[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy misinterpreting-copyright.html
|
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy misinterpreting-copyright.html |
|
Date: |
Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:53:44 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /webcvs/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Richard M. Stallman <rms> 09/10/16 03:53:44
Modified files:
philosophy : misinterpreting-copyright.html
Log message:
Remove space around —.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.23&r2=1.24
Patches:
Index: misinterpreting-copyright.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html,v
retrieving revision 1.23
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -b -r1.23 -r1.24
--- misinterpreting-copyright.html 16 Oct 2009 03:51:53 -0000 1.23
+++ misinterpreting-copyright.html 16 Oct 2009 03:53:39 -0000 1.24
@@ -15,9 +15,9 @@
<p>
Something strange and dangerous is happening in copyright law. Under
-the US 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
+the US 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 US government is
adding more restrictions, and trying to frighten the public into
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
<h3>Copyright in the US Constitution</h3>
<p>
When the US Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were
-entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed — and rejected.
+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
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@
<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
+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
@@ -119,9 +119,9 @@
bargain.</p>
<p>
The consequences of this alteration are far-reaching, because the
-great protection for the public in the copyright bargain — 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
+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”
@@ -146,8 +146,8 @@
<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
+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
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@
<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
+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>
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@
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
+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>
@@ -246,8 +246,8 @@
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>
+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
@@ -255,8 +255,8 @@
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
+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
@@ -266,8 +266,8 @@
<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
+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
@@ -308,7 +308,7 @@
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
+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
@@ -401,11 +401,11 @@
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
+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
+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
@@ -424,7 +424,7 @@
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
+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,
@@ -533,7 +533,7 @@
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
+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>
@@ -578,7 +578,7 @@
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>
+check—but please don't surrender your freedom in my name.</p>
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
<ol>
@@ -643,7 +643,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2009/10/16 03:51:53 $
+$Date: 2009/10/16 03:53:39 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>