[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy apsl.ko.html apsl.nl.html censor...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy apsl.ko.html apsl.nl.html censor... |
|
Date: |
Fri, 07 Feb 2014 08:36:13 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 14/02/07 08:36:13
Modified files:
philosophy : apsl.ko.html apsl.nl.html
censoring-emacs.nl.html gates.nl.html
misinterpreting-copyright.nl.html
misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : apsl.ko-diff.html apsl.nl-diff.html
censoring-emacs.nl-diff.html gates.nl-diff.html
misinterpreting-copyright.nl-diff.html
misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/apsl.ko.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/apsl.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/censoring-emacs.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.12&r2=1.13
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/gates.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.13&r2=1.14
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.30&r2=1.31
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/apsl.ko-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/apsl.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/censoring-emacs.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/gates.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/misinterpreting-copyright.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: apsl.ko.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/apsl.ko.html,v
retrieving revision 1.15
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -b -r1.15 -r1.16
--- apsl.ko.html 31 Aug 2013 20:11:37 -0000 1.15
+++ apsl.ko.html 7 Feb 2014 08:36:10 -0000 1.16
@@ -8,6 +8,13 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/apsl.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ko.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/apsl.ko.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/apsl.ko.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/apsl.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/apsl.ko-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-12-09" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ko.html" -->
<h2>ì í ê³µì¤ ìì¤ ì´ì©íë½ (APSL) 2.0íì ëí FSFì
견í´</h2>
<p>ì í ê³µì¤ ìì¤ ì´ì©íë½(APSL, Apple Public Source License)
2.0í(ë²ì )ì ìì ìíí¸ì¨ì´
@@ -77,7 +84,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
ìµì¢
ìì ì¼:
-$Date: 2013/08/31 20:11:37 $
+$Date: 2014/02/07 08:36:10 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: apsl.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/apsl.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.15
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -b -r1.15 -r1.16
--- apsl.nl.html 31 Aug 2013 20:11:37 -0000 1.15
+++ apsl.nl.html 7 Feb 2014 08:36:10 -0000 1.16
@@ -9,6 +9,13 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/apsl.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/apsl.nl.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/apsl.nl.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/apsl.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/apsl.nl-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-12-09" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2>FSF's Mening over de Apple Public Source License (APSL) 2.0</h2>
<p>De Apple Public Source License (APSL) versie 2.0 kan worden bestempeld als
@@ -96,7 +103,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2013/08/31 20:11:37 $
+$Date: 2014/02/07 08:36:10 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: censoring-emacs.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/censoring-emacs.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -b -r1.12 -r1.13
--- censoring-emacs.nl.html 31 Aug 2013 20:11:49 -0000 1.12
+++ censoring-emacs.nl.html 7 Feb 2014 08:36:10 -0000 1.13
@@ -8,6 +8,13 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/censoring-emacs.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/censoring-emacs.nl.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/censoring-emacs.nl.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/censoring-emacs.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/censoring-emacs.nl-diff.html"
-->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-12-09" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2>Mijn Eigen Software Censureren</h2>
<p>
@@ -147,7 +154,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2013/08/31 20:11:49 $
+$Date: 2014/02/07 08:36:10 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: gates.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/gates.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- gates.nl.html 31 Aug 2013 20:12:04 -0000 1.11
+++ gates.nl.html 7 Feb 2014 08:36:10 -0000 1.12
@@ -8,6 +8,13 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/gates.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/gates.nl.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/gates.nl.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/gates.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/gates.nl-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-12-09" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2> Het zijn niet de Gates, het zijn de barriëres</h2>
<p>door <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
@@ -191,7 +198,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2013/08/31 20:12:04 $
+$Date: 2014/02/07 08:36:10 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: misinterpreting-copyright.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.13
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -b -r1.13 -r1.14
--- misinterpreting-copyright.nl.html 31 Aug 2013 20:12:22 -0000 1.13
+++ misinterpreting-copyright.nl.html 7 Feb 2014 08:36:10 -0000 1.14
@@ -9,6 +9,13 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/misinterpreting-copyright.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a
href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/misinterpreting-copyright.nl.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/misinterpreting-copyright.nl.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/misinterpreting-copyright.nl-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-12-09" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2>Verkeerd Uitleg van Auteursrecht—Een Serie Fouten</h2>
<!-- This document uses XHTML 1.0 Strict, but may be served as -->
@@ -640,7 +647,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2013/08/31 20:12:22 $
+$Date: 2014/02/07 08:36:10 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn.html,v
retrieving revision 1.30
retrieving revision 1.31
diff -u -b -r1.30 -r1.31
--- misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn.html 31 Aug 2013 20:12:22 -0000
1.30
+++ misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn.html 7 Feb 2014 08:36:10 -0000
1.31
@@ -8,6 +8,13 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/misinterpreting-copyright.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.zh-cn.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a
href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-12-09" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.zh-cn.html" -->
<h2>对çæç误解—ä¸ç³»åçé误</h2>
<!-- This document uses XHTML 1.0 Strict, but may be served as -->
@@ -308,7 +315,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
æ´æ°ï¼
-$Date: 2013/08/31 20:12:22 $
+$Date: 2014/02/07 08:36:10 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/apsl.ko-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/apsl.ko-diff.html
diff -N po/apsl.ko-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/apsl.ko-diff.html 7 Feb 2014 08:36:11 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+<!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/apsl.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>FSF's Opinion on the Apple Public Source License (APSL)
+- 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/apsl.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>FSF's Opinion of the Apple Public Source License (APSL)
2.0</h2>
+
+<p>The Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 2.0 qualifies as a free
+software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a
+license that would qualify.
+The <a href="/philosophy/historical-apsl.html">problems previously
+described on this page</a> are still potential issues for other
+possible licenses, but they do not apply to version 2.0 of the APSL.
+We encourage everyone who uses any version of Apple Software under the
+APSL to use the terms of version 2.0 rather than that of any earlier
+license.</p>
+
+<p>In version 2.0 of the APSL, the definition of “Externally
+Deployed” has been narrowed in a way that is appropriate for the
+respect of users' freedoms. It has always been the position of FSF
+that the freedom of Free Software is primarily for the users of that
+software. Technologies, like web applications, are changing the way
+that users interact with software. The APSL 2.0, like
+the <a href="/licenses/agpl.html">GNU Affero GPL</a>, seeks
+to defend the freedom of those who use software in these novel ways,
+without unduly hindering the users' privacy nor freedom to use the
+software.</p>
+
+<p>The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with two
+major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other
files
+ which may be entirely proprietary.</li>
+
+<li>It is incompatible with the GPL.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>For this reason, we recommend you do not release new software using
+this license; but it is ok to use and improve software which other
+people release under this license.</p>
+
+<p>Aside from this, we must remember that only part of Mac OS X is being
+released under the APSL. Even though the fatal flaws of the APSL were
+fixed, and even if the practical problems were addressed, that does no
+good for the other parts of Mac OS X whose source code is not being
+released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what
+it does.</p>
+
+<p><a href="http://www.gnu-darwin.org">GNU-Darwin</a> is a
combination
+of GNU and Darwin that is supposed to include only free software.</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">
+
+<p>Please 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>Please</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>. -->
+Please</em></ins></span> see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Regarding copyright, in general,
standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --></em></ins></span>
+
+
+<p>Copyright © 1999, 2001, 2007, 2008 Free Software Foundation,
<span class="removed"><del><strong>Inc.,</p>
+
+<address>51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110,
USA</address></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 License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2014/02/07 08:36:11 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/apsl.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/apsl.nl-diff.html
diff -N po/apsl.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/apsl.nl-diff.html 7 Feb 2014 08:36:11 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+<!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/apsl.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>FSF's Opinion on the Apple Public Source License (APSL)
+- 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/apsl.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>FSF's Opinion of the Apple Public Source License (APSL)
2.0</h2>
+
+<p>The Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 2.0 qualifies as a free
+software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a
+license that would qualify.
+The <a href="/philosophy/historical-apsl.html">problems previously
+described on this page</a> are still potential issues for other
+possible licenses, but they do not apply to version 2.0 of the APSL.
+We encourage everyone who uses any version of Apple Software under the
+APSL to use the terms of version 2.0 rather than that of any earlier
+license.</p>
+
+<p>In version 2.0 of the APSL, the definition of “Externally
+Deployed” has been narrowed in a way that is appropriate for the
+respect of users' freedoms. It has always been the position of FSF
+that the freedom of Free Software is primarily for the users of that
+software. Technologies, like web applications, are changing the way
+that users interact with software. The APSL 2.0, like
+the <a href="/licenses/agpl.html">GNU Affero GPL</a>, seeks
+to defend the freedom of those who use software in these novel ways,
+without unduly hindering the users' privacy nor freedom to use the
+software.</p>
+
+<p>The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with two
+major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other
files
+ which may be entirely proprietary.</li>
+
+<li>It is incompatible with the GPL.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>For this reason, we recommend you do not release new software using
+this license; but it is ok to use and improve software which other
+people release under this license.</p>
+
+<p>Aside from this, we must remember that only part of Mac OS X is being
+released under the APSL. Even though the fatal flaws of the APSL were
+fixed, and even if the practical problems were addressed, that does no
+good for the other parts of Mac OS X whose source code is not being
+released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what
+it does.</p>
+
+<p><a href="http://www.gnu-darwin.org">GNU-Darwin</a> is a
combination
+of GNU and Darwin that is supposed to include only free software.</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">
+
+<p>Please 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>Please</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>. -->
+Please</em></ins></span> see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Regarding copyright, in general,
standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --></em></ins></span>
+
+
+<p>Copyright © 1999, 2001, 2007, 2008 Free Software Foundation,
<span class="removed"><del><strong>Inc.,</p>
+
+<address>51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110,
USA</address></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 License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2014/02/07 08:36:11 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/censoring-emacs.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/censoring-emacs.nl-diff.html
diff -N po/censoring-emacs.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/censoring-emacs.nl-diff.html 7 Feb 2014 08:36:12 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+<!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/censoring-emacs.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>Censoring My <span class="removed"><del><strong>Software, by
Richard Stallman</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Software
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/censoring-emacs.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Censoring My Software</h2>
+
+<p>
+by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></a>
+<br />
+[From Datamation, March 1 1996]</p>
+
+<p>
+Last summer, a few clever legislators proposed a bill to
+“prohibit pornography” on the Internet. Last fall, the
+right-wing Christians made this cause their own. Last week, President
+Clinton signed the bill. This week, I'm censoring GNU Emacs.</p>
+<p>
+No, GNU Emacs does not contain pornography. It's a software package,
+an award-winning extensible and programmable text editor. But the law
+that was passed applies to far more than pornography. It prohibits
+“indecent” speech, which can include anything from famous
+poems, to masterpieces hanging in the Louvre, to advice about safe sex
+… to software.</p>
+<p>
+Naturally, there was a lot of opposition to this bill. Not only from
+people who use the Internet and people who appreciate erotica, but
+from everyone who cares about freedom of the press.</p>
+<p>
+But every time we tried to tell the public what was at stake, the
+forces of censorship responded with a lie: They told the public that
+the issue was simply pornography. By embedding this lie as a
+presupposition in their other statements about the issue, they
+succeeded in misinforming the public. So now I am censoring my
+software.</p>
+<p>
+You see, Emacs contains a version of the famous “doctor
+program,” a.k.a. Eliza, originally developed by Professor
+Weizenbaum at <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of
+Technology">MIT</abbr>. This is the program that imitates a Rogerian
+psychotherapist. The user talks to the program, and the program
+responds—by playing back the user's own statements, and by
+recognizing a long list of particular words.</p>
+<p>
+The Emacs doctor program was set up to recognize many common curse
+words and respond with an appropriately cute message such as,
+“Would you please watch your tongue?” or “Let's not
+be vulgar.” In order to do this, it had to have a list of curse
+words. That means the source code for the program was indecent.</p>
+<p>
+So this week I removed that feature. The new version of the doctor
+doesn't recognize the indecent words; if you curse at it, it replays
+the curse back to you—for lack of knowing better. (When the new
+version starts up, it announces that it has been censored for your
+protection.)</p>
+<p>
+Now that Americans face the threat of two years in prison for indecent
+network postings, it would be helpful if they could access precise
+rules for avoiding imprisonment via the Internet. However, this is
+impossible. The rules would have to mention the forbidden words, so
+posting them on the Internet would violate those same rules.</p>
+<p>
+Of course, I'm making an assumption about just what
+“indecent” means. I have to do this, because nobody knows
+for sure. The most obvious possible meaning is the meaning it has for
+television, so I'm using that as a tentative assumption. However,
+there is a good chance that our courts will reject that interpretation
+of the law as unconstitutional.</p>
+<p>
+We can hope that the courts will recognize the Internet as a medium of
+publication like books and magazines. If they do, they will entirely
+reject any law prohibiting “indecent” publications on the
+Internet.</p>
+<p>
+What really worries me is that the courts might choose a muddled
+half-measure—by approving an interpretation of
+“indecent” that permits the doctor program or a statement
+of the decency rules, but prohibits some of the books that any child
+can browse through in the public library. Over the years, as the
+Internet replaces the public library, some of our freedom of speech
+will be lost.</p>
+<p>
+Just a few weeks ago, another country imposed censorship on the
+Internet. That was China. We don't think well of China in this
+country—its government doesn't respect basic freedoms. But how
+well does our government respect them? And do you care enough to
+preserve them here?</p>
+
+<p>
+[This paragraph is obsolete:]
+</p>
+
+<p>
+If you care, stay in touch with the Voters Telecommunications Watch.
+Look in their Web site http://www.vtw.org/ for background information
+and political action recommendations. Censorship won in February, but
+we can beat it in November.</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
<span class="removed"><del><strong>(or suggestions)</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>or suggestions 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>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 1996 Richard <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: 2014/02/07 08:36:12 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/gates.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/gates.nl-diff.html
diff -N po/gates.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/gates.nl-diff.html 7 Feb 2014 08:36:12 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+<!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/gates.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="removed"><del><strong><title> It's</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 -->
+<title>It's</em></ins></span> not the Gates, it's the bars
+- <span class="removed"><del><strong>RMS</title></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>GNU Project - Free Software
Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/gates.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2> It's not the Gates, it's the bars</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a><br />
+Founder, Free Software Foundation
+</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p><em>(This article was <a
+href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7487060.stm">published by
+BBC News in 2008</a>.)</em></p>
+</blockquote>
+
+ <p>To pay so much attention to Bill Gates' retirement is
+ missing the point. What really matters is not Gates, nor
+ Microsoft, but the unethical system of restrictions that
+ Microsoft—like many other software companies—imposes on its
+ customers.</p>
+
+ <p>That statement may surprise you, since most people interested in
+ computers have strong feelings about Microsoft. Businessmen and their
+ tame politicians admire its success in building an empire over so many
+ computer users. Many outside the computer field credit Microsoft for
+ advances which it only took advantage of, such as making computers
+ cheap and fast, and convenient graphical user interfaces.</p>
+
+ <p>Gates' philanthropy for health care for poor countries has won
+ some people's good opinion. The LA Times reported that his
+ foundation spends five to 10% of its money annually and invests
+ the rest, sometimes in companies it suggests cause environmental
+ degradation and illness in the same poor countries.
+ (2010 update: The Gates Foundation is supporting a project with
+ agribusiness giant Cargill on a <a
+
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/sep/29/gates-foundation-gm-monsanto">project
+ that could involve pushing genetically modified crops in
Africa</a>.)</p>
+
+ <p>Many computerists specially hate Gates and Microsoft. They have
+ plenty of reasons. Microsoft persistently engages in anti-competitive
+ behaviour, and has been convicted three times. (Bush, who let
+ Microsoft off the hook for the second US conviction, was invited to
+ Microsoft headquarters to solicit funds for the 2000 election. In the
+ UK, Microsoft established a major office in Gordon Brown's
+ constituency. Both lawful, both potentially corrupting.)</p>
+
+ <p>Many users hate the “Microsoft tax”, the retail
+ contracts that make you pay for Windows on your computer even if you
+ won't use it. (In some countries you can get a refund, but the effort
+ required is daunting.) There's also the Digital Restrictions
+ Management: software features designed to “stop” you from
+ accessing your files freely. (Increased restriction of users seems to
+ be the main advance of Vista.)</p>
+
+ <p>Then there are the gratuitous incompatibilities and obstacles to
+ interoperation with other software. (This is why the EU required
+ Microsoft to publish interface specifications.) This year Microsoft
+ packed standards committees with its supporters to procure ISO
+ approval of its unwieldy, unimplementable and patented “open
+ standard” for documents. (The EU is now investigating this.)</p>
+
+ <p>These actions are intolerable, of course, but they are not
+ isolated events. They are systematic symptoms of a deeper wrong
+ which most people don't recognize: proprietary software.</p>
+
+ <p>Microsoft's software is distributed under licenses that keep
+ users divided and helpless. The users are divided because they
+ are forbidden to share copies with anyone else. The users are
+ helpless because they don't have the source code that programmers
+ can read and change.</p>
+
+ <p>If you're a programmer and you want to change the software, for
+ yourself or for someone else, you can't. If you're a business and you
+ want to pay a programmer to make the software suit your needs better,
+ you can't. If you copy it to share with your friend, which is simple
+ good-neighbourliness, they call you a “pirate”.
+ Microsoft would have us believe that helping your neighbour is the
+ moral equivalent of attacking a ship.</p>
+
+ <p>The most important thing that Microsoft has done is to promote this
+ unjust social system. Gates is personally identified with it, due to
+ his infamous open letter which rebuked microcomputer users for sharing
+ copies of his software. It said, in effect, “If you don't let me
+ keep you divided and helpless, I won't write the software and you
+ won't have any. Surrender to me, or you're lost!”</p>
+
+ <p>But Gates didn't invent proprietary software, and thousands of
+ other companies do the same thing. It's wrong—no matter who does
+ it. Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and the rest, offer you software that
+ gives them power over you. A change in executives or companies is not
+ important. What we need to change is this system.</p>
+
+ <p>That's what the free software movement is all
+ about. “Free” refers to freedom: we write and publish
+ software that users are free to share and modify. We do this
+ systematically, for freedom's sake; some of us paid, many as
+ volunteers. We already have complete free operating systems, including
+ GNU/Linux. Our aim is to deliver a complete range of useful free
+ software, so that no computer user will be tempted to cede her freedom
+ to get software.</p>
+
+ <p>In 1984, when I started the free software movement, I was hardly
+ aware of Gates' letter. But I'd heard similar demands from others,
+ and I had a response: “If your software would keep us divided
+ and helpless, please don't write it. We are better off without
+ it. We will find other ways to use our computers, and preserve our
+ freedom.”</p>
+
+ <p>In 1992, when the GNU operating system was completed by the
+ kernel, Linux, you had to be a wizard to run it. Today GNU/Linux
+ is user-friendly: in parts of Spain and India, it's standard in
+ schools. Tens of millions use it, around the world. You can use
+ it too.</p>
+
+ <p>Gates may be gone, but the walls and bars of proprietary software
+ he helped create remain—for now. Dismantling them is up to
+ us.</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 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></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --></em></ins></span>
+
+
+<p>Copyright © 2008 <span class="removed"><del><strong><a
href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman</a></p>
+
+<p>Richard Stallman</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page</em></ins></span> is <span class="removed"><del><strong>the
founder of the Free Software Foundation. You
+can copy and redistribute this article</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>licensed</em></ins></span> under <span
class="removed"><del><strong>the</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>a</em></ins></span> <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution Noderivs</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivs</em></ins></span> 3.0
<span class="removed"><del><strong>license</a>.</p>
+
+<!--
+<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://creativecommons.org/ns#";
+ xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";
+ xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
+<Work rdf:about="">
+<license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/"; />
+</Work>
+
+<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/">
+ <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Attribution"; />
+ <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction"; />
+
+ <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution"; />
+ <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice"; />
+</License>
+
+</rdf:RDF>
+
+--></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>United States
License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2014/02/07 08:36:12 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/misinterpreting-copyright.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/misinterpreting-copyright.nl-diff.html
diff -N po/misinterpreting-copyright.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/misinterpreting-copyright.nl-diff.html 7 Feb 2014 08:36:12 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,710 @@
+<!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/misinterpreting-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>Misinterpreting Copyright
+- 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/misinterpreting-copyright.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors</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>
+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
+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
+obedience with harsh new penalties.</p>
+<p>
+How did copyright policies come to be diametrically opposed to their
+stated purpose? And how can we bring them back into alignment with that
+purpose? To understand, we should start by looking at the root of
+United States copyright law: the US Constitution.</p>
+
+<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.
+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
+gives permission for a copyright system with this paragraph (Article
+I, Section 8):</p>
+<blockquote><p>
+[Congress shall have the power] to promote the Progress of Science and
+the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
+the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
+</p></blockquote>
+<p>
+The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that promoting progress means
+benefit for the users of copyrighted works. For example, in <em>Fox Film
+v. Doyal</em>, the court said,</p>
+<blockquote><p>
+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.
+</p></blockquote>
+<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
+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
+everyone's house should become public property after a certain lapse
+of time from its construction.</p>
+
+<h3>The “copyright bargain”</h3>
+<p>
+The copyright system works by providing privileges and thus benefits
+to publishers and authors; but it does not do this for their sake.
+Rather, it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an incentive
+for authors to write more and publish more. In effect, the government
+spends the public's natural rights, on the public's behalf, as part of
+a deal to bring the public more published works. Legal scholars call
+this concept the “copyright bargain.” It is like a
+government purchase of a highway or an airplane using taxpayers'
+money, except that the government spends our freedom instead of our
+money.</p>
+<p>
+But is the bargain as it exists actually a good deal for the public?
+Many alternative bargains are possible; which one is best? Every
+issue of copyright policy is part of this question. If we
+misunderstand the nature of the question, we will tend to decide the
+issues badly.</p>
+<p>
+The Constitution authorizes granting copyright powers to authors. In
+practice, authors typically cede them to publishers; it is usually the
+publishers, not the authors, who exercise these powers and get most of
+the benefits, though authors may get a small portion. Thus it is
+usually the publishers that lobby to increase copyright powers. To
+better reflect the reality of copyright rather than the myth, this
+article refers to publishers rather than authors as the holders of
+copyright powers. It also refers to the users of copyrighted works as
+“readers,” even though using them does not always mean
+reading, because “the users” is remote and abstract.</p>
+
+<h3>The first error: “striking a balance”</h3>
+<p>
+The copyright bargain places the public first: benefit for the reading
+public is an end in itself; benefits (if any) for publishers are just
+a means toward that end. Readers' interests and publishers' interests
+are thus qualitatively unequal in priority. The first step in
+misinterpreting the purpose of copyright is the elevation of the
+publishers to the same level of importance as the readers.</p>
+<p>
+It is often said that US copyright law is meant to “strike a
+balance” between the interests of publishers and readers. Those
+who cite this interpretation present it as a restatement of the basic
+position stated in the Constitution; in other words, it is supposed to
+be equivalent to the copyright bargain.</p>
+<p>
+But the two interpretations are far from equivalent; they are
+different conceptually, and different in their implications. The
+balance concept assumes that the readers' and publishers' interests
+differ in importance only quantitatively, in <em>how much
+weight</em> we should give them, and in what actions they apply to.
+The term “stakeholders” is often used to frame the issue
+in this way; it assumes that all kinds of interest in a policy
+decision are equally important. This view rejects the qualitative
+distinction between the readers' and publishers' interests which is at
+the root of the government's participation in the copyright
+bargain.</p>
+<p>
+The consequences of this alteration are far-reaching, because 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
+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”
+concept says that privileges can be justified in the name of someone
+other than the public.</p>
+<p>
+As a practical matter, the consequence of the “balance”
+concept is to reverse the burden of justification for changes in
+copyright law. The copyright bargain places the burden on the
+publishers to convince the readers to cede certain freedoms. The
+concept of balance reverses this burden, practically speaking, because
+there is generally no doubt that publishers will benefit from
+additional privilege. Unless harm to the readers can be proved,
+sufficient to “outweigh” this benefit, we are led to
+conclude that the publishers are entitled to almost any privilege they
+request.</p>
+<p>
+Since the idea of “striking a balance” between publishers and
+readers denies the readers the primacy they are entitled to, we must
+reject it.</p>
+
+<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
+agreement.</p>
+<p>
+For example, when signing contracts with construction companies to build
+highways, the government aims to spend as little as possible of the
+public's money. Government agencies use competitive bidding to push the
+price down.</p>
+<p>
+As a practical matter, the price cannot be zero, because contractors
+will not bid that low. Although not entitled to special
+consideration, they have the usual rights of citizens in a free
+society, including the right to refuse disadvantageous contracts; even
+the lowest bid will be high enough for some contractor to make money.
+So there is indeed a balance, of a kind. But it is not a deliberate
+balancing of two interests each with claim to special consideration.
+It is a balance between a public goal and market forces. The
+government tries to obtain for the taxpaying motorists the best deal
+they can get in the context of a free society and a free market.</p>
+<p>
+In the copyright bargain, the government spends our freedom instead of
+our money. Freedom is more precious than money, so government's
+responsibility to spend our freedom wisely and frugally is even
+greater than its responsibility to spend our money thus. Governments
+must never put the publishers' interests on a par with the public's
+freedom.</p>
+
+<h3>Not “balance” but “trade-off”</h3>
+<p>
+The idea of balancing the readers' interests against the publishers'
+is the wrong way to judge copyright policy, but there are indeed two
+interests to be weighed: two interests <b>of the readers</b>.
Readers
+have an interest in their own freedom in using published works;
+depending on circumstances, they may also have an interest in
+encouraging publication through some kind of incentive system.</p>
+<p>
+The word “balance,” in discussions of copyright, has come
+to stand as shorthand for the idea of “striking a balance”
+between the readers and the publishers. Therefore, to use the word
+“balance” in regard to the readers' two interests would be
+confusing. We need another term.</p>
+<p>
+In general, when one party has two goals that partly conflict, and
+cannot completely achieve both of them, we call this a
+“trade-off.” Therefore, rather than speaking of
+“striking the right balance” between parties, we should
+speak of “finding the right trade-off between spending our
+freedom and keeping it.”</p>
+
+<p>
+(Here
+is <a
href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2011/02/04/the-trouble-with-balance-metaphors/">
+another critique of "balance"</a>.)</p>
+
+<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
+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>
+<p>
+When we purchase something, we do not generally buy the whole quantity
+in stock or the most expensive model. Instead we conserve funds for
+other purchases, by buying only what we need of any particular good, and
+choosing a model of sufficient rather than highest quality. The
+principle of diminishing returns suggests that spending all our money on
+one particular good is likely to be an inefficient allocation of resources;
+we generally choose to keep some money for another use.</p>
+<p>
+Diminishing returns applies to copyright just as to any other purchase.
+The first freedoms we should trade away are those we miss the least,
+and whose sacrifice gives the largest encouragement to publication. As we
trade
+additional freedoms that cut closer to home, we find that each trade is
+a bigger sacrifice than the last, while bringing a smaller increment in
+literary activity. Well before the increment becomes zero, we may well
+say it is not worth its incremental price; we would then settle on a
+bargain whose overall result is to increase the amount of publication,
+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
+public must cede nearly all of its freedom to use published works, for
+just a little more publication.</p>
+
+<h3>The rhetoric of maximization</h3>
+<p>
+In practice, the goal of maximizing publication regardless of the cost
+to freedom is supported by widespread rhetoric which asserts that
+public copying is illegitimate, unfair, and intrinsically wrong. For
+instance, the publishers call people who copy “pirates,” a
+smear term designed to equate sharing information with your neighbor
+with attacking a ship. (This smear term was formerly used by authors
+to describe publishers who found lawful ways to publish unauthorized
+editions; its modern use by the publishers is almost the reverse.)
+This rhetoric directly rejects the constitutional basis for copyright,
+but presents itself as representing the unquestioned tradition of the
+American legal system.</p>
+<p>
+The “pirate” rhetoric is typically accepted because it
+so pervades the media that few people realize how radical it is. It
+is effective because if copying by the public is fundamentally
+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>
+<p>
+This leaves no way to argue against increasing copyright power except
+using side issues. Hence, opposition to stronger copyright powers today
+almost exclusively cites side issues, and never dares cite the freedom
+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
+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
+USA.</p>
+
+<h3>The third error: maximizing publishers' power</h3>
+<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
+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
+being pressed at every available level of government, from states of
+the US to international bodies.</p>
+<p>
+This step is erroneous because strict copyright rules obstruct the
+creation of useful new works. For instance, Shakespeare borrowed the
+plots of some of his plays from works others had published a few decades
+before, so if today's copyright law had been in effect, his plays would
+have been illegal.</p>
+<p>
+Even if we wanted the highest possible rate of publication, regardless
+of cost to the public, maximizing publishers' power is the wrong way to
+get it. As a means of promoting progress, it is self-defeating.</p>
+
+<h3>The results of the three errors</h3>
+<p>
+The current trend in copyright legislation is to hand publishers broader
+powers for longer periods of time. The conceptual basis of copyright,
+as it emerges distorted from the series of errors, rarely offers a basis
+for saying no. Legislators give lip service to the idea that copyright
+serves the public, while in fact giving publishers whatever they ask
+for.</p>
+<p>
+For example, here is what Senator Hatch said when introducing S. 483,
+a 1995 bill to increase the term of copyright by 20 years:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+I believe we are now at such a point with respect to the question of
+whether the current term of copyright adequately protects the interests
+of authors and the related question of whether the term of protection
+continues to provide a sufficient incentive for the creation of new
+works of authorship.
+</p></blockquote>
+<p>
+This bill extended the copyright on already published works written
+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
+redistribute books from that era.</p>
+<p>
+The bill also extended the copyrights of works yet to be written. For
+works made for hire, copyright would last 95 years instead of the
+present 75 years. Theoretically this would increase the incentive to
+write new works; but any publisher that claims to need this extra
+incentive should be required substantiate the claim with projected
+balance sheets for 75 years in the future.</p>
+<p>
+Needless to say, Congress did not question the publishers' arguments:
+a law extending copyright was enacted in 1998. It was officially
+called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, named after one of
+its sponsors who died earlier that year. We usually call it the
+Mickey Mouse Copyright Act, since we presume its real motive was to
+prevent the copyright on the appearance of Mickey Mouse from expiring.
+Bono's widow, who served the rest of his term, made this
+statement:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last
+forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the
+Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our
+copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there
+is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one
+day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.
+</p></blockquote>
+<p>
+The Supreme Court later heard a case that sought to overturn the law
+on the grounds that the retroactive extension fails to serve the
+Constitution's goal of promoting progress. The court responded by
+abdicating its responsibility to judge the question; on copyright, the
+Constitution requires only lip service.</p>
+<p>
+Another law, passed in 1997, made it a felony to make sufficiently many
+copies of any published work, even if you give them away to friends just
+to be nice. Previously this was not a crime in the US at all.</p>
+<p>
+An even worse law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), was
+designed to bring back copy protection (which computer users detest)
+by making it a crime to break copy protection, or even publish
+information about how to break it. This law ought to be called the
+“Domination by Media Corporations Act” because it
+effectively offers publishers the chance to write their own copyright
+law. It says they can impose any restrictions whatsoever on the use
+of a work, and these restrictions take the force of law provided the
+work contains some sort of encryption or license manager to enforce
+them.</p>
+<p>
+One of the arguments offered for this bill was that it would implement
+a recent treaty to increase copyright powers. The treaty was
+promulgated by the World <a href="not-ipr.html">Intellectual
+Property</a> Organization, an organization dominated by
+copyright- and patent-holding interests, with the aid of
+pressure from the Clinton administration; since the treaty only
+increases copyright power, whether it serves the public interest in
+any country is doubtful. In any case, the bill went far beyond what
+the treaty required.</p>
+<p>
+Libraries were a key source of opposition to this bill, especially to
+the aspects that block the forms of copying that are considered
+fair use. How did the publishers respond? Former
+representative Pat Schroeder, now a lobbyist for the Association of
+American Publishers, said that the publishers “could not live
+with what [the libraries were] asking for.” Since the libraries
+were asking only to preserve part of the status quo, one might respond
+by wondering how the publishers had survived until the present
+day.</p>
+<p>
+Congressman Barney Frank, in a meeting with me and others who opposed
+this bill, showed how far the US Constitution's view of copyright
+has been disregarded. He said that new powers, backed by criminal
+penalties, were needed urgently because the “movie industry is
+worried,” as well as the “music industry” and other
+“industries.” I asked him, “But is this in the
+public interest?” His response was telling: “Why are you
+talking about the public interest? These creative people don't have
+to give up their rights for the public interest!” The
+“industry” has been identified with the “creative
+people” it hires, copyright has been treated as its entitlement,
+and the Constitution has been turned upside down.</p>
+<p>
+The DMCA was enacted in 1998. As enacted, it says that fair use remains
+nominally legitimate, but allows publishers to prohibit all software or
+hardware that you could practice it with. Effectively, fair use
+is prohibited.</p>
+<p>
+Based on this law, the movie industry has imposed censorship on free
+software for reading and playing DVDs, and even on the information
+about how to read them. In April 2001, Professor Edward Felten of
+Princeton University was intimidated by lawsuit threats from the
+Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) into withdrawing a
+scientific paper stating what he had learned about a proposed
+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
+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
+special secret software designed to restrict you.</p>
+<p>
+I will never buy one of these encrypted, restricted e-books, and I
+hope you will reject them too. If an e-book doesn't give you the same
+freedoms as a traditional paper book, don't accept it!</p>
+<p>
+Anyone independently releasing software that can read restricted
+e-books risks prosecution. A Russian programmer, Dmitry Sklyarov, was
+arrested in 2001 while visiting the US to speak at a conference,
+because he had written such a program in Russia, where it was lawful
+to do so. Now Russia is preparing a law to prohibit it too, and the
+European Union recently adopted one.</p>
+<p>
+Mass-market e-books have been a commercial failure so far, but not
+because readers chose to defend their freedom; they were unattractive
+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
+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,
+e-books are making inroads in niches: NYU and other dental schools
+require students to buy their textbooks in the form of restricted
+e-books.</p>
+<p>
+The media companies are not satisfied yet. In 2001, Disney-funded
+Senator Hollings proposed a bill called the “Security Systems
+Standards and Certification Act”
+(SSSCA)<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a>, which would require all
computers
+(and other digital recording and playback devices) to have
+government-mandated copy-restriction systems. That is their ultimate
+goal, but the first item on their agenda is to prohibit any equipment
+that can tune digital HDTV unless it is designed to be impossible for
+the public to “tamper with” (i.e., modify for their own
+purposes). Since free software is software that users can modify, we
+face here for the first time a proposed law that explicitly prohibits
+free software for a certain job. Prohibition of other jobs will
+surely follow. If the FCC adopts this rule, existing free software
+such as GNU Radio would be censored.</p>
+<p>
+To block these bills and rules requires political
+action.<a href="#footnote2">[2]</a></p>
+
+<h3>Finding the right bargain</h3>
+<p>
+What is the proper way to decide copyright policy? If copyright is a
+bargain made on behalf of the public, it should serve the public
+interest above all. The government's duty when selling the public's
+freedom is to sell only what it must, and sell it as dearly as possible.
+At the very least, we should pare back the extent of copyright as much
+as possible while maintaining a comparable level of publication.</p>
+<p>
+Since we cannot find this minimum price in freedom through competitive
+bidding, as we do for construction projects, how can we find it?</p>
+<p>
+One possible method is to reduce copyright privileges in stages, and
+observe the results. By seeing if and when measurable diminutions in
+publication occur, we will learn how much copyright power is really
+necessary to achieve the public's purposes. We must judge this by
+actual observation, not by what publishers say will happen, because
+they have every incentive to make exaggerated predictions of doom if
+their powers are reduced in any way.</p>
+<p>
+Copyright policy includes several independent dimensions, which can be
+adjusted separately. After we find the necessary minimum for one policy
+dimension, it may still be possible to reduce other dimensions of
+copyright while maintaining the desired publication level.</p>
+<p>
+One important dimension of copyright is its duration, which is now
+typically on the order of a century. Reducing the monopoly on copying
+to ten years, starting from the date when a work is published, would be
+a good first step. Another aspect of copyright, which covers the
+making of derivative works, could continue for a longer period.</p>
+<p>
+Why count from the date of publication? Because copyright on
+unpublished works does not directly limit readers' freedom; whether we
+are free to copy a work is moot when we do not have copies. So giving
+authors a longer time to get a work published does no harm. Authors
+(who generally do own the copyright prior to publication) will rarely
+choose to delay publication just to push back the end of the copyright
+term.</p>
+<p>
+Why ten years? Because that is a safe proposal; we can be confident on
+practical grounds that this reduction would have little impact on the
+overall viability of publishing today. In most media and genres,
+successful works are very profitable in just a few years, and even
+successful works are usually out of print well before ten. Even for
+reference works, whose useful life may be many decades, ten-year
+copyright should suffice: updated editions are issued regularly, and
+many readers will buy the copyrighted current edition rather than copy a
+ten-year-old public domain version.</p>
+<p>
+Ten years may still be longer than necessary; once things settle down,
+we could try a further reduction to tune the system. At a panel on
+copyright at a literary convention, where I proposed the ten-year term,
+a noted fantasy author sitting beside me objected vehemently, saying
+that anything beyond five years was intolerable.</p>
+<p>
+But we don't have to apply the same time span to all kinds of works.
+Maintaining the utmost uniformity of copyright policy is not crucial
+to the public interest, and copyright law already has many exceptions
+for specific uses and media. It would be foolish to pay for every
+highway project at the rates necessary for the most difficult projects
+in the most expensive regions of the country; it is equally foolish to
+“pay” for all kinds of art with the greatest price in
+freedom that we find necessary for any one kind.</p>
+<p>
+So perhaps novels, dictionaries, computer programs, songs, symphonies,
+and movies should have different durations of copyright, so that we can
+reduce the duration for each kind of work to what is necessary for many
+such works to be published. Perhaps movies over one hour long could
+have a twenty-year copyright, because of the expense of producing them.
+In my own field, computer programming, three years should suffice,
+because product cycles are even shorter than that.</p>
+<p>
+Another dimension of copyright policy is the extent of fair use: some
+ways of reproducing all or part of a published work that are legally
+permitted even though it is copyrighted. The natural first step in
+reducing this dimension of copyright power is to permit occasional
+private small-quantity noncommercial copying and distribution among
+individuals. This would eliminate the intrusion of the copyright
+police into people's private lives, but would probably have little
+effect on the sales of published works. (It may be necessary to take
+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
+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>
+<p>
+For novels, and in general for works that are used for entertainment,
+noncommercial verbatim redistribution may be sufficient freedom for
+the readers. Computer programs, being used for functional purposes
+(to get jobs done), call for additional freedoms beyond that,
+including the freedom to publish an improved version. See “Free
+Software Definition,” in this book, for an explanation of the
+freedoms that software users should have. But it may be an acceptable
+compromise for these freedoms to be universally available only after a
+delay of two or three years from the program's publication.</p>
+<p>
+Changes like these could bring copyright into line with the public's
+wish to use digital technology to copy. Publishers will no doubt find
+these proposals “unbalanced”; they may threaten to take
+their marbles and go home, but they won't really do it, because the
+game will remain profitable and it will be the only game in town.</p>
+<p>
+As we consider reductions in copyright power, we must make sure media
+companies do not simply replace it with end-user license agreements.
+It would be necessary to prohibit the use of contracts to apply
+restrictions on copying that go beyond those of copyright. Such
+limitations on what mass-market nonnegotiated contracts can require
+are a standard part of the US legal system.</p>
+
+<h3>A personal note</h3>
+<p>
+I am a software designer, not a legal scholar. I've become concerned
+with copyright issues because there's no avoiding them in the world of
+computer networks, such as the Internet. As a user of
+computers and networks for 30 years, I value the freedoms that we
+have lost, and the ones we may lose next. As an author, I can reject
+the romantic mystique of the author as semidivine
+<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Creator">creator</a>, often cited
+by publishers to justify increased copyright powers for authors—powers
+which these authors will then sign away to publishers.</p>
+<p>
+Most of this article consists of facts and reasoning that you can
+check, and proposals on which you can form your own opinions. But I ask
+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>
+
+<h4>Footnotes</h4>
+<ol>
+<li>
+<a id="footnote1"></a>Since renamed to the unpronounceable CBDTPA,
+for which a good mnemonic is “Consume, But Don't Try
+Programming Anything,” but it really stands for the
+“Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion
+Act.”</li>
+<li>
+<a id="footnote2"></a>If you would like to help, I recommend the
Web
+sites <a
href="http://defectivebydesign.org">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>,
+<a href="http://publicknowledge.org">publicknowledge.org</a>
+and <a href="http://www.eff.org">www.eff.org</a>.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr />
+<h4>This essay is published
+in <a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. Stallman</cite></a></h4>
+
+<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>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 2002, 2003, 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: 2014/02/07 08:36:12 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn-diff.html
diff -N po/misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/misinterpreting-copyright.zh-cn-diff.html 7 Feb 2014 08:36:12
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,710 @@
+<!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/misinterpreting-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>Misinterpreting Copyright
+- 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/misinterpreting-copyright.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors</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>
+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
+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
+obedience with harsh new penalties.</p>
+<p>
+How did copyright policies come to be diametrically opposed to their
+stated purpose? And how can we bring them back into alignment with that
+purpose? To understand, we should start by looking at the root of
+United States copyright law: the US Constitution.</p>
+
+<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.
+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
+gives permission for a copyright system with this paragraph (Article
+I, Section 8):</p>
+<blockquote><p>
+[Congress shall have the power] to promote the Progress of Science and
+the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
+the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
+</p></blockquote>
+<p>
+The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that promoting progress means
+benefit for the users of copyrighted works. For example, in <em>Fox Film
+v. Doyal</em>, the court said,</p>
+<blockquote><p>
+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.
+</p></blockquote>
+<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
+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
+everyone's house should become public property after a certain lapse
+of time from its construction.</p>
+
+<h3>The “copyright bargain”</h3>
+<p>
+The copyright system works by providing privileges and thus benefits
+to publishers and authors; but it does not do this for their sake.
+Rather, it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an incentive
+for authors to write more and publish more. In effect, the government
+spends the public's natural rights, on the public's behalf, as part of
+a deal to bring the public more published works. Legal scholars call
+this concept the “copyright bargain.” It is like a
+government purchase of a highway or an airplane using taxpayers'
+money, except that the government spends our freedom instead of our
+money.</p>
+<p>
+But is the bargain as it exists actually a good deal for the public?
+Many alternative bargains are possible; which one is best? Every
+issue of copyright policy is part of this question. If we
+misunderstand the nature of the question, we will tend to decide the
+issues badly.</p>
+<p>
+The Constitution authorizes granting copyright powers to authors. In
+practice, authors typically cede them to publishers; it is usually the
+publishers, not the authors, who exercise these powers and get most of
+the benefits, though authors may get a small portion. Thus it is
+usually the publishers that lobby to increase copyright powers. To
+better reflect the reality of copyright rather than the myth, this
+article refers to publishers rather than authors as the holders of
+copyright powers. It also refers to the users of copyrighted works as
+“readers,” even though using them does not always mean
+reading, because “the users” is remote and abstract.</p>
+
+<h3>The first error: “striking a balance”</h3>
+<p>
+The copyright bargain places the public first: benefit for the reading
+public is an end in itself; benefits (if any) for publishers are just
+a means toward that end. Readers' interests and publishers' interests
+are thus qualitatively unequal in priority. The first step in
+misinterpreting the purpose of copyright is the elevation of the
+publishers to the same level of importance as the readers.</p>
+<p>
+It is often said that US copyright law is meant to “strike a
+balance” between the interests of publishers and readers. Those
+who cite this interpretation present it as a restatement of the basic
+position stated in the Constitution; in other words, it is supposed to
+be equivalent to the copyright bargain.</p>
+<p>
+But the two interpretations are far from equivalent; they are
+different conceptually, and different in their implications. The
+balance concept assumes that the readers' and publishers' interests
+differ in importance only quantitatively, in <em>how much
+weight</em> we should give them, and in what actions they apply to.
+The term “stakeholders” is often used to frame the issue
+in this way; it assumes that all kinds of interest in a policy
+decision are equally important. This view rejects the qualitative
+distinction between the readers' and publishers' interests which is at
+the root of the government's participation in the copyright
+bargain.</p>
+<p>
+The consequences of this alteration are far-reaching, because 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
+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”
+concept says that privileges can be justified in the name of someone
+other than the public.</p>
+<p>
+As a practical matter, the consequence of the “balance”
+concept is to reverse the burden of justification for changes in
+copyright law. The copyright bargain places the burden on the
+publishers to convince the readers to cede certain freedoms. The
+concept of balance reverses this burden, practically speaking, because
+there is generally no doubt that publishers will benefit from
+additional privilege. Unless harm to the readers can be proved,
+sufficient to “outweigh” this benefit, we are led to
+conclude that the publishers are entitled to almost any privilege they
+request.</p>
+<p>
+Since the idea of “striking a balance” between publishers and
+readers denies the readers the primacy they are entitled to, we must
+reject it.</p>
+
+<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
+agreement.</p>
+<p>
+For example, when signing contracts with construction companies to build
+highways, the government aims to spend as little as possible of the
+public's money. Government agencies use competitive bidding to push the
+price down.</p>
+<p>
+As a practical matter, the price cannot be zero, because contractors
+will not bid that low. Although not entitled to special
+consideration, they have the usual rights of citizens in a free
+society, including the right to refuse disadvantageous contracts; even
+the lowest bid will be high enough for some contractor to make money.
+So there is indeed a balance, of a kind. But it is not a deliberate
+balancing of two interests each with claim to special consideration.
+It is a balance between a public goal and market forces. The
+government tries to obtain for the taxpaying motorists the best deal
+they can get in the context of a free society and a free market.</p>
+<p>
+In the copyright bargain, the government spends our freedom instead of
+our money. Freedom is more precious than money, so government's
+responsibility to spend our freedom wisely and frugally is even
+greater than its responsibility to spend our money thus. Governments
+must never put the publishers' interests on a par with the public's
+freedom.</p>
+
+<h3>Not “balance” but “trade-off”</h3>
+<p>
+The idea of balancing the readers' interests against the publishers'
+is the wrong way to judge copyright policy, but there are indeed two
+interests to be weighed: two interests <b>of the readers</b>.
Readers
+have an interest in their own freedom in using published works;
+depending on circumstances, they may also have an interest in
+encouraging publication through some kind of incentive system.</p>
+<p>
+The word “balance,” in discussions of copyright, has come
+to stand as shorthand for the idea of “striking a balance”
+between the readers and the publishers. Therefore, to use the word
+“balance” in regard to the readers' two interests would be
+confusing. We need another term.</p>
+<p>
+In general, when one party has two goals that partly conflict, and
+cannot completely achieve both of them, we call this a
+“trade-off.” Therefore, rather than speaking of
+“striking the right balance” between parties, we should
+speak of “finding the right trade-off between spending our
+freedom and keeping it.”</p>
+
+<p>
+(Here
+is <a
href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2011/02/04/the-trouble-with-balance-metaphors/">
+another critique of "balance"</a>.)</p>
+
+<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
+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>
+<p>
+When we purchase something, we do not generally buy the whole quantity
+in stock or the most expensive model. Instead we conserve funds for
+other purchases, by buying only what we need of any particular good, and
+choosing a model of sufficient rather than highest quality. The
+principle of diminishing returns suggests that spending all our money on
+one particular good is likely to be an inefficient allocation of resources;
+we generally choose to keep some money for another use.</p>
+<p>
+Diminishing returns applies to copyright just as to any other purchase.
+The first freedoms we should trade away are those we miss the least,
+and whose sacrifice gives the largest encouragement to publication. As we
trade
+additional freedoms that cut closer to home, we find that each trade is
+a bigger sacrifice than the last, while bringing a smaller increment in
+literary activity. Well before the increment becomes zero, we may well
+say it is not worth its incremental price; we would then settle on a
+bargain whose overall result is to increase the amount of publication,
+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
+public must cede nearly all of its freedom to use published works, for
+just a little more publication.</p>
+
+<h3>The rhetoric of maximization</h3>
+<p>
+In practice, the goal of maximizing publication regardless of the cost
+to freedom is supported by widespread rhetoric which asserts that
+public copying is illegitimate, unfair, and intrinsically wrong. For
+instance, the publishers call people who copy “pirates,” a
+smear term designed to equate sharing information with your neighbor
+with attacking a ship. (This smear term was formerly used by authors
+to describe publishers who found lawful ways to publish unauthorized
+editions; its modern use by the publishers is almost the reverse.)
+This rhetoric directly rejects the constitutional basis for copyright,
+but presents itself as representing the unquestioned tradition of the
+American legal system.</p>
+<p>
+The “pirate” rhetoric is typically accepted because it
+so pervades the media that few people realize how radical it is. It
+is effective because if copying by the public is fundamentally
+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>
+<p>
+This leaves no way to argue against increasing copyright power except
+using side issues. Hence, opposition to stronger copyright powers today
+almost exclusively cites side issues, and never dares cite the freedom
+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
+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
+USA.</p>
+
+<h3>The third error: maximizing publishers' power</h3>
+<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
+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
+being pressed at every available level of government, from states of
+the US to international bodies.</p>
+<p>
+This step is erroneous because strict copyright rules obstruct the
+creation of useful new works. For instance, Shakespeare borrowed the
+plots of some of his plays from works others had published a few decades
+before, so if today's copyright law had been in effect, his plays would
+have been illegal.</p>
+<p>
+Even if we wanted the highest possible rate of publication, regardless
+of cost to the public, maximizing publishers' power is the wrong way to
+get it. As a means of promoting progress, it is self-defeating.</p>
+
+<h3>The results of the three errors</h3>
+<p>
+The current trend in copyright legislation is to hand publishers broader
+powers for longer periods of time. The conceptual basis of copyright,
+as it emerges distorted from the series of errors, rarely offers a basis
+for saying no. Legislators give lip service to the idea that copyright
+serves the public, while in fact giving publishers whatever they ask
+for.</p>
+<p>
+For example, here is what Senator Hatch said when introducing S. 483,
+a 1995 bill to increase the term of copyright by 20 years:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+I believe we are now at such a point with respect to the question of
+whether the current term of copyright adequately protects the interests
+of authors and the related question of whether the term of protection
+continues to provide a sufficient incentive for the creation of new
+works of authorship.
+</p></blockquote>
+<p>
+This bill extended the copyright on already published works written
+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
+redistribute books from that era.</p>
+<p>
+The bill also extended the copyrights of works yet to be written. For
+works made for hire, copyright would last 95 years instead of the
+present 75 years. Theoretically this would increase the incentive to
+write new works; but any publisher that claims to need this extra
+incentive should be required substantiate the claim with projected
+balance sheets for 75 years in the future.</p>
+<p>
+Needless to say, Congress did not question the publishers' arguments:
+a law extending copyright was enacted in 1998. It was officially
+called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, named after one of
+its sponsors who died earlier that year. We usually call it the
+Mickey Mouse Copyright Act, since we presume its real motive was to
+prevent the copyright on the appearance of Mickey Mouse from expiring.
+Bono's widow, who served the rest of his term, made this
+statement:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last
+forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the
+Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our
+copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there
+is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one
+day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.
+</p></blockquote>
+<p>
+The Supreme Court later heard a case that sought to overturn the law
+on the grounds that the retroactive extension fails to serve the
+Constitution's goal of promoting progress. The court responded by
+abdicating its responsibility to judge the question; on copyright, the
+Constitution requires only lip service.</p>
+<p>
+Another law, passed in 1997, made it a felony to make sufficiently many
+copies of any published work, even if you give them away to friends just
+to be nice. Previously this was not a crime in the US at all.</p>
+<p>
+An even worse law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), was
+designed to bring back copy protection (which computer users detest)
+by making it a crime to break copy protection, or even publish
+information about how to break it. This law ought to be called the
+“Domination by Media Corporations Act” because it
+effectively offers publishers the chance to write their own copyright
+law. It says they can impose any restrictions whatsoever on the use
+of a work, and these restrictions take the force of law provided the
+work contains some sort of encryption or license manager to enforce
+them.</p>
+<p>
+One of the arguments offered for this bill was that it would implement
+a recent treaty to increase copyright powers. The treaty was
+promulgated by the World <a href="not-ipr.html">Intellectual
+Property</a> Organization, an organization dominated by
+copyright- and patent-holding interests, with the aid of
+pressure from the Clinton administration; since the treaty only
+increases copyright power, whether it serves the public interest in
+any country is doubtful. In any case, the bill went far beyond what
+the treaty required.</p>
+<p>
+Libraries were a key source of opposition to this bill, especially to
+the aspects that block the forms of copying that are considered
+fair use. How did the publishers respond? Former
+representative Pat Schroeder, now a lobbyist for the Association of
+American Publishers, said that the publishers “could not live
+with what [the libraries were] asking for.” Since the libraries
+were asking only to preserve part of the status quo, one might respond
+by wondering how the publishers had survived until the present
+day.</p>
+<p>
+Congressman Barney Frank, in a meeting with me and others who opposed
+this bill, showed how far the US Constitution's view of copyright
+has been disregarded. He said that new powers, backed by criminal
+penalties, were needed urgently because the “movie industry is
+worried,” as well as the “music industry” and other
+“industries.” I asked him, “But is this in the
+public interest?” His response was telling: “Why are you
+talking about the public interest? These creative people don't have
+to give up their rights for the public interest!” The
+“industry” has been identified with the “creative
+people” it hires, copyright has been treated as its entitlement,
+and the Constitution has been turned upside down.</p>
+<p>
+The DMCA was enacted in 1998. As enacted, it says that fair use remains
+nominally legitimate, but allows publishers to prohibit all software or
+hardware that you could practice it with. Effectively, fair use
+is prohibited.</p>
+<p>
+Based on this law, the movie industry has imposed censorship on free
+software for reading and playing DVDs, and even on the information
+about how to read them. In April 2001, Professor Edward Felten of
+Princeton University was intimidated by lawsuit threats from the
+Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) into withdrawing a
+scientific paper stating what he had learned about a proposed
+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
+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
+special secret software designed to restrict you.</p>
+<p>
+I will never buy one of these encrypted, restricted e-books, and I
+hope you will reject them too. If an e-book doesn't give you the same
+freedoms as a traditional paper book, don't accept it!</p>
+<p>
+Anyone independently releasing software that can read restricted
+e-books risks prosecution. A Russian programmer, Dmitry Sklyarov, was
+arrested in 2001 while visiting the US to speak at a conference,
+because he had written such a program in Russia, where it was lawful
+to do so. Now Russia is preparing a law to prohibit it too, and the
+European Union recently adopted one.</p>
+<p>
+Mass-market e-books have been a commercial failure so far, but not
+because readers chose to defend their freedom; they were unattractive
+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
+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,
+e-books are making inroads in niches: NYU and other dental schools
+require students to buy their textbooks in the form of restricted
+e-books.</p>
+<p>
+The media companies are not satisfied yet. In 2001, Disney-funded
+Senator Hollings proposed a bill called the “Security Systems
+Standards and Certification Act”
+(SSSCA)<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a>, which would require all
computers
+(and other digital recording and playback devices) to have
+government-mandated copy-restriction systems. That is their ultimate
+goal, but the first item on their agenda is to prohibit any equipment
+that can tune digital HDTV unless it is designed to be impossible for
+the public to “tamper with” (i.e., modify for their own
+purposes). Since free software is software that users can modify, we
+face here for the first time a proposed law that explicitly prohibits
+free software for a certain job. Prohibition of other jobs will
+surely follow. If the FCC adopts this rule, existing free software
+such as GNU Radio would be censored.</p>
+<p>
+To block these bills and rules requires political
+action.<a href="#footnote2">[2]</a></p>
+
+<h3>Finding the right bargain</h3>
+<p>
+What is the proper way to decide copyright policy? If copyright is a
+bargain made on behalf of the public, it should serve the public
+interest above all. The government's duty when selling the public's
+freedom is to sell only what it must, and sell it as dearly as possible.
+At the very least, we should pare back the extent of copyright as much
+as possible while maintaining a comparable level of publication.</p>
+<p>
+Since we cannot find this minimum price in freedom through competitive
+bidding, as we do for construction projects, how can we find it?</p>
+<p>
+One possible method is to reduce copyright privileges in stages, and
+observe the results. By seeing if and when measurable diminutions in
+publication occur, we will learn how much copyright power is really
+necessary to achieve the public's purposes. We must judge this by
+actual observation, not by what publishers say will happen, because
+they have every incentive to make exaggerated predictions of doom if
+their powers are reduced in any way.</p>
+<p>
+Copyright policy includes several independent dimensions, which can be
+adjusted separately. After we find the necessary minimum for one policy
+dimension, it may still be possible to reduce other dimensions of
+copyright while maintaining the desired publication level.</p>
+<p>
+One important dimension of copyright is its duration, which is now
+typically on the order of a century. Reducing the monopoly on copying
+to ten years, starting from the date when a work is published, would be
+a good first step. Another aspect of copyright, which covers the
+making of derivative works, could continue for a longer period.</p>
+<p>
+Why count from the date of publication? Because copyright on
+unpublished works does not directly limit readers' freedom; whether we
+are free to copy a work is moot when we do not have copies. So giving
+authors a longer time to get a work published does no harm. Authors
+(who generally do own the copyright prior to publication) will rarely
+choose to delay publication just to push back the end of the copyright
+term.</p>
+<p>
+Why ten years? Because that is a safe proposal; we can be confident on
+practical grounds that this reduction would have little impact on the
+overall viability of publishing today. In most media and genres,
+successful works are very profitable in just a few years, and even
+successful works are usually out of print well before ten. Even for
+reference works, whose useful life may be many decades, ten-year
+copyright should suffice: updated editions are issued regularly, and
+many readers will buy the copyrighted current edition rather than copy a
+ten-year-old public domain version.</p>
+<p>
+Ten years may still be longer than necessary; once things settle down,
+we could try a further reduction to tune the system. At a panel on
+copyright at a literary convention, where I proposed the ten-year term,
+a noted fantasy author sitting beside me objected vehemently, saying
+that anything beyond five years was intolerable.</p>
+<p>
+But we don't have to apply the same time span to all kinds of works.
+Maintaining the utmost uniformity of copyright policy is not crucial
+to the public interest, and copyright law already has many exceptions
+for specific uses and media. It would be foolish to pay for every
+highway project at the rates necessary for the most difficult projects
+in the most expensive regions of the country; it is equally foolish to
+“pay” for all kinds of art with the greatest price in
+freedom that we find necessary for any one kind.</p>
+<p>
+So perhaps novels, dictionaries, computer programs, songs, symphonies,
+and movies should have different durations of copyright, so that we can
+reduce the duration for each kind of work to what is necessary for many
+such works to be published. Perhaps movies over one hour long could
+have a twenty-year copyright, because of the expense of producing them.
+In my own field, computer programming, three years should suffice,
+because product cycles are even shorter than that.</p>
+<p>
+Another dimension of copyright policy is the extent of fair use: some
+ways of reproducing all or part of a published work that are legally
+permitted even though it is copyrighted. The natural first step in
+reducing this dimension of copyright power is to permit occasional
+private small-quantity noncommercial copying and distribution among
+individuals. This would eliminate the intrusion of the copyright
+police into people's private lives, but would probably have little
+effect on the sales of published works. (It may be necessary to take
+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
+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>
+<p>
+For novels, and in general for works that are used for entertainment,
+noncommercial verbatim redistribution may be sufficient freedom for
+the readers. Computer programs, being used for functional purposes
+(to get jobs done), call for additional freedoms beyond that,
+including the freedom to publish an improved version. See “Free
+Software Definition,” in this book, for an explanation of the
+freedoms that software users should have. But it may be an acceptable
+compromise for these freedoms to be universally available only after a
+delay of two or three years from the program's publication.</p>
+<p>
+Changes like these could bring copyright into line with the public's
+wish to use digital technology to copy. Publishers will no doubt find
+these proposals “unbalanced”; they may threaten to take
+their marbles and go home, but they won't really do it, because the
+game will remain profitable and it will be the only game in town.</p>
+<p>
+As we consider reductions in copyright power, we must make sure media
+companies do not simply replace it with end-user license agreements.
+It would be necessary to prohibit the use of contracts to apply
+restrictions on copying that go beyond those of copyright. Such
+limitations on what mass-market nonnegotiated contracts can require
+are a standard part of the US legal system.</p>
+
+<h3>A personal note</h3>
+<p>
+I am a software designer, not a legal scholar. I've become concerned
+with copyright issues because there's no avoiding them in the world of
+computer networks, such as the Internet. As a user of
+computers and networks for 30 years, I value the freedoms that we
+have lost, and the ones we may lose next. As an author, I can reject
+the romantic mystique of the author as semidivine
+<a href="words-to-avoid.html#Creator">creator</a>, often cited
+by publishers to justify increased copyright powers for authors—powers
+which these authors will then sign away to publishers.</p>
+<p>
+Most of this article consists of facts and reasoning that you can
+check, and proposals on which you can form your own opinions. But I ask
+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>
+
+<h4>Footnotes</h4>
+<ol>
+<li>
+<a id="footnote1"></a>Since renamed to the unpronounceable CBDTPA,
+for which a good mnemonic is “Consume, But Don't Try
+Programming Anything,” but it really stands for the
+“Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion
+Act.”</li>
+<li>
+<a id="footnote2"></a>If you would like to help, I recommend the
Web
+sites <a
href="http://defectivebydesign.org">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>,
+<a href="http://publicknowledge.org">publicknowledge.org</a>
+and <a href="http://www.eff.org">www.eff.org</a>.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr />
+<h4>This essay is published
+in <a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. Stallman</cite></a></h4>
+
+<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>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 2002, 2003, 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: 2014/02/07 08:36:12 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy apsl.ko.html apsl.nl.html censor...,
GNUN <=