are so thoroughly
pervasive in our culture. Hell, even religious holy days have become utterly
commercialized. Industrialized people are inundated with advertising.

I think you're absolutely right about "real" marketing, but I think you're
giving it too much credit. "unreal" marketing is much more real.

------
mjw1007
I forgot that « sell personal interest profiles to retailers » line was there.
As a futurologist he's not bad at all.

~~~
hkmurakami
A friend put it succinctly: "Stallman is crazy, but he is not wrong."

~~~
forinti
I think this is unfair. Stallman is seen this way, I think, because of his
appearance. If he cut his hair and wore a suit, he would be the Ralph Nader of
software.

If you watch his interviews, he is very calm, precise, and careful to explain
his ideas.

Maybe I'm radical, but he seems a very reasonable person to me.

~~~
vinceguidry
I think that, on the whole, his eccentricity and out-there image has helped
his cause and not hurt it. He's far more instantly-relatable to both geeks and
normal people, whereas someone like Bruce Schneier really only relates to
geeks.

------
BlindWanderer
I remember reading this in the 90's and thinking it was yet another piece of
dystopian speculative science fiction. Once or twice a decade I reread it to
refresh my memory or when I cite it. Each time I'm struck by how it's gotten
closer and closer to truth; and yet the story has not changed.

~~~
Arizhel
You should try watching "The Running Man" from 1987, starring Arnold
Schwarzenegger. At the time, it was a somewhat silly dystopian movie,
extremely loosely based on some Stephen King story, with a really unique cast
including Jesse Ventura, Mick Fleetwood, Dweezil Zappa, and Richard Dawson
from "Family Feud".

Now, 30 years later, it seems remarkably prescient.

------
the_greyd
Here's another good one about self driving cars and the right to modify its
code - "Car Wars" by Cory Doctorow : [http://this.deakin.edu.au/culture/car-
wars](http://this.deakin.edu.au/culture/car-wars)

~~~
userbinator
Whenever Cory Doctorow is mentioned in this context I feel obligated to post
these articles of his:

[http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html](http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html)

[http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html](http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html)

------
quickben
Funny, as time goes on, that story is gaining in popularity and relevance.

Went straight from SF to Contemporary in a decade.

~~~
mod
FWIW it's 20 years old now

------
dandare
I am perplexed: is the author against DRM itself or only against the ways it
is being misused?

Should everyone have the right to read Harry Potter without paying Rowling a
dime? Because overpriced textbooks is a problem of US' universities, not of
the fact that you should not use someone else's work for free.

~~~
dandelion_lover
The author is Richard Stallman [0]. Yes, he is against DRM itself. Consider
this FAQ:
[https://defectivebydesign.org/faq](https://defectivebydesign.org/faq)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman)

------
13of40
Next let's talk about the right to live on a piece of land without paying
someone else for the privilege.

~~~
sangnoir
Step 1. Get the biggest, baddest gun

Step 2. Plant a flag[0]

Step 3. Declare the land now belongs to you and a descendants.

0\.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8)

~~~
branchless
Love this:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COQgS0MUcAA7-RK.png](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COQgS0MUcAA7-RK.png)

~~~
cousin_it
I have a lot of sympathy for that argument, but what if the land was bought,
not inherited?

~~~
branchless
Recently? They can be compensated, up to a point. We can change this mess.

~~~
cousin_it
The difficulty of transition seems to be one of the main reasons why Georgism
rarely gets implemented in practice. It's having a bit of internet revival
lately though, I hope more people become aware of it.

------
merpnderp
Given the nearly hundred million people murdered by their own communist
governments, people would be wise to be afraid of that word.

~~~
dang
Please keep generic ideological arguments off Hacker News. They're always the
same, which is the opposite of gratifying intellectual curiosity, which is
what this site is for.

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14333800](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14333800)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
merpnderp
So someone can say "You shouldn't in general be afraid of communism" but if I
give a reason why they might be afraid, I'm being generally ideological? That
is an interesting double standard you have there.

~~~
dang
That's not what he said, actually.

You can't conclude a double standard from an isolated comment, though (for
obvious reasons) people often try. Anyone who cares to look at the history
will find plenty of users on all sides being chided or banned for breaking the
rules. Does it all add up equally? I have no idea.

------
jstewartmobile
This thing reads like FSF for kindergarteners.

Stallman would make more headway with his politics if he had a little less
contempt for his audience.

~~~
skrebbel
I think you're reading too much into it. He's just not a very good novelist.

------
MarkMc
Shallow Response:

Why couldn't Dan just create a new user account for Lissa? It would allow her
to use his computer without giving her access to his books.

Deeper Response:

I'm not really convinced by Richard Stallman's argument here. When a movie
studio sells Blu-ray discs, the studio can place restrictions on how you use
that disc: the studio will charge you much more to play the movie in a cinema
than at home. This is a good thing because it allows the studio to receive an
income much closer to the total value that people receive from watching the
movie. If the the studio was unable to place restrictions on how people watch
the movie, maybe the movie would not get made in the first place and everyone
loses.

Books are in the same category. If the writer can sell you the right to read a
book but not to share it with other people then the writer will receive a
larger income in total. Without that larger income the book may not get
written at all.

~~~
gkya
If I buy a book it is MINE. Or, more broadly, when I buy something, I insist
on it being mine. And once a thing is legally mine, I don't want any
interference whatsoever from anybody in how I use it or whom I give it to or
share it with. If I buy a Blu-Ray disc, the magnetic dents physically present
in the matter that represent the ones and zeroes that make up the sights on my
abyss belong to me. If a movie company want to restrict the use of their
magnetic dents they better screen at theatres only as when I have the magnetic
dents, I have the moral rights and the technology to reproduce and
redistribute them. Also, in this day and age, disc sales probably mostly
benefit disc sellers, and the best idea is to put your movie on
YouTube/Vimeo/sth. after theatrical releases. Spinning disx with magnetic
dents are by now primitive, and their use is to limit the consumption and sell
peripherals.

WRT books, I'm among those who prefer dead tree, because that's part of how I
work, and I believe digital can't replace print books, but that does not mean
no innovation is possible: Printing-press-on-demand should be introduced where
I can order a printed copy of a book and then the seller prints one from a
digital copy and sends me that. If book shops want to continue, they can just
bulk-order print copies and put them on their shelves. Lots of money goes to
intermediaries in book business and if you're not a world-wide best-seller, as
an author you don't earn much if anything at all. And you're worse off if you
want to be like Kafka or Calvino instead of J. K. Rowling.

~~~
niceperson
Well, it's not yours. It belongs to the person (or voluntary group) that
created it.They set a price on it and terms. You can either whine about the
terms and refuse to buy it or accept the terms and buy it. Anything else is
fraud.

When you buy it and accept the conditions, it is yours but only if you follow
those conditions. Otherwise, you're committing fraud.

------
gech
As a conservative, your story does not obligate me to ensure other's right to
read

~~~
H4CK3RM4N
Are you honestly not concerned in the slightest about a future in which people
have to go into debt in order to read textbooks?

~~~
tanderson92
They have freedom! They have "access" to books and reading in that they can
pay for it if they can afford to do so. Not reading, whether due to
disinterest or lack of financies, is simply a life choice.

Hm, It sounds similar to a contemporary debate, I just can't place it... /s

~~~
perfmode
No one ever remained illiterate because they didn't have access to books! /s

~~~
supremesaboteur
Yeah, we should have "free" books. Government should produce and distribute
books. It saves us the time and effort from having to think for ourselves too!

~~~
tanderson92
Are you opposed to the public school system and public libraries in general,
or just for the purposes of this joke?

~~~
supremesaboteur
I don't like the idea of any government controlling how I think. Also I feel
that governments are not very good at their jobs. If those problems can be
addressed I am OK with the policies you put forward. But my main problem was
you caricaturing an entire political spectrum of opinions to make a point

~~~
tanderson92
Have you found the government trying to control how you think via the long
history of the public library system? I recall it was started by one Benjamin
Franklin. Surely the liberals would have won by now.

As for caricaturing a point, there is of course a vast difference between the
right to read what one wants and the government taking over the entire
publishing industry and controlling what ideas are published.

~~~
supremesaboteur
> Have you found the government trying to control how you think via the long
> history of the public library system?

I was talking about government controlled education system.

> As for caricaturing a point, there is of course a vast difference between
> the right to read what one wants and the government taking over the entire
> publishing industry and controlling what ideas are published.

I was trying to point out the absurdity of caricatures with one of my own

