From 2d97ecc2c1ac605ca49e8a866b309daaeb7a831c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: MS Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:53:45 +0200 Subject: Installing the Blog --- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html | 381 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 381 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ad56242 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_20.html @@ -0,0 +1,381 @@ + + + + + +

+ 20. Freedom—or Copyright +

+
+

+ This essay addresses how the principles of software freedom apply in +some cases to other works of authorship and art. It’s included here +since it involves the application of the ideas of free software. +

+
+
+

+ Copyright was established in the age of the printing press as an +industrial regulation on the business of writing and publishing. The +aim was to encourage the publication of a diversity of written works. +The means was to require publishers to get the author’s permission to +publish recent writings. This enabled authors to get income from +publishers, which facilitated and encouraged writing. The general +reading public received the benefit of this, while losing little: +copyright restricted only publication, not the things an ordinary +reader could do. That made copyright arguably a beneficial system for +the public, and therefore arguably legitimate. +

+

+ Well and good—back then. +

+

+ Now we have a new way of distributing information: computers and +networks. Their benefit is that they facilitate copying and +manipulating information, including software, musical recordings, +books, and movies. They offer the possibility of unlimited access to +all sorts of data—an information utopia. +

+

+ One obstacle stood in the way: copyright. Readers and listeners who +made use of their new ability to copy and share published information +were technically copyright infringers. The same law which had +formerly acted as a beneficial industrial regulation on publishers had +become a restriction on the public it was meant to serve. +

+

+ In a democracy, a law that prohibits a popular and useful activity is +usually soon relaxed. Not so where corporations have political power. +The publishers’ lobby was determined to prevent the public from taking +advantage of the power of their computers, and found copyright a +handy weapon. Under their influence, rather than relaxing copyright +rules to suit the new circumstances, governments made them stricter than +ever, imposing harsh penalties on the practice of sharing. The latest +fashion in supporting the publishers against the citizens, known as +“three strikes,” is to cut off people’s Internet connections if +they share. +

+

+ But that wasn’t the worst of it. Computers can be powerful tools of +domination when software suppliers deny users the control of the +software they run. The +publishers realized that by publishing works in encrypted format, +which only specially authorized software could view, they could gain +unprecedented power: they could compel readers to pay, and identify +themselves, every time they read a book, listen to a song, or watch a +video. That is the publishers’ dream: a + + + pay-per-view universe. +

+ + +

+ The publishers gained US government support for their dream with the +Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. This law gave publishers +power to write their own copyright rules, by implementing them in the +code of the authorized player software. Under this practice, called +Digital Restrictions Management, or + + + DRM, even reading or listening +without authorization is forbidden. +

+ + +

+ We still have the same old freedoms in using paper books and other +analog media. But if e-books replace printed books, those freedoms +will not transfer. Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending +a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the public + + + library—no more “leaks” that might give someone a +chance to read without paying. No more purchasing a book anonymously with +cash—you can only buy an e-book with a credit card. That is +the world the publishers want to impose on us. If you buy the + + + Amazon + + + Kindle (we call it the + + + Swindle) or the + + + Sony Reader (we +call it the Shreader for what it threatens to do to books), you pay to +establish that world. +

+

+ The + + + Swindle even has an Orwellian back door that can be used to erase +books remotely. Amazon demonstrated this capability by erasing +copies, purchased from Amazon, of + + + Orwell’s book + + + + 1984. + + Evidently +Amazon’s name for this product reflects the intention to burn our +books. +

+

+ Public anger against DRM is slowly growing, held back because +propaganda expressions such +as + + + “protect +authors” +and + + + “intellectual +property” have convinced readers that their rights do not +count. These terms implicitly assume that publishers deserve special +power in the name of the authors, that we are morally obliged to bow +to them, and that we have wronged someone if we see or hear +anything without paying for permission. +

+

+ The organizations that profit most from copyright legally exercise it +in the name of the authors (most of whom gain little). They would +have you believe that copyright is a natural right of authors, and +that we the public must suffer it no matter how painful it is. They +call sharing + + + “piracy,” equating helping your neighbor with +attacking a ship. +

+ + +

+ They also tell us that a War on Sharing is the only way to keep +art alive. Even if true, it would not justify the policy; but it +isn’t true. Public sharing of copies is likely to increase the sales of +most works, and decrease sales only for big hits. +

+ + +

+ Bestsellers can still do well without forbidding sharing. + + + Stephen +King got hundreds of thousands of dollars selling an unencrypted +e-book serial with no obstacle to copying and sharing. (He was +dissatisfied with that amount and called the experiment a failure, but it looks +like a success to me.) + + + Radiohead made millions in 2007 by inviting +fans to copy an album and pay what they wished, while it was also +shared through + + + peer-to-peer. In +2008, + + + Nine Inch Nails released an album with permission to share copies and +made $750,000 in a few days. + + (43) + +

+

+ The possibility of success without oppression is not limited to +bestsellers. Many artists of various levels of fame now make an +adequate living through voluntary support: + + (44) + + donations and merchandise purchases of their fans. + + + Kevin Kelly + + (45) + + estimates the artist need +only find around 1,000 true fans. + + (46) + +

+

+ When computer networks provide an easy anonymous method for sending +someone a small amount of money, without a credit card, it will be +easy to set up a much better system to support the arts. When you +view a work, there will be a button you can press saying, “Click +here to send the artist one dollar.” Wouldn’t you press it, at +least once a week? +

+

+ Another good way to support music and the arts is with +tax funds—perhaps a tax on blank media +or on Internet connectivity. The state should +distribute the tax money entirely to the artists, not +waste it on corporate executives. But the state should not distribute +it in linear proportion to popularity, because that would give most of +it to a few superstars, leaving little to support all the other +artists. I therefore recommend using a cube-root function or +something similar. With linear proportion, superstar A with 1,000 +times the popularity of a successful artist B will get 1,000 times as +much money as B. With the cube root, A will get 10 times as much as +B. Thus, each superstar gets a larger share than a less popular +artist, but most of the funds go to the artists who really need this +support. This system will use our tax money efficiently to support +the arts. +

+ + +

+ The Global Patronage + + (47) + + proposal +combines aspects of those two systems, incorporating mandatory +payments with voluntary allocation among artists. +

+ + +

+ In Spain, this tax system should replace the + + + SGAE + + (48) + + and its canon, +which could be eliminated. +

+ + + + +

+ To make copyright fit the network age, we should legalize the +noncommercial copying and sharing of all published works, and prohibit +DRM. But until we win this battle, you must protect yourself: don’t +buy any products with DRM unless you personally have the means to +break the DRM. Never use a product designed to attack your freedom +unless you can nullify the attack. + + +

+
+
+

+ Footnotes +

+

+ + (43) + +

+

+ “Nine Inch Nails Made at Least $750k from CC Release in Two Days,” posted by Cory Doctorow, 5 March 2008, + + http://boingboing.net/2008/03/05/nine-inch-nails-made.html + + . +

+

+ + (44) + +

+

+ Mike Masnick, +“The Future of Music Business Models (and Those Who Are Already +There),” 25 January 2010, + + http://techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml + + . +

+

+ + (45) + +

+

+ Kevin Kelly is a commentator on digital culture +and the founder of + + Wired + + magazine. +

+

+ + (46) + +

+

+ Kevin Kelly, “1,000 True +Fans,” 4 March 2008, + + http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php + + . +

+

+ + (47) + +

+

+ See + + http://mecenatglobal.org/ + + for more information. +

+

+ + (48) + +

+

+ The SGAE is Spain’s main copyright collective for composers, authors, +and publishers. +

+ +
+
+
+ -- cgit v1.2.3