www/philosophy freedom-or-copyright.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /webcvs/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       10/03/22 18:23:43

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

Log message:
        Substantial rewrites.  Mention global patronage and 3-strikes.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.29&r2=1.30

Patches:
Index: freedom-or-copyright.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html,v
retrieving revision 1.29
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -u -b -r1.29 -r1.30
--- freedom-or-copyright.html   15 Dec 2009 15:04:03 -0000      1.29
+++ freedom-or-copyright.html   22 Mar 2010 18:23:41 -0000      1.30
@@ -23,10 +23,11 @@
 Well and good&mdash;back then.</p>
 
 <p>
-More recently, humanity has developed a new way of distributing
-information: computers and networks.  They facilitate copying and
+Now we have a new way of distributing
+information: computers and networks.  Their benefit is that they
+facilitate copying and
 manipulating information, including software, musical recordings,
-books, and movies, and offer the possibility of unlimited access to
+books, and movies.  They offer the possibility of unlimited access to
 all sorts of data&mdash;an information utopia.</p>
 
 <p>
@@ -41,18 +42,22 @@
 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
+handy weapon.  Under their influence, rather than relaxing copyright
 rules to suit the new circumstances, governments made them stricter than
-ever, forbidding the act of sharing.</p>
+ever, imposing harsh penalties on the practice of sharing.  The latest
+fashion in supporting the publishers against the citizens, known as 
+``three strikes'', is to cut off people's internet connections if
+they share.</p>
 
 <p>
 But that wasn't the worst of it.  Computers can be powerful tools of
-domination when developers control the software that people run.  The
+domination when software suppliers deny users the control of the
+software they run.  The
 publishers realized that by publishing works in encrypted format,
 which only specially authorized software could view, they could gain
 unprecedented power: they could compel readers to pay, and identify
 themselves, every time they read a book, listen to a song, or watch a
-video.</p>
+video.  That is the publishers' dream: a pay-per-view universe.</p>
 
 <p>
 The publishers gained US government support for their dream with the
@@ -70,22 +75,28 @@
 library&mdash;no more &ldquo;leaks&rdquo; that might give someone a
 chance to read without paying.  No more purchasing a book anonymously with
 cash&mdash;you can only buy an e-book with a credit card.  That is
-the world the publishers want for us.  If you buy the Amazon Kindle
-(we call it the Swindle) or the Sony Reader (we call it the Shreader
-for what it threatens to do to books), you pay to establish that
-world.</p>
+the world the publishers want to impose on us.  If you buy the Amazon
+Kindle  (we call it the Swindle) or the Sony Reader (we
+call it the Shreader for what it threatens to do to books), you pay to
+establish that world.</p>
+
+<p>
+The Swindle even has an orwellian back door that can be used to erase
+books remotely.  Amazon demonstrated this capability by erasing copies,
+purchased from Amazon, of Orwell's book 1984.  Evidently Amazon's name
+for this product reflects the intention to burn our books.<p>
 
 <p>
 Public anger against DRM is slowly growing, held back because
-propaganda terms such
+propaganda expressions such
 as <a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">&ldquo;protect
 authors&rdquo;</a>
 and <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">&ldquo;intellectual
 property&rdquo;</a> have convinced readers that their rights do not
 count.  These terms implicitly assume that publishers deserve special
 power in the name of the authors, that we are morally obliged to bow
-to them, and that we have wronged someone if we read or listen to
-anything without paying.</p>
+to them, and that we have wronged someone if we see or hear
+anything without paying for permission.</p>
 
 <p>
 The organizations that profit most from copyright legally exercise it
@@ -96,52 +107,63 @@
 attacking a ship.</p>
 
 <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>
-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, aka. Jane Siberry, asks people
-to <a href="http://www.sheeba.ca/store/help.php#sdp";> 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
+They also tell us that a War on Sharing is the only way to keep
+art alive.  Even if true, it would not justify the policy; but it
+isn't true.  Public sharing of copies is likely to increase the sales of
+most works, and decrease sales only for big hits.</p>
+
+<p>
+Bestsellers can still do well without forbidding sharing.  Stephen
+King got hundreds of thousands of dollars selling an unencrypted
+e-book serial with no obstacle to copying and sharing.  (He was
+dissatisfied with that amount and called the experiment a failure, but it looks
+like a success to me.)  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>
+The possibility of success without oppression is not limited to
+bestsellers.  Many artists of various levels of fame now make an
+adequate living through <a href="
+http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml";<a>voluntary
+support</a>: donations and merchandise purchases of their fans.
+Kevin Kelly estimates the artist need only find around
+<a href="http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php";>
+1,000 true fans</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
 When computer networks provide an easy anonymous method for sending
 someone a small amount of money, without a credit card, it will be
 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?  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>
+least once a week?</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
+<a href="dat.html"> tax funds </a> &mdash; perhaps a tax on blank media
+or on internet connectivity.   The state should
+distribute the tax money entirely to the artists, not
+waste it 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 the arts.</p>
+something similar.  With linear proportion, superstar A with 1000
+times the popularity of a successful artist B will get 1000 times as
+much money as B.  With the cube root, A will get 10 times as much as
+B.  Thus, each superstar gets a larger share than a less popular
+artist, but most of the funds go to the artists who really need this
+support.  This system will use our tax money efficiently to support
+the arts.</p>
+
+<p>
+The <A href="http://mecenat-global.org";> Global Patronage</a>
+proposal combines aspects of those two systems, incorporating
+mandatory payments with voluntary allocation among artists.</p>
 
 <!--
 <p>
@@ -153,7 +175,8 @@
 noncommercial copying and sharing of all published works, and prohibit
 DRM.  But until we win this battle, you must protect yourself: don't
 buy any products with DRM unless you personally have the means to
-break the DRM and make copies.</p>
+break the DRM.  Never use a product designed to attack your freedom
+unless you can nullify the attack.</p>
 
 </div>
 
@@ -188,7 +211,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2009/12/15 15:04:03 $
+$Date: 2010/03/22 18:23:41 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>