diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/dat.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/dat.html | 409 |
1 files changed, 409 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/dat.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/dat.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..29ff7cb --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/dat.html @@ -0,0 +1,409 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> + +<title>The Right Way to Tax DAT - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> + +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/dat.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> + +<h2>The Right Way to Tax DAT</h2> + +<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard +Stallman</strong></a></p> + +<p><em>[This article does not concern software, not directly. It +concerns a parallel issue about sharing copies of music.]</em></p> + +<p><em>[The article was first published in Wired magazine in 1992; the +text has not been changed; instead, I have added notes, in square +brackets and with italics or other emphasis.]</em></p> + +<p><em>[The original article addressed the (then hypothetical) issue +of sharing music using (then just appearing) digital audio tape +recorders, since that is what the proposed US tax law was supposed to +address. Nowadays it could be applied to Internet file +sharing.]</em></p> + +<p><em>[Another approach developed by the late Francis Muguet with my +assistance, which includes some of these ideas, is called +the Global Patronage +system (in French, Mécénat Global). I support both +solutions; that is to say, I favor adopting either one.]</em></p> + +<p>Record company magnates don't like the digital audio tape recorder +(<abbr title="Digital Audio Tape">DAT</abbr>), which can make +perfect copies of musical recordings. They fear that customers will +copy music themselves, and stop buying prerecorded music.</p> + +<p>Threatening lawsuits, they have obtained from the manufacturers of +DATs an agreement to pay a fee for each DAT unit and each DAT tape +sold to consumers. This fee is to be divided among various +participants in the music business: musicians, composers, music +publishers and record companies. In addition, DAT manufacturers have +agreed to cripple DAT units so that they cannot make a copy of a copy +of a prerecorded piece.</p> + +<p>Now the record companies have asked Congress to enact a law turning +this fee into a tax and prohibiting manufacture of DAT tapedecks that +function without imposed limitations.</p> + +<p>The stated purpose of the tax is to “compensate” +musicians for copying done by individuals using DATs. However, 57 +percent of the funds collected would go to record companies and music +publishers—leaving less than half to the people who participate +in the creative process. Most of these remaining funds would go to +musical superstars, and thus would do little to encourage musical +creativity. Meanwhile, DAT users would be unable to make full use of +the power of DAT technology.</p> + +<p>Here is a proposal for a different system for taxing DATs and DAT +tape—one designed to support music rather than cater to vested +interests.</p> + +<ul> +<li>Collect funds with a tax on DAT machines and DAT tapes, as the +current proposal provides.</li> +<li>Use a survey system to measure the extent of copying of each +musical piece.</li> +<li>Distribute these funds entirely to the people who create +music.</li> +<li>Adjust each contributor's share so that it increases more slowly +per copy as it gets larger. This spreads the funds more widely to +support a larger number of musicians adequately.</li> +<li>Make no restrictions on the functioning of DATs.</li> +</ul> + +<h3>What is the purpose of copyright?</h3> + +<p>The record industry presents its proposal as a way to +“compensate” musicians, assuming that they are entitled to +be paid for any copy made. Many Americans believe that copyright law +reflects a natural right of authors or musicians—that these are +entitled to special consideration from public policy. However, any +lawyer specializing in the field knows this is a misunderstanding, a +view rejected by the American legal system.</p> + +<p>The stated purpose of copyright, given in the U.S. Constitution, is +to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. +Progress in music means new and varied music for the public to enjoy: +copyright is supposed to promote a public good, not a private one.</p> + +<p>Yet copyright is often thought of as a natural right by laymen and +politicians, which often leads to wrong decisions about copyright +policy. Even courts, defining the details of the copyright system, +often let this thought creep back implicitly even though it is +supposed to be excluded. This is a conceptual error because it +mistakes a means (copyright) to a larger end (progress) for an end in +itself.</p> + +<p>Promoting progress in the arts does not inherently justify the idea +that authors are entitled to any particular sort of copyright, or even +that copyright should exist at all. Copyright is justified if the +benefits of progress exceeds the burden that copyright imposes on +everyone except the copyright holder.</p> + +<p>How do we make this cost/benefit comparison? It depends partly on +facts (how does a particular law affect musical activity and music +users) and partly on our value judgements about those results.</p> + +<p>Let's assume that it is worth paying a DAT tax if the result is a +significant increase in musical activity, and investigate how we +should arrange the details of this tax in order to maximize the +benefit. But first, let's review basic principles and facts which +have a bearing on the inquiry.</p> + +<h3>Diminishing returns</h3> + +<p>The law of diminishing returns is a general principle of economics. +It states that each additional increment of efforts or funds spent on +a given goal typically produces a smaller and smaller increment in the +results. There are exceptions to this law, but they are local; if you +keep on increasing the inputs, you eventually leave the exceptions +behind.</p> + +<p>For example, you can make traffic flow more smoothly by improving +roads. Adding one lane to 20 miles of congested roads in a city might +increase the average traffic speed by 15 miles an hour. Adding a +second lane to those roads will not give the same improvement; this +might increase the average speed by only 5 more miles an hour. The +next additional lane might make no noticeable difference if the +traffic jams are already gone. Yet each successive lane will cause +greater dislocation as more and more buildings must be torn down to +make room.</p> + +<p>When applied to the activities of musicians, diminishing returns +tells us that each successive increase in the income of musicians will +have a smaller effect on the amount of creativity in music.</p> + +<p>Diminishing returns is the first reason to reject the idea that any +use of music “should” be covered by copyright. There is +nothing to gain by trying to guarantee owners control of every +possible aspect of the use of music or to give them a financial stake +in every possible aftermarket. Extending copyright can only +“promote progress” up to a certain point. Further +extensions merely increase what the public pays to the owners for what +they will do anyway. Extending copyright beyond that point is +certainly undesirable.</p> + +<h3>Trade-offs</h3> + +<p>Those with a vested interest in extending copyright start the +discussion by claiming that copyright “should” be extended +as far as it can go. But the principle of diminishing returns renders +this claim implausible. So they fall back on the position that +copyright should be extended to maximize the rate of progress. But +this too is wrong, because it ignores the existence of other +trade-offs. Copyright imposes costs and burdens on the public, like +any other government project. The benefit may not be worth the +price.</p> + +<p>Government fills many important functions, but few would say that +any one of these functions should be expanded to maximize output. For +example, governments build roads, and this is very useful. But few +leaders would advocate building every road that could be built. Road +construction is expensive, and citizens have other uses for their +money. Too much concentration on building roads means that other +social and individual needs will be unmet.</p> + +<p>The same considerations apply to individual decisions. By spending +more money, you can buy a bigger and fancier house. Most people would +prefer the more expensive house, all else being equal. But given +finite resources, at some point spending more on a house becomes a +poor allocation of them.</p> + +<p>Copyright does not directly spend public funds, but it does impose +a cost—a loss of freedom—on every citizen. The wider the +scope of copyright, the more freedom we pay. We might prefer to +exercise some of our freedoms rather than trade them away. We must +judge any decision in copyright policy by comparing the benefits with +the costs.</p> + +<h3>“Incentive” is the wrong concept</h3> + +<p>The idea of providing a monetary incentive for making music is +based on a misunderstanding. Musicians hope primarily for other kinds +of reward; they must. Very few musicians get rich from their music; a +talented person whose primary goal is wealth would seek it in other +ways.</p> + +<p>In fact, psychological studies show that the desire for an +extrinsic reward (such as profit) generally hampers creative +activities such as writing music. The people who can do them well are +usually those who do them mostly for their own sake.</p> + +<p>This is not to say that musicians don't care about being paid. +Most hope to make a living from music so they will be free to devote +their time to it. As long as they earn enough to live, they will make +music as best they can. We might wish them to earn somewhat more than +just enough, so they can live as well as most Americans. But to offer +them wealth beyond this gains the public little—it is a matter +of diminishing returns.</p> + +<p>With this understanding, let's consider how a tax on DAT tape could +be designed to serve the intended purpose of copyright.</p> + +<h3>Who should get the funds</h3> + +<p>If the purpose of the DAT tax is to better reward musicians and +composers, then all the money collected should go to them—not +just 43 percent. The musicians and composers are the ones who truly +create the music. In principle, we could do without record companies +entirely.</p> + +<p>Record companies do provide a useful service: they distribute +prerecorded copies of music, usually of high quality. This service is +widely used, and will probably remain so. And it is right that the +purchasers of prerecorded copies should pay for this service. But +listeners making copies for themselves or their friends do not consume +this service; they use only the work of the musicians and composers. +The record companies contribute only incidentally and their role is +not essential.</p> + +<h3>Dividing the funds</h3> + +<p>What share of the tax revenues should each musician or composer +get? The record company proposal would divide the money in proportion +to record sales.</p> + +<p>It makes sense to distribute the funds based on how much that +musician's work is copied, more or less. But strict proportionality +is not the best apportionment. If each musician gets a share in +strict proportion to the amount of copying of his or her music, then a +large share will go to make a few superstars even richer than they are +now. This won't do much to promote musical culture or diversity.</p> + +<p>We can promote music more effectively by making any one musician's +share of the tax revenues taper off as copies increase. For example, +we could calculate an “adjusted number of copies” which, +beyond a certain point, increases more slowly than the actual +number.</p> + +<p>The effect of tapering off will be to spread the money more widely, +supporting more musicians at an adequate standard of living. This +encourages diversity, which is what copyright is supposed to do.</p> + +<p>The US government has already established a program to fund +diversity in the arts: the +<abbr title="National Endowment for the Arts">NEA</abbr>. +However, NEA grants involve discretionary power, which makes them a +center for controversy, sometimes because a few members of the public +strongly dislike the work, and sometimes because hardly anyone +particularly likes it. Spreading out DAT tax revenues will also have +the effect of supporting less popular musicians. However, it will not +support musicians whose work nobody likes. In addition, since it +involves no discretion, no arbitrary decisions, there is little room +for objection on account of any particular case.</p> + +<p><em>[I was later asked an interesting question: what organization would +“manage” the distribution of these funds. Since this is +tax money, a government agency should collect the tax and distribute +the funds. Private organizations should not be involved.]</em></p> + +<h3>Encouraging home copying</h3> + +<p>The record company proposal includes a requirement to make it +difficult for home listeners to make copies. Specifically, it +requires that consumer DAT machines refuse to copy a copy that was +made on a consumer DAT machine. The argument for this requirement is +based on the assumption that home copying is somehow unfair.</p> + +<p>In the past, many people have considered it unfair, because it +reduced the income of musicians. The DAT tax makes this reason +obsolete. Once home copying does contribute to the income of +musicians, through the DAT tax, the reason to discourage home copying +disappears.</p> + +<p>Therefore, if a DAT tax is adopted, the ability to copy DAT tapes +should not be restricted. Home copying is more efficient than record +companies and record stores; music lovers should be encouraged to use +home copying as much as possible.</p> + +<h3>Measuring the use of each piece of music</h3> + +<p>Today, nearly all the recorded music in the United States is +purchased in record stores; home copying is but a small fraction. +This will probably remain true for a long time, because record stores +offer a place where a person can go to find a particular piece or to +browse a wide selection. While this remains true, we can usually +estimate the audience of a given piece fairly well by counting record +sales.</p> + +<p>Eventually, home copying may become so widespread that estimating +its extent from sales figures may be unsatisfactory. This is already +unsatisfactory for musicians who distribute independently without the +help of record companies; and if any musicians need additional +support, these are the ones. We need another way to estimate usage of +any given piece, in order to distribute the tax funds.</p> + +<p>We can make these estimates by survey. From time to time, survey +staff would ask randomly chosen members of the public to show what +copies they have made of copyrighted music. The citizens asked would +not be required to answer. But no penalty and no guilt would attach +to having made copies, so most people will be glad to participate. +Fans will hope to be chosen so that they can contribute to the count +for their favorite musical groups.</p> + +<p>To make the survey more efficient and broader-based (and thus more +accurate), it could be automated. The survey bureau could mail +read-write memory cards to the chosen participants, who would connect +them momentarily to their DAT units and then mail them back. With +proper design, the survey bureau would have no way of knowing who had +sent in any particular card, and thus no information about who had +copied what, but they would still have an accurate total.</p> + +<h3>Conclusion</h3> + +<p>The record companies have proposed an excellent scheme for taxing +the public to increase their own income, but this isn't a legitimate +purpose of copyright. Through due attention to the ends of copyright +rather than past means, we can design a system which supports +musicians while giving citizens full freedom to copy music as they +wish.</p> + +<h3>What You Can Do</h3> + +<p><em>[This section is no longer applicable today; it is too late, +because the DAT tax bill was adopted in 1992—and DAT +recorders are obsolete nowadays. However, the same method can support +musicians and other artists in a world where sharing copies on the +Internet has been legalized.]</em></p> + +<p>Record company lobbyists are working hard to pass their form of DAT +tax. There is little organized opposition, and little public debate. +Their bill has already been sent out of committee in the Senate.</p> + +<p>This article proposes an alternative to the record company plan. +In order for this alternative, or any alternative, to have a chance, +we must first prevent the hasty adoption of the record company plan. +To help accomplish this, please write letters to:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>Congressman Barney Frank<br /> +437 Cherry St<br /> +West Newton, MA 02165</p> +<p>Senator Metzenbaum<br /> +United States Senate<br /> +Washington, DC 20510</p> +<p>House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property<br /> +House of Representatives<br /> +Washington, DC 20515</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>Urge Congress to reject the record company bill so that this and +other alternatives can be properly considered. It takes just a few +minutes to write a short letter, but in combination with other +people's letters it can do a great deal of good.</p> + +<p>If you know any musicians, composers, or songwriters, give them +copies of this article. Many musicians prefer this alternative to the +record company tax plan, and they are strongly motivated to act on +their concern.</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> + +<p>Copyright © 1992, 2010, 2014, 2020 Richard M. Stallman</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: 2020/07/01 15:25:23 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |