taler-merchant-demos

Python-based Frontends for the Demonstration Web site
Log | Files | Refs | Submodules | README | LICENSE

freedom-or-copyright.html (11980B)


      1 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
      2 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
      3 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
      4 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays laws copyright" -->
      5 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
      6 <title>Freedom or Copyright?
      7 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
      8 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/freedom-or-copyright.translist" -->
      9 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
     10 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
     11 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
     12 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
     13 <div class="article reduced-width">
     14 <h2>Freedom&mdash;or Copyright?</h2>
     15 
     16 <address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
     17 
     18 <div class="infobox">
     19 <p><em>This essay addresses how the principles of software freedom
     20 apply in some cases to other works of authorship and art. It's
     21 included here since it involves the application of the ideas of free
     22 software.</em></p>
     23 </div>
     24 <hr class="thin" />
     25 
     26 <p>
     27 Copyright was established in the age of the printing press as an
     28 industrial regulation on the business of writing and publishing.  The
     29 aim was to encourage the publication of a diversity of written works.
     30 The means was to require publishers to get the author's permission to
     31 publish recent writings.  This enabled authors to get income from
     32 publishers, which facilitated and encouraged writing.  The general
     33 reading public received the benefit of this, while losing little:
     34 copyright restricted only publication, not the things an ordinary
     35 reader could do.  That made copyright arguably a beneficial system for
     36 the public, and therefore arguably legitimate.</p>
     37 
     38 <p>
     39 Well and good&mdash;back then.</p>
     40 
     41 <p>
     42 Now we have a new way of distributing
     43 information: computers and networks.  Their benefit is that they
     44 facilitate copying and
     45 manipulating information, including software, musical recordings,
     46 books, and movies.  They offer the possibility of unlimited access to
     47 all sorts of data&mdash;an information utopia.</p>
     48 
     49 <p>
     50 One obstacle stood in the way: copyright.  Readers and listeners who
     51 made use of their new ability to copy and share published information
     52 were technically copyright infringers.  The same law which had
     53 formerly acted as a beneficial industrial regulation on publishers had
     54 become a restriction on the public it was meant to serve.</p>
     55 
     56 <p>
     57 In a democracy, a law that prohibits a popular and useful activity is
     58 usually soon relaxed. Not so where corporations have political power.
     59 The publishers' lobby was determined to prevent the public from taking
     60 advantage of the power of their computers, and found copyright a
     61 handy weapon.  Under their influence, rather than relaxing copyright
     62 rules to suit the new circumstances, governments made them stricter than
     63 ever, imposing harsh penalties on the practice of sharing.  The latest
     64 fashion in supporting the publishers against the citizens, known as 
     65 &ldquo;three strikes,&rdquo; is to cut off people's Internet connections if
     66 they share.</p>
     67 
     68 <p>
     69 But that wasn't the worst of it.  Computers can be powerful tools of
     70 domination when software suppliers deny users the control of the
     71 software they run.  The
     72 publishers realized that by publishing works in encrypted format,
     73 which only specially authorized software could view, they could gain
     74 unprecedented power: they could compel readers to pay, and identify
     75 themselves, every time they read a book, listen to a song, or watch a
     76 video.  That is the publishers' dream: a pay-per-view universe.</p>
     77 
     78 <p>
     79 The publishers gained US government support for their dream with the
     80 Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.  This law gave publishers
     81 power to write their own copyright rules, by implementing them in the
     82 code of the authorized player software.  Under this practice, called
     83 Digital Restrictions Management, or DRM, even reading or listening
     84 without authorization is forbidden.</p>
     85 
     86 <p>
     87 We still have the same old freedoms in using paper books and other
     88 analog media.  But if e-books replace printed books, those freedoms
     89 will not transfer.  Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending
     90 a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the public
     91 library&mdash;no more &ldquo;leaks&rdquo; that might give someone a
     92 chance to read without paying.  No more purchasing a book anonymously with
     93 cash&mdash;you can only buy an e-book with a credit card.  That is
     94 the world the publishers want to impose on us.  If you buy the Amazon
     95 Kindle  (we call it <a
     96 href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">the Swindle</a>)
     97 or the Sony Reader (we
     98 call it the Shreader for what it threatens to do to books), you pay to
     99 establish that world.</p>
    100 
    101 <p>
    102 The Swindle even has an Orwellian back door that can be used to erase
    103 books remotely.  Amazon demonstrated this capability by erasing
    104 copies, purchased from Amazon, of Orwell's book 1984.  Evidently
    105 Amazon's name for this product reflects the intention to burn our
    106 books.</p>
    107 
    108 <p>
    109 Public anger against DRM is slowly growing, held back because
    110 propaganda expressions such
    111 as &ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">protect
    112 authors</a>&rdquo;
    113 and &ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">intellectual
    114 property</a>&rdquo; have convinced readers that their rights do not
    115 count.  These terms implicitly assume that publishers deserve special
    116 power in the name of the authors, that we are morally obliged to bow
    117 to them, and that we have wronged someone if we see or hear
    118 anything without paying for permission.</p>
    119 
    120 <p>
    121 The organizations that profit most from copyright legally exercise it
    122 in the name of the authors (most of whom gain little).  They would
    123 have you believe that copyright is a natural right of authors, and
    124 that we the public must suffer it no matter how painful it is.  They
    125 call sharing &ldquo;piracy,&rdquo; equating helping your neighbor with
    126 attacking a ship.</p>
    127 
    128 <p>
    129 They also tell us that a War on Sharing is the only way to keep
    130 art alive.  Even if true, it would not justify the policy; but it
    131 isn't true.  Public sharing of copies is likely to increase the sales of
    132 most works, and decrease sales only for big hits.</p>
    133 
    134 <p>
    135 Bestsellers can still do well without forbidding sharing.  Stephen
    136 King got hundreds of thousands of dollars selling an unencrypted
    137 e-book serial with no obstacle to copying and sharing.  (He was
    138 dissatisfied with that amount and called the experiment a failure, but it looks
    139 like a success to me.)  Radiohead made millions in 2007 by inviting
    140 fans to copy an album and pay what they wished, while it was also
    141 shared on peer-to-peer networks.  In
    142 2008, <a href="https://boingboing.net/2008/03/05/nine-inch-nails-made.html">
    143 Nine Inch Nails released an album with permission to share copies</a>
    144 and made $750,000 in a few days.</p>
    145 
    146 <p>
    147 The possibility of success without oppression is not limited to
    148 bestsellers.  Many artists of various levels of fame now make an
    149 adequate living through <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2010/01/25/future-music-business-models-those-who-are-already-there/">voluntary
    150 support</a>: donations and merchandise purchases of their fans.
    151 Kevin Kelly estimates the artist need only find around
    152 <a href="https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/">
    153 1,000 true fans</a>.
    154 </p>
    155 
    156 <p>
    157 When computer networks provide an easy anonymous method for sending
    158 someone a small amount of money, without a credit card, it will be
    159 easy to set up a much better system to support the arts.  When you
    160 view a work, there will be a button you can press saying, &ldquo;Click
    161 here to send the artist one dollar.&rdquo;  Wouldn't you press it, at
    162 least once a week?</p>
    163 
    164 <p>
    165 Another good way to support music and the arts is with
    166 <a href="/philosophy/dat.html">tax funds</a>&mdash;perhaps a tax on blank media
    167 or on Internet connectivity.   The state should
    168 distribute the tax money entirely to the artists, not
    169 waste it on corporate executives.  But the state should not distribute
    170 it in linear proportion to popularity, because that would give most of
    171 it to a few superstars, leaving little to support all the other
    172 artists.  I therefore recommend using a cube-root function or
    173 something similar.  With linear proportion, superstar A with 1,000
    174 times the popularity of a successful artist B will get 1,000 times as
    175 much money as B.  With the cube root, A will get 10 times as much as
    176 B.  Thus, each superstar gets a larger share than a less popular
    177 artist, but most of the funds go to the artists who really need this
    178 support.  This system will use our tax money efficiently to support
    179 the arts.</p>
    180 
    181 <p>
    182 The <a
    183 href="https://stallman.org/mecenat/global-patronage.html">Global
    184 Patronage</a> proposal combines aspects of those two systems,
    185 incorporating mandatory payments with voluntary allocation among
    186 artists.</p>
    187 
    188 <!--
    189 <p>
    190 In Spain, this tax system should replace the SGAE and its canon,
    191 which could be eliminated.</p> -->
    192 
    193 <p>
    194 To make copyright fit the network age, we should legalize the
    195 noncommercial copying and sharing of all published works, and prohibit
    196 DRM.  But until we win this battle, you must protect yourself: don't
    197 buy any products with DRM unless you personally have the means to
    198 break the DRM.  Never use a product designed to attack your freedom
    199 unless you can nullify the attack.</p>
    200 </div>
    201 
    202 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
    203 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
    204 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
    205 <div class="unprintable">
    206 
    207 <p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a
    208 href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.  There are also <a
    209 href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  Broken links and other
    210 corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
    211 href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
    212 
    213 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
    214         replace it with the translation of these two:
    215 
    216         We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
    217         translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
    218         Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
    219         to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
    220         &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
    221 
    222         <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
    223         our web pages, see <a
    224         href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
    225         README</a>. -->
    226 Please see the <a
    227 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for
    228 information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.</p>
    229 </div>
    230 
    231 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
    232      files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
    233      be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
    234      without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
    235      Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
    236      document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
    237      document was modified, or published.
    238      
    239      If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
    240      Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
    241      years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
    242      year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
    243      being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
    244      
    245      There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
    246      Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
    247 
    248 <p>Copyright &copy; 2008, 2010, 2022 Richard Stallman</p>
    249 
    250 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
    251 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
    252 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
    253 
    254 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
    255 
    256 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
    257 <!-- timestamp start -->
    258 $Date: 2022/04/12 11:15:30 $
    259 <!-- timestamp end -->
    260 </p>
    261 </div>
    262 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
    263 </body>
    264 </html>