summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html381
1 files changed, 381 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ad56242
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html
@@ -0,0 +1,381 @@
+<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.
+
+Free Software Foundation
+
+51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
+
+Boston, MA 02110-1335
+Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted
+worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is
+preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations
+of this book from the original English into another language provided
+the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and
+the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all
+copies.
+
+ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9
+Cover design by Rob Myers.
+
+Cover photograph by Peter Hinely.
+ -->
+
+
+ <a name="Freedom_002d_002d_002dor-Copyright">
+ </a>
+ <h1 class="chapter">
+ 20. Freedom—or Copyright
+ </h1>
+ <blockquote class="smallquotation">
+ <p>
+ This essay addresses how the principles of software freedom apply in
+some cases to other works of authorship and art. It’s included here
+since it involves the application of the ideas of free software.
+ </p>
+ </blockquote>
+ <br>
+ <p>
+ Copyright was established in the age of the printing press as an
+industrial regulation on the business of writing and publishing. The
+aim was to encourage the publication of a diversity of written works.
+The means was to require publishers to get the author’s permission to
+publish recent writings. This enabled authors to get income from
+publishers, which facilitated and encouraged writing. The general
+reading public received the benefit of this, while losing little:
+copyright restricted only publication, not the things an ordinary
+reader could do. That made copyright arguably a beneficial system for
+the public, and therefore arguably legitimate.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Well and good—back then.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Now we have a new way of distributing information: computers and
+networks. Their benefit is that they facilitate copying and
+manipulating information, including software, musical recordings,
+books, and movies. They offer the possibility of unlimited access to
+all sorts of data—an information utopia.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ One obstacle stood in the way: copyright. Readers and listeners who
+made use of their new ability to copy and share published information
+were technically copyright infringers. The same law which had
+formerly acted as a beneficial industrial regulation on publishers had
+become a restriction on the public it was meant to serve.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ In a democracy, a law that prohibits a popular and useful activity is
+usually soon relaxed. Not so where corporations have political power.
+The publishers’ lobby was determined to prevent the public from taking
+advantage of the power of their computers, and found copyright a
+handy weapon. Under their influence, rather than relaxing copyright
+rules to suit the new circumstances, governments made them stricter than
+ever, imposing harsh penalties on the practice of sharing. The latest
+fashion in supporting the publishers against the citizens, known as
+“three strikes,” is to cut off people’s Internet connections if
+they share.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ But that wasn’t the worst of it. Computers can be powerful tools of
+domination when software suppliers deny users the control of the
+software they run. The
+publishers realized that by publishing works in encrypted format,
+which only specially authorized software could view, they could gain
+unprecedented power: they could compel readers to pay, and identify
+themselves, every time they read a book, listen to a song, or watch a
+video. That is the publishers’ dream: a
+ <a name="index-pay_002dper_002dview">
+ </a>
+ pay-per-view universe.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-DMCA_002c-publishers-and-1">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ The publishers gained US government support for their dream with the
+Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. This law gave publishers
+power to write their own copyright rules, by implementing them in the
+code of the authorized player software. Under this practice, called
+Digital Restrictions Management, or
+ <a name="index-DRM_002c-call-it-_0060_0060Digital-Restrictions-Management_0027_0027-1">
+ </a>
+ DRM, even reading or listening
+without authorization is forbidden.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-e_002dbooks-2">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ We still have the same old freedoms in using paper books and other
+analog media. But if e-books replace printed books, those freedoms
+will not transfer. Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending
+a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the public
+ <a name="index-libraries_002c-e_002dbooks-and-1">
+ </a>
+ library—no more “leaks” that might give someone a
+chance to read without paying. No more purchasing a book anonymously with
+cash—you can only buy an e-book with a credit card. That is
+the world the publishers want to impose on us. If you buy the
+ <a name="index-Amazon">
+ </a>
+ Amazon
+ <a name="index-Kindle-_0028see-also-Swindle_0029">
+ </a>
+ Kindle (we call it the
+ <a name="index-Swindle">
+ </a>
+ Swindle) or the
+ <a name="index-Sony-Reader-_0028call-it-the-Shreader_0029">
+ </a>
+ Sony Reader (we
+call it the Shreader for what it threatens to do to books), you pay to
+establish that world.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ The
+ <a name="index-Swindle-1">
+ </a>
+ Swindle even has an Orwellian back door that can be used to erase
+books remotely. Amazon demonstrated this capability by erasing
+copies, purchased from Amazon, of
+ <a name="index-Orwell_002c-George">
+ </a>
+ Orwell’s book
+ <a name="index-1984_002c-George-Orwell">
+ </a>
+ <cite>
+ 1984.
+ </cite>
+ Evidently
+Amazon’s name for this product reflects the intention to burn our
+books.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Public anger against DRM is slowly growing, held back because
+propaganda expressions such
+as
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060protection_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-1">
+ </a>
+ “protect
+authors”
+and
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060intellectual-property_002c_0027_0027-bias-and-fallacy-of-term-_0028see-also-ownership_0029-7">
+ </a>
+ “intellectual
+property” have convinced readers that their rights do not
+count. These terms implicitly assume that publishers deserve special
+power in the name of the authors, that we are morally obliged to bow
+to them, and that we have wronged someone if we see or hear
+anything without paying for permission.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ The organizations that profit most from copyright legally exercise it
+in the name of the authors (most of whom gain little). They would
+have you believe that copyright is a natural right of authors, and
+that we the public must suffer it no matter how painful it is. They
+call sharing
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060piracy_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-7">
+ </a>
+ “piracy,” equating helping your neighbor with
+attacking a ship.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-War-on-Sharing-_0028see-also-DRM-and-copyright_0029">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ They also tell us that a War on Sharing is the only way to keep
+art alive. Even if true, it would not justify the policy; but it
+isn’t true. Public sharing of copies is likely to increase the sales of
+most works, and decrease sales only for big hits.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-e_002dbooks-3">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ Bestsellers can still do well without forbidding sharing.
+ <a name="index-King_002c-Stephen">
+ </a>
+ Stephen
+King got hundreds of thousands of dollars selling an unencrypted
+e-book serial with no obstacle to copying and sharing. (He was
+dissatisfied with that amount and called the experiment a failure, but it looks
+like a success to me.)
+ <a name="index-Radiohead">
+ </a>
+ Radiohead made millions in 2007 by inviting
+fans to copy an album and pay what they wished, while it was also
+shared through
+ <a name="index-peer_002dto_002dpeer">
+ </a>
+ peer-to-peer. In
+2008,
+ <a name="index-Nine-Inch-Nails">
+ </a>
+ Nine Inch Nails released an album with permission to share copies and
+made $750,000 in a few days.
+ <a href="#FOOT43" name="DOCF43">
+ (43)
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ The possibility of success without oppression is not limited to
+bestsellers. Many artists of various levels of fame now make an
+adequate living through voluntary support:
+ <a href="#FOOT44" name="DOCF44">
+ (44)
+ </a>
+ donations and merchandise purchases of their fans.
+ <a name="index-Kelly_002c-Kevin">
+ </a>
+ Kevin Kelly
+ <a href="#FOOT45" name="DOCF45">
+ (45)
+ </a>
+ estimates the artist need
+only find around 1,000 true fans.
+ <a href="#FOOT46" name="DOCF46">
+ (46)
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ When computer networks provide an easy anonymous method for sending
+someone a small amount of money, without a credit card, it will be
+easy to set up a much better system to support the arts. When you
+view a work, there will be a button you can press saying, “Click
+here to send the artist one dollar.” Wouldn’t you press it, at
+least once a week?
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Another good way to support music and the arts is with
+tax funds—perhaps a tax on blank media
+or on Internet connectivity. The state should
+distribute the tax money entirely to the artists, not
+waste it on corporate executives. But the state should not distribute
+it in linear proportion to popularity, because that would give most of
+it to a few superstars, leaving little to support all the other
+artists. I therefore recommend using a cube-root function or
+something similar. With linear proportion, superstar A with 1,000
+times the popularity of a successful artist B will get 1,000 times as
+much money as B. With the cube root, A will get 10 times as much as
+B. Thus, each superstar gets a larger share than a less popular
+artist, but most of the funds go to the artists who really need this
+support. This system will use our tax money efficiently to support
+the arts.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-Global-Patronage-_0028see-also-DRM-and-copyright_0029">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ The Global Patronage
+ <a href="#FOOT47" name="DOCF47">
+ (47)
+ </a>
+ proposal
+combines aspects of those two systems, incorporating mandatory
+payments with voluntary allocation among artists.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-Spain-1">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ In Spain, this tax system should replace the
+ <a name="index-SGAE">
+ </a>
+ SGAE
+ <a href="#FOOT48" name="DOCF48">
+ (48)
+ </a>
+ and its canon,
+which could be eliminated.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-boycott-products-with-DRM">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-legalize-noncommercial-copying-and-sharing-of-all-published-works">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ To make copyright fit the network age, we should legalize the
+noncommercial copying and sharing of all published works, and prohibit
+DRM. But until we win this battle, you must protect yourself: don’t
+buy any products with DRM unless you personally have the means to
+break the DRM. Never use a product designed to attack your freedom
+unless you can nullify the attack.
+ <a name="index-DRM_002c-call-it-_0060_0060Digital-Restrictions-Management_0027_0027-2">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <div class="footnote">
+ <hr>
+ <h3>
+ Footnotes
+ </h3>
+ <h3>
+ <a href="#DOCF43" name="FOOT43">
+ (43)
+ </a>
+ </h3>
+ <p>
+ “Nine Inch Nails Made at Least $750k from CC Release in Two Days,” posted by Cory Doctorow, 5 March 2008,
+ <a href="http://boingboing.net/2008/03/05/nine-inch-nails-made.html">
+ http://boingboing.net/2008/03/05/nine-inch-nails-made.html
+ </a>
+ .
+ </p>
+ <h3>
+ <a href="#DOCF44" name="FOOT44">
+ (44)
+ </a>
+ </h3>
+ <p>
+ Mike Masnick,
+“The Future of Music Business Models (and Those Who Are Already
+There),” 25 January 2010,
+ <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml">
+ http://techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml
+ </a>
+ .
+ </p>
+ <h3>
+ <a href="#DOCF45" name="FOOT45">
+ (45)
+ </a>
+ </h3>
+ <p>
+ Kevin Kelly is a commentator on digital culture
+and the founder of
+ <cite>
+ Wired
+ </cite>
+ magazine.
+ </p>
+ <h3>
+ <a href="#DOCF46" name="FOOT46">
+ (46)
+ </a>
+ </h3>
+ <p>
+ Kevin Kelly, “1,000 True
+Fans,” 4 March 2008,
+ <a href="http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php">
+ http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php
+ </a>
+ .
+ </p>
+ <h3>
+ <a href="#DOCF47" name="FOOT47">
+ (47)
+ </a>
+ </h3>
+ <p>
+ See
+ <a href="http://mecenatglobal.org/">
+ http://mecenatglobal.org/
+ </a>
+ for more information.
+ </p>
+ <h3>
+ <a href="#DOCF48" name="FOOT48">
+ (48)
+ </a>
+ </h3>
+ <p>
+ The SGAE is Spain’s main copyright collective for composers, authors,
+and publishers.
+ </p>
+ </hr>
+ </div>
+ <hr size="2"/>
+ </br>
+