diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html | 381 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 381 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html deleted file mode 100644 index ad56242..0000000 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,381 +0,0 @@ -<!-- 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> - |