summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-ip-ethos.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-ip-ethos.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-ip-ethos.html177
1 files changed, 177 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-ip-ethos.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-ip-ethos.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4ab52e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-ip-ethos.html
@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+
+<title>Don't Let &lsquo;Intellectual Property&rsquo; Twist Your Ethos</title>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/no-ip-ethos.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+ <h2>Don't Let &lsquo;Intellectual Property&rsquo; Twist Your Ethos</h2>
+
+ <p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard M.
+ Stallman</a><br />
+ June 09, 2006</p>
+
+ <p>Most free software licenses are based on copyright law, and
+ for good reason: Copyright law is much more uniform among
+ countries than contract law, which is the other possible
+ choice.</p>
+
+ <p>There's another reason not to use contract law: It would
+ require every distributor to get a user's formal assent to the
+ contract before providing a copy. To hand someone a CD without
+ getting his signature first would be forbidden. What a pain in
+ the neck!</p>
+
+ <p>It's true that in countries like China, where copyright law is
+ generally not enforced, we may also have trouble enforcing free
+ software license agreements, as Heather Meeker suggests in her
+ recent LinuxInsider column, <a href=
+ "http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/50421.html">&ldquo;Only in
+ America? Copyright Law Key to Global Free Software
+ Model&rdquo;</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>However, this is not a reason to press for more copyright
+ enforcement in China. Although we would use it to protect
+ people's freedom, we have to recognize that mostly it would be
+ used by the likes of Microsoft, Disney and Sony to take it
+ away.</p>
+
+ <p>Ironically, we might have more success enforcing copyright in
+ China than Microsoft, Disney and Sony &mdash; because what we would
+ want to do is easier.</p>
+
+ <p>Disney wishes to stamp out semi-underground organizations that
+ sell exact copies. With free software, regardless of precisely which
+ free license is used, that kind of copying is legal. What we want to prevent,
+ when the free software license is the
+ GNU <a href="/copyleft/gpl.html">GPL</a>, is the release of
+ proprietary software products based on our code. That kind of abuse
+ is at its worst when carried out by large, well-known companies
+ &mdash; and they are easier targets for enforcement. So GPL
+ enforcement in China is not a lost cause, though it won't be
+ easy.</p>
+
+ <h3>No Chinese Laundry</h3>
+
+ <p>Nonetheless, Meeker's claim that this leads to a global
+ problem is simply absurd. You can't &ldquo;launder&rdquo;
+ material copyrighted in the U.S. by moving it through China, as
+ she ought to know.</p>
+
+ <p>If someone violates the GNU GPL by distributing a non-free
+ modified version of GCC in the U.S., it won't make any difference
+ if it was obtained or modified in China. U.S. copyright law will
+ be enforced just the same.</p>
+
+ <p>Although this error might seem to be the central point of
+ Meeker's article, it is not. The real central point of the article
+ is the perspective embodied in her use of the term
+ &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;. She uses this term pervasively
+ as though it refers to something coherent &mdash; something it makes
+ sense to talk about and think about. If you believe that, you have
+ accepted the article's hidden assumption.</p>
+
+ <h3>Loose Language</h3>
+
+ <p>Sometimes Meeker switches between &ldquo;intellectual
+ property&rdquo; and &ldquo;copyright&rdquo; as if they were two
+ names for the same thing. Sometimes she switches between
+ &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; and &ldquo;patents&rdquo; as if they were
+ two names for the same thing. Having studied those two laws,
+ Meeker knows they are vastly different; all they have in common
+ is an abstract sketch of their form.</p>
+
+ <p>Other &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; laws don't even
+ share that much with them. The implication that you can treat
+ them all as the same thing is fundamentally misleading.</p>
+
+ <p>Along with the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; goes a
+ false understanding of what these laws are for. Meeker speaks of
+ an &ldquo;ethos&rdquo; of &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+ that exists in the U.S. because &ldquo;intellectual property is
+ in the Constitution.&rdquo; That's the mother of all
+ mistakes.</p>
+
+ <p>What is really in the U.S. Constitution? It doesn't mention
+ &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;, and it says nothing at all
+ about most of the laws that term is applied to. Only two of them &mdash;
+ copyright law and patent law &mdash; are treated there.</p>
+
+ <p>What does the Constitution say about them? What is its ethos?
+ It is nothing like the &ldquo;intellectual property ethos&rdquo;
+ that Meeker imagines.</p>
+
+ <h3>Failure to Execute</h3>
+
+ <p>What the Constitution says is that copyright law and patent law
+ are optional. They need not exist. It says that if they do exist,
+ their purpose is to provide a public benefit &mdash; to promote
+ progress by providing artificial incentives.</p>
+
+ <p>They are not rights that their holders are entitled to; they
+ are artificial privileges that we might, or might not, want to
+ hand out to encourage people to do what we find useful.</p>
+
+ <p>It's a wise policy. Too bad Congress &mdash; which has to carry
+ it out on our behalf &mdash; takes its orders from Hollywood and
+ Microsoft instead of from us.</p>
+
+ <p>If you appreciate the U.S. Constitution's wisdom, don't let
+ &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; into your ethos; don't let
+ the &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; meme infect your
+ mind.</p>
+
+ <p>Practically speaking, copyright and patent and trademark law
+ have only one thing in common: Each is legitimate only as far as
+ it serves the public interest. Your interest in your freedom is a
+ part of the public interest that must be served.</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>
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2006, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:29 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>