summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/new-monopoly.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/new-monopoly.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/new-monopoly.html272
1 files changed, 272 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/new-monopoly.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/new-monopoly.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..791d4da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/new-monopoly.html
@@ -0,0 +1,272 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
+<title>U.S. Congress Threatens to Establish a New Kind of Monopoly
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/new-monopoly.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>U.S. Congress Threatens to Establish a New Kind of Monopoly</h2>
+
+<p>
+Companies that want monopoly powers to control public use of the
+information we get from data bases are trying to pass a law this year
+in the U.S. &mdash; creating, for the first time, a private monopoly
+over repeating publicly known information. They are using the
+&ldquo;good bill, bad bill&rdquo; method; the &ldquo;bad&rdquo; bill
+is HR 354; the &ldquo;good&rdquo; bill is HR 1858.</p>
+<p>
+This method should be familiar. First, one legislator introduces an
+outrageous bill, one that would give a large handout of money or power
+to certain special interests and serves no legitimate public purpose.
+This inspires a chorus of opposition from other special interests that
+the bill would trample.</p>
+<p>
+So a second legislator introduces a more cautious bill, more clearly
+written, with some safeguards, avoiding some gross abuses, offering a
+smaller handout to a somewhat broader spectrum of special interests
+&mdash; and still diminishing the public treasury or the public's
+freedom.</p>
+<p>
+The second bill is typically praised for its &ldquo;balanced&rdquo;
+approach, and interest groups that might oppose the general idea feel
+obliged to support it, to make sure that the even worse first bill
+won't pass. With little opposition remaining, the second bill passes,
+and society takes one step for the worse.</p>
+<p>
+A few years later, the first legislator may propose another give-away.
+If we keep meeting his sponsors half-way each time, over time they can
+get as much as they like.</p>
+<p>
+This time, the &ldquo;bad&rdquo; bill is HR 354, which would
+effectively allow facts to become private property, simply through
+their inclusion in an electronic data base. Even mentioning more than
+a handful of the facts from any data base in a publication would be
+illegal, unless you could get them from some other source &mdash;
+often impossible, since in many cases there is no other ultimate
+source for a certain kind of fact.</p>
+<p>
+Consider for example the scores of professional sports games. The
+score is counted in a computer, whose memory counts as a data base.
+Under HR 354, regularly printing scores in a newspaper would become
+illegal.</p>
+<p>
+HR 354 would probably give Network Solutions a permanent monopoly on
+the Internet domain name data base, making any change in the handling
+of top level domains impossible.</p>
+<p>
+Any computer program counts as a data base under HR 354. So if the
+facts about the program's user interface and APIs can't be obtained
+from anywhere else, any compatible program would be prohibited. This
+would be devastating for the future of free software.</p>
+<p>
+Ominously, many collections of public records, maintained by companies
+on contract to governments, would become property of those
+companies.</p>
+<p>
+And West Publishing Company would regain its effective monopoly over
+the data needed to file a legal brief in much of the U.S. West
+maintains a data base of court decisions, and some courts require
+briefs to cite these decisions using page numbers as they appear in
+West's data base.</p>
+<p>
+West, seeking to prevent the necessary information from being
+available other than through their expensive service, used to claim
+that the pagination and page numbers were copyrighted, but a Federal
+court ruled against them. The court said that these page numbers
+don't result from creativity, so they are not copyrightable. But they
+are indubitably a data base, so HR 354 would prohibit anyone else from
+providing this data to the public &mdash; thus granting West a
+permanent monopoly on the law itself.</p>
+<p>
+HR 354 would also interfere with scientific research, genealogical
+research, publication of stock prices, and many other areas of life
+and work. So it's no wonder that it has generated strong opposition.
+The Supreme Court might reject the bill as unconstitutional, but no
+one wants to rely on this. Hence HR 1858 &mdash; this year's
+&ldquo;good&rdquo; bill.</p>
+<p>
+HR 1858 explicitly avoids most of the outrageous problems. It
+establishes a narrower kind of monopoly, permitting use of the facts
+in a different kind of data base, or in anything other than an
+electronic data base.</p>
+<p>
+Thus, you'll still be able to print game scores in an article, because
+an article doesn't count as a data base. A program is not a data base
+either, under HR 1858, so it will not create a new obstacle to writing
+compatible software.</p>
+<p>
+HR 1858 also excludes data bases for running the Internet. (But not
+the data bases that may some day be used for running future worldwide
+systems, even if they are just as important as the Internet is today.)
+It excludes data bases made by or for the Federal government. (But,
+by default, it doesn't exclude those made by or for state
+governments; this is a substantial loophole in HR 1858.)</p>
+<p>
+A wide range of organizations are supporting HR 1858 &mdash; including
+many universities and professional organizations. Some of the letters
+of support show a clear desire for some kind of monopoly power.</p>
+<p>
+HR 1858 is much less harmful than HR 354 &mdash; if we have to choose
+between the two, we should prefer HR 1858. But should we have to
+choose between a big loss of freedom and a smaller one?</p>
+<p>
+The advocates of these laws offer a reason, of course, for their
+proposal to limit our freedom. They say that nobody will maintain
+data bases without a monopoly over the contents. They have no
+specific evidence for this claim; it is based on an article of faith:
+a general assumption that nobody will do anything without a monopoly
+over the results.</p>
+<p>
+Just a few years ago, people said the same thing about software
+&mdash; that nobody would write programs without having a monopoly on
+them. The Free Software movement has proved that this is not true,
+and in the process, we have refuted that general assumption.
+Selfishness is not the whole of human nature. One kind of
+intellectual work, at least, CAN be done without a monopoly on the
+results.</p>
+<p>
+But data bases are not software. Will anyone develop data bases
+without a data base monopoly law?</p>
+<p>
+We know they will &mdash; because they already do. Many electronic
+data bases are available now, and the number is increasing, not
+decreasing. And many kinds of data base are byproducts or even
+preconditions of other activities that people do for other
+reasons.</p>
+<p>
+The data base companies can't deny this, so they threaten us with
+future uncertainty. &ldquo;Maybe we do this today, but ten years from
+now nobody will do it any more, unless you give us special
+privilege.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+We don't know what will happen in ten years; neither do they. The
+economic situation of the Internet is changing rapidly, and no one
+knows where it is going. Perhaps, in 2009, commercial data bases will
+disappear from the Internet. Or perhaps they will be very successful.
+Perhaps networks of volunteers will maintain all the data bases anyone
+might want. Perhaps advertising will provide a comfortable source of
+revenue to any company that maintains a data base; perhaps a much
+weaker law saying &ldquo;If you redistribute our data base, you must
+redistribute our ads too&rdquo; would serve their interests almost as
+well. Nobody knows.</p>
+<p>
+What we do know is that things will change; if a data base law is
+passed this year, it will be obsolete a few years from now. But any
+attempt to abolish it will be opposed by the data base companies,
+which will protect their privileges by predicting the sky would fall
+without them. They will say: &ldquo;We exist, so the law must be
+working.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+It is folly, or worse, to lock in a restrictive policy this year, to
+solve a problem whose existence is just speculation. A data base
+monopoly will take away your freedom, it's a surrender to special
+interests, it's hasty, and there is no clear public need for it. We
+should instead let the Internet mature, and see what problems really
+need to be solved.</p>
+<p>
+So if you are a U.S. voter, write your Congressman now. Say that if he
+or she has a chance to vote on whether the data base bill should be
+like HR 354 or HR 1858, to choose HR 1858. But then say, when the
+data base legislation ultimately comes up for a vote, to vote against
+it, whatever it says.</p>
+<p>
+I've written a sample letter that you can use, but remember that your
+letter will carry more weight if you write in your own words. Send
+your letter on paper; e-mail does not impress legislators, because they
+know how easy it is to send. Be polite, but not timid, and try to
+keep it under 20 lines. Please email your letter to
+<a href="mailto:database-letters@gnu.org">&lt;database-letters@gnu.org&gt;</a>
+also.</p>
+
+<pre>
+Dear Representative So-and-so
+
+
+Congress is considering laws to establish a new kind of monopoly on
+electronic data bases. I am against the whole idea of this, because
+it would restrict the freedom of computer users. Private interests
+should not be allowed control over dissemination of facts that are
+public knowledge. As a measure to promote business, this is
+premature; the Internet is changing very fast, and passing any law
+about this issue in 1999 would be foolish.
+
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>
+Multiple alternatives are being considered for this bill; HR 354 is
+especially drastic and dangerous, while HR 1858 is less so. If you
+have a chance to vote on the choice between them, please choose HR
+1858. But when the data base monopoly bill ultimately comes up for a
+vote, I ask you to vote against it, regardless of the details.
+
+
+Sincerely,
+Jane Q. Public
+</pre>
+<p>
+There exists a <a
+href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080906221815/http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cfm">
+list of senators</a> and a service to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080611003520/https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml">
+assist you in writing</a> to representative in the U.S. Congress [archived].</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 &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</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">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</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">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</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 &copy; 1999, 2007, 2013, 2016, 2018 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: 2018/12/15 14:02:38 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
+</body>
+</html>