1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
|
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays laws noip" -->
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Don't Let “Intellectual Property” Twist Your Ethos
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/no-ip-ethos.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>Don't Let “Intellectual Property” Twist Your Ethos</h2>
<address class="byline">by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
Stallman</a></address>
<p><i>June 09, 2006</i></p>
<p>Most free software licenses are based on copyright law, and
for good reason: Copyright law is much more uniform among
countries than contract law, which is the other possible
choice.</p>
<p>There's another reason not to use contract law: It would
require every distributor to get a user's formal assent to the
contract before providing a copy. To hand someone a CD without
getting his signature first would be forbidden. What a pain in
the neck!</p>
<p>It's true that in countries like China, where copyright law is
generally not enforced, we may also have trouble enforcing free
software license agreements, as Heather Meeker suggests in her
recent <cite>LinuxInsider</cite> column, “<a
href="https://linuxinsider.com/story/only-in-america-copyright-law-key-to-global-free-software-model-50421.html">Only
in America? Copyright Law Key to Global Free Software
Model</a>.”</p>
<p>However, this is not a reason to press for more copyright
enforcement in China. Although we would use it to protect
people's freedom, we have to recognize that mostly it would be
used by the likes of Microsoft, Disney and Sony to take it
away.</p>
<p>Ironically, we might have more success enforcing copyright in
China than Microsoft, Disney and Sony—because what we would
want to do is easier.</p>
<p>Disney wishes to stamp out semi-underground organizations that
sell exact copies. With free software, regardless of precisely which
free license is used, that kind of copying is legal. What we want to prevent,
when the free software license is the
GNU <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GPL</a>, is the release of
proprietary software products based on our code. That kind of abuse
is at its worst when carried out by large, well-known companies—and
they are easier targets for enforcement. So GPL
enforcement in China is not a lost cause, though it won't be
easy.</p>
<h3>No Chinese Laundry</h3>
<p>Nonetheless, Meeker's claim that this leads to a global
problem is simply absurd. You can't “launder”
material copyrighted in the U.S. by moving it through China, as
she ought to know.</p>
<p>If someone violates the GNU GPL by distributing a nonfree
modified version of GCC in the U.S., it won't make any difference
if it was obtained or modified in China. U.S. copyright law will
be enforced just the same.</p>
<p>Although this error might seem to be the central point of
Meeker's article, it is not. The real central point of the article
is the perspective embodied in her use of the term
“intellectual property.” She uses this term pervasively
as though it refers to something coherent—something it makes
sense to talk about and think about. If you believe that, you have
accepted the article's hidden assumption.</p>
<h3>Loose Language</h3>
<p>Sometimes Meeker switches between “intellectual
property” and “copyright” as if they were two
names for the same thing. Sometimes she switches between
“intellectual property” and “patents” as if they were
two names for the same thing. Having studied those two laws,
Meeker knows they are vastly different; all they have in common
is an abstract sketch of their form.</p>
<p>Other “intellectual property” laws don't even
share that much with them. The implication that you can treat
them all as the same thing is fundamentally misleading.</p>
<p>Along with the term “intellectual property” goes a
false understanding of what these laws are for. Meeker speaks of
an “ethos” of “intellectual property”
that exists in the U.S. because “intellectual property is
in the Constitution.” That's the mother of all
mistakes.</p>
<p>What is really in the U.S. Constitution? It doesn't mention
“intellectual property,” and it says nothing at all
about most of the laws that term is applied to. Only two of
them—copyright law and patent law—are treated there.</p>
<p>What does the Constitution say about them? What is its ethos?
It is nothing like the “intellectual property ethos”
that Meeker imagines.</p>
<h3>Failure to Execute</h3>
<p>What the Constitution says is that copyright law and patent law
are optional. They need not exist. It says that if they do exist,
their purpose is to provide a public benefit—to promote
progress by providing artificial incentives.</p>
<p>They are not rights that their holders are entitled to; they
are artificial privileges that we might, or might not, want to
hand out to encourage people to do what we find useful.</p>
<p>It's a wise policy. Too bad Congress—which has to carry
it out on our behalf—takes its orders from Hollywood and
Microsoft instead of from us.</p>
<p>If you appreciate the U.S. Constitution's wisdom, don't let
“intellectual property” into your ethos; don't let
the “intellectual property” meme infect your
mind.</p>
<p>Practically speaking, copyright and patent and trademark law
have only one thing in common: Each is legitimate only as far as
it serves the public interest. Your interest in your freedom is a
part of the public interest that must be served.</p>
</div>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
document was modified, or published.
If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
<p>Copyright © 2006, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2021/09/27 08:52:21 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
|
