RIAA Brief Attacks Free Software Foundation 554
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has requested permission to file a response to the amicus curiae brief filed by the Free Software Foundation in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Boston case against a Boston University grad student accused of having downloaded some song files when in his teens. In their proposed response, the RIAA lawyers personally attacked The Free Software Foundation, Ray Beckerman (NewYorkCountryLawyer), and NYCL's blog, 'Recording Industry vs. The People.' The 9-page response (PDF) — 4 pages longer than the document to which it was responding — termed the FSF an organization 'dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs,' and accused the FSF of having an 'open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies. They called 'Recording Industry vs. The People' an 'anti-recording industry web site' and stated that NYCL 'is currently subject to a pending sanctions motion for his conduct in representing a defendant' (without disclosing that plaintiffs' lawyers were 'subject to a pending motion for Rule 11 sanctions for their conduct in representing plaintiffs' in that very case)."
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
"anti-recording industry website" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"anti-recording industry website" (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti-Copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
The FSF's centerpiece, the GPL, depends wholly on copyright for enforcement.
So saying that the FSF has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights" clearly demonstrates either a lack of research, a lack of understanding, or a lack of honesty on the part of the RIAA's lawyers.
Who cares about the length? (Score:5, Insightful)
"4 pages longer than the document to which it was responding"
And?
RIAA is a criminal organization (Score:2, Insightful)
RIAA has it right (Score:4, Insightful)
I love the FSF, but which of the quotes listed here is inaccurate? The FSF *does* want to get rid of copy restrictions, and does dislike the RIAA. Although, I would say the FSF hates on the RIAA, not the "recording industry", but I suspect the RIAA doesn't see the difference.
No "Duh" Tag (Score:3, Insightful)
This is news how?
The only thing newsworthy I got from this is that the RIAA is just slightly more petty than I thought. Of course the Free Software Foundation is about making software "FREE", and of course, anyone with a blog aimed at bringing to light the RIAA's idiocy is going to be the target of their Ire. The thing people need to get over, and real quick, is the thought that the second they see anywhere in media the acronym RIAA, that they need to immediately post it on Slashdot.
We also need to realize, as a whole, that the RIAA hates us as much as we hate them, and we also need to note that the RIAA is a litigous bunch of pr1cks and that they will bring DMCA takedown notices, and law suits, and anything their multi-million dollar legal team can come up with against anyone who thinks differently than they do. The thing is, they have this crazy thing called MONEY backing them. When you have a band like Metallica, or Universal Studios supporting your cause, you can then afford frivolous lawsuits and such because money is no object
What we need, to effectively fight back against their idiocy, is SUPPORTERS. Find some corporation (good luck) that shares our ideals, or even a political movement. Then get them to help with the money to cover the expenses of all these court proceedings, offer legal support to the unfortunate few that get randomly targeted by the RIAA (like the ACLU does) and find someone to help us get some lobbying going in Washington.
Those are the things we need to do, or maybe even get some of us geeks to inundate media with easily comprehended information that average Joe blow can read and care about, and help spread the word to the masses about their evils. Find a way to make the average citizen give a crap about this issue, and you've found a way to get some money and influence behind this issue on a side that is NOT the RIAA. But until then, we'll always be a flea, biting the back of the Mammoth that is Industrialized politics at work.
Uh-oh (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't wait to see what RMS is going to say in his reply :-)
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:1, Insightful)
Probably because they keep losing. If they make themselves loud enough in the courts, a judge is bound to find something he agrees with and rule in their favor. They're grandstanding to win.
Or it could be because they now have a more sympathetic justice department.
Re:Their aim is improving (Score:5, Insightful)
Targeting lawyers instead of, say, people who don't even know how to defend is "getting better at picking targets" when it comes to law suits that are not far from simple harrassment?
Dunno if I can follow your train of thought.
Attack their lawyer... (Score:1, Insightful)
If their facts are wrong, attack their law; if their law is strong, attack their facts; if both their law and their facts are strong, attack their lawyer. I guess we can now assume that both their facts and their law pretty much suck 'cuz they're attacking somebody *elses* lawyer...
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't innovate, litigate.
If you can't litigate, legislate.
Re:RIAA has it right (Score:5, Insightful)
As it has been pointed out above, and despite being modded redundand I want to stress it again, the FSF relies on copyright law. One of its cornerstones is the GPL, and like all licenses it does depend on enforcable copyright law or code protected by it could deliberately be used in proprietary software and neither the FSF nor anyone else could do anything about it.
Re:RIAA has it right (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say that the aspersions cast concerning Beckerman and the "pending sanctions motion" would be inaccurate. If I were in a lawsuit, I could potentially move to have sanctions entered against my opponent for various miscellaneous reasons, such as making out with the court reporter while the judge's back was turned, etc., regardless of whether any of those things were true or not. For the two seconds it would take the judge to deny my motion, that motion would be pending. At that very moment, someone could file a brief in another court involving the person who is my opponent in my case, stating that there is a pending sanctions motion against that person.
In Beckerman's case, while the motion isn't based on pure ridiculousness as in my straw man above, it's still based solely on allegations made by the RIAA against Beckerman with no consideration of any evidence.
While the assertion may not be "incorrect", as there is a pending sanctions motion against Beckerman, the fact that the RIAA frames it as a reason to discredit Beckerman makes it inaccurate.
Re:Then we're fucked (Score:3, Insightful)
Very good call.
Though, I suspect that FSF would take a page from the corporate playbook and re-incorporate in a friendlier country, transfer the FSF copyrights there, leaving a powerless shell-subsidiary in the US.
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
The FSF's centerpiece, the GPL, depends wholly on copyright for enforcement. So saying that the FSF has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights" clearly demonstrates either a lack of research, a lack of understanding, or a lack of honesty on the part of the RIAA's lawyers.
Picky picky.
The truth has never been seen as an obstacle by the RIAA's lawyers.
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)
So saying that the FSF has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights" clearly demonstrates either a lack of research, a lack of understanding, or a lack of honesty on the part of the RIAA's lawyers.
That may well become the 'classic understatement of the year'...it is a strong contender...win, lose, or draw.
BTW, well said. I did not mean/imply any sarcasm in my above comment!
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"anti-recording industry website" (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, they fail to mention that the FSF is dedicated to doing this through legal means.
Hell, it isn't just through legal means, it is through practising what they preach with their own creations. Something RIAA members haven't been so keen to do themselves what with all of their shady accounting schemes to bilk creators out of their copyrights.
Re:"anti-recording industry website" (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless, of course, I've completely misunderstood the FSF's goals. Which is entirely possible.
Re:"anti-recording industry website" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not the neo-cons that we have to worry about. It is which oligarchs have the reins of which legislators and judges. It is beginning to look like the oligarchs that control the Obama group are going to take our intellectual and cultural freedoms from us, rather than our constitutional freedoms.
Re:We're not *your* friend, buddy! (Score:3, Insightful)
The part where it works against them.
Re:Over-reaching much? (Score:5, Insightful)
You describe the backlash as though it hasn't already happened. Remember Tower Records? Virgin Megastore?
The music industry is dying, and this is their last stand.
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh, I just want them to stop this nonsense so I can go back and buy some CDs. With all the time this is stretching out there's a huge number of albums that I haven't been able to buy without breaking my boycott.
But, I'm sure they've just recharacterized that tiny drop in sales as "due to pirates" and used it as an excuse to waste even more money on piracy prevention and buying elected officials.
Re:RIAA has it right (Score:2, Insightful)
Without copyright law there will be no proprietary software.
Wrong. It would just be full of DRM and the source code would still be held as a trade secret.
Ah ah ah "violent bias" (Score:3, Insightful)
That reminds me, pardon my Godwin, of an old line from the late Pierre Desproges: "You will never manage to completely convince me that jews weren't at least a LITTLE bit guilty of irrationnal anti-nazi bias."
My favorite quote (Score:5, Insightful)
And then in the very next sentence:
I mean... unless something has changed in their pattern, they only have documentation of one legal download and that being from an investigation team that may or may not be licensed.
Why has no attorney ever taken a look at the finances and circumstances associated with one particular song - how much revenue did this earn in the year prior, the year during, and the year after the alleged infringement. Most of the songs that I've noted have been out for at least a decade if not two, with little or no marketing, and zero spins on any of the radio stations I listen to.
Another argument I never see in any of these is the challenge the RIAAs ownership of the material. A 20 year old song may or may not have a clear ownership record, and with the history of the industry, you really should establish that the recording artists, the producers, and the songwriters all have given the RIAA authority willingly and contractually prior to the filing of any individual lawsuit.
Re:RIAA is a criminal organization (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIAA is only incidentally a criminal organization. The law is just an inconvenient encumberance.
The real purpose of the RIAA is to make money. Lots of money. To do this, they have become an evangelical organization. They are trying to create and perpetuate a repressive belief system.
In action, they closely resemble an inquisition.
They are trying to create and enforce a belief system. Any tactic is justified if it will maintain their orthodox beliefs. These beliefs don't have to make sense. They just have to be valued.
* Copyright infringement equals piracy.
* Copying music is the same as theft of tangible property.
* Unapproved distribution of an idea requires infinite punishment.
These are not rational thoughts. They are elements of a repressive belief system.
Miles
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything in the GPLv3 is intentional (well, aside from bugs/loopholes). That means that the so-called 'viral' aspect of the GPLv3 are of course by design. This is a good thing, and Microsoft do the same too (try reselling legally purchased Microsoft Office binaries patched with your modifications and see how viral the Microsoft EULA is!).
The RIAA are an organisation strongly against Fair Use and the Public Domain. DRM effectively makes perpetual copyright because it perpetually protects the mechanism, not the content, and DRM is protected no matter how many rights it removes. The idea of DRM and modern music companies is to take away your rights (via law changes, DRM etc.) and then sell them back to you. Want that song on your computer? Buy a copy. Want that song on your car? Buy a copy. DRM can and will allow that kind of control, but remember that patents can do the same (patents on codecs, mp3 etc.).
I'm glad to see that DRM is falling away in music, and I hope that it's only a matter of time until it falls away from movies too.
Re:Not completely inaccurate. (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, saying that the FSF is "dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs" is extremely accurate.
That would imply that the FSF is attacking the right to create and sell non-free software. That would be a bizarre goal, and as far as I can see it is not the case. However I can see why the RIAA's lawyers might want to ascribe bizarre aims to an organisation they wish to discredit.
The FSF appears to be concerned primarily with protecting our right to publish and use free software. What's truly bizarre is that these rights should even need defending.
Re:No "Duh" Tag (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIAA is not beyond our reach and their vain attempts to discredit Mr. Beckerman and defame their opponents, which are reminiscent of the Scientology theory of "lawsuits to harass and annoy, not to win" and policies of "fair game", prove that well reasoned counter-arguments from informed informed groups and individuals can be brutally effective in exposing the malicious nature of the RIAA spamigation campaigns, the flaws in their legal arguments, and the specious nature of their "evidence" for all to see. In fact, we should take it as hopeful a sign when they single us out for special attacks because it proves that we are being effective. The RIAA has lost the initiative as the shock of their initial lawsuit charge has petered out and now they are stuck in a melee which they cannot win against a new generation of music consumers whom they have now lost forever as customers due to their own ineptness and incompetence which they have also repeatedly demonstrated during their lawsuits (contradicting even their own statements and arguments in different cases over the same issues).
You are exactly right. The reason they went off on a tangent attacking FSF and myself is that they are losing. Their aimless, pointless, blustery ad hominem atack on the messengers simply calls attention to the fact that they have no suitable response to the message.
Well-structured ad hominem attack (Score:5, Insightful)
I've noticed that people resort to ad hominem when they haven't a better arguement to use.
The 9-page brief looks like a very nicely structured ad hominem attack, but that's all it is.
Or, to paraphrase, "Don't listen to him, he's just a lawyer! Whereas I am the True Friend of the Court, he's your enemy! Actually, he's mine, but I'd prefer you thought of him as yours".
Re:Well, is he? (Score:3, Insightful)
"pending sanctions motion" means the RIAA has made a motion to sanction NYCL. The thing is, almost every lawyer in every case is at some point (probably for most of the trail) subject to a "pending sanctions motion". Either side can enter a motion for just about anything. Sanctions motions are SOP, both sides will file them when the other side does something they don't like. The more important question is whether the judge will grant the motion or reject it.
It's much like lawsuits in general. I could sue you tomorrow for failing to pay me a million dollars and move for summary judgement on the matter as soon as discovery's over. You would then be technically correctly described as "subject to a pending motion for judgement for a million dollars". Of course that'll end as soon as you point out that I haven't produced anything showing you ever agreed to pay me anything and the judge dismisses the case, but it's a correct description up until that point. That's where the RIAA's motion stands right now: on the record, but it's a real hail-mary.
Take off your goggles...look around you.... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, I feel you are saying:
"We are preaching to the choir, and will never get anywhere"
If I have misunderstood, then correct me...I can take it, and welcome it, in fact.
Working on the above perspective, I have to reply to counter argue.
I will use myself as an example.
I lurked here for several years before getting an account.
Why?
I learned stuff that was new to me, but was dismissed as 'old news' by those with your attitude. Those comments still came through, in spite of those like you.
I found interesting things to explore and learn about, and still do here on slashdot...every day!
I found out about GNU/Linux on slashdot, despite you, and the fact it existed before I was aware that it was news.
There is benefit to 'preaching to the choir', as the choir grows, and talks to others.
I've learned about many things that I had no previous clue that they existed from the 'preaching to the choir' bunch here on slashdot.
Again, if I have misunderstood, please accept my apology, and correct me.
If my assumption was correct, or close, then think about what I said, and have some patience...we were all n00bs at one point....there will always be n00bs, and the future is full of n00bs...in reference to anything.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's always some dastardly evildoers trying to steal our freedoms, nowadays, isn't there. If it's not the extremists it's the communists, or the democrats, or the republicans or the liberals, or the PC brigade with all their health and safety mumbo jumbo, coming to take away our precious, precious freedoms (it's our freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedommmmms, preeeeeeeeeeeeeeecious). As we stare at this wonderous package of glory. Our freedoms, which we have, and those ever growing hordes of zealots - from one side of the political spectrum or another (depending on our own beliefs) - coming to rip it from our hands and hurl it in to the volcanoes of Mordor or something. Or freedoms! Please! Won't someone think of the freedoms!
It's certainly an emotive issue.
And if people actually did care then maybe they'd stop slinging shit into the eyes of fabricated enemies for 15 seconds and realise that there is a middle ground in which you can actually work together and not just boil it down to some pitiful good/evil pantomime.
Re:Ok . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
They act like a government agency but they can only take civil action, regardless of the FBI's doting on copyright abusers. If they were to stay silent a moment too long then what little power they do bear would dissolve.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's always some dastardly evildoers trying to steal our freedoms, nowadays, isn't there.
Nowadays? Not a moment in Humanity's history was a calm silence where groups of people weren't trying to impose their will on others by penalty of death or disruption. It's a story that will long repeat itself and is unlikely to ever end.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not the neo-cons that we have to worry about. It is which oligarchs have the reins of which legislators and judges. It is beginning to look like the oligarchs that control the Obama group are going to take our intellectual and cultural freedoms from us, in addition to our constitutional freedoms.
FTFY
Anyone who still thinks that Obama and the rest of his administration will suddenly revert course on constitutional freedoms from the last 8 years has been living under a rock since the Inauguration. He is a politician. Politicians like power. They, repubs and dems, are not going to remove some law in place that benefits them, even if the other side used it first.
Re:Over-reaching much? (Score:5, Insightful)
The music industry is dying, and this is their last stand.
You are correct. The existing music industry infrastructure is dying. Music won't.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that litigation costs scale badly.
Beyond a certain threshold, it is cheaper to legislate first.
Re:"anti-recording industry website" (Score:2, Insightful)
There are two senses of the word "legal means" in English. One is "means that are in conformance with or allowed by law". The other is "by means of judicial process".
My observation is that the FSF is in it both ways.
Re:Over-reaching much? (Score:5, Insightful)
the art of music in western civilization may even come alive again if we can get rid of these cartels.
Re:WRONG, missing the point completely (Score:2, Insightful)
No of course they wouldn't, closed source businesses would hiss and spit bloody murder, but the AC you linked to didn't even suggest they would do that.
But that doesn't mean that over the longer term they'd do well - youngsters today somewhat overestimate the difficulty of reverse engineering from binary. Open-source programming-as-a-service-provision businesses would (already do anyway) spring up to replicate any functionality provided by closed stuff in the old system.
See, really, "programmer" *should* be a professional class like "doctor", "lawyer" - as a consulting programmer providing a service you're advising people how to run their computing machines (professing on the subject!) ...Really detailed, step by step advice... Open source basically just means that you're free to reuse existing advice verbatim when supplying that advice. It reflects closely the situation with contract terms, which lawyers freely copy/paste (when it comes to their _own_ work, they see the benefit of sharing) since they set it up so that contract texts themselves exempt from copyright in most systems. See, the lawyers know themselves that copyright is wrong...
Pound on the table (Score:5, Insightful)
When you don't have the facts on your side, pound on the law.
When you don't have the law on your side, pound on the facts.
When you have neither on your side, pound on the table.
When an opposing party start attacking people on their beliefs, you know they are in bad shape.
Re:Well-structured ad hominem attack (Score:2, Insightful)
The 9-page brief looks like a very nicely structured ad hominem attack, but that's all it is.
It was the work of an incompetent, untrained lawyer who has no respect for the law, and no understanding of what a lawyer is supposed to be.
Speaking of ad hominem ...
Ray, I'd mod you +1 Ironic if I could.
Re:Their aim is improving (Score:5, Insightful)
NYCL is not just a harder target to hit, he is also a much more valuable one. If the RIAA can take him out of the equation, then they can go back to pushing around children and crippled grandmothers, but like any bully they can't properly operate with anyone actually standing up to them.
What comes next is the lawyer equivalent of meeting at the playground after school. If the RIAA can put enough hurt on NYCL, RMS and anyone else who has been willing to take a stand, then they go back to stealing lunch money... otherwise it is quite likely that they'll be shown for puffed up cowards and never be taken seriously again.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats and Republicans both hate the constitution; they just hate different parts of it (1st amendment & 2nd amendment for example).
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:"anti-recording industry website" (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually they place only one restriction on it: if you want to copy, modify and redistribute my software, you may not give recipients any fewer rights to do so themselves than you received from me. Well, perhaps two: and you may not "forget" to tell them they have those rights.
Which, come to think of it, is probably a pretty draconian restriction to a certain group who want to play with everybody else's toys but don't want anybody to play with theirs. It's amusing how many issues today look to me an awful lot like the one bratty kid in the sandbox.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:4, Insightful)
No kidding, Ray. I've never seen the truth be a problem for them- they go plowing right on with their stuff, never mind that they're suing kids that could never have done the things they're accusing them of, the elderly, and even the dead. There's a reason I tell people to just not deal with anything that touches their crap. ANYTHING. Any use contributes to the network effect that fuels this insanity. Just say no. Just like with drugs.
Agreed. Especially important, now that they are trying to weasel their way in by cutting deals with MySpace and YouTube. Very important for people not to patronize those new joint ventures. They should go where the good music is: independent music.
Re:Well, is he? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
In what possible way can that matter?
The justice department has limited resources. What they choose to focus those resources on matters a lot.
Ex-RIAA lawyers are likely to focus on RIAA concerns, if for no other reason than that's what they're familiar with.
That's a very bad thing and a form of regulatory capture [wikipedia.org].
---
It's not piracy, it's sharing. Didn't your parents teach you to share?
Re:Ok . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Now they have a cushy new job in the DOJ they have a different paymaster
Never heard of bribery?
Re:Then we're fucked (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not an attack (Score:4, Insightful)
Sort of. The BSD/MIT licence doesn't just allow somebody to slightly modify and close the source. It allows somebody to do that and re-licence under a closed copyright that prevents copying (as long as credit/attribution for the original work is given) - which I think is what Stallman is really against.
Without copyright, if somebody tried to do the above, (like Microsoft did with the AD Kerberos group extensions, for instance), you would be able to decompile Microsoft's code, identify changes from the original release, clean up and optimize the changed/decompiled source, and re-release it in commented source form, all without fear of legal reprisals. That would certainly be more work than the current system under the GPL, but you would effectively still have most of the rights that Stallman advocates for: the ability to own, maintain, and redistribute software you have placed an investment in, be it through development or purchase.
So I think Stallman would prefer the current status quo with GPL protection because itrequires less maintenance effort once GPL code has enough market share that network effects work in its favour, but would be satisfied with a copyright-free world.
Re:Not Terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
Comparing Stallman's statements to the stated purpose of the FSF is like blaming Bush's foreign policy on the average American citizen. It's just not valid.
Re:Not Terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that it's empty rhetoric that's completely irrelevant to the legal argument. Somebody could be a politician notorious for advocating legalizing marijuana. If they saw and filmed you assaulting without provocation some guy on the street who had light up a joint, just because that politician advocates for marijuana doesn't render invalid or affect their recordings and testimony of your unprovoked assault.
You could try that kind of crappy approach if you're in front of a jury in republican country, but the opposing lawyer should object as soon as it was clear where you were going with the line of reasoning and the judge should sustain it and slap you with contempt of court if you persisted. Submitting that kind of argument in writing to the judge doesn't make it any more proper or relevant or render you immune to repercussions.
In other words, being a "Commie", while indicating a significant misunderstanding of human nature, doesn't automatically invalidate a person's direct observations and arguments on a point of law. The kind of rhetoric you are championing might be unfortunately effective in grade school, campaign trails, and government committee hearings but, by long established precedent, it has no place in a court of law.
Re:Their aim is improving (Score:3, Insightful)
In a legal action, a legally qualified target can often have less latitude afforded them in their defense than unqualified targets.
Going after NYCL for, say, defamation not only ties up a thorn in their side in a court case, but is harder to defend because it is expected that NYCL should know the law precisely.
The idea that "ignorance of the law is not a defense" may be true, but only in a criminal suit, it affords you some breathing room in a civil suit, to my knowledge.
Going after the FSF gets them money from places other than the recording industry, if it is believed credible. Stallman has pissed off a few too many corporate magnates, and they have money and the will. Microsoft might put cash into this, for instance.
Seriously, the game just got kicked up a notch, and it is possible for the RIAA to prevail simply because of the "torrents" of money they might receive from these sorts of actions. Justice can be bought.
The opening is over. The average Joe is undoubtedly aware that copying is illegal, and will no longer be afforded any breathing room. It's time for mid-game. They're trying to take down Joe's advocates.
Watch out. There are many more gambits to be played. This is a long game.
--
Toro
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:3, Insightful)
Either we have freedom - and it is absolute, or we don't have any. Thus, at present we don't have any. A person without freedom is - a slave.
..but by your definition, Freedom = Anarchy (i.e one can do anything he or she wants to whomever they want whenever they want) ...which isn't really conducive for a civil society. The kind of freedom you're talking about exists, but you're gonna have to strip naked and head to the jungle.
Re:"anti-recording industry website" (Score:3, Insightful)
Since I am not a programmer, I would pick a program that would better suit my needs. I do not really care about the availability of the source code (I wouldn't be able to understand or modify the program, unless it was written in Delphi7).
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)
That would also be breaking his boycott. While the RIAA companies might not see any money from the sale of a used CD, it still increases demand for that CD. Buying a used CD means that someone else who is not boycotting, who may have bought it, will instead have to buy a new copy, thus delivering the money into the hands of the label.
You can't get around not having what you're boycotting by buying used, downloading, etc. The purpose of a boycott is to send the message that you'd rather go without than to support the seller's actions. Buying used doesn't send that message.