[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy my_doom.nl.html reevaluating-cop...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy my_doom.nl.html reevaluating-cop... |
|
Date: |
Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:28:52 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 13/12/14 02:28:52
Modified files:
philosophy : my_doom.nl.html reevaluating-copyright.nl.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : my_doom.nl-diff.html
reevaluating-copyright.nl-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/my_doom.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/my_doom.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/reevaluating-copyright.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: my_doom.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/my_doom.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- my_doom.nl.html 31 Aug 2013 20:12:23 -0000 1.11
+++ my_doom.nl.html 14 Dec 2013 02:28:50 -0000 1.12
@@ -8,6 +8,13 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/my_doom.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/my_doom.nl.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/my_doom.nl.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/my_doom.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/my_doom.nl-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-10-15" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2>MyDoom en Jij</h2>
<!-- This document uses XHTML 1.0 Strict, but may be served as -->
@@ -150,7 +157,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2013/08/31 20:12:23 $
+$Date: 2013/12/14 02:28:50 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: reevaluating-copyright.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- reevaluating-copyright.nl.html 31 Aug 2013 20:12:34 -0000 1.11
+++ reevaluating-copyright.nl.html 14 Dec 2013 02:28:51 -0000 1.12
@@ -10,6 +10,13 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/reevaluating-copyright.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a
href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/reevaluating-copyright.nl.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/reevaluating-copyright.nl.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html"
-->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/reevaluating-copyright.nl-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-10-15" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2>Het Auteursrecht Opnieuw Bekeken: Voorrang aan de Gemeenschap</h2>
<pre>
@@ -410,7 +417,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2013/08/31 20:12:34 $
+$Date: 2013/12/14 02:28:51 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/my_doom.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/my_doom.nl-diff.html
diff -N po/my_doom.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/my_doom.nl-diff.html 14 Dec 2013 02:28:51 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/my_doom.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.75
--></em></ins></span>
+<title>MyDoom and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>You</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>You
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/my_doom.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>MyDoom and You</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- This document uses XHTML 1.0
Strict, but may be served as -->
+<!-- text/html. Please ensure that markup style considers -->
+<!-- appendex C of the XHTML 1.0 standard. See validator.w3.org. -->
+
+<!-- Please ensure links are consistent with Apache's MultiView. -->
+<!-- Change include statements to be consistent with the relevant -->
+<!-- language, where necessary. --></strong></del></span>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<p>
+I grew up in a community whose other members sometimes committed crimes as
+serious as murder. The city of New York, with its 8 million
+inhabitants, had hundreds of murders each year, mostly committed by
+people who lived in the city. Violent assaults and robberies were
+even more common.</p>
+<p>
+Other evils involving information rather than physical violence were
+common also. For instance, some New York police regularly lied on the
+witness stand, and even made up a word for it: instead of
+“testifying”, they described court appearances as
+“testilying”. Some New York programmers fell into the
+lawful but socially destructive practice of proprietary software: they
+offered other people attractive software packages without source code,
+and exacted a promise not to share them with anyone else.</p>
+<p>
+Despite these prevalent evils, never in my life have I seen anyone try
+to condemn all New Yorkers on the basis of the wrongs that only some
+have committed. I have not seen anyone assume that all the citizens of
+New York are guilty of murder, violence, robbery, perjury, or writing
+proprietary software. People are aware that the mere fact that some
+New Yorkers were known to have done these things is no justification
+for treating all of us as guilty. That would be “guilt by
+association,” and people know that is unjust.</p>
+<p>
+I now live in the
+smaller city of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Murder and robbery occur
+here, too; I do not know if Cambridge police regularly lie in court,
+but proprietary software is rife. Nonetheless, I have never seen
+anyone try to condemn the whole city of Cambridge for this. Here, too,
+people recognize that guilt by association is an injustice.</p>
+<p>
+However, people don't always remember to apply the principle. My
+virtual community, the free software community which I have helped to
+build since 1984 by developing the GNU operating system, is
+now the victim of a campaign of guilt by association. A number of
+articles—I have seen some—have tried to hold our entire
+community guilty for the development of the MyDoom virus.</p>
+<p>
+We can be pretty sure that some New Yorkers have committed murder,
+because they have been tried and convicted for it. We do not know
+whether anyone in the free software community participated in the
+development of MyDoom. The developers have not been identified; they
+know who they are, but you and I can only speculate. We could
+speculate that users of GNU/Linux developed the virus to attack SCO.
+We could speculate that Microsoft developed the virus so it would be
+blamed on us. We could speculate that disgruntled former SCO
+employees developed the virus to get even. But there is no evidence
+for any of these speculations.</p>
+<p>
+If some day we find out that those who developed the virus were free
+software users, then my virtual community will be in the same
+situation as New York City and Cambridge: proved to have had some
+members who acted destructively.</p>
+<p>
+This should not surprise anyone. The free software community numbers
+in the tens of millions, larger than New York or even Shanghai. It is
+hardly to be expected that so many people would all be ethical. Our
+community is self-selected for at least partial rejection of one
+unethical practice, proprietary software, but even that doesn't
+guarantee perfection. The presence of a few wrongdoers among many
+millions is no surprise—and no excuse for guilt by
+association.</p>
+<p>
+I am confident that nearly all readers of this article have nothing to
+do with developing the MyDoom virus. So if someone is accusing you,
+don't act defensive. You have no more to do with the virus than
+your accuser, so stand tall and say so.</p>
+<p>
+If anyone has knowledge or evidence about who developed the virus, I
+hope he or she will come forth and make an accusation against specific
+people based on specific proof. But nobody should make accusations
+without proof, and there is no excuse for guilt by association.
+Not in New York, not in Cambridge, and not in the Free World.</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- If needed, change the copyright
block at the bottom. In general, -->
+<!-- all pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
+<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
+<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
+<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document
-->
+<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002."
--></strong></del></span>
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>. There are
also <a
+href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
+Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other
+corrections or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be
sent</em></ins></span> to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. --></em></ins></span>
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for
+information on coordinating and submitting translations of this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 2004, 2007 Free Software
Foundation, <span class="removed"><del><strong>Inc.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Inc.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/12/14 02:28:51 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/reevaluating-copyright.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/reevaluating-copyright.nl-diff.html
diff -N po/reevaluating-copyright.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/reevaluating-copyright.nl-diff.html 14 Dec 2013 02:28:51 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,452 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.75
--></em></ins></span>
+<title>Reevaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail
+- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/reevaluating-copyright.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Reevaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail</h2>
+
+<pre>
+ Reevaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail
+ [Published in Oregon Law Review, Spring 1996]
+
+ Richard Stallman
+</pre>
+
+<p>The legal world is aware that digital information technology poses
+“problems for copyright,” but has not traced these
+problems to their root cause: a fundamental conflict between
+publishers of copyrighted works and the users of these works. The
+publishers, understanding their own interest, have set forth a
+proposal through the Clinton Administration to fix the
+“problems” by deciding the conflict in their favor. This
+proposal, the Lehman White Paper <a href="#ft2">[2]</a>, was the
+principal focus of the “Innovation and the Information
+Environment” conference at the University of Oregon (November
+1995).</p>
+
+<p>John Perry Barlow <a href="#ft3">[3]</a>, the keynote
speaker,
+began the conference by telling us how the Greatful Dead recognized
+and dealt with this conflict. They decided it would be wrong to
+interfere with copying of their performances on tapes, or with
+distribution on the Internet, but saw nothing wrong in enforcing
+copyright for CD recordings of their music.</p>
+
+<p>Barlow did not analyze the reasons for treating these media
+differently, and later Gary Glisson <a href="#ft4">[4]</a>
criticized
+Barlow's idea that the Internet is inexplicably unique and unlike
+anything else in the world. He argued that we should be able to
+determine the implications of the Internet for copyright policy by the
+same kind of analysis that we apply to other technologies. This paper
+attempts to do just that.</p>
+
+<p>Barlow suggested that our intuitions based on physical objects as
+property do not transfer to information as property because
+information is “abstract.” As Steven
+Winter <a href="#ft5">[5]</a> remarked, abstract property has
existed
+for centuries. Shares in a company, commodity futures, and even paper
+money, are forms of property that are more or less abstract. Barlow
+and others who argue that information should be free do not reject
+these other kinds of abstract property. Clearly, the crucial
+difference between information and acceptable kinds of property is not
+abstractness per se. So what is it? I propose a simple and practical
+explanation.</p>
+
+<p>United States copyright law considers copyright a bargain between
+the public and “authors” (although in practice, usually
+publishers take over the authors' part of the bargain). The public
+trades certain freedoms in exchange for more published works to
+enjoy. Until the White Paper, our government had never proposed that
+the public should trade <b>all</b> of its freedom to use published
+works. Copyright involves giving up specific freedoms and retaining
+others. This means that there are many alternative bargains that the
+public could offer to publishers. So which bargain is the best one for
+the public? Which freedoms are worth while for the public to trade,
+and for what length of time? The answers depend on two things: how
+much additional publication the public will get for trading a given
+freedom, and how much the public benefits from keeping that
+freedom.</p>
+
+<p>This shows why making <a href="#later-1">intellectual property
+decisions</a> by analogy to physical object property, or even to older
+intellectual property policies, is a mistake. Winter argued
+persuasively that it is possible to make such analogies, to stretch
+our old concepts and apply them to new decisions <a href=
+"#ft6">[6]</a>. Surely this will reach some answer—but not a
+good answer. Analogy is not a useful way of deciding what to buy or at
+what price.</p>
+
+<p>For example, we do not decide whether to build a highway in New
+York City by analogy with a previous decision about a proposed highway
+in Iowa. In each highway construction decision, the same factors apply
+(cost, amount of traffic, taking of land or houses); if we made
+highway decisions by analogy to previous highway decisions, we would
+either build every proposed highway or none of them. Instead we judge
+each proposed highway based on the pros and cons, whose magnitudes
+vary from case to case. In copyright issues, too, we must weigh the
+cost and benefits for today's situation and today's media, not as they
+have applied to other media in the past.</p>
+
+<p>This also shows why Laurence Tribe's principle, that rights
+concerning speech should not depend on the choice of
+medium<a href="#ft7">[7]</a>, is not applicable to copyright
+decisions. Copyright is a bargain with the public, not a natural
+right. Copyright policy issues are about which bargains benefit the
+public, not about what rights publishers or readers are entitled
+to.</p>
+
+<p>The copyright system developed along with the printing press. In
+the age of the printing press, it was unfeasible for an ordinary
+reader to copy a book. Copying a book required a printing press, and
+ordinary readers did not have one. What's more, copying in this way
+was absurdly expensive unless many copies were made—which means,
+in effect, that only a publisher could copy a book economically.</p>
+
+<p>So when the public traded to publishers the freedom to copy books,
+they were selling something which they <b>could not use</b>.
Trading
+something you cannot use for something useful and helpful is always
+good deal. Therefore, copyright was uncontroversial in the age of the
+printing press, precisely because it did not restrict anything the
+reading public might commonly do.</p>
+
+<p>But the age of the printing press is gradually ending. The xerox
+machine and the audio and video tape began the change; digital
+information technology brings it to fruition. These advances make it
+possible for ordinary people, not just publishers with specialized
+equipment, to copy. And they do!</p>
+
+<p>Once copying is a useful and practical activity for ordinary
+people, they are no longer so willing to give up the freedom to do
+it. They want to keep this freedom and exercise it instead of trading
+it away. The copyright bargain that we have is no longer a good deal
+for the public, and it is time to revise it—time for the law to
+recognize the public benefit that comes from making and sharing
+copies.</p>
+
+<p>With this analysis, we see why rejection of the old copyright
+bargain is not based on supposing that the Internet is ineffably
+unique. The Internet is relevant because it facilitates copying and
+sharing of writings by ordinary readers. The easier it is to copy and
+share, the more useful it becomes, and the more copyright as it stands
+now becomes a bad deal.</p>
+
+<p>This analysis also explains why it makes sense for the Grateful
+Dead to insist on copyright for CD manufacturing but not for
+individual copying. CD production works like the printing press; it is
+not feasible today for ordinary people, even computer owners, to copy
+a CD into another CD. Thus, copyright for publishing CDs of music
+remains painless for music listeners, just as all copyright was
+painless in the age of the printing press. To restrict copying the
+same music onto a digital audio tape does hurt the listeners, however,
+and they are entitled to reject this restriction. (1999 note: the
+practical situation for CDs has changed, in that many ordinary
+computer users can now copy CDs. This means that we should now
+consider CDs more like tapes. 2007 clarification: notwithstanding the
+improvement in CD technology, it still makes sense to apply copyright
+to commercial distribution while letting individuals copy freely.)</p>
+
+<p>We can also see why the abstractness
+of <a href="#later-1">intellectual property</a> is not the crucial
+factor. Other forms of abstract property represent shares of
+something. Copying any kind of share is intrinsically a zero-sum
+activity; the person who copies benefits only by taking wealth away
+from everyone else. Copying a dollar bill in a color copier is
+effectively equivalent to shaving a small fraction off of every other
+dollar and adding these fractions together to make one
+dollar. Naturally, we consider this wrong.</p>
+
+<p>By contrast, copying useful, enlightening or entertaining
+information for a friend makes the world happier and better off; it
+benefits the friend, and inherently hurts no one. It is a constructive
+activity that strengthens social bonds.</p>
+
+<p>Some readers may question this statement because they know
+publishers claim that illegal copying causes them “loss.”
+This claim is mostly inaccurate and partly misleading. More
+importantly, it is begging the question.</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <li>The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the
+ friend would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That
+ is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false,
+ the claimed loss does not occur.</li>
+
+ <li>The claim is partly misleading because the word
+ “loss” suggests events of a very different
+ nature—events in which something they have is taken away from
+ them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or
+ if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a
+ “loss.” We generally agree it is wrong to do these
+ things to other people.
+
+ <p>But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book,
+ the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A
+ more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher
+ get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can
+ result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a
+ book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry
+ “foul” just because a potential customer chooses not
+ to deal with them.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li>The claim is begging the question because the idea of
+ “loss” is based on the assumption that the publisher
+ “should have” got paid. That is based on the assumption
+ that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is
+ just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public
+ decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to
+ expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a
+ “loss” when it is not.
+
+ <p>In other words, the “loss” comes from the copyright
+ system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself
+ hurts no one.</p>
+ </li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>The most widely opposed provision of the White Paper is the system
+of collective responsibility, whereby a computer owner is required to
+monitor and control the activities of all users, on pain of being
+punished for actions in which he was not a participant but merely
+failed to actively prevent. Tim Sloan <a href="#ft8">[8]</a>
pointed
+out that this gives copyright owners a privileged status not accorded
+to anyone else who might claim to be damaged by a computer user; for
+example, no one proposes to punish the computer owner if he fails
+actively to prevent a user from defaming someone. It is natural for a
+government to turn to collective responsibility for enforcing a law
+that many citizens do not believe in obeying. The more digital
+technology helps citizens share information, the more the government
+will need draconian methods to enforce copyright against ordinary
+citizens.</p>
+
+<p>When the United States Constitution was drafted, the idea that
+authors were entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed—and
+rejected <a href="#ft9">[9]</a>. Instead, the founders of our
country
+adopted a different idea of copyright, one which places the public
+first <a href="#ft10">[10]</a>. Copyright in the United States is
+supposed to exist for the sake of users; benefits for publishers and
+even for authors are not given for the sake of those parties, but only
+as an inducement to change their behavior. As the Supreme Court said
+in Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal: “The sole interest of the United
+States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly
+lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
+authors.” <a href="#ft11">[11]</a></p>
+
+<p>Under the Constitution's view of copyright, if the public prefers
+to be able to make copies in certain cases even if that means somewhat
+fewer works are published, the public's choice is decisive. There is
+no possible justification for prohibiting the public from copying what
+it wants to copy.</p>
+
+<p>Ever since the constitutional decision was made, publishers have
+tried to reverse it by misinforming the public. They do this by
+repeating arguments which presuppose that copyright is a natural right
+of authors (not mentioning that authors almost always cede it to
+publishers). People who hear these arguments, unless they have a firm
+awareness that this presupposition is contrary to the basic premises
+of our legal system, take for granted that it is the basis of that
+system.</p>
+
+<p>This error is so ingrained today that people who oppose new
+copyright powers feel the need to do so by arguing that even authors
+and publishers may be hurt by them. Thus, James
+Boyle <a href="#ft12">[12]</a> explains how a
+strict <a href="#later-2">intellectual property system</a> can
+interfere with writing new works. Jessica
+Litman <a href="#ft13">[13]</a> cites the copyright shelters which
+historically allowed many new media to become popular. Pamela
+Samuelson <a href="#ft14">[14]</a> warns that the White Paper may
+block the development of “third-wave” information
+industries by locking the world into the “second-wave”
+economic model that fit the age of the printing press.</p>
+
+<p>These arguments can be very effective on those issues where they
+are available, especially with a Congress and Administration dominated
+by the idea that “What's good for General Media is good for the
+USA.” But they fail to expose the fundamental falsehood on which
+this domination is based; as a result, they are ineffective in the
+long term. When these arguments win one battle, they do so without
+building a general understanding that helps win the next battle. If we
+turn to these arguments too much and too often, the danger is that we
+may allow the publishers to replace the Constitution uncontested.</p>
+
+<p>For example, the recently published position statement of the
+Digital Future Coalition, an umbrella organization, lists many reasons
+to oppose the White Paper, for the sake of authors, libraries,
+education, poor Americans, technological progress, economic
+flexibility, and privacy concerns—all valid arguments, but
+concerned with side issues <a href="#ft15">[15]</a>. Conspicuously
+absent from the list is the most important reason of all: that many
+Americans (perhaps most) want to continue making copies. The DFC fails
+to criticize the core goal of the White Paper, which is to give more
+power to publishers, and its central decision, to reject the
+Constitution and place the publishers above the users. This silence
+may be taken for consent.</p>
+
+<p>Resisting the pressure for additional power for publishers depends
+on widespread awareness that the reading and listening public are
+paramount; that copyright exists for users and not vice versa. If the
+public is unwilling to accept certain copyright powers, that is ipso
+facto justification for not offering them. Only by reminding the
+public and the legislature of the purpose of copyright and the
+opportunity for the open flow of information can we ensure that the
+public prevails.</p>
+
+<h3>ENDNOTES</h3>
+
+<p id="ft2">[2] Informational Infrastructure Task
+Force, Intellectual Property and the National Information
+Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual
+Property Rights (1995).</p>
+
+<p id="ft3">[3] John Perry Barlow, Remarks at the
+Innovation and the Information Environment Conference (Nov.
+1995). Mr. Barlow is one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier
+Foundation, an organization which promotes freedom of expression in
+digital media, and is also a former lyricist for the Grateful
+Dead.</p>
+
+<p id="ft4">[4] Gary Glisson, Remarks at the
+Innovation and the Information Environment Conference (Nov. 1995);
+see also Gary Glisson, A Practitioner's Defense of the NII White
+Paper, 75 Or. L. Rev. (1996) (supporting the White Paper).
+Mr. Glisson is a partner and chair of the Intellectual Property Group
+at Lane Powell Spears Lubersky in Portland, Oregon.</p>
+
+<p id="ft5">[5] Steven Winter, Remarks at the
+Innovation and the Information Environment Conference (Nov.
+1995). Mr. Winter is a professor at the University of Miami School of
+Law.</p>
+
+<p id="ft6">[6] Winter, supra note 4.</p>
+
+<p id="ft7">[7] See Laurence H. Tribe, The
+Constitution in Cyberspace: Law and Liberty Beyond the Electronic
+Frontier, Humanist, Sept.-Oct. 1991, at 15.</p>
+
+<p id="ft8">[8] Tim Sloan, Remarks at the Innovation
+and the Information Environment Conference (Nov. 1995). Mr. Sloan is
+a member of the National Telecommunication and Information
+Administration.</p>
+
+<p id="ft9">[9] See Jane C. Ginsburg, A Tale of Two
+Copyrights: Liberary Property in Revolutionary France and America, in,
+Of Authors and Origins: Essays on Copyright Law 131, 137-38 (Brad
+Sherman & Alain Strowel, eds., 1994) (stating that the
+Constitution's framers either meant to “subordinate[] the
+author's interests to the public benefit,” or to “treat
+the private and public interests…even-handedly.”).</p>
+
+<p id="ft10">[10] U.S. Const., art. I, p. 8, cl. 8
+(“Congress shall have Power…to promote the Progress of
+Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
+Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
+Discoveries.”).</p>
+
+<p id="ft11">[11] 286 U.S. 123, 127 (1932).</p>
+
+<p id="ft12">[12] James Boyle, Remarks at the
+Innovation and the Information Environment Conference (Nov.
+1995). Mr. Boyle is a Professor of Law at American University in
+Washington, D.C.</p>
+
+<p id="ft13">[13] Jessica Litman, Remarks at the
+Innovation and the Information Environment Conference (Nov.
+1995). Ms. Litman is a Professor at Wayne State University Law School
+in Detroit, Michigan.</p>
+
+<p id="ft14">[14] Pamela Samuelson, The Copyright
+Grab, Wired, Jan. 1996. Ms. Samuelson is a Professor at Cornell Law
+School.</p>
+
+<p id="ft15">[15] Digital Future Coalition,
+Broad-Based Coalition Expresses Concern Over Intellectual Property
+Proposals, Nov. 15, 1995<!-- (available at URL:
+<a
href="http://home.worldweb.net/dfc/press.html">http://home.worldweb.net/dfc/press.html</a>)-->.</p>
+
+<h3>LATER NOTES</h3>
+
+<p id="later-1">[1] This article was part of the
+path that led me to recognize the <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">
+bias and confusion in the term “intellectual
+property”</a>. Today I believe that term should never be used
+under any circumstances.</p>
+
+<p id="later-2">[2] Here I fell into the
+fashionable error of writing “intellectual property” when
+what I meant was just “copyright”. This is like writing
+“Europe” when you mean “France”—it
+causes confusion that is easy to avoid.</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for id="content", starts
in the include above --></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</em></ins></span>
There are also <a
+href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
+Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other
+corrections or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be
sent</em></ins></span> to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. --></em></ins></span>
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for
+information on coordinating and submitting translations of this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 1996, 1999 Richard M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
+<br />
+This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This</em></ins></span> page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/12/14 02:28:51 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy my_doom.nl.html reevaluating-cop...,
GNUN <=