From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../articles/en/copyright-and-globalization.html | 1322 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1322 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-and-globalization.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-and-globalization.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-and-globalization.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-and-globalization.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1e73da9 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-and-globalization.html @@ -0,0 +1,1322 @@ + + +Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks - +GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks

+ +

+The following is an edited transcript from a speech given +at MIT in +the Communications Forum on Thursday, April 19, 2001 from 5:00pm - +7:00pm

+ +

+DAVID THORBURN, moderator: Our speaker today, Richard Stallman, +is a legendary figure in the computing world, and my experience in +trying to find a respondent to share the podium with him was +instructive. One distinguished MIT professor told me +that Stallman needs to be understood as a charismatic figure in a +biblical parable — a kind of Old Testament anecdote-lesson. +“Imagine,” he said, “a Moses or a Jeremiah — +better a Jeremiah.” And I said, “Well, that's very +admirable.”

+

+That sounds wonderful. It confirms my sense of the kind of +contribution he has made to the world. Then why are you reluctant to +share the podium with him?” His answer: “Like Jeremiah or +Moses, he would simply overwhelm me. I won't appear on the same panel +him, but if you asked me to name five people alive in the world who +have truly helped us all, Richard Stallman would be one of +them.”

+

+RICHARD STALLMAN: I should [begin by explaining why I have +refused to allow this Forum to be web cast], in case it wasn't clear +fully what the issue is: The software they use for web broadcasting +requires the user to download certain software in order to receive the +broadcast. That software is not free software. It's available at zero +price but only as an executable, which is a mysterious bunch of numbers.

+

+What it does is secret. You can't study it; you can't change it; and +you certainly can't publish it in your own modified version. And +those are among the freedoms that are essential in the definition of +“free software.”

+

+So if I am to be an honest advocate for free software, I can hardly go +around giving speeches, then put pressure on people to use nonfree +software. I'd be undermining my own cause. And if I don't show that +I take my principles seriously, I can't expect anybody else to take +them seriously.

+

+However, this speech is not about free software. After I'd been +working on the free software movement for several years and people +started using some of the pieces of the GNU operating system, I began +getting invited to give speeches [at which] … people started +asking me: “Well, how do the ideas about freedom for software +users generalize to other kinds of things?”

+

+And, of course, people asked silly questions like, “Well, should +hardware be free?” “Should this microphone be +free?”

+

+Well, what does that mean? Should you be free to copy it and change +it? Well, as for changing it, if you buy the microphone, nobody is +going to stop you from changing it. And as for copying it, nobody has +a microphone copier. Outside of “Star Trek,” those things +don't exist. Maybe some day there'll be nanotechnological analyzers +and assemblers, and it really will be possible to copy a physical +object, and then these issues of whether you're free to do that will +start being really important. We'll see agribusiness companies trying +to stop people from copying food, and that will become a major +political issue, if that technological capability will ever exist. I +don't know if it will; it's just speculation at this point.

+

+But for other kinds of information, you can raise the issue because +any kind of information that can be stored on a computer, conceivably, +can be copied and modified. So the ethical issues of free software, +the issues of a user's right to copy and modify software, are the same +as such questions for other kinds of published information. Now I'm +not talking about private information, say, personal information, +which is never meant to be available to the public at all. I'm +talking about the rights you should have if you get copies of +published things where there's no attempt to keep them secret.

+

+In order to explain my ideas on the subject, I'd like to review the +history of the distribution of information and of copyright. In the +ancient world, books were written by hand with a pen, and anybody who +knew how to read and write could copy a book about as efficiently as +anybody else. Now somebody who did it all day would probably learn to +be somewhat better at it, but there was not a tremendous difference. +And because the copies were made one at a time, there was no great +economy of scale. Making ten copies took ten times as long as making +one copy. There was also nothing forcing centralization; a book could +be copied anywhere.

+

+Now because of this technology, because it didn't force copies to be +identical, there wasn't in the ancient world the same total divide +between copying a book and writing a book. There are things in +between that made sense. They did understand the idea of an author. +They knew, say, that this play was written by Sophocles but in between +writing a book and copying a book, there were other useful things you +could do. For instance, you could copy a part of a book, then write +some new words, copy some more and write some new words and on and on. +This was called “writing a commentary” — that was a +common thing to do — and these commentaries were +appreciated.

+

+You could also copy a passage out of one book, then write some other +words, and copy a passage from another book and write some more and so +on, and this was making a compendium. Compendia were also very +useful. There are works that are lost but parts of them survived when +they were quoted into other books that got to be more popular than the +original. Maybe they copied the most interesting parts, and so people +made a lot of copies of these, but they didn't bother copying the +original because it wasn't interesting enough.

+

+Now as far as I can tell, there was no such thing as copyright in the +ancient world. Anyone who wanted to copy a book could copy the book. +Later on, the printing press was developed and books started to be +copied on the printing press. Now the printing press was not just a +quantitative improvement in the ease of copying. It affected +different kinds of copying unevenly because it introduced an inherent +economy of scale. It was a lot of work to set the type and much less +work to make many identical copies of the page. So the result was +that copying books tended to become a centralized, mass-production +activity. Copies of any given book would probably be made in only a +few places.

+

+It also meant that ordinary readers couldn't copy books efficiently. +Only if you had a printing press could you do that. So it was an +industrial activity.

+

+Now for the first few centuries of printing, printed books did not +totally replace hand-copying. Hand-copied books were still made, +sometimes by rich people and sometimes by poor people. The rich +people did this to get an especially beautiful copy that would show +how rich they were, and poor people did it because maybe they didn't +have enough money to buy a printed copy but they had the time to copy +a book by hand. As the song says, “Time ain't money when all +you got is time.”

+

+So hand-copying was still done to some extent. I think it was in the +1800s that printing actually got to be cheap enough that even poor +people could afford printed books if they were literate.

+

+Now copyright was developed along with the use of the printing press +and given the technology of the printing press, it had the effect of +an industrial regulation. It didn't restrict what readers could do; +it restricted what publishers and authors could do. Copyright in +England was initially a form of censorship. You had to get government +permission to publish the book. But the idea has changed. By the +time of the U.S. Constitution, people came to a different idea of the +purpose of copyright, and I think that that idea was accepted in +England as well.

+

+For the U.S. Constitution it was proposed that authors should be +entitled to a copyright, a monopoly on copying their books. This +proposal was rejected. Instead, a crucially different proposal was +adopted which is that, for the sake of promoting progress, Congress +could optionally establish a copyright system that would create these +monopolies. So the monopolies, according to the U.S. Constitution, do +not exist for the sake of those who own them; they exist for the sake +of promoting the progress of science. The monopolies are handed out +to authors as a way of modifying their behavior to get them to do +something that serves the public.

+

+So the goal is more written and published books which other people can +then read. And this is believed to contribute to increased literary +activity, increased writing about science and other fields, and +society then learns through this. That's the purpose to be served. +The creation of private monopolies was a means to an end only, and the +end is a public end.

+

+Now copyright in the age of the printing press was fairly painless +because it was an industrial regulation. It restricted only the +activities of publishers and authors. Well, in some strict sense, the +poor people who copied books by hand may have been infringing +copyright, too. But nobody ever tried to enforce copyright against +them because it was understood as an industrial regulation.

+

+Copyright in the age of the printing press was also easy to enforce +because it had to be enforced only where there was a publisher, and +publishers, by their nature, make themselves known. If you're trying +to sell books, you've got to tell people where to come to buy them. +You don't have to go into everybody's house to enforce copyright.

+

+And, finally, copyright may have been a beneficial system in that +context. Copyright in the U.S. is considered by legal scholars as a +trade, a bargain between the public and authors. The public trades +away some of its natural rights to make copies, and in exchange gets +the benefit of more books' being written and published.

+

+Now, is this an advantageous trade? Well, when the general public +can't make copies because they can only be efficiently made on +printing presses — and most people don't own printing presses +— the result is that the general public is trading away a +freedom it is unable to exercise, a freedom that is of no practical +value. So if you have something that is a byproduct of your life and +it's useless and you have the opportunity to exchange it for something +else of any value, you're gaining. So that's why copyright may have +been an advantageous trade for the public in that time.

+

+But the context is changing, and that has to change our ethical +evaluation of copyright. Now the basic principles of ethics are not +changed by advances in technology; they're too fundamental to be +touched by such contingencies. But our decision about any specific +question is a matter of the consequences of the alternatives +available, and the consequences of a given choice may change when the +context changes. That is what is happening in the area of copyright +law because the age of the printing press is coming to an end, giving +way gradually to the age of the computer networks.

+

+Computer networks and digital information technology are bringing us +back to a world more like the ancient world where anyone who can read +and use the information can also copy it and can make copies about as +easily as anyone else could make them. They are perfect copies and +they're just as good as the copies anyone else could make. So the +centralization and economy of scale introduced by the printing press +and similar technologies is going away.

+

+And this changing context changes the way copyright law works. You +see, copyright law no longer acts as an industrial regulation; it is +now a Draconian restriction on a general public. It used to be a +restriction on publishers for the sake of authors. Now, for practical +purposes, it's a restriction on a public for the sake of publishers. +Copyright used to be fairly painless and uncontroversial. It didn't +restrict the general public. Now that's not true. If you have a +computer, the publishers consider restricting you to be their highest +priority. Copyright was easy to enforce because it was a restriction +only on publishers who were easy to find and what they published was +easy to see. Now the copyright is a restriction on each and everyone +of you. To enforce it requires surveillance — an intrusion +— and harsh punishments, and we are seeing these being enacted +into law in the U.S. and other countries.

+

+And copyright used to be, arguably, an advantageous trade for the +public to make because the public was trading away freedoms it +couldn't exercise. Well, now it can exercise these freedoms. What do +you do if you have been producing a byproduct which was of no use to +you and you were in the habit of trading it away and then, all of a +sudden, you discover a use for it? You can actually consume it, use +it. What do you do? You don't trade at all; you keep some. And +that's what the public would naturally want to do. +That's what the +public does whenever it's given a chance to voice its preference; it +keeps some of this freedom and exercises it. Napster is a big example +of that, the public deciding to exercise the freedom to copy instead +of giving it up. So the natural thing for us to do to make copyright +law fit today's circumstances is to reduce the amount of copyright +power that copyright owners get, to reduce the amount of restriction +that they place on the public and to increase the freedom that the +public retains.

+

+But this is not what the publishers want to do. What they want to do +is exactly the opposite. They wish to increase copyright powers to +the point where they can remain firmly in control of all use of +information. This has led to laws that have given an unprecedented +increase in the powers of copyright. Freedoms that the public used to +have in the age of the printing press are being taken away.

+

+For instance, let's look at e-books. There's a tremendous amount of +hype about e-books; you can hardly avoid it. I took a flight in +Brazil and in the in-flight magazine, there was an article saying that +maybe it would take 10 or 20 years before we all switched to e-books. +Clearly, this kind of campaign comes from somebody paying for it. Now +why are they doing that? I think I know. The reason is that e-books +are the opportunity to take away some of the residual freedoms that +readers of printed books have always had and still have — the +freedom, for instance, to lend a book to your friend or borrow it from +the public library or sell a copy to a used bookstore or buy a copy +anonymously, without putting a record in the database of who bought +that particular book. And maybe even the right to read it twice.

+

+These are freedoms that the publishers would like to take away, but +they can't do this for printed books because that would be too obvious +a power-grab and would raise an outcry. So they have found an indirect +strategy: First, they obtain the legislation to take away these +freedoms for e-books when there are no e-books; so there's no +controversy. There are no pre-existing users of e-books who are +accustomed to their freedoms and will defend them. That they obtained +with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998. Then they +introduce e-books and gradually get everybody to switch from printed +books to e-books and eventually the result is, readers have lost these +freedoms without ever having an instant when those freedoms were being +taken away and when they might have fought back to retain them.

+

+We see at the same time efforts to take away people's freedom in using +other kinds of published works. For instance, movies that are on DVDs +are published in an encrypted format that used to be secret — it +was meant to be secret — and the only way the movie companies +would tell you the format, so that you could make a DVD player, was if +you signed a contract to build certain restrictions into the player, +with the result that the public would be stopped even from fully +exercising their legal rights. Then a few clever programmers in +Europe figured out the format of DVDs and they wrote a free software +package that would read a DVD. This made it possible to use free +software on top of the GNU+Linux operating system to watch the DVD +that you had bought, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. You +ought to be able to do that with free software.

+

+But the movie companies objected and they went to court. You see, the +movie companies used to make a lot of films where there was a mad +scientist and somebody was saying, “But, Doctor, there are some +things Man was not meant to know.” They must have watched their +own films too much because they came to believe that the format of +DVDs is something that Man was not meant to know. And they obtained a +ruling for total censorship of the software for playing DVDs. Even +making a link to a site where this information is legally available +outside the U.S. has been prohibited. An appeal has been made against +this ruling. I signed a friend-of-the-court brief in that appeal, I'm +proud to say, although I'm playing a fairly small role in that +particular battle.

+

+The U.S. government intervened directly on the other side. This is +not surprising when you consider why the Digital Millennium Copyright +Act was passed in the first place. The reason is the campaign finance +system that we have in the U.S., which is essentially legalized +bribery where the candidates are bought by business before they even +get elected. And, of course, they know who their master is — +they know whom they're working for — and they pass the laws to +give business more power.

+

+What will happen with that particular battle, we don't know. But +meanwhile Australia has passed a similar law and Europe is almost +finished adopting one; so the plan is to leave no place on earth where +this information can be made available to people. But the U.S. +remains the world leader in trying to stop the public from +distributing information that's been published.

+

+The U.S. though is not the first country to make a priority of this. +The Soviet Union treated it as very important. There this +unauthorized copying and redistribution was known as Samizdat and to +stamp it out, they developed a series of methods: First, guards +watching every piece of copying equipment to check what people were +copying to prevent forbidden copying. Second, harsh punishments for +anyone caught doing forbidden copying. You could be sent to Siberia. +Third, soliciting informers, asking everyone to rat on their neighbors +and co-workers to the information police. Fourth, collective +responsibility — You! You're going to watch that group! If I +catch any of them doing forbidden copying, you are going to prison. +So watch them hard. And, fifth, propaganda, starting in childhood to +convince everyone that only a horrible enemy of the people would ever +do this forbidden copying.

+

+The U.S. is using all of these measures now. First, guards watching +copying equipment. Well, in copy stores, they have human guards to +check what you copy. But human guards to watch what you copy in your +computer would be too expensive; human labor is too expensive. So +they have robot guards. That's the purpose of the Digital Millennium +Copyright Act. This software goes in your computer; it's the only way +you can access certain data and it stops you from copying.

+

+There's a plan now to introduce this software into every hard disk, so +that there could be files on your hard disk that you can't even access +except by getting permission from some network server to access the +file. And to bypass this software or even tell other people how to +bypass it is a crime.

+

+Second, harsh punishments. A few years ago, if you made copies of +something and handed them out to your friends just to be helpful, this +was not a crime; it had never been a crime in the U.S. Then they made +it a felony, so you could be put in prisons for years for sharing with +your neighbor.

+

+Third, informers. Well, you may have seen the ads on TV, the ads in +the Boston subways asking people to rat on their co-workers to the +information police, which officially is called the Software Publishers +Association.

+

+And fourth, collective responsibility. In the U.S., this has been +done by conscripting Internet service providers, making them legally +responsible for everything their customers post. The only way they +can avoid always being held responsible is if they have an invariable +procedure to disconnect or remove the information within two weeks +after a complaint. Just a few days ago, I heard that a clever protest +site criticizing City Bank for some of its nasty policies was +disconnected in this way. Nowadays, you don't even get your day in +court; your site just gets unplugged.

+

+And, finally, propaganda, starting in childhood. That's what the word +“pirate” is used for. If you'll think back a few years, +the term “pirate” was formerly applied to publishers that +didn't pay the author. But now it's been turned completely around. +It's now applied to members of the public who escape from the control +of the publisher. It's being used to convince people that only a +nasty enemy of the people would ever do this forbidden copying. It +says that “sharing with your neighbor is the moral equivalent of +attacking a ship.” I hope that you don't agree with that and if +you don't, I hope you will refuse to use the word in that way.

+

+So the publishers are purchasing laws to give themselves more power. +In addition, they're also extending the length of time the copyright +lasts. The U.S. Constitution says that copyright must last for a +limited time, but the publishers want copyright to last forever. +However, getting a constitutional amendment would be rather difficult, +so they found an easier way that achieves the same result. Every 20 +years they retroactively extend copyright by 20 years. So the result +is, at any given time, copyright nominally lasts for a certain period +and any given copyright will nominally expire some day. But that +expiration will never be reached because every copyright will be +extended by 20 years every 20 years; thus no work will ever go into +the public domain again. This has been called “perpetual +copyright on the installment plan.”

+

+The law in 1998 that extended copyright by 20 years is known as the +“Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act” because one of the +main sponsors of this law was Disney. Disney realized that the +copyright on Mickey Mouse was going to expire, and they don't want +that to ever happen because they make a lot of money from that +copyright.

+

+Now the original title of this talk was supposed to be +“Copyright and Globalization.” If you look at +globalization, what you see is that it's carried out by a number of +policies which are done in the name of economic efficiency or +so-called free-trade treaties, which really are designed to give +business power over laws and policies. They're not really about free +trade. They're about a transfer of power: removing the power to +decide laws from the citizens of any country who might conceivably +consider their own interests and giving that power to businesses who +will not consider the interests of those citizens.

+

+Democracy is the problem in their view, and these treaties are +designed to put an end to the problem. For instance, +NAFTA +actually contains provisions, I believe, allowing companies to sue +another government to get rid of a law that they believe is +interfering with their profits in the other country. So foreign +companies have more power than citizens of the country.

+

+There are attempts being made to extend this +beyond NAFTA. For instance, this is one of the goals of +the so-called free trade area of the Americas, to extend this +principle to all the countries in South America and the Caribbean as +well, and the multilateral agreement on investment was intended to +spread it to the whole world.

+

+One thing we've seen in the '90s is that these treaties begin to +impose copyright throughout the world, and in more powerful and +restrictive ways. These treaties are not free-trade treaties. +They're actually corporate-controlled trade treaties being used to +give corporations control over world trade, in order to eliminate free +trade.

+

+When the U.S. was a developing country in the 1800s, the U.S. did not +recognize foreign copyrights. This was a decision made carefully, and +it was an intelligent decision. It was acknowledged that for the U.S. +to recognize foreign copyrights would just be disadvantageous, that it +would suck money out and wouldn't do much good.

+

+The same logic would apply today to developing countries but the U.S. +has sufficient power to force them to go against their interests. +Actually, it's a mistake to speak of the interests of countries in +this context. In fact, I'm sure that most of you have heard about the +fallacy of trying to judge the public interest by adding up +everybody's wealth. If working Americans lost $1 billion and Bill +Gates gained $2 billion, would Americans generally be better off? +Would this be good for America? Or if you look only at the total, it +looks like it's good. However, this example really shows that the +total is the wrong way to judge because Bill Gates really doesn't need +another $2 billion, but the loss of the $1 billion by other people who +don't have as much to start with might be painful. +Well, in a +discussion about any of these trade treaties, when you hear people +talk about the interests of this country or that country, what they're +doing, within each country, is adding up everybody's income. The rich +people and the poor people are being added up. So it's actually an +excuse to apply that same fallacy to get you to ignore the effect on +the distribution of wealth within the country and whether the treaty +is going to make that more uneven, as it has done in the U.S.

+

+So it's really not the U.S. interest that is being served by enforcing +copyright around the world. It's the interests of certain business +owners, many of whom are in the U.S. and some of whom are in other +countries. It doesn't, in any sense, serve the public interest.

+

+But what would make sense to do? If we believe in the goal of +copyright stated, for instance in the U.S. Constitution, the goal of +promoting progress, what would be intelligent policies to use in the +age of the computer network? Clearly, instead of increasing copyright +powers, we have to pull them back so as to give the general public a +certain domain of freedom where they can make use of the benefits of +digital technology, make use of their computer networks. But how far +should that go? That's an interesting question because I don't think +we should necessarily abolish copyright totally. +The idea of trading +some freedoms for more progress might still be an advantageous trade +at a certain level, even if traditional copyright gives up too much +freedom. But in order to think about this intelligently, the first +thing we have to recognize is, there's no reason to make it totally +uniform. There's no reason to insist on making the same deal for all +kinds of work.

+

+In fact, that already isn't the case because there are a lot of +exceptions for music. Music is treated very differently under +copyright law. But the arbitrary insistence on uniformity is used by +the publishers in a certain clever way. They pick some peculiar +special case and they make an argument that, in that special case, it +would be advantageous to have this much copyright. And then they say +that for uniformity's sake, there has to be this much copyright for +everything. So, of course, they pick the special case where they can +make the strongest argument, even if it's a rather rare special case +and not really very important overall.

+

+But maybe we should have that much copyright for that particular +special case. We don't have to pay the same price for everything we +buy. A thousand dollars for a new car might be a very good deal. A +thousand dollars for a container of milk is a horrible deal. You +wouldn't pay the special price for everything you buy in other areas +of life. Why do it here?

+

+So we need to look at different kinds of works, and I'd like to +propose a way of doing this.

+

+This includes recipes, computer programs, manuals and textbooks, +reference works like dictionaries and encyclopedias. For all these +functional works, I believe that the issues are basically the same as +they are for software and the same conclusions apply. People should +have the freedom even to publish a modified version because it's very +useful to modify functional works. People's needs are not all the +same. If I wrote this work to do the job I think needs doing, your +idea as a job you want to do may be somewhat different. So you want +to modify this work to do what's good for you. +At that point, there +may be other people who have similar needs to yours, and your modified +version might be good for them. Everybody who cooks knows this and +has known this for hundreds of years. It's normal to make copies of +recipes and hand them out to other people, and it's also normal to +change a recipe. If you change the recipe and cook it for your +friends and they like eating it, they might ask you, “Could I +have the recipe?” Then maybe you'll write down your version and +give them copies. That is exactly the same thing that we much later +started doing in the free-software community.

+

+So that's one class of work. The second class of work is works whose +purpose is to say what certain people think. Talking about those +people is their purpose. This includes, say, memoirs, essays of +opinion, scientific papers, offers to buy and sell, catalogues of +goods for sale. The whole point of those works is that they tell you +what somebody thinks or what somebody saw or what somebody believes. +To modify them is to misrepresent the authors; so modifying these +works is not a socially useful activity. And so verbatim copying is +the only thing that people really need to be allowed to do.

+

+The next question is: Should people have the right to do commercial +verbatim copying? Or is non-commercial enough? You see, these are +two different activities we can distinguish, so that we can consider +the questions separately — the right to do non-commercial +verbatim copying and the right to do commercial verbatim copying. +Well, it might be a good compromise policy to have copyright cover +commercial verbatim copying but allow everyone the right to do +non-commercial verbatim copying. This way, the copyright on the +commercial verbatim copying, as well as on all modified versions +— only the author could approve a modified version — would +still provide the same revenue stream that it provides now to fund the +writing of these works, to whatever extent it does.

+

+By allowing the non-commercial verbatim copying, it means the +copyright no longer has to intrude into everybody's home. It becomes +an industrial regulation again, easy to enforce and painless, no +longer requiring draconian punishments and informers for the sake of +its enforcement. So we get most of the benefit — and avoid most +of the horror — of the current system.

+

+The third category of works is aesthetic or entertaining works, where +the most important thing is just the sensation of looking at the +work. Now for these works, the issue of modification is a very +difficult one because on the one hand, there is the idea that these +works reflect the vision of an artist and to change them is to mess up +that vision. On the other hand, you have the fact that there is the +folk process, where a sequence of people modifying a work can +sometimes produce a result that is extremely rich. Even when you have +artists' producing the works, borrowing from previous works is often +very useful. Some of Shakespeare's plays used a story that was taken +from some other play. If today's copyright laws had been in effect +back then, those plays would have been illegal. +So it's a hard +question what we should do about publishing modified versions of an +aesthetic or an artistic work, and we might have to look for further +subdivisions of the category in order to solve this problem. For +example, maybe computer game scenarios should be treated one way; +maybe everybody should be free to publish modified versions of them. +But perhaps a novel should be treated differently; perhaps for that, +commercial publication should require an arrangement with the original +author.

+

+Now if commercial publication of these aesthetic works is covered by +copyright, that will give most of the revenue stream that exists today +to support the authors and musicians, to the limited extent that the +present system supports them, because it does a very bad job. So that +might be a reasonable compromise, just as in the case of the works +which represent certain people.

+

+If we look ahead to the time when the age of the computer networks +will have fully begun, when we're past this transitional stage, we can +envision another way for the authors to get money for their work. +Imagine that we have a digital cash system that enables you to get +money for your work. +Imagine that we have a digital cash system that +enables you to send somebody else money through the Internet; this can +be done in various ways using encryption, for instance. And imagine +that verbatim copying of all these aesthetic works is permitted. But +they're written in such a way that when you are playing one or reading +one or watching one, a box appears on the side of your screen that +says, “Click here to send a dollar to the author,” or the +musician or whatever. And it just sits there; it doesn't get in your +way; it's on the side. It doesn't interfere with you, but it's there, +reminding you that it's a good thing to support the writers and the +musicians.

+

+So if you love the work that you're reading or listening to, +eventually you're going to say, “Why shouldn't I give these +people a dollar? It's only a dollar. What's that? I won't even miss +it.” And people will start sending a dollar. The good thing +about this is that it makes copying the ally of the authors and +musicians. When somebody e-mails a friend a copy, that friend might +send a dollar, too. If you really love it, you might send a dollar +more than once and that dollar is more than they're going to get today +if you buy the book or buy the CD because they get a tiny fraction of +the sale. The same publishers that are demanding total power over the +public in the name of the authors and musicians are giving those +authors and musicians the shaft all the time.

+

+I recommend you read Courtney Love's article in “Salon” +magazine, an article about pirates that plan to use musicians' work +without paying them. These pirates are the record companies that pay +musicians 4% of the sales figures, on the average. Of course, the +very successful musicians have more clout. They get more than 4% of +their large sales figures, which means that the great run of musicians +who have a record contract get less than 4% of their small sales +figures.

+

+Here's the way it works: The record company spends money on publicity +and they consider this expenditure as an advance to the musicians, +although the musicians never see it. So nominally when you buy a CD, +a certain fraction of that money is going to the musicians, but really +it isn't. Really, it's going to pay back the publicity expenses, and +only if the musicians are very successful do they ever see any of that +money.

+

+The musicians, of course, sign their record contracts because they +hope they're going to be one of those few who strike it rich. So +essentially a rolling lottery is being offered to the musicians to +tempt them. Although they're good at music, they may not be good at +careful, logical reasoning to see through this trap. So they sign and +then probably all they get is publicity. Well, why don't we give them +publicity in a different way, not through a system that's based on +restricting the public and a system of the industrial complex that +saddles us with lousy music that's easy to sell. Instead, why not +make the listener's natural impulse to share the music they love the +ally of the musicians? If we have this box that appears in the player +as a way to send a dollar to the musicians, then the computer networks +could be the mechanism for giving the musicians this publicity, the +same publicity which is all they get from record contracts now.

+

+We have to recognize that the existing copyright system does a lousy +job of supporting musicians, just as lousy as world trade does of +raising living standards in the Philippines and China. You have these +enterprise zones where everyone works in a sweatshop and all of the +products are made in sweatshops. I knew that globalization was a very +inefficient way of raising living standards of people overseas. Say, +an American is getting paid $20 an hour to make something and you give +that job to a Mexican who is getting paid maybe six dollars a day, +what has happened here is that you've taken a large amount of money +away from an American worker, given a tiny fraction, like a few +percents, to a Mexican worker and given back the rest to the +company. So if your goal is to raise the living standards of Mexican +workers, this is a lousy way to do it.

+

+It's interesting to see how the same phenomenon is going on in the +copyright industry, the same general idea. In the name of these +workers who certainly deserve something, you propose measures that +give them a tiny bit and really mainly prop up the power of +corporations to control our lives.

+

+If you're trying to replace a very good system, you have to work very +hard to come up with a better alternative. If you know that the +present system is lousy, it's not so hard to find a better +alternative; the standard of comparison today is very low. We must +always remember that when we consider issues of copyright policy.

+

+So I think I've said most of what I want to say. I'd like to mention +that tomorrow is Phone-In Sick Day in Canada. Tomorrow is the +beginning of a summit to finish negotiating the free trade area of the +Americas to try to extend corporate power throughout additional +countries, and a big protest is being planned for Quebec. We've seen +extreme methods being used to smash this protest. A lot of Americans +are being blocked from entering Canada through the border that they're +supposed to be allowed to enter through at any time. On the flimsiest +of excuses, a wall has been built around the center of Quebec to be +used as a fortress to keep protesters out. We've seen a large number +of different dirty tricks used against public protest against these +treaties. So whatever democracy remains to us after government powers +have been taken away from democratically elected governors and given +to businesses and to unelected international bodies, whatever is left +after that may not survive the suppression of public protest against +it.

+

+I've dedicated 17 years of my life to working on free software and +allied issues. I didn't do this because I think it's the most +important political issue in the world. I did it because it was the +area where I saw I had to use my skills to do a lot of good. But +what's happened is that the general issues of politics have evolved, +and the biggest political issue in the world today is resisting the +tendency to give business power over the public and governments. I +see free software and the allied questions for other kinds of +information that I've been discussing today as one part of that major +issue. So I've indirectly found myself working on that issue. I hope +I contribute something to the effort.

+

+RESPONSE:

+

+THORBURN: We'll turn to the audience for questions and comments in a +moment. But let me offer a brief general response. It seems to me +that the strongest and most important practical guidance that Stallman +offers us has two key elements. One is the recognition that old +assumptions about copyright, old usages of copyright are +inappropriate; they are challenged or undermined by the advent of the +computer and computer networks. That may be obvious, but it is +essential.

+

+Second is the recognition that the digital era requires us to +reconsider how we distinguish and weigh forms of intellectual and +creative labor. Stallman is surely right that certain kinds of +intellectual enterprises justify more copyright protection than +others. Trying to identify systematically these different kinds or +levels of copyright protection seems to me a valuable way to engage +with the problems for intellectual work posed by the advent of the +computer.

+

+But I think I detect another theme that lies beneath what Stallman has +been saying and that isn't really directly about computers at all, but +more broadly about questions of democratic authority and the power +that government and corporations increasingly exercise over our lives. +This populist and anti-corporate side to Stallman's discourse is +nourishing but also reductive, potentially simplifying. And it is +also perhaps overly idealistic. For example, how would a novelist or +a poet or a songwriter or a musician or the author of an academic +textbook survive in this brave new world where people are encouraged +but not required to pay authors. In other words, it seems to me, the +gap between existing practice and the visionary possibilities Stallman +speculates about is still immensely wide.

+

+So I'll conclude by asking if Stallman would like to expand a bit on +certain aspects of his talk and, specifically, whether he has further +thoughts about the way in which what we'll call “traditional +creators” would be protected under his copyright system.

+

+STALLMAN: First of all, I have to point out that we shouldn't +use the term “protection” to describe what copyright does. +Copyright restricts people. The term “protection” is a +propaganda term of the copyright-owning businesses. The term +“protection“ means stopping something from being somehow +destroyed. Well, I don't think a song is destroyed if there are more +copies of it being played more. I don't think that a novel is +destroyed if more people are reading copies of it, either. So I won't +use that word. I think it leads people to identify with the wrong +party.

+

+Also, it's a very bad idea to think about intellectual property for +two reasons: First, it prejudges the most fundamental question in the +area which is: How should these things be treated and should they be +treated as a kind of property? To use the term “intellectual +property” to describe the area is to presuppose the answer is +“yes,” that that's the way to treat things, not some other +way.

+

+Second, it encourages over-generalization. Intellectual property is a +catch-all for several different legal systems with independent origins +such as, copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets and some other +things as well. They are almost completely different; they have +nothing in common. But people who hear the term “intellectual +property” are led to a false picture where they imagine that +there's a general principle of intellectual property that was applied +to specific areas, so they assume that these various areas of the law +are similar. This leads not only to confused thinking about what is +right to do, it leads people to fail to understand what the law +actually says because they suppose that the copyright law and patent +law and trademark law are similar, when, in fact, they are totally +different.

+

+So if you want to encourage careful thinking and clear understanding +of what the law says, avoid the term “intellectual +property.” Talk about copyrights. Or talk about patents. Or +talk about trademarks or whichever subject you want to talk about. +But don't talk about intellectual property. Opinion about +intellectual property almost has to be a foolish one. I don't have an +opinion about intellectual property. I have opinions about copyrights +and patents and trademarks, and they're different. I came to them +through different thought processes because those systems of law are +totally different.

+

+Anyway, I made that digression, but it's terribly important.

+

+So let me now get to the point. Of course, we can't see now how well +it would work, whether it would work to ask people to pay money +voluntarily to the authors and musicians they love. One thing that's +obvious is that how well such a system would work is proportional to +the number of people who are participating in the network, and that +number, we know, is going to increase by an order of magnitude over a +number of years. If we tried it today, it might fail, and that +wouldn't prove anything because with ten times as many people +participating, it might work.

+

+The other thing is, we do not have this digital cash payment system; +so we can't really try it today. You could try to do something a +little bit like it. There are services you can sign up for where you +can pay money to someone — things like PayPal. But before you +can pay anyone through PayPal, you have to go through a lot of +rigmarole and give them personal information about you, and they +collect records of whom you pay. Can you trust them not to misuse +that?

+

+So the dollar might not discourage you, but the trouble it takes to +pay might discourage you. The whole idea of this is that it should be +as easy as falling off a log to pay when you get the urge, so that +there's nothing to discourage you except the actual amount of money. +And if that's small enough, why should it discourage you. We know, +though, that fans can really love musicians, and we know that +encouraging fans to copy and redistribute the music has been done by +some bands that were, and are, quite successful like the +“Grateful Dead.” They didn't have any trouble making a +living from their music because they encouraged fans to tape it and +copy the tapes. They didn't even lose their record sales.

+

+We are gradually moving from the age of the printing press to the age +of the computer network, but it's not happening in a day. People are +still buying lots of records, and that will probably continue for many +years — maybe forever. As long as that continues, simply having +copyrights that still apply to commercial sales of records ought to do +about as good a job of supporting musicians as it does today. Of +course, that's not very good, but, at least, it won't get any +worse.

+

+DISCUSSION:

+

+QUESTION: [A comment and question about free downloading and +about Stephen King's attempt to market one of his novels serially over +the web.]

+

+STALLMAN: Yes, it's interesting to know what he did and what +happened. When I first heard about that, I was elated. I thought, +maybe he was taking a step towards a world that is not based on trying +to maintain an iron grip on the public. Then I saw that he had +actually written to ask people to pay. To explain what he did, he was +publishing a novel as a serial, by installments, and he said, +“If I get enough money, I'll release more.” But the +request he wrote was hardly a request. It brow-beat the reader. It +said, “If you don't pay, then you're evil. And if there are too +many of you who are evil, then I'm just going to stop writing +this.”

+

+Well, clearly, that's not the way to make the public feel like sending +you money. You've got to make them love you, not fear you.

+

+SPEAKER: The details were that he required a certain percentage +— I don't know the exact percentage, around 90% sounds correct +— of people to send a certain amount of money, which, I believe, +was a dollar or two dollars, or somewhere in that order of magnitude. +You had to type in your name and your e-mail address and some other +information to get to download it and if that percentage of people was +not reached after the first chapter, he said that he would not release +another chapter. It was very antagonistic to the public downloading +it.

+

+QUESTION: Isn't the scheme where there's no copyright but people are +asked to make voluntary donations open to abuse by people +plagiarizing?

+

+STALLMAN: No. That's not what I proposed. Remember, I'm proposing +that there should be copyright covering commercial distribution and +permitting only verbatim redistribution non-commercially. So anyone +who modified it to put in a pointer to his website, instead of a +pointer to the real author's website, would still be infringing the +copyright and could be sued exactly as he could be sued today.

+

+QUESTION: I see. So you're still imagining a world in which there is +copyright?

+

+STALLMAN: Yes. As I've said, for those kinds of works. I'm not +saying that everything should be permitted. I'm proposing to reduce +copyright powers, not abolish them.

+

+THORBURN: I guess one question that occurred to me while you +were speaking, Richard, and, again, now when you're responding here to +this question is why you don't consider the ways in which the +computer, itself, eliminates the middle men completely — in the +way that Stephen King refused to do — and might establish a +personal relationship.

+

+STALLMAN: Well, they can and, in fact, this voluntary donation +is one.

+

+THORBURN: You think of that as not involving going through a +publisher at all?

+

+STALLMAN: Absolutely not. I hope it won't, you see, because +the publishers exploit the authors terribly. When you ask the +publishers' representatives about this, they say, “Well, yes, if +an author or if a band doesn't want to go through us, they shouldn't +be legally required to go through us.” But, in fact, they're +doing their utmost to set it up so that will not be feasible. For +instance, they're proposing restricted copying media formats and in +order to publish in these formats, you'll have to go through the big +publishers because they won't tell anyone else how to do it. So +they're hoping for a world where the players will play these formats, +and in order to get anything that you can play on those players, it'll +have to come through the publishers. +So, in fact, while there's no +law against an author or a musician publishing directly, it won't be +feasible. There's also the lure of maybe hitting it rich. They say, +“We'll publicize you and maybe you'll hit it as rich as the +Beatles.” Take your pick of some very successful group and, of +course, only a tiny fraction of musicians are going to have that +happen. But they may be drawn by that into signing contracts that +will lock them down forever.

+

+Publishers tend to be very bad at respecting their contracts with +authors. For instance, book contracts typically have said that if a +book goes out of print, the rights revert to the author, and +publishers have generally not been very good about living up to that +clause. They often have to be forced. Well, what they're starting to +do now is use electronic publication as an excuse to say that it's +never going out of print; so they never have to give the rights back. +Their idea is, when the author has no clout, get him to sign up and +from then on, he has no power; it's only the publisher that has the +power.

+

+QUESTION: Would it be good to have free licenses for various kinds of +works that protect for every user the freedom to copy them in whatever +is the appropriate way for that kind of work?

+

+STALLMAN: Well, people are working on this. But for non-functional +works, one thing doesn't substitute for another. Let's look at a +functional kind of work, say, a word processor. Well, if somebody +makes a free word processor, you can use that; you don't need the +nonfree word processors. But I wouldn't say that one free song +substitutes for all the nonfree songs or that a one free novel +substitutes for all the nonfree novels. For those kinds of works, +it's different. So what I think we simply have to do is to recognize +that these laws do not deserve to be respected. It's not wrong to +share with your neighbor, and if anyone tries to tell you that you +cannot share with your neighbor, you should not listen to him.

+

+QUESTION: With regard to the functional works, how do you, in your +own thinking, balance out the need for abolishing the copyright with +the need for economic incentives in order to have these functional +works developed?

+

+STALLMAN: Well, what we see is, first of all, that this +economic incentive is a lot less necessary than people have been +supposing. Look at the free software movement where we have over +100,000 part-time volunteers developing free software. We also see +that there are other ways to raise money for this which are not based +on stopping the public from copying and modifying these works. +That's +the interesting lesson of the free software movement. Aside from the +fact that it gives you a way you can use a computer and keep your +freedom to share and cooperate with other people, it also shows us +that this negative assumption that people would never do these things +unless they are given special powers to force people to pay them is +simply wrong. A lot of people will do these things. Then if you look +at, say, the writing of monographs which serve as textbooks in many +fields of science except for the ones that are very basic, the authors +are not making money out of that. +We now have a free encyclopedia +project which is, in fact, a commercial-free encyclopedia project, and +it's making progress. We had a project for a GNU encyclopedia but we +merged it into the commercial project when they adopted our license. +In January, they switched to the GNU Free Documentation License for +all the articles in their encyclopedia. So we said, “Well, +let's join forces with them and urge people to contribute to +them.” It's called “Nupedia,” and you can find a +link to it, if you look at http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia. So here +we've extended the community development of a free base of useful +knowledge from software to encyclopedia. I'm pretty confident now +that in all these areas of functional work, we don't need that +economic incentive to the point where we have to mess up the use of +these works.

+

+THORBURN: Well, what about the other two categories?

+

+STALLMAN: For the other two classes of work, I don't know. I +don't know whether people will write some day novels without worrying +about whether they make money from it. In a post-scarcity society, I +guess they would. Maybe what we need to do in order to reach the +post-scarcity society is to get rid of the corporate control over the +economy and the laws. So, in effect, it's a chicken-or-the-egg +problem, you know. Which do we do first? How do we get the world +where people don't have to desperately get money except by removing +the control by business? And how can we remove the control by +business except — Anyway, I don't know, but that's why I'm +trying to propose first a compromise copyright system and, second, the +voluntary payment supported by a compromise copyright system as a way +to provide a revenue stream to the people who write those works.

+

+QUESTION: How would you really expect to implement this compromise +copyright system under the chokehold of corporate interests on +American politicians due to their campaign-finance system?

+

+STALLMAN: It beats me. I wish I knew. It's a terribly hard +problem. If I knew how to solve that problem, I would solve it and +nothing in the world could make me prouder.

+

+QUESTION:. How do you fight the corporate control? Because when you +look at these sums of money going into corporate lobbying in the court +case, it is tremendous. I think the DECS case that you're talking +about is costing something like a million-and-a-half dollars on the +defense side. Lord knows what it's costing on the corporate side. Do +you have any idea how to deal with these huge sums of money?

+

+STALLMAN: I have a suggestion. If I were to suggest totally +boycotting movies, I think people would ignore that suggestion. They +might consider it too radical. So I would like to make a slightly +different suggestion which comes to almost the same thing in the end, +and that is, don't go to a movie unless you have some substantial +reason to think it's good. Now this will lead in practice to almost +the same result as a total boycott of Hollywood movies. In extension, +it's almost the same but, in intention, it's very different. Now I've +noticed that many people go to movies for reasons that have nothing to +do with whether they think the movies are good. So if you change +that, if you only go to a movie when you have some substantial reason +to think it's good, you'll take away a lot of their money.

+

+THORBURN: One way to understand all of this discourse today, I +think, is to recognize that whenever radical, potentially transforming +technologies appear in society, there's a struggle over who controls +them. We today are repeating what has happened in the past. So from +this angle, there may not be a reason for despair, or even pessimism, +about what may occur in the longer run. But, in the shorter term, +struggles over the control of text and images, over all forms of +information are likely to be painful and extensive. +For example, as a +teacher of media, my access to images has been restricted in recent +years in a way that had never been in place before. If I write an +essay in which I want to use still images, even from films, they are +much harder to get permission to use, and the prices charged to use +those still images are much higher — even when I make arguments +about intellectual inquiry and the legal category of “fair +use.” So I think, in this moment of extended transformation, the +longer-term prospects may, in fact, not be as disturbing as what's +happening in the shorter term. But in any case, we need to understand +the whole of our contemporary experience as a renewed version of a +struggle over the control of technological resources that is a +recurring principle of Western society.

+

+It's also essential to understand that the history of older +technologies is itself a complicated matter. The impact of the +printing press in Spain, for example, is radically different from its +impact in England or in France.

+

+QUESTION: One of the things that bothers me when I hear +discussions of copyright is that often they start off with, “We +want a 180-degree change. We want to do away with any sorts of +control.” It seems to me that part of what lay under the three +categories that were suggested is an acknowledgement that there is +some wisdom to copyright. Some of the critics of the way copyright is +going now believe that, in fact, it ought to be backed up and function +much more like patent and trademarks in terms of its duration. I +wonder if our speaker would comment on that as a strategy.

+

+STALLMAN: I agree that shortening the time span of copyright is a +good idea. There is absolutely no need in terms of encouraging +publication for a possibility of copyrights' lasting as much as 150 +years, which, in some cases, it can under present law. Now the +companies were saying that a 75-year copyright on a work made for hire +was not long enough to make possible the production of their works. +I'd like to challenge those companies to present projected balance +sheets for 75 years from now to back up that contention. What they +really wanted was just to be able to extend the copyrights on the old +works, so that they can continue restricting the use of them. But how +you can encourage greater production of works in the 1920s by +extending copyright today escapes me, unless they have a time machine +somewhere. Of course, in one of their movies, they had a time +machine. So maybe that's what affected their thinking.

+

+QUESTION: Have you given thought to extending the concept of +“fair use,” and are there any nuances there that you might +care to lay out for us?

+

+STALLMAN: Well, the idea of giving everyone permission for +non-commercial verbatim copying of two kinds of works, certainly, may +be thought of as extending what fair use is. It's bigger than what's +fair use currently. If your idea is that the public trades away +certain freedoms to get more progress, then you can draw the line at +various, different places. Which freedoms does the public trade away +and which freedoms does the public keep?

+

+QUESTION: To extend the conversation for just a moment, in certain +entertainment fields, we have the concept of a public presentation. +So, for example, copyright does not prevent us from singing Christmas +carols seasonally but it prevents the public performance. And I'm +wondering if it might be useful to think about instead of expanding +fair use to unlimited, non-commercial, verbatim copying, to something +less than that but more than the present concept of fair use.

+

+STALLMAN: I used to think that that might be enough, and then Napster +convinced me otherwise because Napster is used by its users for +non-commercial, verbatim redistribution. The Napster server, itself, +is a commercial activity but the people who are actually putting +things up are doing so non-commercially, and they could have done so +on their websites just as easily. The tremendous excitement about, +interest in, and use of Napster shows that that's very useful. So I'm +convinced now that people should have the right to publicly +non-commercially, redistributed, verbatim copies of everything.

+

+QUESTION: One analogy that was recently suggested to me for the +whole Napster question was the analogy of the public library. I +suppose some of you who have heard the Napster arguments have heard +this analogy. I'm wondering if you would comment on it. The +defenders of people who say Napster should continue and there +shouldn't be restrictions on it sometimes say something like this: +“When folks go into the public library and borrow a book, +they're not paying for it, and it can be borrowed dozens of times, +hundreds of times, without any additional payment. Why is Napster any +different?”

+

+STALLMAN: Well, it's not exactly the same. But it should be pointed +out that the publishers want to transform public libraries into +pay-per-use, retail outlets. So they're against public libraries.

+

+QUESTION: Can these ideas about copyright suggest any ideas for +certain issues about patent law such as making cheap, generic drugs +for use in Africa?

+

+STALLMAN: No, there's absolutely no similarity. The issues of +patents are totally different from the issues of copyrights. The idea +that they have something to do with each other is one of the +unfortunate consequences of using the term “intellectual +property” and encouraging people to try to lump these issues +together because, as you've heard, I've been talking about issues in +which the price of a copy is not the crucial thing. But what's the +crucial issue about making AIDS drugs for Africa? It's the price, +nothing but the price.

+

+Now the issue I've been talking about arises because digital +information technology gives every user the ability to make copies. +Well, there's nothing giving us all the ability to make copies of +medicines. I don't have the ability to copy some medicine that I've +got. In fact, nobody does; that's not how they're made. Those +medicines can only be made in expensive factories and they are made in +expensive centralized factories, whether they're generic drugs or +imported from the U.S. Either way, they're going to be made in a +small number of factories, and the issues are simply how much do they +cost and are they available at a price that people in Africa can +afford.

+

+So that's a tremendously important issue, but it's a totally different +issue. There's just one area where an issue arises with patents that +is actually similar to these issues of freedom to copy, and that is in +the area of agriculture. Because there are certain patented things +that can be copies, more or less — namely, living things. They +copy themselves when they reproduce. It's not necessarily exact +copying; they re-shuffle the genes. But the fact is, farmers for +millennia have been making use of this capacity of the living things +they grow to copy themselves. Farming is, basically, copying the +things that you grew and you keep copying them every year. When plant +and animal varieties get patented, when genes are patented and used in +them, the result is that farmers are being prohibited from doing +this.

+

+There is a farmer in Canada who had a patented variety growing on his +field and he said, “I didn't do that deliberately. The pollen +blew, and the wind in those genes got into my stock of plants.” +And he was told that that doesn't matter; he has to destroy them +anyway. It was an extreme example of how much government can side +with a monopolist.

+

+So I believe that, following the same principles that I apply to +copying things on your computer, farmers should have an unquestioned +right to save their seeds and breed their livestock. Maybe you could +have patents covering seed companies, but they shouldn't cover +farmers.

+

+QUESTION: There's more to making a model successful than just the +licensing. Can you speak to that?

+

+STALLMAN: Absolutely. Well, you know, I don't know the +answers. But part of what I believe is crucial for developing free, +functional information is idealism. People have to recognize that +it's important for this information to be free, that when the +information is free, you can make full use of it. When it's +restricted, you can't. You have to recognize that the nonfree +information is an attempt to divide them and keep them helpless and +keep them down. Then they can get the idea, “Let's work +together to produce the information we want to use, so that it's not +under the control of some powerful person who can dictate to us what +we can do.”

+

+This tremendously boosts it. But I don't know how much it will work +in various different areas, but I think that in the area of education, +when you're looking for textbooks, I think I see a way it can be done. +There are a lot of teachers in the world, teachers who are not at +prestigious universities — maybe they're in high-school; maybe +they're in college — where they don't write and publish a lot of +things and there's not a tremendous demand for them. But a lot of +them are smart. A lot of them know their subjects well and they could +write textbooks about lots of subjects and share them with the world +and receive a tremendous amount of appreciation from the people who +will have learned from them.

+

+QUESTION: That's what I proposed. But the funny thing is, I do +know the history of education. That's what I do — educational, +electronic media projects. I couldn't find an example. Do you know +of one?

+

+STALLMAN: No, I don't. I started proposing this free encyclopedia +and learning resource a couple of years ago, and I thought it would +probably take a decade to get things rolling. Now we already have an +encyclopedia that is rolling. So things are going faster than I +hoped. I think what's needed is for a few people to start writing +some free textbooks. Write one about whatever is your favorite +subject or write a fraction of one. Write a few chapters of one and +challenge other people to write the rest.

+

+QUESTION: Actually what I was looking for is something even more than +that. What's important in your kind of structure is somebody that +creates an infrastructure to which everybody else can contribute. +There isn't a K through 12 infrastructure out there in any place for a +contribution for materials.

+

+I can get information from lots of places but it's not released under +free licenses, so I can't use it to make a free textbook.

+

+STALLMAN: Actually, copyright doesn't cover the facts. It only +covers the way it's written. So you can learn a field from anywhere +and then write a textbook, and you can make that textbook free, if you +want.

+

+QUESTION: But I can't write by myself all the textbooks that a +student needs going through school.

+

+STALLMAN: Well, it's true. And I didn't write a whole, free +operating system, either. I wrote some pieces and invited other +people to join me by writing other pieces. So I set an example. I +said, “I'm going in this direction. Join me and we'll get +there.” And enough people joined in that we got there. So if +you think in terms of, how am I going to get this whole gigantic job +done, it can be daunting. So the point is, don't look at it that way. +Think in terms of taking a step and realizing that after you've taken +a step, other people will take more steps and, together, it will get +the job done eventually.

+

+Assuming that humanity doesn't wipe itself out, the work we do today +to produce the free educational infrastructure, the free learning +resource for the world, that will be useful for as long as humanity +exists. If it takes 20 years to get it done, so what? So don't think +in terms of the size of the whole job. Think in terms of the piece +that you're going to do. That will show people it can be done, and so +others will do other pieces.

+ + +
+

This speech is published +in Free +Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard +M. Stallman.

+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3