[pp.int.general] free software video streaming

[Travis McCrea]

Maxime,
How exactly would making it available with Youtube and other "non-free" methods and services negate us ALSO using OOG and free methods? Using RMS's email, it says to not use a non-free service to distribute his speech... not "please make your primary method a free method and then you can also broadcast it any other way".

If you are threatening legal action or shaming ("do you want to be another lying political party?"), there is still the undertone that we are not allowed to use the speech in whatever method or format we want. That is limiting free sharing of culture and knowledge. This is a weak DRM but a DRM non-the-less. It is the "if you want to play our game, you have to play it while connected to the internet" type DRM. 

Again, I encourage RMS' fanaticism, as it has a place in the world which is very important. We need more people like Richard in the world fighting on the front lines for free software reform (and the other things he stands for). However, we must also realize (as I said in the previous email) that there is a place for both rational political organizations which effect change legislatively AND more radical groups which change the public perspective and bring them closer to understanding what the political party does.

Greenpeace turns a lot of people off with what they do (or more what they did in the past, they don't turn many people off with their letter writing campaigns now), but once we had a radical group promoting environmental change... the more moderate green people who were saying "hey... we are not those guy's, but look at the good things that Green can do" and it was the perfect mix. You need both to make a great movement. 

I am disappointed RMS cannot accept that we both have our place, and isn't happy until everyone does things his own way. I am very successful at what I do, and RMS is incredibly successful at what he does. I don't walk into the FSF and start demanding they make changes to become more moderate so they can appeal to a larger audience, because I know his purpose is to rally the base and take people who already are tech savvy and "engineer brained" get them to become free software users and developers... I just wish he would have a less combative tone when he comes here demanding we become a radical free software party which will not use any non-free software to promote our cause.

Richard's principals are no more or less strong as my own. I just choose to appeal to a broader audience, and to grab the more moderate people and show them why copyright is flawed and how we can make the world a better place. Once I (and Scott, and countless others) have converted them to Piratism, then you can bring them in and further explain how free software is the greatest and why they shouldn't use proprietary and freedom limiting software.

Maxime Rouquet wrote:
> On 02/16/2013 08:14 AM, Travis McCrea wrote:
>> If you want to "manage" the "rights" on how we share your speech
>> "digitally", then perhaps you should take a step back and start
>> reading what you preach on your website.
>
> Please, he did not asked to put people in jail or charge a fine...
>
> This is about principles. Such comparison with what the copyright
> monopoly does is fallacious.
>
>> I think that the pirate parties who book you should make sure they 
>> don't agree to something as silly as what you require.
>
> (This is not silly.)
>
>> I cheered on Aaron Swartz when he set information free
>
> The speech was and will remain free. The question is how freely it
> will be distributed.
>
> Putting it on Youtube would prevent people from accessing it, and
> encourage others not to look for free ways to access to data on the
> Internet.
>
> Sharing it with a torrent and putting it on a website where it can be
> downloaded and/or watched from a browser will be a demonstration to
> everybody that we do not need Youtube or any other intermediary.
>
>> when I see your messages on this mailing list you look more like a 
>> religious zealot than a person who cares about the cause.
>
> Like I said, the question is about the strength of each and everyone's
> principles. You should not accuse people of being religious fanatics
> just because they aspire to stronger principles than you do.