www/philosophy freedom-or-copyright.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /webcvs/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       08/03/10 13:55:07

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

Log message:
        More explicit about purpose of copyright.
        Add links about recent successes of sharable music.
        Describe the tax scheme.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.24&r2=1.25

Patches:
Index: freedom-or-copyright.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html,v
retrieving revision 1.24
retrieving revision 1.25
diff -u -b -r1.24 -r1.25
--- freedom-or-copyright.html   5 Feb 2008 00:13:34 -0000       1.24
+++ freedom-or-copyright.html   10 Mar 2008 13:54:51 -0000      1.25
@@ -9,22 +9,25 @@
 
 <p>
 Copyright was established in the age of the printing press as an
-industrial regulation on the business of writing and publishing.  Its
-purpose was to encourage the publication of a diversity of written
-works.  Its means was to require the author's permission to publish
-recent writings.  Ordinary readers received the benefit of increased
-writing, with little reason to complain: copyright restricted only
-publication, not the things a reader could do.</p>
+industrial regulation on the business of writing and publishing.  The
+aim was to encourage the publication of a diversity of written works.
+The means was to require publishers to get the author's permission to
+publish recent writings.  This enabled authors to get income from
+publishers, which facilitated and encouraged writing.  The general
+reading public received the benefit of this, while losing little:
+copyright restricted only publication, not the things an ordinary
+reader could do.  That made copyright arguably a beneficial system for
+the public, and therefore legitimate.</p>
 
 <p>
 Well and good&mdash;back then.</p>
 
 <p>
-Recently we developed a new way of distributing information: computers
-and networks.  They facilitated copying and manipulating information,
-including software, musical recordings, books, and movies, and offered
-the possibility of unlimited access to all sorts of data&mdash;an
-information utopia.</p>
+More recently, humanity developed a new way of distributing
+information: computers and networks.  They facilitated copying and
+manipulating information, including software, musical recordings,
+books, and movies, and offered the possibility of unlimited access to
+all sorts of data&mdash;an information utopia.</p>
 
 <p>
 One obstacle stood in the way: copyright.  Readers and listeners who
@@ -35,10 +38,10 @@
 
 <p>
 In a democracy, a law that prohibits a popular and useful activity is
-usually soon relaxed. Not so where corporations have political
-power.  The publishers' lobby was determined to prevent the public from
-taking advantage of the power of their computers, and found copyright
-a suitable tool. Under their influence, rather than relaxing copyright
+usually soon relaxed. Not so where corporations have political power.
+The publishers' lobby was determined to prevent the public from taking
+advantage of the power of their computers, and found copyright a
+suitable tool.  Under their influence, rather than relaxing copyright
 rules to suit the new circumstances, governments made it stricter than
 ever, forbidding the act of sharing.</p>
 
@@ -85,26 +88,33 @@
 anything without paying.</p>
 
 <p>
-The publishers tell us that a cruel War on Copying is the only way to
-keep art alive.  Even if true, it would not justify such cruelty; but
-it isn't true.  Public sharing of copies tends to increase the sales
-of most works, and decrease sales only for the most successful ten
-percent.</p>
+The organizations that profit most from copyright legally exercise it
+in the name of the authors (most of whom gain little).  They would
+have you believe that copyright is a natural right of authors, and
+that we the public must suffer it no matter how painful it is.  They
+call sharing &ldquo;piracy&rdquo;, equating helping your neighbor with
+attacking a ship.</p>
 
 <p>
-But bestsellers can still do well.  Stephen King got hundreds of
-thousands of dollars selling an unencrypted e-book with no obstacle to
-copying and sharing.  The singer Issa, a.k.a. Jane Siberry, asks
-people to <a href="http://www.sheeba.ca/store/letterSDP.php";> choose
-their own prices</a> when they download songs, and averages more per
-download than the usual $0.99.  Radiohead made millions by inviting
-fans to copy an album and pay what they wished, while it was also
-shared through P2P.</p>
+They also tell us that a cruel War on Sharing is the only way to keep
+art alive.  Even if true, it would not justify such cruelty; but it
+isn't true.  Public sharing of copies tends to increase the sales of
+most works, and decrease sales only for the most successful ten
+percent.</p>
 
 <p>
-Works that are used to do a practical job should be <em>free</em>,
-permitting even publication of modified versions, but that's a
-different issue.</p>
+But bestsellers also can still do well without stopping sharing.
+Stephen King got hundreds of thousands of dollars selling an
+unencrypted e-book with no obstacle to copying and sharing.  The
+singer Issa, a.k.a. Jane Siberry, asks people
+to <a href="http://www.sheeba.ca/store/letterSDP.php";> choose their
+own prices</a> when they download songs, and averages more per
+download than the usual $0.99.  Radiohead made millions in 2007 by
+inviting fans to copy an album and pay what they wished, while it was
+also shared through P2P.  In
+2008, <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/05/nine-inch-nails-made.html";>
+Nine Inch Nails released an album with permission to share copies</a>
+and made 750,000 dollars in a few days.</p>
 
 <p>
 When computer networks provide an easy anonymous method for sending
@@ -112,7 +122,31 @@
 easy to set up a much better system to support the arts.  When you
 view a work, there will be a button you can press saying &ldquo;Click
 here to send the artist one dollar&rdquo;.  Wouldn't you press it, at
-least once a week?</p>
+least once a week?  But voluntary contributions from fans can already
+support an artist; Kevin Kelly estimates the artist need only find
+approximately <a 
href="http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php";>
+1,000 true fans</a>.</p>
+
+<p>
+Another good way to support music and the arts is with
+a <a href="dat.html"> tax on blank media</a>.  If the state
+distributes the tax money entirely to the artists, it will not be
+wasted on corporate executives.  But the state should not distribute
+it in linear proportion to popularity, because that would give most of
+it to a few superstars, leaving little to support all the other
+artists.  I therefore recommend using a cube-root function or
+something similar.  With cube root, a superstar with 1000 times the
+popularity of a successful artist will get 10 times as much, instead
+of 1000 times as much.  This way, although each superstar gets a
+larger share than the other artists, the superstars together will get
+only a small fraction of the money, leaving most of it to support a
+large number of other artists.  This system will use our tax money
+efficiently to support art.</p>
+
+<!--
+<p>
+In Spain, this tax system should replace the SGAE and its canon,
+which could be eliminated.</p> -->
 
 <p>
 To make copyright fit the network age, we should legalize the
@@ -154,7 +188,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2008/02/05 00:13:34 $
+$Date: 2008/03/10 13:54:51 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>