diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'examples/frontend_blog/articles/scrap1_20.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | examples/frontend_blog/articles/scrap1_20.html | 292 |
1 files changed, 292 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/examples/frontend_blog/articles/scrap1_20.html b/examples/frontend_blog/articles/scrap1_20.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000..0c7eda47 --- /dev/null +++ b/examples/frontend_blog/articles/scrap1_20.html @@ -0,0 +1,292 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/loose.dtd"> +<html> +<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. + +Free Software Foundation + +51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor + +Boston, MA 02110-1335 +Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted +worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is +preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations +of this book from the original English into another language provided +the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and +the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all +copies. + +ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9 +Cover design by Rob Myers. + +Cover photograph by Peter Hinely. + --> +<!-- Created on February 18, 2016 by texi2html 1.82 +texi2html was written by: + Lionel Cons <Lionel.Cons@cern.ch> (original author) + Karl Berry <karl@freefriends.org> + Olaf Bachmann <obachman@mathematik.uni-kl.de> + and many others. +Maintained by: Many creative people. +Send bugs and suggestions to <texi2html-bug@nongnu.org> +--> +<head> +<title>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 20. Freedom—or Copyright</title> + +<meta name="description" content="This is the second edition of Richard Stallman's collection of essays."> +<meta name="keywords" content="Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 20. Freedom—or Copyright"> +<meta name="resource-type" content="document"> +<meta name="distribution" content="global"> +<meta name="Generator" content="texi2html 1.82"> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> +<style type="text/css"> +<!-- +a.summary-letter {text-decoration: none} +blockquote.smallquotation {font-size: smaller} +pre.display {font-family: serif} +pre.format {font-family: serif} +pre.menu-comment {font-family: serif} +pre.menu-preformatted {font-family: serif} +pre.smalldisplay {font-family: serif; font-size: smaller} +pre.smallexample {font-size: smaller} +pre.smallformat {font-family: serif; font-size: smaller} +pre.smalllisp {font-size: smaller} +span.roman {font-family:serif; font-weight:normal;} +span.sansserif {font-family:sans-serif; font-weight:normal;} +ul.toc {list-style: none} +--> +</style> +<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../style.css"> + + +</head> + +<body lang="en" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#800080" alink="#FF0000"> + +<a name="Freedom-or-Copyright"></a> +<header><div id="logo"><img src="../gnu.svg" height="100" width="100"></div><h1>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.</h1></header><section id="main"><a name="Freedom_002d_002d_002dor-Copyright"></a> +<h1 class="chapter"> 20. Freedom—or Copyright </h1> + + +<blockquote class="smallquotation"><p>This essay addresses how the principles of software freedom apply in +some cases to other works of authorship and art. It’s included here +since it involves the application of the ideas of free software. +</p></blockquote> +<br> +<p>Copyright was established in the age of the printing press as an +industrial regulation on the business of writing and publishing. The +aim was to encourage the publication of a diversity of written works. +The means was to require publishers to get the author’s permission to +publish recent writings. This enabled authors to get income from +publishers, which facilitated and encouraged writing. The general +reading public received the benefit of this, while losing little: +copyright restricted only publication, not the things an ordinary +reader could do. That made copyright arguably a beneficial system for +the public, and therefore arguably legitimate. +</p> +<p>Well and good—back then. +</p> +<p>Now we have a new way of distributing information: computers and +networks. Their benefit is that they facilitate copying and +manipulating information, including software, musical recordings, +books, and movies. They offer the possibility of unlimited access to +all sorts of data—an information utopia. +</p> +<p>One obstacle stood in the way: copyright. Readers and listeners who +made use of their new ability to copy and share published information +were technically copyright infringers. The same law which had +formerly acted as a beneficial industrial regulation on publishers had +become a restriction on the public it was meant to serve. +</p> +<p>In a democracy, a law that prohibits a popular and useful activity is +usually soon relaxed. Not so where corporations have political power. +The publishers’ lobby was determined to prevent the public from taking +advantage of the power of their computers, and found copyright a +handy weapon. Under their influence, rather than relaxing copyright +rules to suit the new circumstances, governments made them stricter than +ever, imposing harsh penalties on the practice of sharing. The latest +fashion in supporting the publishers against the citizens, known as +“three strikes,” is to cut off people’s Internet connections if +they share. +</p> +<p>But that wasn’t the worst of it. Computers can be powerful tools of +domination when software suppliers deny users the control of the +software they run. The +publishers realized that by publishing works in encrypted format, +which only specially authorized software could view, they could gain +unprecedented power: they could compel readers to pay, and identify +themselves, every time they read a book, listen to a song, or watch a +video. That is the publishers’ dream: a +<a name="index-pay_002dper_002dview"></a> +pay-per-view universe. +</p> +<a name="index-DMCA_002c-publishers-and-1"></a> +<p>The publishers gained US government support for their dream with the +Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. This law gave publishers +power to write their own copyright rules, by implementing them in the +code of the authorized player software. Under this practice, called +Digital Restrictions Management, or +<a name="index-DRM_002c-call-it-_0060_0060Digital-Restrictions-Management_0027_0027-1"></a> +DRM, even reading or listening +without authorization is forbidden. +</p> +<a name="index-e_002dbooks-2"></a> +<p>We still have the same old freedoms in using paper books and other +analog media. But if e-books replace printed books, those freedoms +will not transfer. Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending +a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the public +<a name="index-libraries_002c-e_002dbooks-and-1"></a> +library—no more “leaks” that might give someone a +chance to read without paying. No more purchasing a book anonymously with +cash—you can only buy an e-book with a credit card. That is +the world the publishers want to impose on us. If you buy the +<a name="index-Amazon"></a> +Amazon +<a name="index-Kindle-_0028see-also-Swindle_0029"></a> +Kindle (we call it the +<a name="index-Swindle"></a> +Swindle) or the +<a name="index-Sony-Reader-_0028call-it-the-Shreader_0029"></a> +Sony Reader (we +call it the Shreader for what it threatens to do to books), you pay to +establish that world. +</p> +<p>The +<a name="index-Swindle-1"></a> +Swindle even has an Orwellian back door that can be used to erase +books remotely. Amazon demonstrated this capability by erasing +copies, purchased from Amazon, of +<a name="index-Orwell_002c-George"></a> +Orwell’s book +<a name="index-1984_002c-George-Orwell"></a> +<cite>1984.</cite> Evidently +Amazon’s name for this product reflects the intention to burn our +books. +</p> +<p>Public anger against DRM is slowly growing, held back because +propaganda expressions such +as +<a name="index-_0060_0060protection_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-1"></a> +“protect +authors” +and +<a name="index-_0060_0060intellectual-property_002c_0027_0027-bias-and-fallacy-of-term-_0028see-also-ownership_0029-7"></a> +“intellectual +property” have convinced readers that their rights do not +count. These terms implicitly assume that publishers deserve special +power in the name of the authors, that we are morally obliged to bow +to them, and that we have wronged someone if we see or hear +anything without paying for permission. +</p> +<p>The organizations that profit most from copyright legally exercise it +in the name of the authors (most of whom gain little). They would +have you believe that copyright is a natural right of authors, and +that we the public must suffer it no matter how painful it is. They +call sharing +<a name="index-_0060_0060piracy_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-7"></a> +“piracy,” equating helping your neighbor with +attacking a ship. +</p> +<a name="index-War-on-Sharing-_0028see-also-DRM-and-copyright_0029"></a> +<p>They also tell us that a War on Sharing is the only way to keep +art alive. Even if true, it would not justify the policy; but it +isn’t true. Public sharing of copies is likely to increase the sales of +most works, and decrease sales only for big hits. +</p> +<a name="index-e_002dbooks-3"></a> +<p>Bestsellers can still do well without forbidding sharing. +<a name="index-King_002c-Stephen"></a> +Stephen +King got hundreds of thousands of dollars selling an unencrypted +e-book serial with no obstacle to copying and sharing. (He was +dissatisfied with that amount and called the experiment a failure, but it looks +like a success to me.) +<a name="index-Radiohead"></a> +Radiohead made millions in 2007 by inviting +fans to copy an album and pay what they wished, while it was also +shared through +<a name="index-peer_002dto_002dpeer"></a> +peer-to-peer. In +2008, +<a name="index-Nine-Inch-Nails"></a> +Nine Inch Nails released an album with permission to share copies and +made $750,000 in a few days.<a name="DOCF43" href="#FOOT43">(43)</a> +</p> +<p>The possibility of success without oppression is not limited to +bestsellers. Many artists of various levels of fame now make an +adequate living through voluntary support:<a name="DOCF44" href="#FOOT44">(44)</a> +donations and merchandise purchases of their fans. +<a name="index-Kelly_002c-Kevin"></a> +Kevin Kelly<a name="DOCF45" href="#FOOT45">(45)</a> estimates the artist need +only find around 1,000 true fans.<a name="DOCF46" href="#FOOT46">(46)</a> +</p> +<p>When computer networks provide an easy anonymous method for sending +someone a small amount of money, without a credit card, it will be +easy to set up a much better system to support the arts. When you +view a work, there will be a button you can press saying, “Click +here to send the artist one dollar.” Wouldn’t you press it, at +least once a week? +</p> +<p>Another good way to support music and the arts is with +tax funds—perhaps a tax on blank media +or on Internet connectivity. The state should +distribute the tax money entirely to the artists, not +waste it on corporate executives. But the state should not distribute +it in linear proportion to popularity, because that would give most of +it to a few superstars, leaving little to support all the other +artists. I therefore recommend using a cube-root function or +something similar. With linear proportion, superstar A with 1,000 +times the popularity of a successful artist B will get 1,000 times as +much money as B. With the cube root, A will get 10 times as much as +B. Thus, each superstar gets a larger share than a less popular +artist, but most of the funds go to the artists who really need this +support. This system will use our tax money efficiently to support +the arts. +</p> +<a name="index-Global-Patronage-_0028see-also-DRM-and-copyright_0029"></a> +<p>The Global Patronage<a name="DOCF47" href="#FOOT47">(47)</a> proposal +combines aspects of those two systems, incorporating mandatory +payments with voluntary allocation among artists. +</p> +<a name="index-Spain-1"></a> +<p>In Spain, this tax system should replace the +<a name="index-SGAE"></a> +SGAE<a name="DOCF48" href="#FOOT48">(48)</a> and its canon, +which could be eliminated. +</p> +<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-boycott-products-with-DRM"></a> +<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-legalize-noncommercial-copying-and-sharing-of-all-published-works"></a> +<p>To make copyright fit the network age, we should legalize the +noncommercial copying and sharing of all published works, and prohibit +DRM. But until we win this battle, you must protect yourself: don’t +buy any products with DRM unless you personally have the means to +break the DRM. Never use a product designed to attack your freedom +unless you can nullify the attack. +<a name="index-DRM_002c-call-it-_0060_0060Digital-Restrictions-Management_0027_0027-2"></a> +</p><div class="footnote"> +<hr> +<h3>Footnotes</h3> +<h3><a name="FOOT43" href="#DOCF43">(43)</a></h3> +<p>“Nine Inch Nails Made at Least $750k from CC Release in Two Days,” posted by Cory Doctorow, 5 March 2008, +<a href="http://boingboing.net/2008/03/05/nine-inch-nails-made.html">http://boingboing.net/2008/03/05/nine-inch-nails-made.html</a>. +</p><h3><a name="FOOT44" href="#DOCF44">(44)</a></h3> +<p>Mike Masnick, +“The Future of Music Business Models (and Those Who Are Already +There),” 25 January 2010, +<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml">http://techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml</a>. +</p><h3><a name="FOOT45" href="#DOCF45">(45)</a></h3> +<p>Kevin Kelly is a commentator on digital culture +and the founder of <cite>Wired</cite> magazine. +</p><h3><a name="FOOT46" href="#DOCF46">(46)</a></h3> +<p>Kevin Kelly, “1,000 True +Fans,” 4 March 2008, +<a href="http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php">http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php</a>. +</p><h3><a name="FOOT47" href="#DOCF47">(47)</a></h3> +<p>See <a href="http://mecenatglobal.org/">http://mecenatglobal.org/</a> for more information. +</p><h3><a name="FOOT48" href="#DOCF48">(48)</a></h3> +<p>The SGAE is Spain’s main copyright collective for composers, authors, +and publishers. +</p></div> +<hr size="2"> +</body> +</html> |