From harelb Wed May 15 15:43:55 1991 Date: Wed, 15 May 91 02:48:44 -0400 From: harelb (Harel Barzilai) To: harelb, mathrich@umcvmb.bitnet In-Reply-To: Richard Stallman's message of Tue, 14 May 91 21:35:38 -0400 <9105150135.AA00681@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Subject: My letter to RMS re "look and feel" I suggest you read (although skim would be enough) his letter to me w/ "look and feel" enclosure. I hope I was decently successful w/out streching the point too much, in trying to connect issues of concern to his organization with "our" type activism... Harel ################################################################## Subject: Re: look and feel (plus re: influencying Congress in gen.) Date: Tue, 14 May 91 21:35:38 -0400 From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) Here are my ideas about look and feel lawsuits. Do you agree? Definitely a well thought out piece with which I agree. I have a few comments, mainly deriving from my experiences as in activist on more "political" causes. People are indoctrinated with a "free market ideology" whose *words* ("free market") they are familiar with, but whose meaning we are not encouraged to analyze. If we thought in term of concepts and not labels, we would see that both "free market" and "socialist" programs could benefit the vast majority of people; if we think in terms of labels, the words we though were wonderful can lead us down th path to a one-party totalitarian system in one case, or to a different system of exploitation of the many by the few in the guise of the "free market" which where the playing field is actually not level, and "free" means free when it is profitable for the "elites", and not free when that is profitable. This have-the-cake-and-eat-it is possible, again, when the public "thinks" in labels, not in terms of values (and what options the labels represent, and who they are for (in practice, or who they *should* be for (i.e. benefit))) not in terms of what things are *for* -- e.g. as you mentioned what *copyrights are for* (historically and normatively)-- and this answers your question in the Manifesto "WHY DO FREE-MARKET ADVOCATES REFUSE TO LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE [IN THIS CASE]?" -- i.e., in our culture we have been raised with certain values which make people naturally suspicious of such an enterprise, which is very communistic (as opposed to individualistic) in its nature(*), even if they would (otherwise) quite clearly benefit. My point is that in such a climate one cannot take too much care in explicitly spelling out, in terms a 10 year old could understand, that in making laws we have to ask ourselves a such basic questions as: what is the purpose of this law, to maximize profits for the biggest corporations, and if not, what other goals might there be? and what effects on these other goals might each piece of proposed legislation have? People are trained not to ask these questions in the present political culture, so it is important to be as explicit as possible, not matter how obvious the concepts, about what alternatives (and what philosophies) we are in the position to choose between. There are some none too obscure parallels between these struggles GNU is involved with; and between the relatively new and relatively radical concept of "consumers' rights" (as in Ralph Nader); and between less new concepts such as the right of Labor to organize, which was quite "radical" at the time; and between contemporary questions about an efficient, rational, and equitable health care system for example [send the 1-line message GET HEALTH INSURANCE ACTIV-L to LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET for some stats]. If the alternative choices can be spelled out clearly for the public in any of these cases, the choices are clear; if we let slogans ("anarchy" ; "welfare state" ; "bureaucracy" (despite this being far higher under U.S. health system as above file's stats&studies show, e.g.) etc), things do not bode well. The slogans are such that government intervention is not "intervention" when they benefit big corporations (nor may we speak of "subsidies" for them, or "welfare" for the Pentagon in the present political culture), while pro-consumer "intervention" measures which would clearly benefit the vast majority of the population elicits from the pundits endless agonized expressions of concern about their propriety and possible-maybe-somehow problematic consequences. "It does not make sense to encourage innovation of one sort with means that bar donation of another sort." Again, the more explicit you can be about pointing out, "look people, what are these *copyrights* for, what do *you* think these forms of *government intervention* #should# be for? Do we want to make it easy for big corp's to bully others, or to make more money by making life more difficult for consumers because it's harder to switch between brands; is this what the gov't (courts/legist.) should be stepping in to do?" the better. (*) [And "progressives" like me agree that there are positive aspects to the "individualistic" side, too; it would not be surprising to find in a society overflowing with "communistic" ideology (whatever the politics might be), people who reject "individualistic" solutions even when those are superior; the same is true in the opposite situation, although in the present culture that is more difficult to discern.] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Since this tendency is well known, companies often take advantage of it by filing or threatening suits they are unlikely to win. As long as any interface copyright exists, this form of extortion will broaden its effective scope." Can emphasize how this hurts particularly the "little guy" (as do any laws allowing for frivolous lawsuits (e.g. based on ill-defined or poorly defined ("look and feel") concepts) where this "extortion" effect comes in to play exactly as you say, the price for defending oneself as even when one is innocent being too high (In the spirit of suing "whisleblowers" who bring to public attention, e.g. unsafe conditions in a nuclear power plan, who can be persuaded to be quiet if they feel that even a justified "whistleblow" would result in their possibly going bankrupt defending themselves in court) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Some cynical remarks about government. There indubitably are decent Congresspeople. All three of them. (-: In general, it is not enough to convince them of your case ("show them how hard interface is to learn") if they are subject to pressures from industry representatives who stand to gain from the (bad) proposed piece of legislation (or from the status quo) To make another analogy with the more "political side" of activism I am familiar with, someone made the comment of how naive such activists sometimes are, spending so much time and effort on writing letters to Congress and trying to arrange for a 10 minute meeting with their Congressperson to explain (say) why we need bill X or must oppose bill Y to protect the environment, when, *all this time*, these activists aren't doing anything about the current legal loopholes or PAC laws which mean this same Congressperson can get huge donations and other "incentives" from corporations who stand to benefit from the environmentally unsound policies the activists oppose. [ENCLOSED: Public Citizen's entry in the ACTIV-L resource file GROUPS-1 RESOURCE which discusses PACS etc] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I'd suggest including Apple's address, and those of the other "bad guys" companies in you letter/article. Here, too, these companies aren't going to stop because they are "nice guys," but what they are sensitive to is bad press or angry feelings among the public. [Lotus' cancelled mega-database idea is an example] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Is there an address to which comments about GNU in general (I'm thinking of posting the Manifesto to our ACTIV-L list) should go? (or just a standardized "Subject:" ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ################################################################## Enclosure: Public Citizen (re: PACS) ################################################################## Public Citizen 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 605 Washington, D.C. 20036 Founded by Ralph Nader in 1971 "Last winter, members of Congress and other top government officials were salivating over a proposal that would hand them a fat, 51 percent pay hike, bringing the pay of a member of Congress from $89,500 -- already higher than 99 percent of the American people -- to $135,000, plus many benefits and perks! TOGETHER, WE STOPPED THAT "SALARY GRAB" COLD [..] After we beat them, Congress got sly [..] just before Congress adjourned for the holidays in November, they proposed, debated, and voted in a massive pay hike of almost 40%, -- all of this in only 22 hours. They have disguised this pay raise with several ethics reforms, however corruption in Congress is still out-of- control. [..] We have to pool our energies together and force Congress to stop the corrupting influence of money in our governmental process. Here's what that means: BAN ALL HONORARIA FROM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. Members of the / Senate can legally accept $2,000 from a corporation or special / interest lobby by simply giving a short speech at a breakfast \/ meeting. This "payola" is no more than legalized bribery -- YET MANY MEMBERS POCKET AT LEAST $25,000 A YEAR IN "OUTSIDE INCOME" THAT WAY. BAN SPECIAL INTEREST FINANCED TRAVEL. Did you know that members of Congress can legally accept a free vacation -- 1st Class / airfare, a resort hotel suite, restaurant and bar charges, and / more -- from a lobbyist? "Come speak to our meeting," he says to \/ the Congressional member. "We'll pay your expenses." (And, a Senator can accept the $2,000 speaking fee on top of the free vacation) END CAMPAIGN FINANCING ABUSES. For the 1988 campaign, political / action committees (PACS) contributed over $150 million to / candidates. More than $7 million went to members that were \/ running UNOPPOSED. Let's be blunt: that is influence buying, period. We MUST get private money out of public campaigns. LIMIT CAMPAIGN SPENDING. When it costs as much as $10 million to run a Senate campaign, and a million dollars or more to run for / the House, members of Congress must spend one or two days a week / year after year, doing nothing but fundraising -- and that means \/ schmoozing with the big money people. By limiting campaign spending, Congressional members will not have to rely on the big money lobbies, and will have more time to do their job. [..]While people were outraged that Congress thought it deserved a salary and benefits of well over $135,000 a year, they began to think about the issues before Congress: ** MINIMUM WAGE. Congress failed to raise the $3.35 minimum wage for eight years, while increasing its own pay from $60,662 to $89,500 in the same period. ** CHILD CARE. Congress agreed to cuts of $5 billion from the school breakfast and lunch programs and child care food programs during the 1980's ** FEDERAL HOUSING PROGRAM. Congress has also gone along with the crumbling of federal housing programs, cutting low income housing assistance more than $21 billion and raising rents for the poor -- many of whom are homeless. ** TAXBREAKS FOR THE RICH. Through changes in the tax code in the early 1980's, Congress has overseen the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the United States from low and moderate income families to the wealthy. [Piles of statistical evidence available in AML files] To support Public Citizen's _Clean Up Congress Campaign_, and to join Public Citizen, send $20 and receive a complementary one year subscription to *Public Citizen* magazine (bi-monthly), or send a $35 donation and receive as well a year's subscription to Public Citizen's *Health Letter* (monthly). ##################################################################