www/philosophy freedom-or-copyright.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /webcvs/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       08/01/22 11:35:47

Modified files:
        philosophy     : freedom-or-copyright.html 

Log message:
        Add parentheses about Radiohead, Steven King, and "intellectual 
property".
        Use &mdash;.  Add something under the title to show the point.
        Minor clarifications.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.18&r2=1.19

Patches:
Index: freedom-or-copyright.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html,v
retrieving revision 1.18
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -u -b -r1.18 -r1.19
--- freedom-or-copyright.html   27 Dec 2007 20:56:57 -0000      1.18
+++ freedom-or-copyright.html   22 Jan 2008 11:35:42 -0000      1.19
@@ -1,15 +1,23 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
 
-<title>Freedom-Or Copyright? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation 
(FSF)</title>
+<title>Freedom&mdash;or Copyright? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation 
(FSF)</title>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
 
-<h2>Freedom-Or Copyright?</h2>
+<h2>Freedom&mdash;or Copyright?</h2>
 
 <p>
   by <strong>Richard M. Stallman</strong>
 </p>
 
+<blockquote>
+The brave new world of e-books: no more used book stores, no more
+lending a book to your friend, no more borrowing one from the public
+library, no purchasing a book except with a credit card that
+identifies what you read.  Even reading an e-book without
+authorization is a crime.
+</blockquote>
+
 <p>
 Once upon a time, in the age of the printing press, an industrial
 regulation was established for the business of writing and
@@ -23,14 +31,14 @@
 restricted only publication, not the things a reader could do. If it
 raised the price of a book a small amount, that was only
 money. Copyright provided a public benefit, as intended, with little
-burden on the public. It did its job well-back then.</p>
+burden on the public. It did its job well&mdash;back then.</p>
 
 <p>
 Then a new way of distributing information came about: computers and
 networks. The advantage of digital information technology is that it
 facilitates copying and manipulating information, including software,
 musical recordings and books. Networks offered the possibility of
-unlimited access to all sorts of data-an information utopia.</p>
+unlimited access to all sorts of data&mdash;an information utopia.</p>
 
 <p>
 But one obstacle stood in the way: copyright. Readers who made use of
@@ -49,10 +57,10 @@
 imposing harsh penalties on readers caught sharing.</p>
 
 <p>
-But that wasn't the last of it. Computers can be powerful tools
-of domination when a few people control what other people's
-computers do. The publishers realized that by forcing people to use
-specially designated software to read e-books, they can gain
+But that wasn't the last of it. Computers can be powerful tools of
+domination when a few people control what other people's computers
+do. The publishers realized that by forcing people to use specially
+designated software to watch videos and read e-books, they can gain
 unprecedented power: they can compel readers to pay, and identify
 themselves, every time they read a book!</p>
 
@@ -60,8 +68,9 @@
 That is the publishers' dream, and they prevailed upon the
 U.S. government to enact the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of
 1998. This law gives them total legal power over almost anything a
-reader might do with an e-book. Even reading it without authorization
-is a crime!</p>
+reader might do with an e-book, as long as they publish the book in
+encrypted form. Even reading the book without authorization is a
+crime.</p>
 
 <p>
 We still have the same old freedoms in using paper books. But if
@@ -70,7 +79,7 @@
 download new text onto an apparently printed piece of paper, even
 newspapers could become ephemeral. Imagine: no more used book stores;
 no more lending a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the
-public library-no more &ldquo;leaks&rdquo; that might give someone a
+public library&mdash;no more &ldquo;leaks&rdquo; that might give someone a
 chance to read without paying. (And judging from the ads for Microsoft
 Reader, no more anonymous purchasing of books either.) This is the
 world publishers have in mind for us.</p>
@@ -81,7 +90,11 @@
 political issues raised by this futuristic technology. Besides, the
 public has been taught that copyright exists to &ldquo;protect&rdquo;
 the copyright holders, with the implication that the public's
-interests do not count.</p>
+interests do not count. (The biased term &ldquo;<a href="not-ipr.html">
+intellectual property</a>&dquo; also promotes that view; in addition,
+it encourages the mistake of trying to treat several laws that are
+almost totally different&mdash;such as copyright law and patent
+law&mdash;as if they were a single issue.)</p>
 
 <p>
 But when the public at large begins to use e-books, and discovers the
@@ -93,8 +106,11 @@
 only way to keep art alive, but we do not need a War on Copying to
 encourage a diversity of published works; as the Grateful Dead showed,
 private copying among fans is not necessarily a problem for
-artists. By legalizing the copying of e-books among friends, we can
-turn copyright back into the industrial regulation it once was.</p>
+artists. (In 2007, Radiohead made millions by inviting fans to copy an
+album and pay whatever amount they wish; a few years before, Steven King
+got hundreds of thousands for an e-book which people could copy.) By
+legalizing the copying of e-books among friends, we can turn copyright
+back into the industrial regulation it once was.</p>
 
 <p>
 For some kinds of writing, we should go even further. For scholarly
@@ -146,7 +162,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/12/27 20:56:57 $
+$Date: 2008/01/22 11:35:42 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>