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 --- .../blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright-old.html | 186 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 186 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright-old.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright-old.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright-old.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright-old.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0b55b7f --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright-old.html @@ -0,0 +1,186 @@ + + +Freedom—or Copyright? (Old Version) +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

Freedom—or Copyright? (Old Version)

+ +
+

There is an updated version of +this article.

+
+ +

+ by Richard M. Stallman +

+ +
+

+The brave new world of e-books: no more used book stores, no more +lending a book to your friend, no more borrowing one from the public +library, no purchasing a book except with a credit card that +identifies what you read. Even reading an e-book without +authorization is a crime. +

+
+ +

+Once upon a time, in the age of the printing press, an industrial +regulation was established for the business of writing and +publishing. It was called copyright. Copyright's purpose was to +encourage the publication of a diversity of written +works. Copyright's method was to make publishers get permission +from authors to reprint recent writings.

+ +

+Ordinary readers had little reason to disapprove, since copyright +restricted only publication, not the things a reader could do. If it +raised the price of a book a small amount, that was only +money. Copyright provided a public benefit, as intended, with little +burden on the public. It did its job well—back then.

+ +

+Then a new way of distributing information came about: computers and +networks. The advantage of digital information technology is that it +facilitates copying and manipulating information, including software, +musical recordings and books. Networks offered the possibility of +unlimited access to all sorts of data—an information utopia.

+ +

+But one obstacle stood in the way: copyright. Readers who made use of +their computers to share published information were technically +copyright infringers. The world had changed, and what was once an +industrial regulation on publishers had become a restriction on the +public it was meant to serve.

+ +

+In a democracy, a law that prohibits a popular, natural and useful +activity is usually soon relaxed. But the powerful publishers' +lobby was determined to prevent the public from taking advantage of +the power of their computers, and found copyright a suitable +weapon. Under their influence, rather than relaxing copyright to suit +the new circumstances, governments made it stricter than ever, +imposing harsh penalties on readers caught sharing.

+ +

+But that wasn't the last of it. Computers can be powerful tools of +domination when a few people control what other people's computers +do. The publishers realized that by forcing people to use specially +designated software to watch videos and read e-books, they can gain +unprecedented power: they can compel readers to pay, and identify +themselves, every time they read a book!

+ +

+That is the publishers' dream, and they prevailed upon the +U.S. government to enact the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of +1998. This law gives them total legal power over almost anything a +reader might do with an e-book, as long as they publish the book in +encrypted form. Even reading the book without authorization is a +crime.

+ +

+We still have the same old freedoms in using paper books. But if +e-books replace printed books, that exception will do little +good. With “electronic ink”, which makes it possible to +download new text onto an apparently printed piece of paper, even +newspapers could become ephemeral. Imagine: no more used book stores; +no more lending a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the +public library—no more “leaks” that might give someone a +chance to read without paying. (And judging from the ads for Microsoft +Reader, no more anonymous purchasing of books either.) This is the +world publishers have in mind for us.

+ +

+Why is there so little public debate about these momentous changes? +Most citizens have not yet had occasion to come to grips with the +political issues raised by this futuristic technology. Besides, the +public has been taught that copyright exists to “protect” +the copyright holders, with the implication that the public's +interests do not count. (The biased term +“ intellectual +property” also promotes that view; in addition, it +encourages the mistake of trying to treat several laws that are almost +totally different—such as copyright law and patent law—as +if they were a single issue.)

+ +

+But when the public at large begins to use e-books, and discovers the +regime that the publishers have prepared for them, they will begin to +resist. Humanity will not accept this yoke forever.

+ +

+The publishers would have us believe that suppressive copyright is the +only way to keep art alive, but we do not need a War on Copying to +encourage a diversity of published works; as the Grateful Dead showed, +private copying among fans is not necessarily a problem for +artists. (In 2007, Radiohead made millions by inviting fans to copy an +album and pay whatever amount they wish; a few years before, Stephen King +got hundreds of thousands for an e-book which people could copy.) By +legalizing the copying of e-books among friends, we can turn copyright +back into the industrial regulation it once was.

+ +

+For some kinds of writing, we should go even further. For scholarly +papers and monographs, everyone should be encouraged to republish them +verbatim online; this helps protect the scholarly record while making +it more accessible. For textbooks and most reference works, +publication of modified versions should be allowed as well, since that +encourages improvement.

+ +

+Eventually, when computer networks provide an easy way to send someone +a small amount of money, the whole rationale for restricting verbatim +copying will go away. If you like a book, and a box pops up on your +computer saying “Click here to give the author one +dollar”, wouldn't you click? Copyright for books and music, as +it applies to distributing verbatim unmodified copies, will be +entirely obsolete. And not a moment too soon!

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