Summary: By protesting against DRM, the FSF has changed from an advocacy group promoting a useful idea into a bunch of rabid fundies.

Rebuttal: Software needs to be "free" (libre) to give the user freedom to do anything they want with their software and data. DRM is the exact opposite of that: it prevents users from doing certain things (different things for each implementation of DRM, but usually related to copying in its broadest definition: listening to a music file also means copying it).

Even if you say the FSF should pay attention only to the software and nothing else, then still the FSF really should protest against DRM. Why? Because DRM can only be implemented in non-free software. If you implement DRM in free software, anyone can take the code and disable it. And if one software component uses DRM, to prevent all possible ways of circumventing the DRM the other components it interfaces with need to support DRM too... and those that those interface with.... etcetera etcetera. A very large part of a functional DRM system needs to be proprietary closed source. Therefore, if the FSF wants to promote free software, it has to protest against DRM.

What about the half-functional DRM in iTunes that doesn't actually prevent anything but does annoy you (by forcing cd burning) if you want to do someting "unwanted"? Why protest against that? Well, simple. Imagine someone has a huge collection of music bought on iTunes. He plays it only on his computer, so he really won't take all that cd burning and ripping to mp3 effort. Then later apple decides that burning to cd is no longer allowed, and sends a "security update". Our poor user installs the update (probably not even aware since it might be an automatic update). Then again later the poor user wants to play his music on something else than his computer.... but can't! He can't do the cd burning dance anymore!

Just because iTunes DRM isn't truly evil yet doesn't mean it can't become evil at the whim of apple or perhaps the music industry pushing apple. Users are not stupid, but they're clearly not aware of this risk. How does one spread awareness? Protesting in hazmat suits is one way to do it.

This site is against net neutrality and spreads some FUD about legislations that were meant to preserve it.

This as well as the http://www.handsofftheinternet.com appear to be the attempts of the telecommunications corporations to simulate a grassroots movement in their favour and the favour of their business.

They're the ones who would tell you network neutrality is overrated, that government regulation (even if it actually ensures that the free market stays as such) is bad in all cases and that they should be left to "innovate freely" to better the internet experience for everyone. - these things are misinformation!

Net neutrality is about keeping the internet free on the same level for everyone. It is about not allowing one party to have greater chances of getting seen or heard than another, based on how much they can pay. That is however exactly what these telecommunications corporations want; tiered broadband services that favor the delivery of one content over the other.. in essence they want to take control of the way internet is delivered to you, including its content, thus their opposition to legislations that would forbid such control from them.

Edit: Another organization joining this effort of deception is <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/">FreedomWorks.org</a>. Don't trust them.

Yes linux can get viruses - but they don't work untill Linus patches the kernel so that it works.

Editors note: This link actually leads to the disassemination of the FUD. This is a pretty amusing case, but one GNU/Linux opposition would love to use to spread disinformation about Linux security.

"The computers lack many features found on a typical personal computer, such as a hard disk and software."

How does one use a computer without software? Of course there's software!

A "warning" about "infectious" "open source software."