diff options
author | Tong Hui <tonghuix@gmail.com> | 2016-03-25 16:52:03 +0800 |
---|---|---|
committer | Tong Hui <tonghuix@gmail.com> | 2016-03-25 16:52:03 +0800 |
commit | 5d6f7b414de4b04ddc19629ac6d1f5e5f3cb42ac (patch) | |
tree | b7d47d7d26bf9cd76ceeae138c71d4a99c7ac662 /docs/copyright-vs-community.md | |
download | fsfs-zh-5d6f7b414de4b04ddc19629ac6d1f5e5f3cb42ac.tar.xz |
first
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/copyright-vs-community.md')
-rw-r--r-- | docs/copyright-vs-community.md | 936 |
1 files changed, 936 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/copyright-vs-community.md b/docs/copyright-vs-community.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..72c9845 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/copyright-vs-community.md @@ -0,0 +1,936 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Copyright vs. Community\ +@entrybreak{}in the Age of Computer Networks {#copyright-vs.-community-entrybreakin-the-age-of-computer-networks .chapter} +============================================ + +> This is a transcript of the keynote speech presented by Richard +> Stallman, on 12 October 2009, at the LIANZA conference, at the +> Christchurch Convention Centre, in Christchurch, New Zealand. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{Copyright © 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + Thank you to Bookman for the original transcript. This version of it is +part of @fsfsthreecite} + +> **Brenda Chawner:** Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa. Today +> I have the privilege of introducing Richard Stallman, whose keynote +> speech is being sponsored by the School of Information Management at +> Victoria University of Wellington. +> +> Richard has been working to promote software freedom for over 25 +> years. In 1983 he started the GNU Project to develop a free operating +> system \[the GNU system\], and in 1985 he set up the Free Software +> Foundation. Every time you read or send a message to nz-libs, you use +> the Mailman software which is part of the GNU Project. So whether you +> realize it or not, Richard’s work has touched all of your lives. +> +> I like to describe him as the most influential person most people have +> never heard of, although he tells me that that cannot possibly be true +> because it cannot be tested. +> +> **RMS:** We can’t tell. +> +> **BC:** I said that—I still like it. His ideas about software freedom +> and free access to information were used by Tim Berners-Lee when he +> created the world’s first web server, and in 1999 his musings about a +> free online encyclopedia inspired Jimmy Wales to set up what is now +> Wikipedia. +> +> Today Richard will be talking to us about copyright vs. community in +> the age of computer networks, and their implications for libraries. +> Richard. +> +> **RMS:** I’ve been in New Zealand for a couple of weeks, and in the +> North Island it was raining most of the time. Now I know why they call +> gumboots “Wellingtons.” And then I saw somebody who was making chairs +> and tables out of ponga wood, and he called it fern-iture. Then we +> took the ferry to get here, and as soon as we got off, people started +> mocking and insulting us; but there were no hard feelings, they just +> wanted to make us really feel Picton. + +The reason people usually invite me to give speeches is because of my +work on free software. This is not a talk about free software; this talk +answers the question whether the ideas of free software extend to other +kinds of works. But in order for that to make sense, I’d better tell you +briefly what free software means. + +Free software is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free +speech,” not “free beer.” Free software is software that respects the +user’s freedom, and there are four specific freedoms that the user +deserves always to have: + +- Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish. +- Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code of the program and + change it to make the program do what you wish. +- Freedom 2 is the freedom to help your neighbor—that is, the freedom + to redistribute copies of the program, exact copies when you wish. +- And freedom 3 is the freedom to contribute to your community. That’s + the freedom to publish your modified versions when you wish. + +If the program gives you these four freedoms then it’s free software, +which means the social system of its distribution and use is an ethical +system, one which respects the user’s freedom and the social solidarity +of the user’s community. But if one of these freedoms is missing or +insufficient, then it’s proprietary software, nonfree software, +user-subjugating software. It’s unethical. It’s not a contribution to +society. It’s a power grab. This unethical practice should not exist; +the goal of the free software movement is to put an end to it. All +software should be free, so that all users can be free. + +Proprietary software keeps the users divided and helpless: divided, +because they’re forbidden to share it, and helpless, because they don’t +have the source code so they can’t change it. They can’t even study it +to verify what it’s really doing to them, and many proprietary programs +have malicious features which spy on the user, restrict the user, even +back doors to attack the user. + +For instance, Microsoft Windows has a back door with which Microsoft can +forcibly install software changes, without getting permission from the +supposed owner of the computer. You may think it’s your computer, but if +you’ve made the mistake of having Windows running in it, then really +Microsoft has owned your computer. Computers need to be defenestrated, +which means either throw Windows out of the computer, or throw the +computer out the window. + +But any proprietary software gives the developers unjust power over the +users. Some of the developers abuse this power more, and some abuse it +less, but none of them ought to have it. You deserve to have control of +your computing, and not be forcibly dependent on a particular company. +So you deserve free software. + +At the end of speeches about free software, people sometimes ask whether +these same freedoms and ideas apply to other things. If you have a copy +of a published work on your computer, it makes sense to ask whether you +should have the same four freedoms—whether it’s ethically essential that +you have them or not. And that’s the question that I’m going to address +today. + +If you have a copy of something that’s not software, for the most part, +the only thing that might deny you any of these freedoms is copyright +law. With software that’s not so. The main ways of making software +nonfree are contracts and withholding the source code from the users. +Copyright is a sort of secondary, back up method. For other things +there’s no such distinction as between source code and executable code. + +For instance, if we’re talking about a text, if you can see the text to +read it, there’s nothing in the text that you can’t see. So it’s not the +same kind of issue exactly as software. It’s for the most part only +copyright that might deny you these freedoms. + +So the question can be restated: “What should copyright law allow you to +do with published works? What should copyright law say?” + +Copyright has developed along with copying technology, so it’s useful to +review the history of copying technology. Copying developed in the +ancient world, where you’d use a writing instrument on a writing +surface. You’d read one copy and write another. + +This technology was rather inefficient, but another interesting +characteristic was that it had no economy of scale. To write ten copies +would take ten times as long as to write one copy. It required no +special equipment other than the equipment for writing, and it required +no special skill other than literacy itself. The result was that copies +of any particular book were made in a decentralized manner. Wherever +there was a copy, if someone wanted to copy it, he could. + +There was nothing like copyright in the ancient world. If you had a copy +and wanted to copy it, nobody was going to tell you you weren’t +allowed—except if the local prince didn’t like what the book said, in +which case he might punish you for copying it. But that’s not copyright, +but rather something closely related, namely censorship. To this day, +copyright is often used in attempts to censor people. + +That went on for thousands of years, but then there was a big advance in +copying technology, namely the printing press. The printing press made +copying more efficient, but not uniformly. \[This was\] because mass +production copying became a lot more efficient, but making one copy at a +time didn’t benefit from the printing press. In fact, you were better +off just writing it by hand; that would be faster than trying to print +one copy. + +The printing press has an economy of scale: it takes a lot of work to +set the type, but then you can make many copies very fast. Also, the +printing press and the type were expensive equipment that most people +didn’t own; and the ability to use them, most literate people didn’t +know. Using a press was a different skill from writing. The result was a +centralized manner of producing copies: the copies of any given book +would be made in a few places, and then they would be transported to +wherever someone wanted to buy copies. + +Copyright began in the age of the printing press. Copyright in England +began as a system of censorship in the 1500s. I believe it was +originally meant to censor Protestants, but it was turned around and +used to censor Catholics and presumably lots of others as well. +According to this law, in order to publish a book you had to get +permission from the Crown, and this permission was granted in the form +of a perpetual monopoly to publish it. This was allowed to lapse in the +1680s, I believe \[it expired in 1695 according to the Wikipedia +entry\]. The publishers wanted it back again, but what they got was +something somewhat different. The Statute of Anne gave authors a +copyright, and only for 14 years, although the author could renew it +once. + +This was a totally different idea—a temporary monopoly for the author, +instead of a perpetual monopoly for the publisher. The idea developed +that copyright was a means of promoting writing. + +When the US constitution was written, some people wanted authors to be +entitled to a copyright, but that was rejected. Instead, the US +Constitution says that Congress can optionally adopt a copyright law, +and if there is a copyright law, its purpose is to promote progress. In +other words, the purpose is not benefits for copyright holders or +anybody they do business with, but for the general public. Copyright has +to last a limited time; publishers keep hoping for us to forget about +this. + +Here we have an idea of copyright which is an industrial regulation on +publishers, controlled by authors, and designed to provide benefits to +the public at large. It functioned this way because it didn’t restrict +the readers. + +Now in the early centuries of printing, and still I believe in the +1790s, lots of readers wrote copies by hand because they couldn’t afford +printed copies. Nobody ever expected copyright law to be something other +than an industrial regulation. It wasn’t meant to stop people from +writing copies, it was meant to regulate the publishers. Because of this +it was easy to enforce, uncontroversial, and arguably beneficial for +society. + +It was easy to enforce, because it only had to be enforced against +publishers. And it’s easy to find the unauthorized publishers of a +book—you go to a bookstore and say, “Where do these copies come from?” +You don’t have to invade everybody’s home and everybody’s computer to do +that. + +It was uncontroversial because, as the readers were not restricted, they +had nothing to complain about. Theoretically they were restricted from +publishing, but not being publishers and not having printing presses, +they couldn’t do that anyway. In what they actually could do, they were +not restricted. + +It was arguably beneficial because the general public, according to the +concepts of copyright law, traded away a theoretical right they were not +in a position to exercise. In exchange, they got the benefits of more +writing. + +Now if you trade away something you have no possible use for, and you +get something you can use in exchange, it’s a positive trade. Whether or +not you could have gotten a better deal some other way, that’s a +different question, but at least it’s positive. + +So if this were still in the age of the printing press, I don’t think +I’d be complaining about copyright law. But the age of the printing +press is gradually giving way to the age of the computer +networks—another advance in copying technology that makes copying more +efficient, and once again not uniformly so. + +Here’s what we had in the age of the printing press: mass production +very efficient, one at a time copying still just as slow as the ancient +world. Digital technology gets us here: they’ve both benefited, but +one-off copying has benefited the most. + +We get to a situation much more like the ancient world, where one at a +time copying is not so much worse \[i.e., harder\] than mass production +copying. It’s a little bit less efficient, a little bit less good, but +it’s perfectly cheap enough that hundreds of millions of people do it. +Consider how many people write CDs once in a while, even in poor +countries. You may not have a CD-writer yourself, so you go to a store +where you can do it. + +This means that copyright no longer fits in with the technology as it +used to. Even if the words of copyright law had not changed, they +wouldn’t have the same effect. Instead of an industrial regulation on +publishers controlled by authors, with the benefits set up to go to the +public, it is now a restriction on the general public, controlled mainly +by the publishers, in the name of the authors. + +In other words, it’s tyranny. It’s intolerable and we can’t allow it to +continue this way. + +As a result of this change, \[copyright\] is no longer easy to enforce, +no longer uncontroversial, and no longer beneficial. + +It’s no longer easy to enforce because now the publishers want to +enforce it against each and every person, and to do this requires cruel +measures, draconian punishments, invasions of privacy, abolition of our +basic ideas of justice. There’s almost no limit to how far they will +propose to go to prosecute the War on Sharing. + +It’s no longer uncontroversial. There are political parties in several +countries whose basic platform is “freedom to share.” + +It’s no longer beneficial because the freedoms that we conceptually +traded away (because we couldn’t exercise them), we now can exercise. +They’re tremendously useful, and we want to exercise them. + +What would a democratic government do in this situation? + +It would reduce copyright power. It would say: “The trade we made on +behalf of our citizens, trading away some of their freedom which now +they need, is intolerable. We have to change this; we can’t trade away +the freedom that is important.” We can measure the sickness of democracy +by the tendency of governments to do the exact opposite around the +world, extending copyright power when they should reduce it. + +One example is in the dimension of time. Around the world we see +pressure to make copyright last longer and longer and longer. + +A wave of this started in the US in 1998. Copyright was extended by 20 +years on both past and future works. I do not understand how they hope +to convince the now dead or senile writers of the 20s and 30s to write +more back then by extending copyright on their works now. If they have a +time machine with which to inform them, they haven’t used it. Our +history books don’t say that there was a burst of vigor in the arts in +the 20s when all the artists found out that their copyrights would be +extended in 1998. + +It’s theoretically conceivable that 20 years more copyright on future +works would convince people to make more effort in producing those +works. But not anyone rational, because the discounted present value of +20 more years of copyright starting 75 years in the future—if it’s a +work made for hire—and probably even longer if it’s a work with an +individual copyright holder, is so small it couldn’t persuade any +rational person to do anything different. Any business that wants to +claim otherwise ought to present its projected balance sheets for 75 +years in the future, which of course they can’t do because none of them +really looks that far ahead. + +The real reason for this law, the desire that prompted various companies +to purchase this law in the US Congress, which is how laws are decided +on for the most part, was they had lucrative monopolies and they wanted +those monopolies to continue. + +For instance, Disney was aware that the first film in which Mickey Mouse +appeared would go into the public domain in a few years, and then +anybody would be free to draw that same character as part of other +works. Disney didn’t want that to happen. Disney borrows a lot from the +public domain, but is determined never to give the slightest thing back. +So Disney paid for this law, which we refer to as the Mickey Mouse +Copyright Act. + +The movie companies say they want perpetual copyright, but the US +Constitution won’t let them get that officially. So they came up with a +way to get the same result unofficially: “perpetual copyright on the +installment plan.” Every 20 years they extend copyright for 20 more +years. So that at any given time, any given work has a date when it will +supposedly fall into the public domain. But that date is like tomorrow, +it never comes. By the time you get there they will have postponed it, +unless we stop them next time. + +That’s one dimension, the dimension of duration. But even more important +is the dimension of breadth: which uses of the work does copyright +cover? + +In the age of the printing press, copyright wasn’t supposed to cover all +uses of a copyrighted work, because copyright regulated certain uses +that were the exceptions in a broader space of unregulated uses. There +were certain things you were simply allowed to do with your copy of a +book. + +Now the publishers have got the idea that they can turn our computers +against us, and use them to seize total power over all use of published +works. They want to set up a pay-per-view universe. They’re doing it +with DRM (Digital Restrictions Management)—the intentional features of +software that’s designed to restrict the user. And often the computer +itself is designed to restrict the user. + +The first way in which the general public saw this was in DVDs. A movie +on a DVD was usually encrypted, and the format was secret. The DVD +conspiracy kept this secret because they said anyone that wants to make +DVD players has to join the conspiracy, promise to keep the format +secret, and promise to design the DVD players to restrict the users +according to the rules, which say it has to stop the user from doing +this, from doing that, from doing that—a precise set of requirements, +all of which are malicious towards us. + +It worked for a while, but then some people figured out the secret +format, and published free software capable of reading the movie on a +DVD and playing it. Then the publishers said, “Since we can’t actually +stop them, we have to make it a crime.” And they started that in the US +in 1998 with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which imposed +censorship on software capable of doing such jobs. + +So that particular piece of free software was the subject of a court +case. Its distribution in the US is forbidden; the US practices +censorship of software. + +The movie companies are well aware that they can’t really make that +program disappear—it’s easy enough to find it. So they designed another +encryption system, which they hoped would be harder to break, and it’s +called AACS, or the axe. + +The AACS conspiracy makes precise rules about all players. For instance, +in 2011 it’s going to be forbidden to make analog video outputs. So all +video outputs will have to be digital, and they will carry the signal +encrypted into a monitor specially designed to keep secrets from the +user. That is malicious hardware. They say that the purpose of this is +to “close the analog hole.” *\[Stallman takes off his glasses.\]* Here’s +one and here’s another, that they’d like to poke out +permanently.[(1)](#FOOT1) + +How do I know about these conspiracies? The reason is they’re not +secret—they have web sites. The AACS web site proudly describes the +contracts that manufacturers have to sign, which is how I know about +this requirement. It proudly states the names of the companies that have +established this conspiracy, which include Microsoft and Apple, and +Intel, and Sony, and Disney, and IBM. + +A conspiracy of companies designed to restrict the public’s access to +technology ought to be prosecuted as a serious crime, like a conspiracy +to fix prices, except it’s worse, so the prison sentences for this +should be longer. But these companies are quite confident that our +governments are on their side against us. They have no fear against +being prosecuted for these conspiracies, which is why they don’t bother +to hide them. + +In general, DRM is set up by a conspiracy of companies. Once in a while +a single company can do it, but generally it requires a conspiracy +between technology companies and publishers, so \[it’s\] almost always a +conspiracy. + +They thought that nobody would ever be able to break the AACS, but about +three and a half years ago someone released a free program capable of +decrypting that format. However, it was totally useless, because in +order to run it you need to know the key. + +And then, six months later, I saw a photo of two adorable puppies, with +32 hex digits above them, and I wondered, “Why put those two things +together? I wonder if those numbers are some important key, and someone +could have put the numbers together with the puppies, figuring people +would copy the photo of the puppies because they were so cute. This +would protect the key from being wiped out.” + +And that’s what it was—that was the key to break the axe. People posted +it, and editors deleted it, because laws in many countries now conscript +them to censor this information. It was posted again, they deleted it; +eventually they gave up, and in two weeks this number was posted in over +700,000 web sites. + +That’s a big outpouring of public disgust with DRM. But it didn’t win +the war, because the publishers changed the key. Not only that: with HD +DVD, this was adequate to break the DRM, but not with Blu-ray. Blu-ray +has an additional level of DRM and so far there is no free software that +can break it, which means that you must regard Blu-ray disks as +something incompatible with your own freedom. They are an enemy with +which no accommodation is possible, at least not with our present level +of knowledge. + +Never accept any product designed to attack your freedom. If you don’t +have the free software to play a DVD, you mustn’t buy or rent any DVDs, +or accept them even as gifts, except for the rare non-encrypted DVDs, +which there are a few of. I actually have a few \[of these\]—I don’t +have any encrypted DVDs, I won’t take them. + +So this is how things stand in video, but we’ve also seen DRM in music. + +For instance, about ten years ago we started to see things that looked +like compact disks, but they weren’t written quite like compact disks. +They didn’t follow the standard. We called them “corrupt disks,” and the +idea of them was that they would play in an audio player, but it was +impossible to read them on a computer. These different methods had +various problems. + +Eventually Sony came up with a clever idea. They put a program on the +disk, so that if you stuck the disk into a computer, the disk would +install the program. This program was designed like a virus to take +control of the system. It’s called a “root kit,” meaning that it has +things in it to break the security of the system so that it can install +the software deep inside the system, and modify various parts of the +system. + +For instance, it modified the command you could use to examine the +system to see if the software was present, so as to disguise itself. It +modified the command you could use to delete some of these files, so +that it wouldn’t really delete them. Now all of this is a serious crime, +but it’s not the only one Sony committed, because the software also +included free software code—code that had been released under the GNU +General Public License. + +Now the GNU GPL is a copyleft license, and that means it says, “Yes, +you’re free to put this code into other things, but when you do, the +entire program that you put things into you must release as free +software under the same license. And you must make the source code +available to users, and to inform them of their rights you must give +them a copy of this license when they get the software.” + +Sony didn’t comply with all that. That’s commercial copyright +infringement, which is a felony. They’re both felonies, but Sony wasn’t +prosecuted because the government understands that the purpose of the +government and the law is to maintain the power of those companies over +us, not to help defend our freedom in any way. + +People got angry and they sued Sony. However, they made a mistake. They +focused their condemnation not on the evil purpose of this scheme, but +only on the secondary evils of the various methods that Sony used. So +Sony settled the lawsuits and promised that in the future, when it +attacks our freedom, it will not do those other things. + +Actually, that particular corrupt disk scheme was not so bad, because if +you were not using Windows it would not affect you at all. Even if you +were using Windows, there’s a key on the keyboard—if you remembered +every time to hold it down, then the disk wouldn’t install the software. +But of course it’s hard to remember that every time; you’re going to +slip up some day. This shows the kind of thing we’ve had to deal with. + +Fortunately music DRM is receding. Even the main record companies sell +downloads without DRM. But we see a renewed effort to impose DRM on +books. + +You see, the publishers want to take away the traditional freedoms of +book readers—freedom to do things such as borrow a book from the public +library, or lend it to a friend; to sell a book to a used book store, or +buy it anonymously paying cash (which is the only way I buy books—we’ve +got to resist the temptations to let Big Brother know everything that +we’re doing.) + +Even the freedom to keep the book as long as you wish, and read it as +many times as you wish, they plan to get rid of. + +The way they do it is with DRM. They knew that so many people read books +and would get angry if these freedoms were taken away that they didn’t +believe they could buy a law specifically to abolish these +freedoms—there would be too much opposition. Democracy is sick, but once +in a while people manage to demand something. So they came up with a +two-stage plan. + +First, take away these freedoms from e-books, and second, convince +people to switch from paper books to e-books. They’ve succeeded with +stage 1. + +In the US they did it with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and in +New Zealand, that was part of the Copyright Act \[of 2008\]; censorship +on software that can break DRM was part of that law. That’s an unjust +provision; it’s got to be repealed. + +The second stage is convince people to switch from printed books to +e-books; that didn’t go so well. + +One publisher in 2001 had the idea they would make their line of e-books +really popular if they started it with my biography. So they found an +author and the author asked me if I’d cooperate, and I said, “Only if +this e-book is published without encryption, without DRM.” The publisher +wouldn’t go along with that, and I just stuck to it—I said no. +Eventually we found another publisher who was willing to do this—in fact +willing to publish the book under a free license giving you the four +freedoms—so the book was then published, and sold a lot of copies on +paper. + +But in any case, e-books failed at the beginning of this decade. People +just didn’t want to read them very much. And I said, “They will try +again.” We saw an amazing number of news articles about electronic ink +(or is it electronic paper, I can never remember which), and it occurred +to me probably the reason there’s so many is the publishers want us to +think about this. They want us to be eager for the next generation of +e-book readers. + +Now they’re upon us. Things like the Sony Shreader (its official name is +the Sony Reader, but if you put on ‘sh’ it explains what it’s designed +to do to your books), and the Amazon Swindle, designed to swindle you +out of your traditional freedoms without your noticing. Of course, they +call it the Kindle which is what it’s going to do to your books. + +The Kindle is an extremely malicious product, almost as malicious as +Microsoft Windows. They both have spy features, they both have Digital +Restrictions Management, and they both have back doors. + +In the case of the Kindle, the only way you can buy a book is to buy it +from Amazon, and Amazon requires you to identify yourself, so they know +everything that you’ve bought. + +Then there is Digital Restrictions Management, so you can’t lend the +book or sell it to a used bookstore, and the library can’t lend it +either. + +And then there’s the back door, which we found out about about three +months ago, because Amazon used it. Amazon sent a command to all the +Kindles to erase a particular book, namely 1984, by George Orwell. Yes, +they couldn’t have picked a more ironic book to erase. So that’s how we +know that Amazon has a back door with which it can erase books remotely. + +What else it can do, who knows? Maybe it’s like Microsoft Windows. Maybe +Amazon can remotely upgrade the software, which means that whatever +malicious things are not in it now, they could put them in it tomorrow. + +This is intolerable—any one of these restrictions is intolerable. They +want to create a world where nobody lends books to anybody anymore. + +Imagine that you visit a friend and there are no books on the shelf. +It’s not that your friend doesn’t read, but his books are all inside a +device, and of course he can’t lend you those books. The only way he +could lend you any one of those books is to lend you his whole library, +which is obviously a ridiculous thing to ask anybody to do. So there +goes friendship for people who love books. + +Make sure that you inform people what this device implies. It means +other readers will no longer be your friends, because you will be acting +like a jerk toward them. Spread the word preemptively. This device is +your enemy. It’s the enemy of everyone who reads. The people who don’t +recognize that are the people who are thinking so short-term that they +don’t see it. It’s our job to help them see beyond the momentary +convenience to the implications of this device. + +I have nothing against distributing books in digital form, if they are +not designed to take away our freedom. Strictly speaking, it is possible +to have an e-book reader: + +- that is not designed to attack you, +- which runs free software and not proprietary software, +- which doesn’t have DRM, +- which doesn’t make people identify yourself to get a book, +- which doesn’t have a back door, \[and\] +- which doesn’t restrict what you can do with the files on + your machine. + +It’s possible, but the big companies really pushing e-books are doing it +to attack our freedom, and we mustn’t stand for that. This is what +governments are doing in cahoots with big business to attack our +freedom, by making copyright harsher and nastier, more restrictive than +ever before. + +But what should they do? Governments should make copyright power less. +Here are my specific proposals. + +First of all, there is the dimension of time. I propose copyright should +last ten years, starting from the date of publication of a work. + +Why from the date of publication? Because before that, we don’t have +copies. It doesn’t matter to us whether we would have been allowed to +copy our copies that we don’t have, so I figure we might as well let the +authors have as much time as it takes to arrange publication, and then +start the clock. + +But why ten years? I don’t know about in this country, but in the US, +the publication cycle has got shorter and shorter. Nowadays almost all +books are remaindered within two years and out-of-print within three. So +ten years is more than three times the usual publication cycle—that +should be plenty comfortable. + +But not everybody agrees. I once proposed this in a panel discussion +with fiction writers, and the award-winning fantasy writer next to me +said, “Ten years? No way. Anything more than five years is intolerable.” +You see, he had a legal dispute with his publisher. His books seemed to +be out of print, but the publisher wouldn’t admit it. The publisher was +using the copyright on his own book to stop him from distributing copies +himself, which he wanted to do so people could read it. + +This is what every artist starts out wanting—wanting to distribute her +work so it will get read and appreciated. Very few make a lot of money. +That tiny fraction face the danger of being morally corrupted, like JK +Rowling. + +JK Rowling, in Canada, got an injunction against people who had bought +her book in a bookstore, ordering them not to read it. So in response I +call for a boycott of Harry Potter books. But I don’t say you shouldn’t +read them; I leave that to the author and the publisher. I just say you +shouldn’t buy them. + +It’s few authors that make enough money that they can be corrupted in +this way. Most of them don’t get anywhere near that, and continue +wanting the same thing they wanted at the outset: they want their work +to be appreciated. + +He wanted to distribute his own book, and copyright was stopping him. He +realized that more than five years of copyright was unlikely to ever do +him any good. + +If people would rather have copyright last five years, I won’t be +against it. I propose ten as a first stab at the problem. Let’s reduce +it to ten years and then take stock for a while, and we could adjust it +after that. I don’t say I think ten years is the exact right number—I +don’t know. + +What about the dimension of breadth? Which activities should copyright +cover? I distinguish three broad categories of works. + +First of all, there are the functional works that you use to do a +practical job in your life. This includes software, recipes, educational +works, reference works, text fonts, and other things you can think of. +These works should be free. + +If you use the work to do a job in your life, then if you can’t change +the work to suit you, you don’t control your life. Once you have changed +the work to suit you, then you’ve got to be free to publish it—publish +your version—because there will be others who will want the changes +you’ve made. + +This leads quickly to the conclusion that users have to have the same +four freedoms \[for all functional works\], not just for software. And +you’ll notice that for recipes, practically speaking, cooks are always +sharing and changing recipes just as if the recipes were free. Imagine +how people would react if the government tried to stamp out so-called +recipe piracy. + +The term “pirate” is pure propaganda. When people ask me what I think of +music piracy, I say, “As far as I know, when pirates attack they don’t +do it by playing instruments badly, they do it with arms. So it’s not +music ‘piracy,’ because piracy is attacking ships, and sharing is as far +as you get from being the moral equivalent of attacking ships.” +Attacking ships is bad, sharing with other people is good, so we should +firmly denounce that propaganda term “piracy” whenever we hear it. + +People might have objected twenty years ago: “If we don’t give up our +freedom, if we don’t let the publishers of these works control us, the +works won’t get made and that will be a horrible disaster.” Now, looking +at the free software community, and all the recipes that circulate, and +reference works like Wikipedia—we are even starting to see free +textbooks being published—we know that that fear is misguided. + +There is no need to despair and give up our freedom thinking that +otherwise the works won’t get made. There are lots of ways to encourage +them to get made if we want more—lots of ways that are consistent with +and respect our freedom. In this category, they should all be free. + +But what about the second category, of works that say what certain +people thought, like memoirs, essays of opinion, scientific +papers,[(2)](#FOOT2) and various other things? To publish a modified +version of somebody else’s statement of what he thought is +misrepresenting \[that\] somebody. That’s not particularly a +contribution to society. + +Therefore it is workable and acceptable to have a somewhat reduced +copyright system where all commercial use is covered by copyright, all +modification is covered by copyright, but everyone is free to +non-commercially redistribute exact copies. + +That freedom is the minimum freedom we must establish for all published +works, because the denial of that freedom is what creates the War on +Sharing—what creates the vicious propaganda that sharing is theft, that +sharing is like being a pirate and attacking ships. Absurdities, but +absurdities backed by a lot of money that has corrupted our governments. +We need to end the War on Sharing; we need to legalize sharing exact +copies of any published work. + +In the second category of works, that’s all we need; we don’t need to +make them free. Therefore I think it’s OK to have a reduced copyright +system which covers commercial use and all modifications. And this will +provide a revenue stream to the authors in more or less the same +(usually inadequate) way as the present system. You’ve got to keep in +mind \[that\] the present system, except for superstars, is usually +totally inadequate. + +What about works of art and entertainment? Here it took me a while to +decide what to think about modifications. + +You see, on one hand, a work of art can have an artistic integrity and +modifying it could destroy that. Of course, copyright doesn’t +necessarily stop works from being butchered that way. Hollywood does it +all the time. On the other hand, modifying the work can be a +contribution to art. It makes possible the folk process which leads to +things which are beautiful and rich. + +Even if we look at named authors only: consider Shakespeare, who +borrowed stories from other works only a few decades old, and did them +in different ways, and made important works of literature. If today’s +copyright law had existed then, that would have been forbidden and those +plays wouldn’t have been written. + +But eventually I realized that modifying a work of art can be a +contribution to art, but it’s not desperately urgent in most cases. If +you had to wait ten years for the copyright to expire, you could wait +that long. Not like the present-day copyright that makes you wait maybe +75 years, or 95 years. In Mexico you might have to wait almost 200 years +in some cases, because copyright in Mexico expires a hundred years after +the author dies. This is insane, but ten years, as I’ve proposed +copyright should last, that people can wait. + +So I propose the same partly reduced copyright that covers commercial +use and modification, but everyone’s got to be free to non-commercially +redistribute exact copies. After ten years it goes into the public +domain, and people can contribute to art by publishing their modified +versions. + +One other thing: if you’re going to take little pieces out of a bunch of +works and rearrange them into something totally different, that should +just be legal, because the purpose of copyright is to promote art, not +to obstruct art. It’s stupid to apply copyright to using snippets like +that—it’s self-defeating. It’s a kind of distortion that you’d only get +when the government is under the control of the publishers of the +existing successful works, and has totally lost sight of its intended +purpose. + +That’s what I propose, and in particular, this means that sharing copies +on the internet must be legal. Sharing is good. Sharing builds the bonds +of society. To attack sharing is to attack society. + +So any time the government proposes some new means to attack people who +share, to stop them from sharing, we have to recognize that this is +evil, not just because the means proposed almost invariably offend basic +ideas of justice. But that’s not a coincidence; the reason is because +the purpose is evil. Sharing is good and the government should encourage +sharing. + +But copyright did after all have a useful purpose. Copyright as a means +to carry out that purpose has a problem now, because it doesn’t fit in +with the technology we use. It interferes with all the vital freedoms +for all the readers, listeners, viewers, and whatever, but the goal of +promoting the arts is still desirable. So in addition to the partly +reduced copyright system, which would continue to be a copyright system, +I propose two other methods. + +One \[works via\] taxes—distribute tax money directly to artists. This +could be a special tax, perhaps on internet connectivity, or it could +come from general revenue, because it won’t be that much money in total, +not if it’s distributed in an efficient way. To distribute it +efficiently to promote the arts means not in linear proportion to +popularity. It should be based on popularity, because we don’t want +bureaucrats to have the discretion to decide which artists to support +and which to ignore, but based on popularity does not imply linear +proportion. + +What I propose is measure the popularity of the various artists, which +you could do through polling (samples) in which nobody is required to +participate, and then take the cube root. The cube root looks like this: +it means basically that \[the payment\] tapers off after a while. + +If superstar A is a thousand times as popular as successful artist B, +with this system A would get ten times as much money as B, not a +thousand times. + +Linearly would give A a thousand times as much as B, which means that if +we wanted B to get enough to live on we’re going to have to make A +tremendously rich. This is wasteful use of the tax money—it shouldn’t be +done. + +But if we make it taper off, then yes, each superstar will get +handsomely more than an ordinary successful artist, but the total of all +the superstars will be a small fraction of the \[total\] money. Most of +the money will go to support a large number of fairly successful +artists, fairly appreciated artists, fairly popular artists. Thus the +system will use money a lot more efficiently than the existing system. + +The existing system is regressive. It actually gives far, far more per +record, for instance, to a superstar than to anybody else. The money is +extremely badly used. The result is we’d actually be paying a lot less +this way. I hope that’s enough to mollify some of these people who have +a knee-jerk hostile reaction to taxes—one that I don’t share, because I +believe in a welfare state. + +I have another suggestion which is voluntary payments. Suppose every +player had a button you could push to send a dollar to the artist who +made the work you’re currently playing or the last one you played. This +money would be delivered anonymously to those artists. I think a lot of +people would push that button fairly often. + +For instance, all of us could afford to push that button once every day, +and we wouldn’t miss that much money. It’s not that much money for us, +I’m pretty sure. Of course, there are poor people who couldn’t afford to +push it ever, and it’s OK if they don’t. We don’t need to squeeze money +out of poor people to support the artists. There are enough people who +are not poor to do the job just fine. I’m sure you’re aware that a lot +of people really love certain art and are really happy to support the +artists. + +An idea just came to me. The player could also give you a certificate of +having supported so-and-so, and it could even count up how many times +you had done it and give you a certificate that says, “I sent so much to +these artists.” There are various ways we could encourage people who +want to do it. + +For instance, we could have a PR campaign which is friendly and kind: +“Have you sent a dollar to some artists today? Why not? It’s only a +dollar—you’ll never miss it and don’t you love what they’re doing? Push +the button!” It will make people feel good, and they’ll think, “Yeah, I +love what I just watched. I’ll send a dollar.” + +This is already starting to work to some extent. There’s a Canadian +singer who used to be called Jane Siberry. She put her music on her web +site and invited people to download it and pay whatever amount they +wished. She reported getting an average of more than a dollar per copy, +which is interesting because the major record companies charge just +under a dollar per copy. By letting people decide whether and how much +to pay, she got more—she got even more per visitor who was actually +downloading something. But this might not even count whether there was +an effect of bringing more people to come, and \[thus\] increasing the +total number that this average was against. + +So it can work, but it’s a pain in the neck under present circumstances. +You’ve got to have a credit card to do it, and that means you can’t do +it anonymously. And you’ve got to go find where you’re going to pay, and +the payment systems for small amounts, they’re not very efficient, so +the artists are only getting half of it. If we set up a good system for +this, it would work far, far better. So these are my two suggestions. + +And in [mecenat-global.org](mecenat-global.org),[(3)](#FOOT3) you can +find another scheme that combines aspects of the two, which was invented +by Francis Muguet and designed to fit in with existing legal systems +better to make it easier to enact. + +Be careful of proposals to “compensate the rights holders,” because when +they say “compensate,” they’re trying to presume that if you have +appreciated a work, you now have a specific debt to somebody, and that +you have to “compensate” that somebody. When they say “rights holders,” +it’s supposed to make you think it’s supporting artists while in fact +it’s going to the publishers—the same publishers who basically exploit +all the artists (except the few that you’ve all heard of, who are so +popular that they have clout). + +We don’t owe a debt; we have nobody that we have to “compensate.” +\[But\] supporting the arts is still a useful thing to do. That was the +motivation for copyright back when copyright fit in with the technology +of the day. Today copyright is a bad way to do it, but it’s still good +to do it other ways that respect our freedom. + +Demand that they change the two evil parts of the New Zealand Copyright +Act. They shouldn’t replace the three strikes punishment,[(4)](#FOOT4) +because sharing is good, and they’ve got to get rid of the censorship +for the software to break DRM. Beware of ACTA—they’re trying to +negotiate a treaty between various countries, for all of these countries +to attack their citizens, and we don’t know how because they won’t tell +us. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright In 2010, the encryption system for digital video output was +definitively cracked. (See Mark Hachman’s “HDCP Master Key Confirmed; +Blu-Ray Content Vulnerable” (September 16 2010), at +<http://pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369280,00.asp>, for more +information.) @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright 2015: I included scientific papers because I thought that +publishing modified versions of someone else’s paper would cause harm; +however, publishing physics and math papers under the Creative Commons +Attribution License on [arXiv.org](arXiv.org) and many libre journals +seems to have no problems. Thus, I subsequently concluded that +scientific papers ought to be free. @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright That page is no longer active; please see +[https://stallman.org/mecenat/\ +global-patronage.html](https://stallman.org/mecenat/%3Cbr%3Eglobal-patronage.html) +instead. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright New Zealand had enacted a system of punishment without +trial for internet users accused of copying; then, facing popular +protest, the government did not implement it, and announced a plan to +implement a modified unjust punishment system. The point here was that +they should not proceed to implement a replacement—rather, they should +have no such system. However, the words I used don’t say this clearly. + +@hglue@defaultparindent The New Zealand government subsequently +implemented the punishment scheme more or less as originally planned. +@end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ |