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-versus-community.html | 1040 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1040 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-versus-community.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-versus-community.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-versus-community.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-versus-community.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8cde539 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-versus-community.html @@ -0,0 +1,1040 @@ + + +Copyright versus Community in the Age of Computer Networks +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

Copyright versus Community in the Age of Computer Networks

+
by Richard Stallman
+ +

Keynote speech at LIANZA conference, Christchurch Convention Centre, 12 +October 2009.
+There is an older +version of this talk, from 2000.

+ +

+Join our mailing list +about the dangers of e-books. +

+ +
+
BC:
+

Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa. Today I have the +privilege of introducing Richard Stallman, whose keynote speech is +being sponsored by the School of Information Management at Victoria +University of Wellington.

+ +

Richard has been working to promote software freedom for over 25 +years. In 1983 he started the GNU project to develop a free operating +system [the GNU system], and in 1985 he set up the Free Software +Foundation. Every time you read or send a message to nz-libs, you use +the Mailman software which is part of the GNU project. So whether you +realize it or not, Richard's work has touched all of your lives.

+ +

I like to describe him as the most influential person most people +have never heard of, although he tells me that that cannot possibly be +true because it cannot be tested.

+ +
RMS:
+
We can't tell.
+ +
BC:
+

I said that—I still like it. His ideas about software +freedom and free access to information were used by Tim Berners-Lee +when he created the world's first web server, and in 1999 his musings +about a free online encyclopedia inspired Jimmy Wales to set up what +is now Wikipedia.

+ +

Today Richard will be talking to us about copyright vs community in +the age of computer networks, and their implications for libraries. +Richard.

+ +
RMS:
+

I've been in New Zealand for a couple of weeks, and in the +North Island it was raining most of the time. Now I know why they +call gumboots “Wellingtons”. And then I saw somebody who +was making chairs and tables out of ponga wood, and he called it +fern-iture. Then we took the ferry to get here, and as soon as we got +off, people started mocking and insulting us; but there were no hard +feelings, they just wanted to make us really feel Picton.

+ +

The reason people usually invite me to give speeches is because of +my work on free software. This is not a talk about free software; +this talk answers the question whether the ideas of free software +extend to other kinds of works. But in order for that to make sense, +I'd better tell you briefly what free software means.

+ +

Free software is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of +“free speech”, not “free beer”. Free software +is software that respects the user's freedom, and there are four +specific freedoms that the user deserves always to have.

+ +
    +
  • Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish.
    • + +
  • Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code of the program +and change it to make the program do what you wish.
    • + +
  • Freedom 2 is the freedom to help your neighbour; that is, the +freedom to redistribute copies of the program, exact copies when you +wish.
    • + +
  • And Freedom 3 is the freedom to contribute to your community. +That's the freedom to publish your modified versions when you +wish.
    • +
+ +

If the program gives you these four freedoms then it's free +software, which means the social system of its distribution and use is +an ethical system, one which respects the user's freedom and the +social solidarity of the user's community. But if one of these +freedoms is missing or insufficient, then it's proprietary software, +nonfree software, user-subjugating software. It's unethical. It's +not a contribution to society, it's a power grab. This unethical +practice should not exist; the goal of the free software movement is +to put an end to it. All software should be free, so that all users +can be free.

+ +

Proprietary software keeps the users divided and helpless: divided, +because they're forbidden to share it, and helpless, because they +don't have the source code so they can't change it. They can't even +study it to verify what it's really doing to them, and many +proprietary programs have malicious features which spy on the user, +restrict the user, even back doors to attack the user.

+ +

For instance, Microsoft Windows has a back door with which +Microsoft can forcibly install software changes, without getting +permission from the supposed owner of the computer. You may think +it's your computer, but if you've made the mistake of having Windows +running in it, then really Microsoft has owned your computer. +Computers need to be defenestrated, which means either throw Windows +out of the computer, or throw the computer out the window.

+ +

But any proprietary software gives the developers unjust power over +the users. Some of the developers abuse this power more, and some +abuse it less, but none of them ought to have it. You deserve to have +control of your computing, and not be forcibly dependent on a +particular company. So you deserve free software.

+ +

At the end of speeches about free software, people sometimes ask +whether these same freedoms and ideas apply to other things. If you +have a copy of a published work on your computer, it makes sense to +ask whether you should have the same four freedoms—whether it's +ethically essential that you have them or not. And that's the +question that I'm going to address today.

+ +

If you have a copy of something that's not software, for the most +part, the only thing that might deny you any of these freedoms is +copyright law. With software that's not so. The main ways of making +software nonfree are contracts and withholding the source code from +the users. Copyright is a sort of secondary, back up method. For +other things there's no such distinction as between source code and +executable code.

+ +

For instance, if we're talking about a text, if you can see the +text to read it, there's nothing in the text that you can't see. So +it's not the same kind of issue exactly as software. It's for the +most part only copyright that might deny you these freedoms.

+ +

So the question can be restated: “What should copyright law +allow you to do with published works? What should copyright law +say?”

+ +

Copyright has developed along with copying technology, so it's +useful to review the history of copying technology. Copying developed +in the ancient world, where you'd use a writing instrument on a +writing surface. You'd read one copy and write another.

+ +

This technology was rather inefficient, but another interesting +characteristic was that it had no economy of scale. To write ten +copies would take ten times as long as to write one copy. It required +no special equipment other than the equipment for writing, and it +required no special skill other than literacy itself. The result was +that copies of any particular book were made in a decentralized +manner. Wherever there was a copy, if someone wanted to copy it, he +could.

+ +

There was nothing like copyright in the ancient world. If you had +a copy and wanted to copy it, nobody was going to tell you you weren't +allowed—except if the local prince didn't like what the book +said, in which case he might punish you for copying it. But that's +not copyright, but rather something closely related, namely +censorship. To this day, copyright is often used in attempts to +censor people.

+ +

That went on for thousands of years, but then there was a big +advance in copying technology, namely the printing press. The +printing press made copying more efficient, but not uniformly. [This +was] because mass production copying became a lot more efficient, but +making one copy at a time didn't benefit from the printing press. In +fact, you were better off just writing it by hand; that would be +faster than trying to print one copy.

+ +

The printing press has an economy of scale: it takes a lot of work +to set the type, but then you can make many copies very fast. Also, +the printing press and the type were expensive equipment that most +people didn't own; and the ability to use them, most literate people +didn't know. Using a press was a different skill from writing. The +result was a centralized manner of producing copies: the copies of any +given book would be made in a few places, and then they would be +transported to wherever someone wanted to buy copies.

+ +

Copyright began in the age of the printing press. Copyright in +England began as a system of censorship in the 1500s. I believe it +was originally meant to censor Protestants, but it was turned around +and used to censor Catholics and presumably lots of others as well. +According to this law, in order to publish a book you had to get +permission from the Crown, and this permission was granted in the form +of a perpetual monopoly to publish it. This was allowed to lapse in +the 1680s, I believe [it expired in 1695 according to the Wikipedia +entry]. The publishers wanted it back again, but what they got was +something somewhat different. The Statute of Anne gave authors a +copyright, and only for 14 years, although the author could renew it +once.

+ +

This was a totally different idea—a temporary monopoly for +the author, instead of a perpetual monopoly for the publisher. The +idea developed that copyright was a means of promoting writing.

+ +

When the US constitution was written, some people wanted authors to +be entitled to a copyright, but that was rejected. Instead, the US +Constitution says that Congress can optionally adopt a copyright law, +and if there is a copyright law, its purpose is to promote progress. +In other words, the purpose is not benefits for copyright holders or +anybody they do business with, but for the general public. Copyright +has to last a limited time; publishers keep hoping for us to forget +about this.

+ +

Here we have an idea of copyright which is an industrial regulation +on publishers, controlled by authors, and designed to provide benefits +to the public at large. It functioned this way because it didn't +restrict the readers.

+ +

Now in the early centuries of printing, and still I believe in the +1790s, lots of readers wrote copies by hand because they couldn't +afford printed copies. Nobody ever expected copyright law to be +something other than an industrial regulation. It wasn't meant to +stop people from writing copies, it was meant to regulate the +publishers. Because of this it was easy to enforce, uncontroversial, +and arguably beneficial for society.

+ +

It was easy to enforce, because it only had to be enforced against +publishers. And it's easy to find the unauthorized publishers of a +book—you go to a bookstore and say “where do these copies +come from?”. You don't have to invade everybody's home and +everybody's computer to do that.

+ +

It was uncontroversial because, as the readers were not restricted, +they had nothing to complain about. Theoretically they were +restricted from publishing, but not being publishers and not having +printing presses, they couldn't do that anyway. In what they actually +could do, they were not restricted.

+ +

It was arguably beneficial because the general public, according to +the concepts of copyright law, traded away a theoretical right they +were not in a position to exercise. In exchange, they got the +benefits of more writing.

+ +

Now if you trade away something you have no possible use for, and +you get something you can use in exchange, it's a positive trade. +Whether or not you could have gotten a better deal some other way, +that's a different question, but at least it's positive.

+ +

So if this were still in the age of the printing press, I don't +think I'd be complaining about copyright law. But the age of the +printing press is gradually giving way to the age of the computer +networks—another advance in copying technology that makes +copying more efficient, and once again not uniformly so.

+ +

Here's what we had in the age of the printing press: mass +production very efficient, one at a time copying still just as slow as +the ancient world. Digital technology gets us here: they've both +benefited, but one-off copying has benefited the most.

+ +

We get to a situation much more like the ancient world, where one +at a time copying is not so much worse [i.e., harder] than mass +production copying. It's a little bit less efficient, a little bit +less good, but it's perfectly cheap enough that hundreds of millions +of people do it. Consider how many people write CDs once in a while, +even in poor countries. You may not have a CD-writer yourself, so you +go to a store where you can do it.

+ +

This means that copyright no longer fits in with the technology as +it used to. Even if the words of copyright law had not changed, they +wouldn't have the same effect. Instead of an industrial regulation on +publishers controlled by authors, with the benefits set up to go to +the public, it is now a restriction on the general public, controlled +mainly by the publishers, in the name of the authors.

+ +

In other words, it's tyranny. It's intolerable and we can't allow +it to continue this way.

+ +

As a result of this change, [copyright] is no longer easy to +enforce, no longer uncontroversial, and no longer beneficial.

+ +

It's no longer easy to enforce because now the publishers want to +enforce it against each and every person, and to do this requires +cruel measures, draconian punishments, invasions of privacy, abolition +of our basic ideas of justice. There's almost no limit to how far +they will propose to go to prosecute the War on Sharing.

+ +

It's no longer uncontroversial. There are political parties in +several countries whose basic platform is “freedom to +share”.

+ +

It's no longer beneficial because the freedoms that we conceptually +traded away (because we couldn't exercise them), we now can exercise. +They're tremendously useful, and we want to exercise them.

+ +

What would a democratic government do in this situation?

+ +

It would reduce copyright power. It would say: “The trade we +made on behalf of our citizens, trading away some of their freedom +which now they need, is intolerable. We have to change this; we can't +trade away the freedom that is important.” We can measure the +sickness of democracy by the tendency of governments to do the exact +opposite around the world, extending copyright power when they should +reduce it.

+ +

One example is in the dimension of time. Around the world we see +pressure to make copyright last longer and longer and longer.

+ +

A wave of this started in the US in 1998. Copyright was extended +by 20 years on both past and future works. I do not understand how +they hope to convince the now dead or senile writers of the 20s and +30s to write more back then by extending copyright on their works now. +If they have a time machine with which to inform them, they haven't +used it. Our history books don't say that there was a burst of vigor +in the arts in the 20s when all the artists found out that their +copyrights would be extended in 1998.

+ +

It's theoretically conceivable that 20 years more copyright on +future works would convince people to make more effort in producing +those works. But not anyone rational, because the discounted present +value of 20 more years of copyright starting 75 years in the +future—if it's a work made for hire—and probably even +longer if it's a work with an individual copyright holder, is so small +it couldn't persuade any rational person to do anything different. +Any business that wants to claim otherwise ought to present its +projected balance sheets for 75 years in the future, which of course +they can't do because none of them really looks that far ahead.

+ +

The real reason for this law, the desire that prompted various +companies to purchase this law in the US Congress, which is how laws +are decided on for the most part, was they had lucrative monopolies +and they wanted those monopolies to continue.

+ +

For instance, Disney was aware that the first film in which Mickey +Mouse appeared would go into the public domain in a few years, and +then anybody would be free to draw that same character as part of +other works. Disney didn't want that to happen. Disney borrows a lot +from the public domain, but is determined never to give the slightest +thing back. So Disney paid for this law, which we refer to as the +Mickey Mouse Copyright Act.

+ +

The movie companies say they want perpetual copyright, but the US +Constitution won't let them get that officially. So they came up with +a way to get the same result unofficially: “perpetual copyright +on the installment plan”. Every 20 years they extend copyright +for 20 more years. So that at any given time, any given work has a +date when it will supposedly fall into the public domain. But that +date is like tomorrow, it never comes. By the time you get there they +will have postponed it, unless we stop them next time.

+ +

That's one dimension, the dimension of duration. But even more +important is the dimension of breadth: which uses of the work does +copyright cover?

+ +

In the age of the printing press, copyright wasn't supposed to +cover all uses of a copyrighted work, because copyright regulated +certain uses that were the exceptions in a broader space of +unregulated uses. There were certain things you were simply allowed +to do with your copy of a book.

+ +

Now the publishers have got the idea that they can turn our +computers against us, and use them to seize total power over all use +of published works. They want to set up a pay-per-view universe. +They're doing it with DRM (Digital Restrictions Management)—the +intentional features of software that's designed to restrict the user. +And often the computer itself is designed to restrict the user.

+ +

The first way in which the general public saw this was in DVDs. A +movie on a DVD was usually encrypted, and the format was secret. The +DVD conspiracy kept this secret because they said anyone that wants to +make DVD players has to join the conspiracy, promise to keep the +format secret, and promise to design the DVD players to restrict the +users according to the rules, which say it has to stop the user from +doing this, from doing that, from doing that—a precise set of +requirements, all of which are malicious towards us.

+ +

It worked for a while, but then some people figured out the secret +format, and published free software capable of reading the movie on a +DVD and playing it. Then the publishers said “since we can't +actually stop them, we have to make it a crime”. And they +started that in the US in 1998 with the Digital Millennium Copyright +Act, which imposed censorship on software capable of doing such +jobs.

+ +

So that particular piece of free software was the subject of a +court case. Its distribution in the US is forbidden; the US practices +censorship of software.

+ +

The movie companies are well aware that they can't really make that +program disappear—it's easy enough to find it. So they designed +another encryption system, which they hoped would be harder to break, +and it's called AACS, or the axe.

+ +

The AACS conspiracy makes precise rules about all players. For +instance, in 2011 it's going to be forbidden to make analog video +outputs. So all video outputs will have to be digital, and they will +carry the signal encrypted into a monitor specially designed to keep +secrets from the user. That is malicious hardware. They say that the +purpose of this is to “close the analog hole”. I'll show +you a couple of analog holes (Stallman takes off his glasses): here's +one and here's another, that they'd like to poke out permanently.[1]

+ +

How do I know about these conspiracies? The reason is they're not +secret—they have websites. The AACS website proudly describes +the contracts that manufacturers have to sign, which is how I know +about this requirement. It proudly states the names of the companies +that have established this conspiracy, which include Microsoft and +Apple, and Intel, and Sony, and Disney, and IBM.

+ +

A conspiracy of companies designed to restrict the public's access +to technology ought to be prosecuted as a serious crime, like a +conspiracy to fix prices, except it's worse, so the prison sentences +for this should be longer. But these companies are quite confident +that our governments are on their side against us. They have no fear +against being prosecuted for these conspiracies, which is why they +don't bother to hide them.

+ +

In general DRM is set up by a conspiracy of companies. Once in a +while a single company can do it, but generally it requires a +conspiracy between technology companies and publishers, so [it's] +almost always a conspiracy.

+ +

They thought that nobody would ever be able to break the AACS, but +about three and a half years ago someone released a free program +capable of decrypting that format. However, it was totally useless, +because in order to run it you need to know the key.

+ +

And then, six months later, I saw a photo of two adorable puppies, +with 32 hex digits above them, and I wondered: “Why put those +two things together? I wonder if those numbers are some important +key, and someone could have put the numbers together with the puppies, +figuring people would copy the photo of the puppies because they were +so cute. This would protect the key from being wiped out.”

+ +

And that's what it was—that was the key to break the axe. +People posted it, and editors deleted it, because laws in many +countries now conscript them to censor this information. It was +posted again, they deleted it; eventually they gave up, and in two +weeks this number was posted in over 700,000 web sites.

+ +

That's a big outpouring of public disgust with DRM. But it didn't +win the war, because the publishers changed the key. Not only that: +with HD DVD, this was adequate to break the DRM, but not with Blu-ray. +Blu-ray has an additional level of DRM and so far there is no free +software that can break it, which means that you must regard Blu-ray +disks as something incompatible with your own freedom. They are an +enemy with which no accommodation is possible, at least not with our +present level of knowledge.

+ +

Never accept any product designed to attack your freedom. If you +don't have the free software to play a DVD, you mustn't buy or rent +any DVDs, or accept them even as gifts, except for the rare +non-encrypted DVDs, which there are a few of. I actually have a few +[of these]—I don't have any encrypted DVDs, I won't take +them.

+ +

So this is how things stand in video, but we've also seen DRM in +music.

+ +

For instance, about ten years ago we started to see things that +looked like compact disks, but they weren't written quite like compact +disks. They didn't follow the standard. We called them 'corrupt +disks', and the idea of them was that they would play in an audio +player, but it was impossible to read them on a computer. These +different methods had various problems.

+ +

Eventually Sony came up with a clever idea. They put a program on +the disk, so that if you stuck the disk into a computer, the disk +would install the program. This program was designed like a virus to +take control of the system. It's called a 'root kit', meaning that it +has things in it to break the security of the system so that it can +install the software deep inside the system, and modify various parts +of the system.

+ +

For instance, it modified the command you could use to examine the +system to see if the software was present, so as to disguise itself. +It modified the command you could use to delete some of these files, +so that it wouldn't really delete them. Now all of this is a serious +crime, but it's not the only one Sony committed, because the software +also included free software code—code that had been released +under the GNU General Public License.

+ +

Now the GNU GPL is a copyleft license, and that means it says +“Yes, you're free to put this code into other things, but when +you do, the entire program that you put things into you must release +as free software under the same license. And you must make the source +code available to users, and to inform them of their rights you must +give them a copy of this license when they get the +software.”

+ +

Sony didn't comply with all that. That's commercial copyright +infringement, which is a felony. They're both felonies, but Sony +wasn't prosecuted because the government understands that the purpose +of the government and the law is to maintain the power of those +companies over us, not to help defend our freedom in any way.

+ +

People got angry and they sued Sony. However, they made a mistake. +They focused their condemnation not on the evil purpose of this +scheme, but only on the secondary evils of the various methods that +Sony used. So Sony settled the lawsuits and promised that in the +future, when it attacks our freedom, it will not do those other +things.

+ +

Actually, that particular corrupt disk scheme was not so bad, +because if you were not using Windows it would not affect you at all. +Even if you were using Windows, there's a key on the keyboard—if +you remembered every time to hold it down, then the disk wouldn't +install the software. But of course it's hard to remember that every +time; you're going to slip up some day. This shows the kind of thing +we've had to deal with.

+ +

Fortunately music DRM is receding. Even the main record companies +sell downloads without DRM. But we see a renewed effort to impose DRM +on books.

+ +

You see, the publishers want to take away the traditional freedoms +of book readers—freedom to do things such as borrow a book from +the public library, or lend it to a friend; to sell a book to a used +book store, or buy it anonymously paying cash (which is the only way I +buy books—we've got to resist the temptations to let Big Brother +know everything that we're doing.)

+ +

Even the freedom to keep the book as long as you wish, and read it +as many times as you wish, they plan to get rid of.

+ +

The way they do it is with DRM. They knew that so many people read +books and would get angry if these freedoms were taken away that they +didn't believe they could buy a law specifically to abolish these +freedoms—there would be too much opposition. Democracy is sick, +but once in a while people manage to demand something. So they came +up with a two-stage plan.

+ +

First, take away these freedoms from e-books, and second, convince +people to switch from paper books to e-books. They've succeeded with +stage 1.

+ +

In the US they did it with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, +and in New Zealand, that was part of the year-ago Copyright Act; +censorship on software that can break DRM was part of that law. +That's an unjust provision; it's got to be repealed.

+ +

The second stage is convince people to switch from printed books to +ebooks; that didn't go so well.

+ +

One publisher in 2001 had the idea they would make their line of +ebooks really popular if they started it with my biography. So they +found an author and the author asked me if I'd cooperate, and I said +“Only if this e-book is published without encryption, without +DRM”. The publisher wouldn't go along with that, and I just +stuck to it—I said no. Eventually we found another publisher +who was willing to do this—in fact willing to publish the book +under a free license giving you the four freedoms—so the book +was then published, and sold a lot of copies on paper.

+ +

But in any case, e-books failed at the beginning of this decade. +People just didn't want to read them very much. And I said, +“they will try again”. We saw an amazing number of news +articles about electronic ink (or is it electronic paper, I can never +remember which), and it occurred to me probably the reason there's so +many is the publishers want us to think about this. They want us to +be eager for the next generation of e-book readers.

+ +

Now they're upon us. Things like the Sony Shreader (its official +name is the Sony Reader, but if you put on 'sh' it explains what it's +designed to do to your books), and the Amazon Swindle, +designed to +swindle you out of your traditional freedoms without your noticing. +Of course, they call it the Kindle which is what it's going to do to +your books.

+ +

The Kindle is an extremely malicious product, almost as malicious +as Microsoft Windows. They both have spy features, they both have +Digital Restrictions Management, and they both have back doors.

+ +

In the case of the Kindle, the only way you can buy a book is to +buy it from Amazon[4], and Amazon requires +you to identify yourself, so they know everything that you've +bought.

+ +

Then there is Digital Restrictions Management, so you can't lend +the book or sell it to a used bookstore, and the library can't lend it +either.

+ +

And then there's the back door, which we found out about about +three months ago, because Amazon used it. Amazon sent a command to +all the Kindles to erase a particular book, namely 1984 by George +Orwell. Yes, they couldn't have picked a more ironic book to erase. +So that's how we know that Amazon has a back door with which it can +erase books remotely.

+ +

What else it can do, who knows? Maybe it's like Microsoft Windows. +Maybe Amazon can remotely upgrade the software, which means that +whatever malicious things are not in it now, they could put them in it +tomorrow.

+ +

This is intolerable—any one of these restrictions is +intolerable. They want to create a world where nobody lends books to +anybody anymore.

+ +

Imagine that you visit a friend and there are no books on the +shelf. It's not that your friend doesn't read, but his books are all +inside a device, and of course he can't lend you those books. The +only way he could lend you any one of those books is to lend you his +whole library, which is obviously a ridiculous thing to ask anybody to +do. So there goes friendship for people who love books.

+ +

Make sure that you inform people what this device implies. It +means other readers will no longer be your friends, because you will +be acting like a jerk toward them. Spread the word preemptively. +This device is your enemy. It's the enemy of everyone who reads. The +people who don't recognize that are the people who are thinking so +short-term that they don't see it. It's our job to help them see +beyond the momentary convenience to the implications of this +device.

+ +

I have nothing against distributing books in digital form, if they +are not designed to take away our freedom. Strictly speaking, it is +possible to have an e-book reader:

+ +
    +
  • that is not designed to attack you,
    • + +
  • which runs free software and not proprietary software,
    • + +
  • which doesn't have DRM,
    • + +
  • which doesn't make people identify yourself to get a book,
    • + +
  • which doesn't have a back door, [and]
    • + +
  • which doesn't restrict what you can do with the files on your +machine.
    • +
+ +

It's possible, but the big companies really pushing e-books are +doing it to attack our freedom, and we mustn't stand for that. This +is what governments are doing in cahoots with big business to attack +our freedom, by making copyright harsher and nastier, more restrictive +than ever before.

+ +

But what should they do? Governments should make copyright power +less. Here are my specific proposals.

+ +

First of all, there is the dimension of time. I propose copyright +should last ten years, starting from the date of publication of a +work.

+ +

Why from the date of publication? Because before that, we don't +have copies. It doesn't matter to us whether we would have been +allowed to copy our copies that we don't have, so I figure we might as +well let the authors have as much time as it takes to arrange +publication, and then start the clock.

+ +

But why ten years? I don't know about in this country, but in the +US, the publication cycle has got shorter and shorter. Nowadays +almost all books are remaindered within two years and out-of-print +within three. So ten years is more than three times the usual +publication cycle—that should be plenty comfortable.

+ +

But not everybody agrees. I once proposed this in a panel +discussion with fiction writers, and the award-winning fantasy writer +next to me said “Ten years? No way. Anything more than five +years is intolerable.” You see, he had a legal dispute with his +publisher. His books seemed to be out of print, but the publisher +wouldn't admit it. The publisher was using the copyright on his own +book to stop him from distributing copies himself, which he wanted to +do so people could read it.

+ +

This is what every artist starts out wanting—wanting to +distribute her work so it will get read and appreciated. Very few +make a lot of money. That tiny fraction face the danger of being +morally corrupted, like J.K. Rowling.

+ +

J.K. Rowling, in Canada, got an injunction against people who had +bought her book in a bookstore, ordering them not to read it. So in +response I call for a boycott of Harry Potter books. But I don't say +you shouldn't read them; I leave that to the author and the publisher. +I just say you shouldn't buy them.

+ +

It's few authors that make enough money that they can be corrupted +in this way. Most of them don't get anywhere near that, and continue +wanting the same thing they wanted at the outset: they want their work +to be appreciated.

+ +

He wanted to distribute his own book, and copyright was stopping +him. He realized that more than five years of copyright was unlikely +to ever do him any good.

+ +

If people would rather have copyright last five years, I won't be +against it. I propose ten as a first stab at the problem. Let's +reduce it to ten years and then take stock for a while, and we could +adjust it after that. I don't say I think ten years is the exact +right number—I don't know.

+ +

What about the dimension of breadth? Which activities should +copyright cover? I distinguish three broad categories of works.

+ +

First of all, there are the functional works that you use to do a +practical job in your life. This includes software, recipes, +educational works, reference works, text fonts, and other things you +can think of. These works should be free.

+ +

If you use the work to do a job in your life, then if you can't +change the work to suit you, you don't control your life. Once you +have changed the work to suit you, then you've got to be free to +publish it—publish your version—because there will be +others who will want the changes you've made.

+ +

This leads quickly to the conclusion that users have to have the +same four freedoms [for all functional works], not just for software. +And you'll notice that for recipes, practically speaking, cooks are +always sharing and changing recipes just as if the recipes were free. +Imagine how people would react if the government tried to stamp out +so-called “recipe piracy”.

+ +

The term “pirate” is pure propaganda. When people ask +me what I think of music piracy, I say “As far as I know, when +pirates attack they don't do it by playing instruments badly, they do +it with arms. So it's not music “piracy”, because piracy +is attacking ships, and sharing is as far as you get from being the +moral equivalent of attacking ships”. Attacking ships is bad, +sharing with other people is good, so we should firmly denounce that +propaganda term “piracy” whenever we hear it.

+ +

People might have objected twenty years ago: “If we don't +give up our freedom, if we don't let the publishers of these works +control us, the works won't get made and that will be a horrible +disaster.” Now, looking at the free software community, and all +the recipes that circulate, and reference works like +Wikipedia—we are even starting to see free textbooks being +published—we know that that fear is misguided.

+ +

There is no need to despair and give up our freedom thinking that +otherwise the works won't get made. There are lots of ways to +encourage them to get made if we want more—lots of ways that are +consistent with and respect our freedom. In this category, they +should all be free.

+ +

But what about the second category, of works that say what certain +people thought, like memoirs, essays of opinion, scientific papers, +and various other things?[2] To publish a modified version of somebody +else's statement of what he thought is misrepresenting [that] +somebody. That's not particularly a contribution to society.

+ +

Therefore it is workable and acceptable to have a somewhat reduced +copyright system where all commercial use is covered by copyright, all +modification is covered by copyright, but everyone is free to +non-commercially redistribute exact copies.

+ +

[2015 note: publishing scientific papers under the CC Attribution +license (CC-BY) is widely done, in accessible journals and arXiv.org, +and it seems that permitting publication of modified versions does not +cause any problem. So that license is what I now recommend for +scholarly publications.]

+ +

That freedom is the minimum freedom we must establish for all +published works, because the denial of that freedom is what creates +the War on Sharing—what creates the vicious propaganda that +sharing is theft, that sharing is like being a pirate and attacking +ships. Absurdities, but absurdities backed by a lot of money that has +corrupted our governments. We need to end the War on Sharing; we need +to legalize sharing exact copies of any published work.

+ +

In the second category of works, that's all we need; we don't need +to make them free. Therefore I think it's OK to have a reduced +copyright system which covers commercial use and all modifications. +And this will provide a revenue stream to the authors in more or less +the same (usually inadequate) way as the present system. You've got +to keep in mind [that] the present system, except for superstars, is +usually totally inadequate.

+ +

What about works of art and entertainment? Here it took me a while +to decide what to think about modifications.

+ +

You see, on one hand, a work of art can have an artistic integrity +and modifying it could destroy that. Of course, copyright doesn't +necessarily stop works from being butchered that way. Hollywood does +it all the time. On the other hand, modifying the work can be a +contribution to art. It makes possible the folk process which leads +to things which are beautiful and rich.

+ +

Even if we look at named authors only: consider Shakespeare, who +borrowed stories from other works only a few decades old, and did them +in different ways, and made important works of literature. If today's +copyright law had existed then, that would have been forbidden and +those plays wouldn't have been written.

+ +

But eventually I realized that modifying a work of art can be a +contribution to art, but it's not desperately urgent in most cases. +If you had to wait ten years for the copyright to expire, you could +wait that long. Not like the present-day copyright that makes you +wait maybe 75 years, or 95 years. In Mexico you might have to wait +almost 200 years in some cases, because copyright in Mexico expires a +hundred years after the author dies. This is insane, but ten years, +as I've proposed copyright should last, that people can wait.

+ +

So I propose the same partly reduced copyright that covers +commercial use and modification, but everyone's got to be free to +non-commercially redistribute exact copies. After ten years it goes +into the public domain, and people can contribute to art by publishing +their modified versions.

+ +

One other thing: if you're going to take little pieces out of a +bunch of works and rearrange them into something totally different, +that should just be legal, because the purpose of copyright is to +promote art, not to obstruct art. It's stupid to apply copyright to +using snippets like that—it's self-defeating. It's a kind of +distortion that you'd only get when the government is under the +control of the publishers of the existing successful works, and has +totally lost sight of its intended purpose.

+ +

That's what I propose, and in particular, this means that sharing +copies on the Internet must be legal. Sharing is good. Sharing +builds the bonds of society. To attack sharing is to attack +society.

+ +

So any time the government proposes some new means to attack people +who share, to stop them from sharing, we have to recognize that this +is evil, not just because the means proposed almost invariably offend +basic ideas of justice (but that's not a coincidence). The reason is +because the purpose is evil. Sharing is good and the government +should encourage sharing.

+ +

But copyright did after all have a useful purpose. Copyright as a +means to carry out that purpose has a problem now, because it doesn't +fit in with the technology we use. It interferes with all the vital +freedoms for all the readers, listeners, viewers, and whatever, but +the goal of promoting the arts is still desirable. So in addition to +the partly reduced copyright system, which would continue to be a +copyright system, I propose two other methods.

+ +

One [works via] +taxes—distribute tax money directly to artists. This +could be a special tax, perhaps on Internet connectivity, or it could +come from general revenue, because it won't be that much money in +total, not if it's distributed in an efficient way. To distribute it +efficiently to promote the arts means not in linear proportion to +popularity. It should be based on popularity, because we don't want +bureaucrats to have the discretion to decide which artists to support +and which to ignore, but based on popularity does not imply linear +proportion.

+ +

What I propose is measure the popularity of the various artists, +which you could do through polling (samples) in which nobody is +required to participate, and then take the cube root. The cube root +looks like this: it means basically that [the payment] tapers off +after a while.

+ +

If superstar A is a thousand times as popular as successful artist +B, with this system A would get ten times as much money as B, not a +thousand times.

+ +

Linearly would give A a thousand times as much as B, which means +that if we wanted B to get enough to live on we're going to have to +make A tremendously rich. This is wasteful use of the tax +money—it shouldn't be done.

+ +

But if we make it taper off, then yes, each superstar will get +handsomely more than an ordinary successful artist, but the total of +all the superstars will be a small fraction of the [total] money. +Most of the money will go to support a large number of fairly +successful artists, fairly appreciated artists, fairly popular +artists. Thus the system will use money a lot more efficiently than +the existing system.

+ +

The existing system is regressive. It actually gives far, far more +per record, for instance, to a superstar than to anybody else. The +money is extremely badly used. The result is we'd actually be paying +a lot less this way. I hope that's enough to mollify some of these +people who have a knee-jerk hostile reaction to taxes—one that I +don't share, because I believe in a welfare state.

+ +

I have another suggestion which is voluntary payments. Suppose +every player had a button you could push to send a dollar to the +artist who made the work you're currently playing or the last one you +played. This money would be delivered anonymously to those artists. +I think a lot of people would push that button fairly often.

+ +

For instance, all of us could afford to push that button once every +day, and we wouldn't miss that much money. It's not that much money +for us, I'm pretty sure. Of course, there are poor people who +couldn't afford to push it ever, and it's OK if they don't. We don't +need to squeeze money out of poor people to support the artists. +There are enough people who are not poor to do the job just fine. I'm +sure you're aware that a lot of people really love certain art and are +really happy to support the artists.

+ +

An idea just came to me. The player could also give you a +certificate of having supported so-and-so, and it could even count up +how many times you had done it and give you a certificate that says +“I sent so much to these artists”. There are various ways +we could encourage people who want to do it.

+ +

For instance, we could have a PR campaign which is friendly and +kind: “Have you sent a dollar to some artists today? Why not? +It's only a dollar—you'll never miss it and don't you love what +they're doing? Push the button!” It will make people feel good, +and they'll think “Yeah, I love what I just watched. I'll send +a dollar.”

+ +

This is already starting to work to some extent. There's a +Canadian singer who used to be called Jane Siberry. She put her music +on her website and invited people to download it and pay whatever +amount they wished. She reported getting an average of more than a +dollar per copy, which is interesting because the major record +companies charge just under a dollar per copy. By letting people +decide whether and how much to pay, she got more—she got even +more per visitor who was actually downloading something. But this +might not even count whether there was an effect of bringing more +people to come, and [thus] increasing the total number that this +average was against.

+ +

So it can work, but it's a pain in the neck under present +circumstances. You've got to have a credit card to do it, and that +means you can't do it anonymously. And you've got to go find where +you're going to pay, and the payment systems for small amounts, +they're not very efficient, so the artists are only getting half of +it. If we set up a good system for this, it would work far, far +better.

+ +

So these are my two suggestions.

+ +

And in mecenatglobal.org, you can find another scheme that combines +aspects of the two, which was invented by Francis Muguet and designed +to fit in with existing legal systems better to make it easier to +enact.

+ +

Be careful of proposals to “compensate the rights +holders”, because when they say “compensate”, +they're trying to presume that if you have appreciated a work, you now +have a specific debt to somebody, and that you have to +“compensate” that somebody. When they say “rights +holders”, it's supposed to make you think it's supporting +artists while in fact it's going to the publishers—the same +publishers who basically exploit all the artists (except the few that +you've all heard of, who are so popular that they have clout).

+ +

We don't owe a debt; we have nobody that we have to +“compensate”. [But] supporting the arts is still a useful +thing to do. That was the motivation for copyright back when +copyright fit in with the technology of the day. Today copyright is a +bad way to do it, but it's still good to do it other ways that respect +our freedom.

+ +

Demand that they change the two evil parts of the New Zealand Copyright Act. +They shouldn't replace the three strikes punishment[3], because sharing is +good, and they've got to get rid of the censorship for the software to break +DRM. Beware of ACTA—they're trying to negotiate a treaty between various +countries, for all of these countries to attack their citizens, and we don't +know how because they won't tell us.

+ +
+
+ +

Footnotes

+
    +
  1. In 2010, the encryption system for digital video output was +definitively cracked.
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369280,00.asp
    2. +
  2. 2015: I included scientific papers because I +thought that publishing modified versions of someone else's paper +would cause harm; however, publishing physics and math papers under +the Creative Commons Attribution License +on arXiv.org and many libre journals seems to +have no problems. Thus, I subsequently concluded that scientific +papers ought to be free.
    3. +
  3. New Zealand had enacted a system of punishment +without trial for Internet users accused of copying; then, facing +popular protest, the government did not implement it, and announced a +plan to implement a modified unjust punishment system. The point here +was that they should not proceed to implement a replacement — +rather, they should have no such system. However, the words I used +don't say this clearly. +
    +The New Zealand government subsequently implemented the punishment +scheme more or less as originally planned.
    4. +
  4. That was true at the time. As of 2018, it is +possible to load books from other sources, but the device reports the +name of the book being read to Amazon servers; thus, Amazon knows +every book that you read on the device, regardless of where you got +the book.
    5. +
+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3