[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy misinterpreting-copyright.html
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy misinterpreting-copyright.html |
|
Date: |
Wed, 16 May 2007 15:17:31 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 07/05/16 15:17:31
Modified files:
philosophy : misinterpreting-copyright.html
Log message:
* Restored original copyright years.
* Long dashes and quotes.
* Use <h3> for the sections.
* Format the footnotes to match the recent style.
* Fixed translations list.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.14&r2=1.15
Patches:
Index: misinterpreting-copyright.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html,v
retrieving revision 1.14
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -b -r1.14 -r1.15
--- misinterpreting-copyright.html 9 Apr 2007 20:46:36 -0000 1.14
+++ misinterpreting-copyright.html 16 May 2007 15:17:26 -0000 1.15
@@ -11,30 +11,32 @@
<!-- Change include statements to be consistent with the relevant -->
<!-- language, where necessary. -->
-<h3>By <a href="http://stallman.org/";>Richard Stallman</a></h3>
+<p>by <a href="http://stallman.org/";><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p>
<p>
Something strange and dangerous is happening in copyright law. Under
-the U.S. Constitution, copyright exists to benefit users -- those who
-read books, listen to music, watch movies, or run software -- not for the
-sake of publishers or authors. Yet even as people tend increasingly to
-reject and disobey the copyright restrictions imposed on them "for their
-own benefit," the U.S. government is adding more restrictions, and
-trying to frighten the public into obedience with harsh new penalties.</p>
+the U.S. Constitution, copyright exists to benefit users — those
+who read books, listen to music, watch movies, or run software —
+not for the sake of publishers or authors. Yet even as people tend
+increasingly to reject and disobey the copyright restrictions imposed
+on them “for their own benefit,” the U.S. government is
+adding more restrictions, and trying to frighten the public into
+obedience with harsh new penalties.</p>
<p>
How did copyright policies come to be diametrically opposed to their
stated purpose? And how can we bring them back into alignment with that
purpose? To understand, we should start by looking at the root of
United States copyright law: the U.S. Constitution.</p>
-<h4>Copyright in the U.S. Constitution</h4>
+<h3>Copyright in the U.S. Constitution</h3>
<p>
When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were
-entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed -- and rejected. The
-founders of our country adopted a different premise, that copyright is
-not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession made to
-them for the sake of progress. The Constitution gives permission for a
-copyright system with this paragraph (Article I, Section 8):</p>
+entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed — and rejected.
+The founders of our country adopted a different premise, that
+copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial
+concession made to them for the sake of progress. The Constitution
+gives permission for a copyright system with this paragraph (Article
+I, Section 8):</p>
<blockquote><p>
[Congress shall have the power] to promote the progress of science and
the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors
@@ -50,25 +52,27 @@
derived by the public from the labors of authors.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
-This fundamental decision explains why copyright is not <b>required</b>
-by the Constitution, only <b>permitted</b> as an option -- and why it is
-supposed to last for "limited times." If copyright were a natural
-right, something that authors have because they deserve it, nothing
-could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time, any
-more than everyone's house should become public property after a certain
-lapse of time from its construction.</p>
-
-<h4>The "copyright bargain"</h4>
-<p>
-The copyright system works by providing privileges and thus benefits to
-publishers and authors; but it does not do this for their sake. Rather,
-it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an incentive for
-authors to write more and publish more. In effect, the government
-spends the public's natural rights, on the public's behalf, as part of a
-deal to bring the public more published works. Legal scholars call this
-concept the "copyright bargain." It is like a government purchase of
-a highway or an airplane using taxpayer's money, except that the
-government spends our freedom instead of our money.</p>
+This fundamental decision explains why copyright is
+not <b>required</b> by the Constitution, only <b>permitted</b> as an
+option — and why it is supposed to last for “limited
+times.” If copyright were a natural right, something that
+authors have because they deserve it, nothing could justify
+terminating this right after a certain period of time, any more than
+everyone's house should become public property after a certain lapse
+of time from its construction.</p>
+
+<h3>The “copyright bargain”</h3>
+<p>
+The copyright system works by providing privileges and thus benefits
+to publishers and authors; but it does not do this for their sake.
+Rather, it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an incentive
+for authors to write more and publish more. In effect, the government
+spends the public's natural rights, on the public's behalf, as part of
+a deal to bring the public more published works. Legal scholars call
+this concept the “copyright bargain.” It is like a
+government purchase of a highway or an airplane using taxpayer's
+money, except that the government spends our freedom instead of our
+money.</p>
<p>
But is the bargain as it exists actually a good deal for the public?
Many alternative bargains are possible; which one is best? Every
@@ -84,10 +88,10 @@
better reflect the reality of copyright rather than the myth, this
article refers to publishers rather than authors as the holders of
copyright powers. It also refers to the users of copyrighted works as
-"readers," even though using them does not always mean reading,
-because "the users" is remote and abstract.</p>
+“readers,” even though using them does not always mean
+reading, because “the users” is remote and abstract.</p>
-<h4>The first error: "striking a balance"</h4>
+<h3>The first error: “striking a balance”</h3>
<p>
The copyright bargain places the public first: benefit for the reading
public is an end in itself; benefits (if any) for publishers are just
@@ -96,51 +100,55 @@
misinterpreting the purpose of copyright is the elevation of the
publishers to the same level of importance as the readers.</p>
<p>
-It is often said that U.S. copyright law is meant to "strike a balance"
-between the interests of publishers and readers. Those who cite this
-interpretation present it as a restatement of the basic position stated
-in the Constitution; in other words, it is supposed to be equivalent to
-the copyright bargain.</p>
+It is often said that U.S. copyright law is meant to “strike a
+balance” between the interests of publishers and readers. Those
+who cite this interpretation present it as a restatement of the basic
+position stated in the Constitution; in other words, it is supposed to
+be equivalent to the copyright bargain.</p>
<p>
But the two interpretations are far from equivalent; they are
different conceptually, and different in their implications. The
balance concept assumes that the readers' and publishers' interests
-differ in importance only quantitatively, in "how much weight" we
-should give them, and in what actions they apply to. The term
-"stakeholders" is often used to frame the issue in this way; it
-assumes that all kinds of interest in a policy decision are equally
-important. This view rejects the qualitative distinction between the
-readers' and publishers' interests which is at the root of the
-government's participation in the copyright bargain.</p>
-<p>
-The consequences of this alteration are far-reaching, because the great
-protection for the public in the copyright bargain -- the idea that
-copyright privileges can be justified only in the name of the readers,
-never in the name of the publishers -- is discarded by the "balance"
-interpretation. Since the interest of the publishers is regarded as an
-end in itself, it can justify copyright privileges; in other words, the
-"balance" concept says that privileges can be justified in the name of
-someone other than the public.</p>
-<p>
-As a practical matter, the consequence of the "balance" concept is to
-reverse the burden of justification for changes in copyright law. The
-copyright bargain places the burden on the publishers to convince the
-readers to cede certain freedoms. The concept of balance reverses this
-burden, practically speaking, because there is generally no doubt that
-publishers will benefit from additional privilege. So unless harm to
-the readers can be proved, sufficient to "outweigh" this benefit, we
-are led to conclude that the publishers are entitled to almost any
-privilege they request.</p>
+differ in importance only quantitatively, in “how much
+weight” we should give them, and in what actions they apply to.
+The term “stakeholders” is often used to frame the issue
+in this way; it assumes that all kinds of interest in a policy
+decision are equally important. This view rejects the qualitative
+distinction between the readers' and publishers' interests which is at
+the root of the government's participation in the copyright
+bargain.</p>
+<p>
+The consequences of this alteration are far-reaching, because the
+great protection for the public in the copyright bargain — the
+idea that copyright privileges can be justified only in the name of
+the readers, never in the name of the publishers — is discarded
+by the “balance” interpretation. Since the interest of
+the publishers is regarded as an end in itself, it can justify
+copyright privileges; in other words, the “balance”
+concept says that privileges can be justified in the name of someone
+other than the public.</p>
+<p>
+As a practical matter, the consequence of the “balance”
+concept is to reverse the burden of justification for changes in
+copyright law. The copyright bargain places the burden on the
+publishers to convince the readers to cede certain freedoms. The
+concept of balance reverses this burden, practically speaking, because
+there is generally no doubt that publishers will benefit from
+additional privilege. So unless harm to the readers can be proved,
+sufficient to “outweigh” this benefit, we are led to
+conclude that the publishers are entitled to almost any privilege they
+request.</p>
<p>
-Since the idea of "striking a balance" between publishers and
+Since the idea of “striking a balance” between publishers and
readers denies the readers the primacy they are entitled to, we must
reject it.</p>
-<h4>Balancing against what?</h4>
+<h3>Balancing against what?</h3>
<p>
-When the government buys something for the public, it acts on behalf of
-the public; its responsibility is to obtain the best possible
-deal -- best for the public, not for the other party in the agreement.</p>
+When the government buys something for the public, it acts on behalf
+of the public; its responsibility is to obtain the best possible deal
+— best for the public, not for the other party in the
+agreement.</p>
<p>
For example, when signing contracts with construction companies to build
highways, the government aims to spend as little as possible of the
@@ -165,7 +173,7 @@
must never put the publishers' interests on a par with the public's
freedom.</p>
-<h4>Not "balance" but "trade-off"</h4>
+<h3>Not “balance” but “trade-off”</h3>
<p>
The idea of balancing the readers' interests against the publishers'
is the wrong way to judge copyright policy, but there are indeed two
@@ -174,25 +182,26 @@
depending on circumstances, they may also have an interest in
encouraging publication through some kind of incentive system.</p>
<p>
-The word "balance," in discussions of copyright, has come to stand
-as shorthand for the idea of "striking a balance" between the
-readers and the publishers. Therefore, to use the word "balance" in
-regard to the readers' two interests would be confusing -- we need
-another term.</p>
+The word “balance,” in discussions of copyright, has come
+to stand as shorthand for the idea of “striking a balance”
+between the readers and the publishers. Therefore, to use the word
+“balance” in regard to the readers' two interests would be
+confusing — we need another term.</p>
<p>
In general, when one party has two goals that partly conflict, and
-cannot completely achieve both of them, we call this a "trade-off."
-Therefore, rather than speaking of "striking the right balance"
-between parties, we should speak of "finding the right trade-off
-between spending our freedom and keeping it."</p>
-
-<h4>The second error: maximizing one output</h4>
-<p>
-The second mistake in copyright policy consists of adopting the goal of
-maximizing -- not just increasing -- the number of published works. The
-erroneous concept of "striking a balance" elevated the publishers to
-parity with the readers; this second error places them far above the
-readers.</p>
+cannot completely achieve both of them, we call this a
+“trade-off.” Therefore, rather than speaking of
+“striking the right balance” between parties, we should
+speak of “finding the right trade-off between spending our
+freedom and keeping it.”</p>
+
+<h3>The second error: maximizing one output</h3>
+<p>
+The second mistake in copyright policy consists of adopting the goal
+of maximizing — not just increasing — the number of
+published works. The erroneous concept of “striking a
+balance” elevated the publishers to parity with the readers;
+this second error places them far above the readers.</p>
<p>
When we purchase something, we do not generally buy the whole quantity
in stock or the most expensive model. Instead we conserve funds for
@@ -213,30 +222,32 @@
but not to the utmost possible extent.</p>
<p>
Accepting the goal of maximizing publication rejects all these wiser,
-more advantageous bargains in advance -- it dictates that the public must
-cede nearly all of its freedom to use published works, for just a little
-more publication.</p>
+more advantageous bargains in advance — it dictates that the
+public must cede nearly all of its freedom to use published works, for
+just a little more publication.</p>
-<h4>The rhetoric of maximization</h4>
+<h3>The rhetoric of maximization</h3>
<p>
In practice, the goal of maximizing publication regardless of the cost
-to freedom is supported by widespread rhetoric which asserts that public
-copying is illegitimate, unfair, and intrinsically wrong. For instance,
-the publishers call people who copy "pirates," a smear term designed
-to equate sharing information with your neighbor with attacking a ship.
-(This smear term was formerly used by authors to describe publishers who
-found lawful ways to publish unauthorized editions; its modern use by
-the publishers is almost the reverse.) This rhetoric directly rejects
-the Constitutional basis for copyright, but presents itself as
-representing the unquestioned tradition of the American legal system.</p>
-<p>
-The "pirate" rhetoric is typically accepted because it blankets the
-media so that few people realize that it is radical. It is effective
-because if copying by the public is fundamentally illegitimate, we can
-never object to the publishers' demand that we surrender our freedom to
-do so. In other words, when the public is challenged to show why
-publishers should not receive some additional power, the most important
-reason of all -- "We want to copy" -- is disqualified in advance.</p>
+to freedom is supported by widespread rhetoric which asserts that
+public copying is illegitimate, unfair, and intrinsically wrong. For
+instance, the publishers call people who copy “pirates,” a
+smear term designed to equate sharing information with your neighbor
+with attacking a ship. (This smear term was formerly used by authors
+to describe publishers who found lawful ways to publish unauthorized
+editions; its modern use by the publishers is almost the reverse.)
+This rhetoric directly rejects the Constitutional basis for copyright,
+but presents itself as representing the unquestioned tradition of the
+American legal system.</p>
+<p>
+The “pirate” rhetoric is typically accepted because it
+blankets the media so that few people realize that it is radical. It
+is effective because if copying by the public is fundamentally
+illegitimate, we can never object to the publishers' demand that we
+surrender our freedom to do so. In other words, when the public is
+challenged to show why publishers should not receive some additional
+power, the most important reason of all — “We want to
+copy” — is disqualified in advance.</p>
<p>
This leaves no way to argue against increasing copyright power except
using side issues. Hence opposition to stronger copyright powers today
@@ -244,22 +255,24 @@
to distribute copies as a legitimate public value.</p>
<p>
As a practical matter, the goal of maximization enables publishers to
-argue that "A certain practice is reducing our sales -- or we think it
-might -- so we presume it diminishes publication by some unknown amount,
-and therefore it should be prohibited." We are led to the outrageous
-conclusion that the public good is measured by publishers' sales: What's
-good for General Media is good for the U.S.A.</p>
+argue that “A certain practice is reducing our sales — or
+we think it might — so we presume it diminishes publication by
+some unknown amount, and therefore it should be prohibited.” We
+are led to the outrageous conclusion that the public good is measured
+by publishers' sales: What's good for General Media is good for the
+U.S.A.</p>
-<h4>The third error: maximizing publishers' power</h4>
+<h3>The third error: maximizing publishers' power</h3>
<p>
Once the publishers have obtained assent to the policy goal of
maximizing publication output at any cost, their next step is to infer
-that this requires giving them the maximum possible powers -- making
-copyright cover every imaginable use of a work, or applying some other
-legal tool such as "shrink wrap" licenses to equivalent effect. This
-goal, which entails the abolition of "fair use" and the "right of
-first sale," is being pressed at every available level of government,
-from states of the U.S. to international bodies.</p>
+that this requires giving them the maximum possible powers —
+making copyright cover every imaginable use of a work, or applying
+some other legal tool such as “shrink wrap” licenses to
+equivalent effect. This goal, which entails the abolition of
+“fair use” and the “right of first sale,” is
+being pressed at every available level of government, from states of
+the U.S. to international bodies.</p>
<p>
This step is erroneous because strict copyright rules obstruct the
creation of useful new works. For instance, Shakespeare borrowed the
@@ -271,7 +284,7 @@
of cost to the public, maximizing publishers' power is the wrong way to
get it. As a means of promoting progress, it is self-defeating.</p>
-<h4>The results of the three errors</h4>
+<h3>The results of the three errors</h3>
<p>
The current trend in copyright legislation is to hand publishers broader
powers for longer periods of time. The conceptual basis of copyright,
@@ -295,8 +308,8 @@
since the 1920s. This change was a giveaway to publishers with no
possible benefit to the public, since there is no way to retroactively
increase now the number of books published back then. Yet it cost the
-public a freedom that is meaningful today -- the freedom to redistribute
-books from that era.</p>
+public a freedom that is meaningful today — the freedom to
+redistribute books from that era.</p>
<p>
The bill also extended the copyrights of works yet to be written. For
works made for hire, copyright would last 95 years instead of the
@@ -329,14 +342,15 @@
to be nice. Previously this was not a crime in the U.S. at all.</p>
<p>
An even worse law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), was
-designed to bring back copy protection (which computer users detest) by
-making it a crime to break copy protection, or even publish information
-about how to break it. This law ought to be called the "Domination by
-Media Corporations Act" because it effectively offers publishers the
-chance to write their own copyright law. It says they can impose any
-restrictions whatsoever on the use of a work, and these restrictions
-take the force of law provided the work contains some sort of encryption
-or license manager to enforce them.</p>
+designed to bring back copy protection (which computer users detest)
+by making it a crime to break copy protection, or even publish
+information about how to break it. This law ought to be called the
+“Domination by Media Corporations Act” because it
+effectively offers publishers the chance to write their own copyright
+law. It says they can impose any restrictions whatsoever on the use
+of a work, and these restrictions take the force of law provided the
+work contains some sort of encryption or license manager to enforce
+them.</p>
<p>
One of the arguments offered for this bill was that it would implement a
recent treaty to increase copyright powers. The treaty was promulgated
@@ -348,25 +362,27 @@
treaty required.</p>
<p>
Libraries were a key source of opposition to this bill, especially to
-the aspects that block the forms of copying that are considered "fair
-use." How did the publishers respond? Former representative Pat
-Schroeder, now a lobbyist for the Association of American Publishers,
-said that the publishers "could not live with what [the libraries
-are] asking for." Since the libraries were asking only to preserve
-part of the status quo, one might respond by wondering how the
-publishers had survived until the present day.</p>
+the aspects that block the forms of copying that are considered
+“fair use.” How did the publishers respond? Former
+representative Pat Schroeder, now a lobbyist for the Association of
+American Publishers, said that the publishers “could not live
+with what [the libraries are] asking for.” Since the libraries
+were asking only to preserve part of the status quo, one might respond
+by wondering how the publishers had survived until the present
+day.</p>
<p>
Congressman Barney Frank, in a meeting with me and others who opposed
-this bill, showed how far the U.S. Constitution's view of copyright has
-been disregarded. He said that new powers, backed by criminal
-penalties, were needed urgently because the "movie industry is
-worried," as well as the "music industry" and other "industries."
-I asked him, "But is this in the public interest?" His response was
-telling: "Why are you talking about the public interest? These
-creative people don't have to give up their rights for the public
-interest!" The "industry" has been identified with the "creative
-people" it hires, copyright has been treated as its entitlement, and
-the Constitution has been turned upside down.</p>
+this bill, showed how far the U.S. Constitution's view of copyright
+has been disregarded. He said that new powers, backed by criminal
+penalties, were needed urgently because the “movie industry is
+worried,” as well as the “music industry” and other
+“industries.” I asked him, “But is this in the
+public interest?” His response was telling: “Why are you
+talking about the public interest? These creative people don't have
+to give up their rights for the public interest!” The
+“industry” has been identified with the “creative
+people” it hires, copyright has been treated as its entitlement,
+and the Constitution has been turned upside down.</p>
<p>
The DMCA was enacted in 1998. As enacted, it says that fair use remains
nominally legitimate, but allows publishers to prohibit all software or
@@ -382,12 +398,12 @@
encryption system for restricting access to recorded music.</p>
<p>
We are also beginning to see e-books that take away many of readers'
-traditional freedoms -- for instance, the freedom to lend a book to
-your friend, to sell it to a used book store, to borrow it from a
+traditional freedoms — for instance, the freedom to lend a book
+to your friend, to sell it to a used book store, to borrow it from a
library, to buy it without giving your name to a corporate data bank,
even the freedom to read it twice. Encrypted e-books generally
-restrict all these activities -- you can read them only with special
-secret software designed to restrict you.</p>
+restrict all these activities — you can read them only with
+special secret software designed to restrict you.</p>
<p>
I will never buy one of these encrypted, restricted e-books, and I
hope you will reject them too. If an e-book doesn't give you the same
@@ -405,31 +421,33 @@
for other reasons, such as that computer display screens are not easy
surfaces to read from. We can't rely on this happy accident to
protect us in the long term; the next attempt to promote e-books will
-use "electronic paper" -- book-like objects into which an encrypted,
-restricted e-book can be downloaded. If this paper-like surface
-proves more appealing than today's display screens, we will have to
-defend our freedom in order to keep it. Meanwhile, e-books are making
-inroads in niches: NYU and other dental schools require students to
-buy their textbooks in the form of restricted e-books.</p>
-<p>
-The media companies are not satisfied yet. In 2001, Disney-funded Senator
-Hollings proposed a bill called the "Security Systems Standards and
-Certification Act" (SSSCA)<a name="bodyfootnote1" href="#footnote1">[1]</a>,
-which would require all computers (and other digital recording and playback
-devices) to have government-mandated copy restriction systems. That is
-their ultimate goal, but the first item on their agenda is to prohibit any
-equipment that can tune digital HDTV unless it is designed to be impossible
-for the public to "tamper with" (i.e., modify for their own purposes).
-Since free software is software that users can modify, we face here for the
-first time a proposed law that explicitly prohibits free software for a
-certain job. Prohibition of other jobs will surely follow. If the FCC
-adopts this rule, existing free software such as GNU Radio would be
-censored.</p>
+use “electronic paper” — book-like objects into
+which an encrypted, restricted e-book can be downloaded. If this
+paper-like surface proves more appealing than today's display screens,
+we will have to defend our freedom in order to keep it. Meanwhile,
+e-books are making inroads in niches: NYU and other dental schools
+require students to buy their textbooks in the form of restricted
+e-books.</p>
+<p>
+The media companies are not satisfied yet. In 2001, Disney-funded
+Senator Hollings proposed a bill called the “Security Systems
+Standards and Certification Act”
+(SSSCA)<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a>, which would require all computers
+(and other digital recording and playback devices) to have
+government-mandated copy restriction systems. That is their ultimate
+goal, but the first item on their agenda is to prohibit any equipment
+that can tune digital HDTV unless it is designed to be impossible for
+the public to “tamper with” (i.e., modify for their own
+purposes). Since free software is software that users can modify, we
+face here for the first time a proposed law that explicitly prohibits
+free software for a certain job. Prohibition of other jobs will
+surely follow. If the FCC adopts this rule, existing free software
+such as GNU Radio would be censored.</p>
<p>
-To block these bills and rules requires political action.<a
-name="bodyfootnote2" href="#footnote2">[2]</a></p>
+To block these bills and rules requires political
+action.<a href="#footnote2">[2]</a></p>
-<h4>Finding the right bargain</h4>
+<h3>Finding the right bargain</h3>
<p>
What is the proper way to decide copyright policy? If copyright is a
bargain made on behalf of the public, it should serve the public
@@ -485,13 +503,13 @@
that anything beyond five years was intolerable.</p>
<p>
But we don't have to apply the same time span to all kinds of works.
-Maintaining the utmost uniformity of copyright policy is not crucial to
-the public interest, and copyright law already has many exceptions for
-specific uses and media. It would be foolish to pay for every highway
-project at the rates necessary for the most difficult projects in the
-most expensive regions of the country; it is equally foolish to "pay"
-for all kinds of art with the greatest price in freedom that we find
-necessary for any one kind.</p>
+Maintaining the utmost uniformity of copyright policy is not crucial
+to the public interest, and copyright law already has many exceptions
+for specific uses and media. It would be foolish to pay for every
+highway project at the rates necessary for the most difficult projects
+in the most expensive regions of the country; it is equally foolish to
+“pay” for all kinds of art with the greatest price in
+freedom that we find necessary for any one kind.</p>
<p>
So perhaps novels, dictionaries, computer programs, songs, symphonies,
and movies should have different durations of copyright, so that we can
@@ -512,25 +530,26 @@
other legal steps to ensure that shrink-wrap licenses cannot be used
to substitute for copyright in restricting such copying.) The
experience of Napster shows that we should also permit noncommercial
-verbatim redistribution to the general public -- when so many of the
-public want to copy and share, and find it so useful, only draconian
-measures will stop them, and the public deserves to get what it wants.</p>
+verbatim redistribution to the general public — when so many of
+the public want to copy and share, and find it so useful, only
+draconian measures will stop them, and the public deserves to get what
+it wants.</p>
<p>
For novels, and in general for works that are used for entertainment,
noncommercial verbatim redistribution may be sufficient freedom for
the readers. Computer programs, being used for functional purposes
(to get jobs done), call for additional freedoms beyond that,
-including the freedom to publish an improved version. See "Free
-Software Definition," in this book, for an explanation of the freedoms
-that software users should have. But it may be an acceptable
+including the freedom to publish an improved version. See “Free
+Software Definition,” in this book, for an explanation of the
+freedoms that software users should have. But it may be an acceptable
compromise for these freedoms to be universally available only after a
delay of two or three years from the program's publication.</p>
<p>
Changes like these could bring copyright into line with the public's
wish to use digital technology to copy. Publishers will no doubt find
-these proposals "unbalanced"; they may threaten to take their marbles
-and go home, but they won't really do it, because the game will remain
-profitable and it will be the only game in town.</p>
+these proposals “unbalanced”; they may threaten to take
+their marbles and go home, but they won't really do it, because the
+game will remain profitable and it will be the only game in town.</p>
<p>
As we consider reductions in copyright power, we must make sure media
companies do not simply replace it with end-user license agreements.
@@ -539,41 +558,40 @@
limitations on what mass-market nonnegotiated contracts can require
are a standard part of the U.S. legal system.</p>
-<h4>A personal note</h4>
+<h3>A personal note</h3>
<p>
-I am a software designer, not a legal scholar. I've become concerned with
-copyright issues because there's no avoiding them in the world of computer
-networks <a name="bodyfootnote3" href="#footnote3">[3]</a>. As a user of
-computers and networks for thirty years, I value the freedoms that we have
-lost, and the ones we may lose next. As an author, I can reject the
-romantic mystique of the author as semidivine creator, often cited by
-publishers to justify increased copyright powers for authors, which authors
-will then sign away to publishers.</p>
+I am a software designer, not a legal scholar. I've become concerned
+with copyright issues because there's no avoiding them in the world of
+computer networks <a href="#footnote3">[3]</a>. As a user of
+computers and networks for thirty years, I value the freedoms that we
+have lost, and the ones we may lose next. As an author, I can reject
+the romantic mystique of the author as semidivine creator, often cited
+by publishers to justify increased copyright powers for authors, which
+authors will then sign away to publishers.</p>
<p>
Most of this article consists of facts and reasoning that you can
check, and proposals on which you can form your own opinions. But I ask
you to accept one thing on my word alone: that authors like me don't
deserve special power over you. If you wish to reward me further for
the software or books I have written, I would gratefully accept a
-check -- but please don't surrender your freedom in my name.</p>
-
-<hr />
+check — but please don't surrender your freedom in my name.</p>
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
-<p>
-<a name="footnote1" href="#bodyfootnote1">[1]</a> Since renamed to the
-unpronounceable CBDTPA, for which a good mnemonic is, "Consume, But Don't
-Try Programming Anything," but it really stands for the "Consumer
-Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act."</p>
-<p>
-<a name="footnote2" href="#bodyfootnote2">[2]</a> If you would like to
-help, I recommend the Web sites <a
-href="http://publicknowledge.org";>publicknowledge.org</a> and <a
-href="http://www.eff.org";>www.eff.org</a>.</p>
-<p>
-<a name="footnote3" href="#bodyfootnote3">[3]</a> The Internet being the
-largest of the world's computer networks.</p>
-
+<ol>
+<li>
+<a id="footnote1"</a>Since renamed to the unpronounceable CBDTPA,
+for which a good mnemonic is, “Consume, But Don't Try
+Programming Anything,” but it really stands for the
+“Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion
+Act.”</li>
+<li>
+<a id="footnote2"</a>If you would like to help, I recommend the Web
+sites <a href="http://publicknowledge.org";>publicknowledge.org</a>
+and <a href="http://www.eff.org";>www.eff.org</a>.</li>
+<li>
+<a id="footnote3"</a>The Internet being the largest of the world's
+computer networks.</li>
+</ol>
<hr />
<h4>This essay is published in <a href="/doc/book13.html"><cite>Free Software,
@@ -595,10 +613,7 @@
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.
<br />
-Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
-<!-- If you are a project maintainer or developer, please use -->
-<!-- your own email, as webmasters does not manage most -->
-<!-- project webpages (those that we do, you know who you are). -->
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
</p>
@@ -610,7 +625,7 @@
</p>
<p>
-Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
</p>
<address>51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA</address>
<p>Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are
@@ -621,7 +636,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/04/09 20:46:36 $
+$Date: 2007/05/16 15:17:26 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
@@ -642,11 +657,16 @@
<!-- <URL:http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm> -->
<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities -->
- <a href="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html">English</a>
-| <a href="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.fr.html">Français</a>
<!-- French -->
-| <a href="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.it.html">Italiano</a> <!--
Italian -->
-| <a href="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.pl.html">Polski</a> <!--
Polish -->
-
+<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html">English</a> [en]</li>
+<!-- French -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
+<!-- Italian -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.it.html">Italiano</a> [it]</li>
+<!-- Polish -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.pl.html">Polski</a> [pl]</li>
+</ul>
</div>
</div>
</body>
- www/philosophy misinterpreting-copyright.html,
Yavor Doganov <=