diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-versus-community-2000.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-versus-community-2000.html | 1129 |
1 files changed, 1129 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-versus-community-2000.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-versus-community-2000.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9035a0d --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-versus-community-2000.html @@ -0,0 +1,1129 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 --> +<title>Copyright versus Community in the Age of Computer Networks - +GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/copyright-versus-community-2000.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Copyright versus Community in the Age of Computer Networks (2000)</h2> + +<blockquote><p> +This is a transcription from an audio recording, prepared by Douglas +Carnall, July 2000. +</p></blockquote> + +<p><em> Mr Stallman arrives a few minutes after the appointed hour of +commencement of his talk to address a hushed and respectful audience. +He speaks with great precision and almost no hesitation in a +pronounced Boston accent.</em></p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: This is made for someone who wears a +strangler.</p> + +<p><em>[indicates clip-on microphone for lecture theatre amplification +system]</em></p> + +<p>I don't wear stranglers, so there is no place for it to go.</p> + +<p><em>[clips it to his T-shirt]</em></p> + +<p><strong>Me</strong>: Are you OK with the recording?</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Yes! <em>[testy]</em> How many people have +to ask me?</p> + +<p>Well, I'm supposed to speak today</p> + +<p><em>[long pause]</em></p> + +<p>about copyright versus community. This is too loud.</p> + +<p><em>[indicates clip-on microphone]</em></p> + +<p>What can I do?</p> + +<p>Let's see… there's no volume control…</p> + +<p><em>[finds volume control on radio microphone box]</em></p> + +<p>this seems better</p> + +<p>OK. Copyright versus community in the age of computer networks. +The principles of ethics can't change. They are the same for all +situations, but to apply them to any question or situation you have to +look at the facts of the situation to compare alternatives, you have +to see what their consequences are, a change in technology never +changes the principles of ethics, but a change in technology can alter +the consequences of the same choices, so it can make a difference for +the outcome of the question, and that has happened in the area of +copyright law. We have a situation where changes in technology have +affected the ethical factors that weigh on decisions about copyright +law and change the right policy for society.</p> +<p>Laws that in the past may have been a good idea, now are harmful +because they are in a different context. But to explain this, I +should go back to the beginning to the ancient world where books were +made by writing them out by hand. That was the only way to do it, and +anybody who could read could also write a copy of a book. To be sure +a slave who spent all day writing copies could probably do it somewhat +better than someone who didn't ordinarily do that but it didn't make a +tremendous difference. Essentially, anyone who could read, could copy +books, about as well as they could be copied in any fashion.</p> +<p>In the ancient world, there wasn't the sharp distinction between +authorship and copying that there tends to be today.</p> + +<p>There was a continuum. On the one hand you might have somebody, +say, writing a play. Then you might have, on the other extreme, just +somebody making copies of books, but in between you might have say, +somebody, who say, copies part of a book, but writes some words of his +own, or writing a commentary, and this was very common, and definitely +respected. Other people would copy some bits from one book, and then +some bits from another book, and write something of their own words, +and then copy from another book, quoting passages of various lengths +from many different works, and then writing some other works to talk +about them more, or relate them. And there are many ancient +works—now lost—in which part of them survived in these +quotations in other books that became more popular than the book that +the original quote <em>[came from]</em>.</p> + +<p>There was a spectrum between writing an original work, and copying. +There were many books that were partly copied, but mixed with original +writing. I don't believe there was any idea of copyright in the +ancient world and it would have been rather difficult to enforce one, +because books could be copied by anyone who could read anywhere, +anyone who could get some writing materials, and a feather to write +with. So, that was a rather clear simple situation.</p> + +<p>Later on, printing was developed and printing changed the situation +greatly. It provided a much more efficient way to make copies of +books, provided that they were all identical. And it required +specialised, fairly expensive equipment that an ordinary reader would +not have. So in effect it created a situation in which copies could +only feasibly be made by specialised businesses, of which the number +was not that large. There might have been hundreds of printing +presses in a country and hundreds of thousands, or maybe even millions +of actually people who could read. So the decrease in the number of +places in which copies could be made was tremendous.</p> + +<p>Now the idea of copyright developed along with the printing press. +I think that there may be… I think I remember reading that +Venice, which was a major centre of printing in the 1500s also had a +kind of copyright but I can't find that: I couldn't find that +reference again. But the system of copyright fitted in naturally with +the printing press because it became rare for ordinary readers to make +copies. It still happen. People who were very poor or very rich had +handmade copies of books. The very rich people did this to show off +their wealth: they had beautiful illuminated wealth to show that they +could afford this. And poor people still sometimes copied books by +hand because they couldn't afford printed copies. As the song goes +“Time ain't money when all you got is time.” +<span class="gnun-split"></span>So some poor +people copied books with a pen. But for the most part the books were +all made on printing presses by publishers and copyright as a system +fitted in very well with the technical system. For one thing it was +painless for readers, because the readers weren't going to make copies +anyway, except for the very rich ones who could presumably legitimise +it, or the very poor ones who were making just individual copies and +no one was going to go after them with lawyers. And the system was +fairly easy to enforce again because there were only a small number of +places where it had to be enforced: only the printing presses, and +because of this it didn't require, it didn't involve, a struggle +against the public. You didn't find just about everybody trying to +copy books and being threatened with arrest for doing it.</p> + +<p>And in fact, in addition to not restricting the reader's directly, +it didn't cause much of a problem for readers, because it might have +added a small fraction to the price of books but it didn't double the +price, so that small extra addition to the price was a very small +burden for the readers. The actions restricted by copyright were +actions that you couldn't do, as an ordinary reader, and therefore, it +didn't cause a problem. And because of this there was no need for +harsh punishments to convince readers to tolerate it and to obey.</p> + +<p>So copyright effectively was an industrial regulation. It +restricted publishers and writers but it didn't restrict the general +public. It was somewhat like charging a fee for going on a boat ride +across the Atlantic. You know, it's easy to collect the fee when +people are getting on a boat for weeks or months.</p> + +<p>Well, as time went on, printing got more efficient. Eventually +even poor people didn't have to bother copying books by hand and the +idea sort of got forgotten. I think it's in the 1800s that +essentially printing got cheap enough so that essentially everyone +could afford printed books, so to some extent the idea of poor people +copying books by hand was lost from memory. I heard about this about +ten years ago when I started talking about the subject to people.</p> + +<p>So originally in England copyright was partly intended as a measure +of censorship. People who wanted to publish books were required to +get approval from the government but the idea began to change and it a +different idea was expressed explicitly in the US constitution. When +the US constitution was written there was a proposal that authors +should be entitled to a monopoly on copying their books. This idea +was rejected. Instead, a different idea of the philosophy of +copyright was put into the constitution. The idea that a copyright +system could be… well, the idea is that people have the natural +right to copy things but copyright as an artificial restriction on +copying can be authorised for the sake of promoting progress.</p> + +<p>So the system of copyright would have been the same more or less +either way, but this was a statement about the purpose which is said +to justify copyright. It is explicitly justified as a means to +promote progress, not as an entitlement for copyright owners. So the +system is meant to modify the behaviour of copyright owners so as to +benefit the public. The benefit consists of more books being written +and published and this is intended to contribute to the progress of +civilisation, to spreading ideas, and as a means to this end… +in other words as a means to this end copyright exists. So this also +thought of as a bargain between the public and authors; that the +public gives up its natural right to make copies of anything in +exchange for the progress that is brought about indirectly, by +encouraging more people to write.</p> + +<p>Now it may seem like an obscure question to ask “What's the +purpose of copyright?” But the purpose of any activity is the +most important thing for deciding when an activity needs to be changed +and how. If you forget about the purpose you are sure to get things +wrong, so ever since that decision was made, the authors and +especially the publishers most recently have been trying to +misrepresent it and sweep it under the rug. There has been a campaign +for decades to try to spread the idea that was rejected in the US +constitution. The idea that copyright exists as an entitlement for +copyright owners. And you can that expressed in almost everything +they say about it starting and ending with the word +“pirate” which is used to give the impression that making +an unauthorised copy is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship and +kidnapping or killing the people on board.</p> + +<p>So if you look at the statements being made by publishers you find +lots of implicit assumptions of this sort which you have to drag into +the open and then start questioning.</p> + +<h3>Recent events and problems</h3> +<p><em>[brightens]</em></p> + +<p>Anyway, as long as the age of the printing press continued, +copyright was painless, easy to enforce, and probably a good idea. +But the age of the printing press began changing a few decades ago +when things like Xerox machines and tape recorders started to be +available, and more recently as computer networks have come into use +the situation has changed drastically. We are now in a situation +technologically more like the ancient world, where anybody who could +read something could also make a copy of it that was essentially as +good as the best copies anyone could make.</p> + +<p><em>[murmuring in the audience]</em></p> + +<p>A situation now where once again, ordinary readers can make copies +themselves. It doesn't have to be done through centralised mass +production, as in the printing press. Now this change in technology +changes the situation in which copyright law operates. The idea of +the bargain was that the public trades away its natural right to make +copies, and in exchange gets a benefit. Well, a bargain could be a +good one or a bad one. It depends on the worth of what you are giving +up. And the worth of what you are getting. In the age of the +printing press the public traded away a freedom that it was unable to +use.</p> + +<p>It's like finding a way of selling shit: what have you got to lose? +You've got it on hand anyway, if you get something for it, it can +hardly be a bad deal.</p> + +<p><em>[faint laughter]</em></p> + +<p>It's like accepting money for promising not to travel to another +star. You're not going to do it anyway</p> + +<p><em>[hearty laughter]</em></p> + +<p>at least not in our lifetime so you might as well, if someone's +going to pay you to promise not to travel to another star, you might +as well take the deal. But if I presented you with a starship, then +you might not think that deal was such a good deal any more. When the +thing you used to sell because it was useless, you discover a use for +it, then you have to reconsider the desirability of those old deals +that used to be advantageous. Typically in a such a situation you +decide that “I'm not going to sell all of this any more; I'm +going to keep some of it and use it.” +<span class="gnun-split"></span>So if you were giving up a +freedom that you couldn't exercise and now you can exercise it, you +probably want to start retaining the right to exercise it at least +partially. You might still trade part of the freedom: and there are +many alternatives of different bargains which trade parts of the +freedom and keep other parts. So, precisely what you want to do +requires thought, but in any case you want to reconsider the old +bargain, and you probably want to sell less of what you sold in the +past.</p> + +<p>But the publishers are trying to do exactly the opposite. At +exactly the time when the public's interest is to keep part of the +freedom to use it, the publishers are passing laws which make us give +up more freedom. You see copyright was never intended to be an +absolute monopoly on all the uses of a copyright work. It covered +some uses and not others, but in recent times the publishers have been +pushing to extend it further and further. Ending up most recently +with things like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US which +they are also trying to turn into a treaty through the World +Intellectual Property Organisation which is essentially an +organisation representing the owners of copyrights and patents and +which works to try to increase their power, and pretends to be doing +so in the name of humanity rather than in the name of these particular +companies.</p> + +<p>Now, what are the consequences when copyright starts restricting +activities that ordinary readers can do. Well, for one thing it's no +longer an industrial regulation. It becomes an imposition on the +public. For another, because of this, you find the public's starting +to object to it You know, when it is stopping ordinary people from +doing things that are natural in their lives you find ordinary people +refusing to obey. Which means that copyright is no longer easy to +enforce and that's why you see harsher and harsher punishments being +adopted by governments that are basically serving the publishers +rather than the public.</p> + +<p>Also, you have to question whether a copyright system is still +beneficial. Basically, the thing that we have been paying is now +valuable for us. Maybe the deal is a bad deal now. So all the things +that made technology fit in well with the technology of the printing +press make it fit badly with digital information technology. So, +instead of like, charging the fee to cross the Atlantic in a boat, +it's like charging a fee to cross a street. It's a big nuisance, +because people cross the street all along the street, and making them +pay is a pain in the neck.</p> + +<h3>New kinds of copyright</h3> + +<p>Now what are some of the changes we might want to make in copyright +law in order to adapt it to the situation that the public finds itself +in? Well the extreme change might be to abolish copyright law but +that isn't the only possible choice. There are various situations in +which we could reduce the power of copyright without abolishing it +entirely because there are various different actions that can be done +with a copyright and there are various situations in which you might +do them, and each of those is an independent question. Should +copyright cover this or not? In addition, there is a question of +“How long?”. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>Copyright used to be much shorter in its +period or duration, and it's been extended over and over again in the +past fifty years or so and in fact in now appears that the owners of +copyrights are planning to keep on extending copyrights so that they +will never expire again. The US constitution says that +“copyright must exist for a limited time” but the +publishers have found a way around this: every twenty years they make +copyright twenty years longer, and this way, no copyright will ever +expire again. Now a thousand years from now, copyright might last for +1200 years, just basically enough so that copyright on Mickey Mouse +can not expire.</p> + +<p>Because that's why, people believe that US Congress passed a law to +extend copyright for twenty years. Disney was paying them, and paying +the President too, with campaign funds of course, to make it lawful. +See, if they just gave them cash it would be a crime, but contributing +indirectly to campaigns is legal and that's what they do: to buy the +legislators. So they passed the Sonny Bono copyright act. Now this +is interesting: Sonny Bono was a congressman and a member of the +Church of Scientology, which uses copyrights to suppress knowledge of +its activities. So they have their pet congressman and they pushed +very hard for increased copyright powers.</p> + +<p>Anyway, we were fortunate that Sonny Bono died but in his name they +passed the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act of 1998 I believe. It's being +challenged by the way, on the grounds that, there is a legal case that +people hope to go to the Supreme Court and have the extension of old +copyrights tossed out. In any case, there are all these different +situations and questions where we could reduce the scope of +copyright.</p> + +<p>So what are some of them? Well, first of all there are various +different contexts for copying. There is commercial sale of copies in +the stores at one extreme and at the other there is privately making a +copy for your friend once in a while, and in between there are other +things, like, there's broadcasting on TV or the radio, there's posting +it on the website, there's handing it out to all the people in an +organisation, and some of these things could be done either +commercially or non-commercially. You know, you could imagine a +company handing out copies to its staff or you could imagine a school +doing it, or some private, non-profit organisation doing it. +Different situations, and we don't have to treat them all the same. + +<span class="gnun-split"></span>So one way in we could reclaim the… in general though, the +activities that are the most private are those that are most crucial +to our freedom and our way of life, whereas the most public and +commercial are those that are most useful for providing some sort of +income for authors so it's a natural situation for a compromise in +which the limits of copyright are put somewhere in the middle so that +a substantial part of the activity still is covered and provides an +income for authors, while the activities that are most directly +relevant to peoples' private lives become free again. And this is the +sort of thing that I propose doing with copyright for things such as +novels and biographies and memoires and essays and so on. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>That at the +very minimum, people should always have a right to share a copy with a +friend. It's when governments have to prevent that kind of activity +that they have to start intruding into everyone's lives and using +harsh punishments. The only way basically to stop people in their +private lives from sharing is with a police state, but public +commercial activities can be regulated much more easily and much more +painlessly.</p> + +<p>Now, where we should draw these lines depends, I believe, on the +kind of work. Different works serve different purposes for their +users. Until today we've had a copyright system that treats almost +everything exactly alike except for music: there are a lot of legal +exceptions for music. But there's no reason why we have to elevate +simplicity above the practical consequences. We can treat different +kinds of works differently. I propose a classification broadly into +three kinds of works: functional works, works that express personal +position, and works that are fundamentally aesthetic.</p> + +<p>Functional works include: computer software; recipes; textbooks; +dictionaries and other reference works; anything that you use to get +jobs done. For functional works I believe that people need very broad +freedom, including the freedom to publish modified versions. So +everything I am going to say tomorrow about computer software applies +to other kinds of functional works in the same way. So, this +criterion of free… because it necessary to have the freedom to +publish a modified version this means we have to almost completely get +rid of copyright but the free software movement is showing that the +progress that society wants that is supposedly the justification for +society having copyright can happen in other ways. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>We don't have to +give up these important freedoms to have progress. Now the publishers +are always asking us to presuppose that their there is no way to get +progress without giving up our crucial freedoms and the most important +thing I think about the free software movement is to show them that +their pre-supposition is unjustified.</p> + +<p>I can't say I'm sure that in all of these areas we can't produce +progress without copyright restrictions stopping people, but what +we've shown is that we've got a chance: it's not a ridiculous idea. +It shouldn't be dismissed. The public should not suppose that the +only way to get progress is to have copyright but even for these kinds +of works there can be some kinds of compromise copyright systems that +are consistent with giving people the freedom to publish modified +versions. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>Look, for example, at the GNU free documentation license, +which is used to make a book free. It allows anyone to make and sell +copies of a modified version, but it requires giving credit in certain +ways to the original authors and publishers in a way that can give +them a commercial advantage and thus I believe make it possible to +have commercial publishing of free textbooks, and if this works people +are just beginning to try it commercially. The Free Software +Foundation has been selling lots of copies of various free books for +almost fifteen years now and it's been successful for us. At this +point though, commercial publishers are just beginning to try this +particular approach, but I think that even for functional works where +the freedom to publish modified works is essential, some kind of +compromise copyright system can be worked out, which permits everyone +that freedom.</p> + +<p>For other kinds of works, the ethical questions apply differently, +because the works are used differently. The second category of works +is works that express someone's positions or views or experiences. +For example, essays, offers to do business with people, statements of +one's legal position, memoirs, anything that says, whose point is to +say what you think or you want or what you like. Book reviews and +restaurant reviews are also in this category: it's expressing a +personal opinion or position. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>Now for these kinds of works, making a +modified version is not a useful thing to do. So I see no reason why +people should need to have the freedom to publish modified versions of +these works. Verbatim copying is the only thing that people need to +have the freedom to do and because of this we can consider the idea +that the freedom to distribute copies should only apply in some +situations, for example if it were limited to non-commercial +distribution that would be OK I think. Ordinary citizen's lives would +no longer be restricted but publishers would still be covered by +copyright for these things.</p> + +<p><em>[drinks water]</em></p> + +<p>Now, I used to think that maybe it would be good enough to allow +people to privately redistribute copies occasionally. I used to think +that maybe it would be OK if all public redistribution were still +restricted by copyright for these works but the experience with +Napster has convinced me that that's not so. And the reason is that +it shows that lots and lots of people both want to publicly +redistribute—publicly but not commercially +redistribute—and it's very useful. And if it's so useful, then +it's wrong to stop people from doing it. But it would still be +acceptable I think, to restrict commercial redistribution of this +work, because that would just be an industrial regulation and it +wouldn't block the useful activities that people should be doing with +these works.</p> + +<p>Oh, also, scientific papers. Or scholarly papers in general fall +into this category because publishing modified versions of them is not +a good thing to do: it's falsifying the record so they should only be +distributed verbatim, so scientific papers should be freely +redistributable by anyone because we should be encouraging their +redistribution, and I hope you will never agree to publish a +scientific paper in a way that restricts verbatim redistribution on +the net. Tell the journal that you won't do that.</p> + +<p>Because scientific journals have become an obstacle to the +dissemination of scientific results. They used to be a necessary +mechanism. Now they are nothing but an obstruction, and those +journals that restrict access and restrict +redistribution <em>[emphasis]</em> must be abolished. They are the +enemies of the dissemination of knowledge; they are the enemies of +science, and this practice must come to an end.</p> + +<p>Now there is a third category of works, which is aesthetic works, +whose main use is to be appreciated; novels, plays, poems, drawings in +many cases, typically and most music. Typically it's made to be +appreciated. Now, they're not functional people don't have the need +to modify and improve them, the way people have the need to do that +with functional works. So it's a difficult question: is it vital for +people to have the freedom to publish modified versions of an +aesthetic work. On the one hand you have authors with a lot of ego +attachment saying</p> + +<p><em>[English accent, dramatic gesture]</em></p> + +<p>“Oh this is my creation.”</p> + +<p><em>[Back to Boston]</em></p> + +<p>“How dare anyone change a line of this?” On the other +hand you have the folk process which shows that a series of people +sequentially modifying the work or maybe even in parallel and then +comparing versions can produce something tremendously rich, and not +only beautiful songs and short poems, but even long epics have been +produced in this way, and there was a time back before the mystique of +the artist as creator, semi-divine figure was so powerful when even +great writers reworked stories that had been written by others. Some +of the plays of Shakespeare involve stories that were taken from other +plays written often a few decades before. If today's copyright laws +had been in effect they would have called Shakespeare a quote pirate +unquote for writing some of his great work and so of course you would +have had the other authors saying</p> + +<p><em>[English accent]</em></p> + +<p>“How dare he change one line of my creation. He couldn't +possibly make it better.“</p> + +<p><em>[faint audience chuckle]</em></p> + +<p>You'll hear people ridiculing this idea in exactly those terms. +Well, I am not sure what we should do about publishing modified +versions of these aesthetic works. One possibility is to do something +like what is done in music, which is anyone's allowed to rearranged +and play a piece of music, but they may have to pay for doing so, but +they don't have to ask permission to perform it. Perhaps for +commercial publication of these works, either modified or unmodified, +if they're making money they might have to pay some money, that's one +possibility. It's a difficult question what to do about publishing +modified versions of these aesthetic works and I don't have an answer +that I'm fully satisfied with.</p> + +<p><strong>Audience member 1 (AM1)</strong>, question, inaudible</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Let me repeat the question because he said it +so fast you couldn't possibly have understood it. He said “What +kind of category should computer games go in?” Well, I would say +that the game engine is functional and the game scenario is +aesthetic.</p> + +<p><strong>AM1</strong>: Graphics?</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Those are part of the scenario probably. The +specific pictures are part of the scenario; they are aesthetic, +whereas the software for displaying the scenes is functional. So I +would say that if they combine the aesthetic and the functional into +one seamless thing then the software should be treated as functional, +but if they're willing to separate the engine and the scenario then it +would be legitimate to say, well the engine is functional but the +scenario is aesthetic.</p> + +<h3>Copyright: possible solutions</h3> + +<p>Now, how long should copyright last? Well, nowadays the tendency +in publishing is for books to go out of copyright faster and faster. +Today in the US most books that are published are out of print within +three years. They've been remaindered and they're gone. So it's +clear that there's not real need for copyright to last for say 95 +years: it's ridiculous. In fact, it's clear that ten year copyright +would be sufficient to keep the activity of publishing going. But it +should be ten years from date of publication, but it would make sense +to allow an additional period before publication which could even be +longer than ten years which as you see, as long as the book has not +been published the copyright on it is not restricting the public. +It's basically just giving the author to have it published eventually +but I think that once the book is published copyright should run for +some ten years or so, then that's it.</p> + +<p>Now, I once proposed this in a panel where the other people were +all writers. And one of them said: “Ten year copyright? Why +that's ridiculous! Anything more than five years is +intolerable.” He was an award-winning science fiction writer who +was complaining about the difficulty of retrouving, of pulling back, +this is funny, French words are leaking into my English, of, of +regaining the rights from the publisher who'd let his books go out of +print for practical purposes but was dragging his heels about obeying +the contract, which says that when the book is out of print the rights +revert to the author.</p> + +<p>The publishers treat authors terribly you have to realise. They're +always demanding more power in the name of the authors and they will +bring along a few very famous very successful writers who have so much +clout that they can get contracts that treat them very well to testify +saying that the power is really for their sake. Meanwhile most +writers who are not famous and are not rich and have no particular +clout are being treated horribly by the publishing industry, and it's +even worse in music. I recommend all of you to read Courtney Love's +article: it's in Salon magazine right?</p> + +<p><strong>AM2</strong> (Audience member 2) Yes</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: She started out by calling the record +companies quote pirates unquotes because of the way they treat the +musicians. In any case we can shorten copyright more or less. We +could try various lengths, we could see, we could find out empirically +what length of copyright is needed to keep publication vigourous. I +would say that since almost books are out of print by ten years, +clearly ten years should be long enough. But it doesn't have to be +the same for every kind of work. For example, maybe some aspects of +copyright for movies should last for longer, like the rights to sell +all the paraphernalia with the pictures and characters on them. You +know, that's so crassly commercial it hardly matters if that is +limited to one company in most cases. Maybe the copyright on the +movies themselves, maybe that's legitimate for that to last twenty +years. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>Meanwhile for software, I suspect that a three year copyright +would be enough. You see if each version of the programme remains +copyrighted for three years after its release well, unless the company +is in real bad trouble they should have a new version before those +three years are up and there will be a lot of people who will want to +use the newer version, so if older versions are all becoming free +software automatically, the company would still have a business with +the newer version. Now this is a compromise as I see it, because it +is a system in which not all software is free, but it might be an +acceptable compromise, after all, if we had to wait three years in +some cases for programs to become free… well, that's no +disaster. To be using three years old software is not a disaster.</p> + +<p><strong>AM3</strong>: Don't you think this is a system that would +favour feature creep?</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: <em>[airily]</em> Ah that's OK. That's a +minor side issue, compared with these issues of freedom encouraging, +every system encourages some artificial distortions in what people, +and our present system certainly encourages various kinds of +artificial distortions in activity that is covered by copyright so if +a changed system also encourages a few of these secondary distortions +it's not a big deal I would say.</p> + +<p><strong>AM4</strong>: The problem with this change in the copyright +laws for three would be that you wouldn't get the sources.</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Right. There would have also to be a +condition, a law that to sell copies of the software to the public the +source code must be deposited somewhere so that three years later it +can be released. So it could be deposited say, with the library of +congress in the US, and I think other countries have similar +institutions where copies of published books get placed, and they +could also received the source code and after three years, publish it. +And of course, if the source code didn't correspond to the executable +that would be fraud, and in fact if it really corresponds then they +ought to be able to check that very easily when the work is published +initially so you're publishing the source code and somebody there says +alright “dot slash configure dot slash make” and sees if +produces the same executables and uh.</p> + +<p>So you're right, just eliminating copyright would not make software +free.</p> + +<p><strong>AM5</strong>: Um libre</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Right. That's the only sense I use the term. +It wouldn't do that because the source code might not be available or +they might try to use contracts to restrict the users instead. So +making software free is not as simple as ending copyright on software: +it's a more complex situation than that. In fact, if copyright were +simply abolished from software then we would no longer be able to use +copyleft to protect the free status of a program but meanwhile the +software privateers could use other methods—contracts or +withholding the source to make software proprietary. So what would +mean is, if we release a free program some greedy bastard could make a +modified version and publish just the binaries and make people sign +non-disclosure agreements for them. We would no longer have a way to +stop them. So if we wanted to change the law that all software that +was published had to be free we would have to do it in some more +complex way, not just by turning copyright for software.</p> + +<p>So, overall I would recommend we look at the various kinds of works +and the various different kinds of uses and then look for a new place +to draw the line: one that gives the public the most important +freedoms for making use of each new kind of work while when possible +retaining some kind of fairly painless kind of copyright for general +public that is still of benefit to authors. In this way we can adapt +the copyright system to the circumstances where we find it we find +ourselves and have a system that doesn't require putting people in +prison for years because they shared with their friends, but still +does in various ways encourage people to write more. We can also I +believe look for other ways of encouraging writing other ways of +facilitating authors making money. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>For example, suppose that verbatim +redistribution of a work is permitted and suppose that the work comes +with something, so that when you are playing with it or reading it, +there is a box on the side that says “click here to send one +dollar to the authors or the musicians or whatever” I think that +in the wealthier parts of the world a lot of people will send it +because people often really love the authors and musicians that made +the things that they like to read and listen to. And the interesting +thing is that the royalty that they get now is such a small fraction +that if you pay twenty dollars for something they're probably not +getting more than one anyway.</p> + +<p>So this will be a far more efficient system. And the interesting +thing will be that when people redistribute these copies they will be +helping the author. Essentially advertising them, spreading around +these reasons to send them a dollar. Now right now the biggest reason +why more people don't just send some money to the authors is that it's +a pain in the neck to do it. What are you going to do? Write a +cheque? Then who are you going to mail the cheque to? You'd have to +dig up their address, which might not be easy. But with a convenient +internet payment system which makes it efficient to pay someone one +dollar, then we could put this into all the copies, and then I think +you'd find the mechanism starting to work well. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>It may take five of +ten years for the ideas to spread around, because it's a cultural +thing, you know, at first people might find it a little surprising but +once it gets normal people would become accustomed to sending the +money, and it wouldn't be a lot of money compared to what it costs to +buy books today.</p> + +<p><em>[drinks]</em></p> + +<p>So I think that in this way, for the works of expression, and maybe +aesthetic works, maybe this could a successful method. But it won't +work for the functional works, and the reason for that is that as one +person after another makes a modified version and publishes it, who +should the boxes point to, and how much money should they send, and +you know, it's easy to do this when the work was published just once, +by a certain author, or certain group of authors, and they can just +agree together what they're going to do and click on the box, if +no-one is publishing modified versions then every copy will contain +the same box with the same URL directing money to the same people but +when you have different version which have been worked on by different +people there's no simple automatic way of working out who ought to get +what fraction of what users donate for this version or that version. + +<span class="gnun-split"></span>It's philosophically hard to decide how important each contribution +is, and all the obvious ways of trying to measure it +are <em>[emphasis]</em> obviously +<em>[/emphasis]</em> wrong in some cases, they're obviously closing +their eyes to some important part of the facts so I think that this +kind of solution is probably not feasible when everybody is free to +publish modified versions. But for those kinds of works where it is +not crucial to have the freedom to publish modified versions then this +solution can be applied very simply once we have the convenient +internet payment system to base it on.</p> + +<p>With regard to the aesthetic works. If there is a system where +those who commercially redistribute or maybe even those who are +publishing a modified version might have to negotiate the sharing of +the payments with the original developers and then this kind of scheme +could be extended to those works too even if modified versions are +permitted there could be some standard formula which could be in some +cases renegotiated, so I think in some cases probably possible even +with a system of permitting in some way publishing modified versions +of the aesthetic works it may be possible still to have this kind of +voluntary payment system.</p> + +<p>Now I believe there a people who are trying to set up such +voluntary payment systems. I heard of something called the street +performer's protocol. I don't know the details of it. And I believe +there is something called GreenWitch.com <em>[transcriber's note: URL +uncertain]</em> I believe the people there are trying to set up +something more or less like this. I think that what they are hoping +to do is collect a bunch of payments that you make to various +different people, and eventually charge your credit card once it gets +to be big enough so that it's efficient. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>Whether those kind of +systems work smoothly enough in practice that they'll get going is not +clear, and whether they will become adopted widely enough for them to +become a normal cultural practice is not clear. It may be that in +order for these voluntary payments to truly catch on we need to have +some kind of… you need to see the idea everywhere in order +to… “Yeah, I outta pay“ once in a while. We'll +see.</p> + +<p>There is evidence ideas like this are not unreasonable. If you +look at for example public radio in the US, which is mostly supported +by donations from listeners, you have I believe, millions of people +donating, I'm not sure how many exactly but there are many public +radio stations which are supported by their listeners and they seem to +be finding it easier to get donations as time goes on. Ten years ago +they would have maybe six weeks of the year when they were spending +most of their time asking people “Please send some money, don't +you think we're important enough” and so on 24 hours a day, and +now a lot of them have found that they can raise the contributions by +sending people mail who sent them donations in the past, and they +don't have to spend their airtime drumming up the donations.</p> + +<p>Fundamentally, the stated purpose of copyright: to encourage +righting is a worthwhile purpose, but we have to look at ways of ways +to achieve it that are not so harsh, and not so constricting of the +use of the works whose developments we have encouraged and I believe +that digital technology is providing us with solutions to the problem +as well as creating a context where we need to solve the problem. So +that's the end of this talk, and are there questions?</p> + +<h3>Questions and discussion</h3> +<p>First of all, what time is the next talk? What time is it now?</p> + +<p><strong>Me</strong>: The time is quarter past three.</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Oh really? So I'm late already? Well I hope +Melanie will permit me to accept a few questions.</p> + +<p><strong>AM6</strong> (Audience member 6): Who will decide in which +of your three categories will a work fit?</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: I don't know. I'm sure there are various +ways of deciding. You can probably tell a novel when you see one. I +suspect judges can tell a novel when they see one too.</p> + +<p><strong>AM7</strong>: Any comment on encryption? And the +interaction of encryption devices with copyrighted materials?</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Well, encryption is being used as a means of +controlling the public. The publishers are trying to impose various +encryption systems on the public so that they can block the public +from copying. Now they call these things technological methods, but +really they all rest on laws prohibiting people from by-passing them, +and without those laws none of these methods would accomplish its +purpose, so they are all based on direct government intervention to +stop people from copying and I object to them very strongly, and I +will not accept those media. If as a practical matter the means to +copy something are not available to me I won't buy it, and I hope you +won't buy it either.</p> + +<p><strong>AM8</strong>: In France we have a law that says that even +if the media is protected you have the right to copy again for backup +purpose</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Yes it used to be that way in the US as well +until 2 years ago.</p> + +<p><strong>AM8</strong>: Very often you sign an agreement that is +illegal in France… the contract you are supposed to sign with a +mouse…</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Well, maybe they're not.</p> + +<p><strong>AM8</strong>: How can we get it challenged?</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: <em>[rhetorically]</em> Well are you going to +challenge them? It costs money, it takes trouble, and not only that, +how would you do it? Well, you could either try to go to a court and +say, “They have no right to ask people to sign this contract +because it is an invalid contract” but that might be difficult +if the distributor is in the US. French law about what is a valid +contract couldn't be used to stop them in the US. On the other hand +you could also say “I signed this contract but it's not valid in +France so I am publicly disobeying, and I challenge them to sue +me.” Now that you might consider doing, and if you're right and +the laws are not valid in France then the case would get thrown out. +I don't know. Maybe that is a good idea to do, I don't know whether, +what its effects politically would be. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>I know that there was just a +couple of years ago a law was passed in Europe to prohibit some kind +of private copying of music, and the record companies trotted out some +famous very popular musicians to push for this law and they got it, so +it's clear that they have a lot of influence here too, and it's +possible that they will get more, just pass another law to change +this. We have to think about the political strategy for building the +constituency to resist such changes and the actions we take should be +designed to accomplish that. Now, I'm no expert on how to accomplish +that in Europe but that's what people should think about.</p> + +<p><strong>AM6</strong>: What about protection of private +correspondence?</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Well, if you're not <em>[emphasis]</em> +publishing <em>[/emphasis]</em> it that's a completely different +issue.</p> + +<p><strong>AM6</strong>: No, but if I send an email to somebody, +that's automatically under my copyright.</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: <em>[forcefully]</em> That's entirely +irrelevant actually.</p> + +<p><strong>AM6</strong>: No, I don't accept that. If they're going to +publish it in a newspaper. At the moment my redress is my +copyright.</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Well, you can't make him keep secret the +contents and I'm not sure actually. I mean to me, I think there's +some injustice in that. If you for example, send a letter to somebody +threatening to sue him and then you tell him you can't tell anybody I +did this because my threat is copyrighted, that's pretty obnoxious, +and I'm not sure that it would even be upheld.</p> + +<p><strong>AM6</strong>: Well, there are circumstances where I want to +correspond with someone and keep my (and their) reply, entirely +private.</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Well if you and they agree to keep it +private, then that's a different matter entirely. I'm sorry the two +issues can not be linked, and I don't have time to consider that issue +today. There's another talk scheduled to start soon. But I think it +is a total mistake for copyright to apply to such situations. The +ethics of those situations are completely different from the ethics of +published works and so they should be treated in an appropriate way, +which is completely different.</p> + +<p><strong>AM6</strong>: That's fair enough, but at the moment the +only redress one has is copyright…</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: <em>[interrupts]</em> No you're wrong. If +people have agreed to keep something private then you have other +redress. In Europe there are privacy laws, and the other thing is, +you don't have a right to force someone to keep secrets for you. At +most, you could force him to paraphrase it, because he has a right to +tell people what you did.</p> + +<p><strong>AM6</strong>: Yes, but I assuming that the two people at +either end are both in reasonable agreement.</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Well then, don't say that copyright is your +only recourse. If he's in agreement he isn't going to give it to a +newspaper is he?</p> + +<p><strong>AM6</strong>: No, er, you're sidestepping my question about +interception.</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Oh interception. That's a totally +different… <em>[heatedly]</em> no you didn't ask about +interception. This is the first time you mentioned +interception…</p> + +<p><strong>AM6</strong>: No it's the second time.</p> + +<p><strong>AM9</strong>: <em>[murmurs assent to AM6]</em></p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: <em>[still heated]</em> Well I didn't hear +you before… it's totally silly… it's like trying +to… oh how can I compare?… it's like trying to kill an +elephant with a waffle iron I mean they have nothing to do with each +other.</p> + +<p><em>[uninterpretable silence falls]</em></p> + +<p><strong>AM10</strong>: Have you thought about +changes <em>[inaudible, in trade secrets?]</em></p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Uh yes: Trade secrets has developed in a very +ominous and menacing direction. It used to be that trade secrecy +meant that you wanted to keep something secret so you didn't tell +anybody, and later on it was something that was done within a business +telling just a few people something and they would agree to keep it +secret. But now, it's turning into something where the public in +general is becoming conscripted into keeping secrets for business even +if they have never agreed in any way to keep these secrets and that's +a pressure. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>So those who pretend that trade secrecy is just carrying +out some natural right of theirs; that's just not true any more. +They're getting explicit government help in forcing other people to +keep their secrets. And we might want to consider whether +non-disclosure agreements should in general be considered legitimate +contracts because of the anti-social nature of trade secrecy it +shouldn't be considered automatic that just because somebody has +promised to keep a secret that that means it's binding.</p> + +<p>Maybe in some cases it should be and in some cases it should not be. +If there's a clear public benefit from knowing then maybe that should +invalidate the contract, or maybe it should be valid when it is signed +with customers or maybe between a business and a, maybe when a business +supplies secrets to its suppliers that should be legitimate, but to its +customers, no.</p> + +<p>There are various possibilities one can think of, but at the very +start anybody who hasn't voluntarily agreed to keep the secrets should +not be bound by trade secrecy. That's the way it was until not long +ago. Maybe it still is that way in Europe, I'm not sure.</p> + +<p><strong>AM11</strong>: Is is OK for a company to ask say its…</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: employees?</p> + +<p><strong>AM11</strong>: No no</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: suppliers?</p> + +<p><strong>AM11</strong>: yes, suppliers. What if the customer is +another supplier?</p> + +<p><em>[gap as minidisk changed]</em></p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Let's start by not encouraging it.</p> + +<p><strong>AM12</strong>: I have a question regarding your opinion on +the scientific work on journals and textbooks. In my profession at +least one official journal and textbook are available on-line, but +they retain copyright, but there is free access to the resources +provided they have internet access.</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Well, that's good. But there are many +journals where it is not like that. For example, the ACM journals you +can't access unless you are a subscriber: they're blocked. So I think +journals should all start opening up access on the web.</p> + +<p><strong>AM12</strong>: So what impact does that have on the +significance of copyright on the public when you basically don't +interfere with providing free access on the web.</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Well, first of all, I disagree. Mirror sites +are essential, so the journal should only provide open access but they +should also give everyone the freedom to set up mirror sites with +verbatim copies of these papers. If not then there is a danger that +they will get lost. Various kinds of calamities could cause them to +be lost, you know, natural disasters, political disasters, technical +disasters, bureaucratic disasters, fiscal disasters… All sorts +of things could cause that one site to disappear. So really what the +scholarly community should logically be doing is carefully arranging +to have a wide network of mirror sites making sure that every paper is +available on every continent, from places near the ocean to places +that are far inland and you know this is exactly the kind of thing +that major libraries will feel is their mission if only they were not +being stopped.</p> + +<p>So what should be done, is that these journals should go one step +further. In addition to saying everybody can access the site they +should be saying, everyone can set up a mirror site. Even if they +said, you have to do the whole publication of this journal, together +with our advertisements, now that would still at least do the job of +making the availability redundant so that it's not in danger, and +other institutions would set up mirror sites, and I predict that you +would find ten years down the road, a very well organised unofficial +system of co-ordinating the mirroring to make sure that nothing was +getting left out. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>At this point the amount that it costs to set up +the mirror site for years of a journal is so little that it doesn't +require any special funding; nobody has to work very hard: just let +librarians do it. Anyway, oh there was some other thing that this +raised and I can't remember what it is. Oh well, I'll just have to +let it go.</p> + +<p><strong>AM13</strong>: The financing problem for the aesthetical +works… do you think the dynamics could +be… <em>[inaudible]</em> although I understand the problems +of… I mean who's contributing? And who will be rewarded? Does +the spirit of free software <em>[inaudible]</em></p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: I don't know. It's certainly suggesting the +idea to people. We'll see. I don't the answers, I don't know how +we're going to get there, I'm trying to think about where we should +get to. I know know how we can get there. The publishers are so +powerful, and can get governments to do their bidding. How we're +going to build up the kind of world where the public refuses to +tolerate this any more I don't know. I think the first thing we have +to do is to clearly reject the term pirate and the views that go with +it. Every time we hear that we have to speak out and say this is +propaganda, it's not wrong for people to share these published works +with each other, it's sharing with you friend, it's good. And sharing +with your friend is more important than how much money these companies +get. The society shouldn't be shaped for the sake of these companies. +<span class="gnun-split"></span> +We have to keep on… because you see the idea that they've +spread—that anything that reduces their income is immoral and +therefore people must be restricted in any way it takes to guarantee +for them to be paid for everything… that is the fundamental +thing that we have to start attacking directly. People have mostly +tried tactics of concentrating on secondary issues, you know, to when +people, you know when the publishers demand increased power usually +people saying it will cause some secondary kind of harm and arguing +based on that but you rarely find anybody (except me) saying that the +whole point of the change is wrong, that it's wrong to restrict it in +that way, that it's legitimate for people to want to change copies and +that they should be allowed to. We have to have more of this. We +have to start cutting the root of their dominion not just hacking away +at a few leaves.</p> + +<p><strong>AM14</strong>: <em>[inaudible]</em> this is important is to +concentrate on the donations system for music.</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: Yes. Unfortunately though there are patents +covering the technique that seems most likely to be usable.</p> + +<p><em>[laughs, cries of “no” from audience]</em></p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: So it may take ten years before we can do it.</p> + +<p><strong>AM15</strong>: We only take French laws</p> + +<p><strong>RMS</strong>: I don't know. I think I'd better hand the +floor over to Melanie whose talk was supposed to start at 3. And uh +so</p> + +<p>RMS stands in silence. There is a pause before the outbreak of +applause. RMS turns to applaud the stuffed fabric gnu he placed on +the overhead projector at the beginning of the talk.</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 2001, 2007, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2019/08/17 07:55:31 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> +</body> +</html> |