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/new-monopoly.html | 272 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 272 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/new-monopoly.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/new-monopoly.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/new-monopoly.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/new-monopoly.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..791d4da --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/new-monopoly.html @@ -0,0 +1,272 @@ + + +U.S. Congress Threatens to Establish a New Kind of Monopoly +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

U.S. Congress Threatens to Establish a New Kind of Monopoly

+ +

+Companies that want monopoly powers to control public use of the +information we get from data bases are trying to pass a law this year +in the U.S. — creating, for the first time, a private monopoly +over repeating publicly known information. They are using the +“good bill, bad bill” method; the “bad” bill +is HR 354; the “good” bill is HR 1858.

+

+This method should be familiar. First, one legislator introduces an +outrageous bill, one that would give a large handout of money or power +to certain special interests and serves no legitimate public purpose. +This inspires a chorus of opposition from other special interests that +the bill would trample.

+

+So a second legislator introduces a more cautious bill, more clearly +written, with some safeguards, avoiding some gross abuses, offering a +smaller handout to a somewhat broader spectrum of special interests +— and still diminishing the public treasury or the public's +freedom.

+

+The second bill is typically praised for its “balanced” +approach, and interest groups that might oppose the general idea feel +obliged to support it, to make sure that the even worse first bill +won't pass. With little opposition remaining, the second bill passes, +and society takes one step for the worse.

+

+A few years later, the first legislator may propose another give-away. +If we keep meeting his sponsors half-way each time, over time they can +get as much as they like.

+

+This time, the “bad” bill is HR 354, which would +effectively allow facts to become private property, simply through +their inclusion in an electronic data base. Even mentioning more than +a handful of the facts from any data base in a publication would be +illegal, unless you could get them from some other source — +often impossible, since in many cases there is no other ultimate +source for a certain kind of fact.

+

+Consider for example the scores of professional sports games. The +score is counted in a computer, whose memory counts as a data base. +Under HR 354, regularly printing scores in a newspaper would become +illegal.

+

+HR 354 would probably give Network Solutions a permanent monopoly on +the Internet domain name data base, making any change in the handling +of top level domains impossible.

+

+Any computer program counts as a data base under HR 354. So if the +facts about the program's user interface and APIs can't be obtained +from anywhere else, any compatible program would be prohibited. This +would be devastating for the future of free software.

+

+Ominously, many collections of public records, maintained by companies +on contract to governments, would become property of those +companies.

+

+And West Publishing Company would regain its effective monopoly over +the data needed to file a legal brief in much of the U.S. West +maintains a data base of court decisions, and some courts require +briefs to cite these decisions using page numbers as they appear in +West's data base.

+

+West, seeking to prevent the necessary information from being +available other than through their expensive service, used to claim +that the pagination and page numbers were copyrighted, but a Federal +court ruled against them. The court said that these page numbers +don't result from creativity, so they are not copyrightable. But they +are indubitably a data base, so HR 354 would prohibit anyone else from +providing this data to the public — thus granting West a +permanent monopoly on the law itself.

+

+HR 354 would also interfere with scientific research, genealogical +research, publication of stock prices, and many other areas of life +and work. So it's no wonder that it has generated strong opposition. +The Supreme Court might reject the bill as unconstitutional, but no +one wants to rely on this. Hence HR 1858 — this year's +“good” bill.

+

+HR 1858 explicitly avoids most of the outrageous problems. It +establishes a narrower kind of monopoly, permitting use of the facts +in a different kind of data base, or in anything other than an +electronic data base.

+

+Thus, you'll still be able to print game scores in an article, because +an article doesn't count as a data base. A program is not a data base +either, under HR 1858, so it will not create a new obstacle to writing +compatible software.

+

+HR 1858 also excludes data bases for running the Internet. (But not +the data bases that may some day be used for running future worldwide +systems, even if they are just as important as the Internet is today.) +It excludes data bases made by or for the Federal government. (But, +by default, it doesn't exclude those made by or for state +governments; this is a substantial loophole in HR 1858.)

+

+A wide range of organizations are supporting HR 1858 — including +many universities and professional organizations. Some of the letters +of support show a clear desire for some kind of monopoly power.

+

+HR 1858 is much less harmful than HR 354 — if we have to choose +between the two, we should prefer HR 1858. But should we have to +choose between a big loss of freedom and a smaller one?

+

+The advocates of these laws offer a reason, of course, for their +proposal to limit our freedom. They say that nobody will maintain +data bases without a monopoly over the contents. They have no +specific evidence for this claim; it is based on an article of faith: +a general assumption that nobody will do anything without a monopoly +over the results.

+

+Just a few years ago, people said the same thing about software +— that nobody would write programs without having a monopoly on +them. The Free Software movement has proved that this is not true, +and in the process, we have refuted that general assumption. +Selfishness is not the whole of human nature. One kind of +intellectual work, at least, CAN be done without a monopoly on the +results.

+

+But data bases are not software. Will anyone develop data bases +without a data base monopoly law?

+

+We know they will — because they already do. Many electronic +data bases are available now, and the number is increasing, not +decreasing. And many kinds of data base are byproducts or even +preconditions of other activities that people do for other +reasons.

+

+The data base companies can't deny this, so they threaten us with +future uncertainty. “Maybe we do this today, but ten years from +now nobody will do it any more, unless you give us special +privilege.”

+

+We don't know what will happen in ten years; neither do they. The +economic situation of the Internet is changing rapidly, and no one +knows where it is going. Perhaps, in 2009, commercial data bases will +disappear from the Internet. Or perhaps they will be very successful. +Perhaps networks of volunteers will maintain all the data bases anyone +might want. Perhaps advertising will provide a comfortable source of +revenue to any company that maintains a data base; perhaps a much +weaker law saying “If you redistribute our data base, you must +redistribute our ads too” would serve their interests almost as +well. Nobody knows.

+

+What we do know is that things will change; if a data base law is +passed this year, it will be obsolete a few years from now. But any +attempt to abolish it will be opposed by the data base companies, +which will protect their privileges by predicting the sky would fall +without them. They will say: “We exist, so the law must be +working.”

+

+It is folly, or worse, to lock in a restrictive policy this year, to +solve a problem whose existence is just speculation. A data base +monopoly will take away your freedom, it's a surrender to special +interests, it's hasty, and there is no clear public need for it. We +should instead let the Internet mature, and see what problems really +need to be solved.

+

+So if you are a U.S. voter, write your Congressman now. Say that if he +or she has a chance to vote on whether the data base bill should be +like HR 354 or HR 1858, to choose HR 1858. But then say, when the +data base legislation ultimately comes up for a vote, to vote against +it, whatever it says.

+

+I've written a sample letter that you can use, but remember that your +letter will carry more weight if you write in your own words. Send +your letter on paper; e-mail does not impress legislators, because they +know how easy it is to send. Be polite, but not timid, and try to +keep it under 20 lines. Please email your letter to +<database-letters@gnu.org> +also.

+ +
+Dear Representative So-and-so
+
+
+Congress is considering laws to establish a new kind of monopoly on
+electronic data bases.  I am against the whole idea of this, because
+it would restrict the freedom of computer users.  Private interests
+should not be allowed control over dissemination of facts that are
+public knowledge.  As a measure to promote business, this is
+premature; the Internet is changing very fast, and passing any law
+about this issue in 1999 would be foolish.
+
+
+Multiple alternatives are being considered for this bill; HR 354 is
+especially drastic and dangerous, while HR 1858 is less so.  If you
+have a chance to vote on the choice between them, please choose HR
+1858.  But when the data base monopoly bill ultimately comes up for a
+vote, I ask you to vote against it, regardless of the details.
+
+
+Sincerely,
+Jane Q. Public
+
+

+There exists a +list of senators and a service to +assist you in writing to representative in the U.S. Congress [archived].

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