www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www/philosophy po/copyright-and-globalization.t...

From: GNUN
Subject: www/philosophy po/copyright-and-globalization.t...
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 11:32:30 -0400 (EDT) 
CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     21/04/09 11:32:30

Modified files:
        philosophy/po  : copyright-and-globalization.translist 
Added files:
        philosophy     : copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn.html 
        philosophy/po  : copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn-en.html 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.translist?cvsroot=www&r1=1.13&r2=1.14
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1

Patches:
Index: po/copyright-and-globalization.translist
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.translist,v
retrieving revision 1.13
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -b -r1.13 -r1.14
--- po/copyright-and-globalization.translist    15 Mar 2020 18:34:45 -0000      
1.13
+++ po/copyright-and-globalization.translist    9 Apr 2021 15:32:30 -0000       
1.14
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
 <span dir="ltr">[ro]&nbsp;<a lang="ro" hreflang="ro" 
href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.ro.html">română</a> 
&nbsp;</span>
 <span dir="ltr">[ru]&nbsp;<a lang="ru" hreflang="ru" 
href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.ru.html">русский</a> 
&nbsp;</span>
 <span dir="ltr">[tr]&nbsp;<a lang="tr" hreflang="tr" 
href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.tr.html">Türkçe</a> 
&nbsp;</span>
+<span dir="ltr">[zh-cn]&nbsp;<a lang="zh-cn" hreflang="zh-cn" 
href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn.html">简体中文</a> 
&nbsp;</span>
 </p>
 </div>' -->
 <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" 
href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html" hreflang="x-default" />
@@ -23,4 +24,5 @@
 <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="ro" hreflang="ro" 
href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.ro.html" title="română" />
 <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="ru" hreflang="ru" 
href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.ru.html" title="русский" />
 <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="tr" hreflang="tr" 
href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.tr.html" title="Türkçe" />
+<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="zh-cn" hreflang="zh-cn" 
href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn.html" title="简体中文" 
/>
 <!-- end translist file -->

Index: copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn.html
===================================================================
RCS file: copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn.html
diff -N copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn.html      9 Apr 2021 15:32:28 -0000       
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,480 @@
+<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" 
value="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.en.html" -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.zh-cn.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
+
+<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
+<title>网络时代的版权和国际化 - GNU 工程 - 
自由软件基金会</title>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.zh-cn.html" -->
+<h2>网络时代的版权和国际化</h2>
+
+<p>
+<i>以下是经过编辑的演讲实录。该演讲于 2001 年 4 月 19 
日下午 5 点到 7 点在 <abbr title="Massachusetts
+Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr> 的通讯论坛做出。</i></p>
+
+<p>
+<b>DAVID THORBURN，主持人</b>：我们今天的演讲嘉宾——Richard
+Stallman——是计算机世界的传奇人物，而我为他匹配å…
±äº«è®²å°çš„受访人的经历就很有教育意义。<abbr>MIT</abbr>
+的一位知名教授对我说，Stallman
+需要被当作一个圣经寓言中的魔幻人物来理解&mdash;&mdash;就像ä¼
 è¯´çš„英雄。&ldquo;想象一下,&rdquo;
+他说，&ldquo;摩西或耶利米&mdash;，最好是耶利米。&rdquo;我说，&ldquo;啊，那真是太令人敬仰了。&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+真的很棒。这使我进一步确信了他对世界做出的贡献。那么ä½
 ä¸ºä»€ä¹ˆè¿Ÿè¿Ÿä¸è‚¯å’Œä»–å…
±äº«è®²å°å‘¢ï¼Ÿ&rdquo;他回答说：&ldquo;就像耶利米或摩西一æ 
·ï¼Œä»–会直接碾压我的。虽然我不要和他出现在一个舞台上，但是如果ä½
 é—®æˆ‘世界上现在还在世的
+5 个真正帮助了大家的人，Richard Stallman 是å…
¶ä¸­ä¹‹ä¸€ã€‚&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+<b>RICHARD STALLMAN</b>：我应该
+[以解释我为什么拒绝了该论坛被网播来开头]，以å…
å¤§å®¶ä¸å®Œå…¨æ¸…楚å…
¶ä¸­çš„问题：网播的软件要求用户下载某些软件来接收广播内
容。这个软件不是自由软件。它可以å…
è´¹èŽ·å¾—，不过只是可执行文件——一堆神秘的数字。</p>
+<p>
+它做了什么是个秘密。你无法研究这个软件；你无
法更改这个软件；你显然也无法发布你
对该软件的修改版。这些自由都是 &ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;
+定义的基本自由。</p>
+<p>
+因此，如果我是一个真正的自由软件倡导者
，那么我不能到处演讲，而后却给人使用非自由软件的压力。我那æ
 ·åšå°±æ˜¯è‡ªæ¯æ 
¹åŸºã€‚而且如果我自己没有展示自己对原则的认真，我就无
法期待别人会认真对待。</p>
+<p>
+不过，这个演讲不是å…
³äºŽè‡ªç”±è½¯ä»¶çš„。在我为自由软件运动工作了几
年之后，在人们开始使用 GNU 
操作系统的一些软件之后，我开始获得去演讲的邀请 
[演讲中]
+&hellip;人们开始问我：&ldquo;那么，如何把软件自由的想法推广到å
…¶ä»–事情呢？&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+当然，人们也会问一些弱智的问题，比如 
&ldquo;那么，硬件是否应该是自由的呢？&rdquo; 
&ldquo;这个话筒是否应该是自由的？&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+可是，这是什么意思呢？是你
有自由复制和更改它吗？好吧，对于更改，如果是你
买的话筒，没人会拦着你
更改它。对于复制，没有人有复制话筒的机器。除了在
+&ldquo;Star Trek&rdquo;
+里，而那些并不存在。也许将来有纳米科技的分析器和重构器，而复制物理器件成为可能，那时是否有自由复制物理器件的问题就开始真正重要起来。如果技术真的发展到那一步，我们会看到食品å
…
¬å¸ä¼å›¾é˜»æ­¢äººä»¬å¤åˆ¶é£Ÿå“ï¼Œè¿™å°†æ˜¯ä¸€ä¸ªé‡è¦çš„政治问题。我不知道会不会那æ
 ·ï¼›ç›®å‰åªæ˜¯å‡æƒ³ã€‚</p>
+<p>
+但是对其他类型的信息，你可以提问题，因
为计算机可以存储任何信息，可想而知，它们可以被复制和修改。所以自由软件的道德问题，用户复制和修改软件的权利，和å
…¶ä»–公开信息的问题是一æ 
·çš„。现在，我要讨论的不是隐私信息，比如，不是私人信息，这些信息本就不应该是å
…¬å¼€çš„。我要讨论的是你对å…
¬å¼€å¯å¾—信息的权利，这些信息并没有保密的必要。</p>
+<p>
+为了解释我对此问题的想法，我要回顾一下分发信息和版权的历史。在古代，书是人用笔手写出来的，å›
 
而读书认字的人抄书的效率都差不多。虽然有人可能整天抄书变得更快一点，但是差距也有限。由于抄书只能一次一本，所以经济性也不高。抄
+10 本书需要花抄 1 本书的 10 
倍时间，而且也没有可能集中管理——在哪里抄书都一æ 
·ã€‚</p>
+<p>
+因为当时的技术条件就是那样，也因为抄书也没有要求必
须一字不差，所以在古代抄书和写书也没多大分别。当然抄书和写书也是有不同的，大家都知道作è€
…的概念。人们知道，比方说，这个戏剧是
+Sophocles
+写的；但是在抄书和写书中还有å…
¶ä»–一些有益的事可用做。例如，你
可以只抄书的一部分，然后写点新东西，再抄一部分，然后再写点新东西，如此如此。这就是
+&ldquo;撰写批注&rdquo;&mdash;&mdash;一个常见的做法&mdash;&mdash;批注很有价值。</p>
+<p>
+ä½ 
还可以从一本书里抄一段，然后再从另一本书里抄一段，然后再自己写一段，然后再抄一段书，如此如此，这就是摘选。摘选也非常有用。有些著作遗失了，但是å
…¶ä¸­ä¸€éƒ¨åˆ†ç”±äºŽè¢«å…¶ä»–更流行的书引用而保留下来。也许是因
为他们摘抄了å…
¶ä¸­æœ€æœ‰è¶£çš„部分，所以这些书又被抄了许多遍，但是如果原来的部分不是那么有趣，他们也不会抄录。</p>
+<p>
+目前就我所知，古代没有版权这一说。人们想复制就可以复制一本书。后来，有了印刷术，书籍开始在印刷厂里复制。这æ
 ·ï¼Œå°åˆ·åŽ‚不仅在数量上提高了复制的便利性，由于引å…
¥äº†è§„模经济效应，它对不同的复制种类有不同的影响。设置种类需要大量劳动，但是复制同一类型的书页又轻而易举。结果就是复制书籍变成了中心化的规模性生产活动。所有的书籍可能都是由å‡
 ä¸ªå·¥åŽ‚来生产完成的。</p>
+<p>
+这也意味着普通读者无法高效复制书籍，除非你
有自己的印刷厂。因此，印刷是工业活动。</p>
+<p>
+印刷出现的头几个世纪，印刷版书籍没有完å…
¨ä»£æ›¿æ‰‹æŠ„本。手抄本还是有的，有时是富人做，有时是穷人做。富人要手抄本是想要得到特别漂亮的副本，而穷人是没钱买印刷本，但是有时间抄书。正如歌谣所唱，&ldquo;穷得只剩下时间了。&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+因此，手抄本还维持一定的水平。我认为在 1800 
年代左右，印刷变得非常便宜，有文化的穷人也开始负担
得起印刷本。</p>
+<p>
+现在，版权随着印刷业和印刷技术开始发展出来，它å…
·æœ‰è¡Œä¸šè§„范的效果。它没有限制读者
；它限制的是出版商和作者
。版权最早在英国是一种审查。你必
须获得政府授权才能出版书籍。但是这种理念后来变了。到了美国宪法，人们开始使用一种不同的版权理念，我理解这个理念也被英国接受。</p>
+<p>
+美国宪法最初提议作者拥有版权，对复制å…
¶ä½œå“æœ‰ä¸“属决定权。该提议被驳回，替代之的是一个完å…
¨ä¸åŒçš„提议。为了推动进步起见，人们提议国会通过建立一个版权体系来创建这些专属决定权。所以，æ
 ¹æ®ç¾Žå›½å®ªæ³•ï¼Œè¿™äº›ä¸“属决定权不是为了其所有者
而存在；而是为了推动科学进步而存在。把这些专属决定权转交给作è€
…是为了让他们能够服务大众。</p>
+<p>
+因此，其目的是写更多的书、出版更多的书，这æ 
·å¤§å®¶å°±å¯ä»¥è¯»æ›´å¤šçš„书。å…
¶ä¸­çš„信念是为提高文化水平做贡献、为促进撰写科学和å…
¶ä»–领域的书籍做贡献，以便全社会可以从中学习
。这是版权的目的。创建私有专属决定权的目的只有一个，就是为å
…¬ä¼—服务。</p>
+<p>
+因为是行业规范，所以版权在印刷时代基本毫无
痛点。它只限制出版商和作者的活动。当然，严æ 
¼æ¥è¯´ï¼Œæ‰‹å†™æŠ„书的穷人可能也侵犯了版权。但是人们都理解版权是一个行业规范，所以没人会对抄书的人执行版权法。</p>
+<p>
+在印刷时代执行版权法也是容易的，因
为执法只需找到出版商，而出版商天然就是要让人知道自己是出版商的。如果ä½
 è¦å–书，那么你
就要告诉大家到哪里去买。所以执行版权法无
需挨门挨户。</p>
+<p>
+总之，版权在这个框架之下可能是一个有益的体系。在美国，法律学è€
…认为版权是一种交易，是公众和作者之间的讨价还价。å…
¬ä¼—在复制作品的自然权利方面做了让步，换来更多书籍的撰写和出版作为收益。</p>
+<p>
+这是不是一个有利的交易呢？这æ 
·çœ‹ï¼Œå½“拷贝只能在印刷厂高效复制，而公众无
法自己复制时&mdash;&mdash;大多数人没有自己的印刷厂&mdash;&mdash;结果就是å
…¬ä¼—在拿一个无法实际
操作的自由做了交易，这个自由本来就没有实际
的价值。所以如果你有一个无
用的副产品，现在有机会用它来换一件有价值的东西，那么ä½
 èµšåˆ°äº†ã€‚因此，版权可能是对公众有利的一个交易。</p>
+<p>
+但是环境发生了变化，这会改变我们对版权的道德评价。技术进步并不会改变基本的道德原则；这些基本原则还æ—
 æ³•è¢«æƒ…景变化触动。但是我们对具体问题的决定取决于情
景变化，这些结果可能会随着情
景变化而改变。这就是版权法正在发生的变化，因
为印刷业走到尽头，计算机网络逐渐走上舞台。</p>
+<p>
+计算机网络和数字信息技术又把我们带回到人人都可以阅
读、使用和复制信息的古代，每个人复制信息都非常容易。大家复制的信息都是完美的。å›
 æ­¤ï¼Œç”±å°åˆ·æœ¯å¸¦æ¥çš„中心化和规模经济一去不复返了。</p>
+<p>
+这种环境变化也改变了版权法的运作方式。如你
所看到的，版权法不再作为行业规范来执行；而成了限制大众的苛政<sup><a
+href="#TransNote1">1</a></sup>。版权法曾经是为了作者
起见对出版商的限制。现在，作为实际
的目的，它变成为了出版商起见对大众的限制。版权法过去并æ—
 ç—›ç‚¹ï¼Œä¹Ÿä¸çŸ›ç›¾ã€‚它并不限制公众。现在不是这æ 
·äº†ã€‚如果你有电脑，那么出版商就认为你
是他们要限制的首要对象。原来出版商很容易找到，执行版权法很容易。现在版权法限制的是åŒ
…括你在内的每一个人。这æ 
·æ‰§æ³•å°±éœ€è¦ç›‘控&mdash;&mdash;一种侵犯&mdash;&mdash;和粗鲁的惩罚，我们已经看到这些措施正在美国等国家的法律里开始åŠ
 å¼ºã€‚</p>
+<p>
+版权过去曾是，虽然有争议，对公众有益的交易；因为å…
¬ä¼—用把一项不能实施的自由权利做了交易。不过，现在这项自由权利可以实施了。如果ä½
 ä¸€ç›´æœ‰ä¸ªä¸œè¥¿ä»€ä¹ˆæ²¡ç”¨ï¼Œè€Œä½ ä¹Ÿä¹ 
惯把它处理掉，然而突然它变得有用了，那么你
会怎么办呢？你会使用它。你怎么做？你绝不会把它å…
¨éƒ¨éƒ½åšäº¤æ˜“；你会留一些。这就是公众自然而然的反应。  
+这就是å…
¬ä¼—每次有机会为自己发声时会做的；他们会保留一部分自由并实施这部分自由。Napster<sup><a
+href="#TransNote3">3</a></sup>
+就是一个重要例证，å…
¬ä¼—决定实施复制的自由而不是放弃。因
此，我们要做的自然而然的事就是要让版权法适应今天的情
况，就是要减少版权持有者的权力，就是要减少对å…
¬ä¼—的限制并提高公众保有的自由。</p>
+<p>
+但是出版商并不想这么做。他们要做的正好相反。他们想提高版权的控制力而让它可以牢牢控制信息的使用。这就导致法律给予版权前所未有的权力提升。人们在印刷时代拥有的自由丧失殆尽。</p>
+<p>
+作为例子，我们来看一下电子书。电子书声势浩大；你
基本无法避å…
ã€‚有一次我乘飞机去巴西，飞机上的一本杂志说可能再过 10 
到 20
+年我们都要读电子书了。很明显，这种宣传
有人付费。那么人们为什么这么做呢？我说说我的看法。原å›
 å°±æ˜¯ç”µå­ä¹¦æ˜¯å¤ºå–读者
最后一点自由的机会，这点自由是读者
从印刷时代带来的&mdash;&mdash;包括把书借给朋友或从公å…
±å›¾ä¹¦é¦†å€Ÿä¹¦ï¼Œè¿˜æœ‰æŠŠä¹¦å–给旧书店或者匿名买一本书而无
需登记，甚至是多读几遍书的权利等。</p>
+<p>
+这些自由是出版商想拿走的，但是他们无
法用纸质书达到这个目的——因
为那会是过于明显的权利剥夺，容易导致众怒。因
此，他们找到了一个迂回策略：首å…
ˆï¼Œä»–们在还没有电子书的时候通过立法夺走å…
³äºŽç”µå­ä¹¦çš„相关自由；这个就不会有什么反对。习
惯于此类自由的电子书读者
还不存在，所以没人会捍卫这些自由。1998
+年出版商通过千禧年数字版权法案获得了成功。然后，他们引å
…
¥ç”µå­ä¹¦ï¼Œå¹¶é€æ­¥è®©äººä»¬ä»Žçœ‹çº¸è´¨ä¹¦è½¬åˆ°çœ‹ç”µå­ä¹¦ï¼Œæœ€ç»ˆçš„结果是读è€
…在不知道自己被剥夺了权利之前，这些权利就没有了，æ 
¹æœ¬æ²¡æœ‰æœºä¼šåŽ»åå‡»ã€‚</p>
+<p>
+与此同时，我们还看到人们对å…
¶ä»–出版物的权利也受到剥夺。例如，使用 DVD
+发行的电影使用专有的加密格式&mdash;&mdash;该æ 
¼å¼æ˜¯ä¸ªç§˜å¯†&mdash;&mdash;电影公司只有在你
签署合同，同意在你生产的播放器里加入限制，才会告诉你
这个秘密；限制的结果就是阻止å…
¬ä¼—行使合法的权利。后来，欧洲一些聪明的程序员弄懂了
+DVD 的秘密格式，并且他们编写了一个自由软件可以读取 
DVD。这样人们就有可能在 GNU+Linux 
操作系统之上使用该软件来欣赏自己买的
+DVD，这完全合法。你应该有权这样使用自由软件。</p>
+<p>
+但是电影公司不干了，他们诉诸法庭。你看看，电影å…
¬å¸è¿‡åŽ»åˆ¶ä½œäº†å¥½å¤šå…³äºŽç–¯ç‹‚科学家的电影，å…
¶ä¸­å°±æœ‰äººè¯´è¿‡ï¼Œ&ldquo;但是，博士，有些事情
就是不让人知道的。&rdquo;电源å…
¬å¸ä¸€å®šæ˜¯çœ‹è‡ªå·±çš„电影太多了，因为他们开始相信
+DVD 格式就是不让人知道的事情
。他们获得了法庭禁令：播放 DVD 的软件必须接受å…
¨é¢å®¡æŸ¥ã€‚即使访问一个在美国以外的合法链接也被禁止，只å›
 è¯¥ç½‘站含有关于
+DVD æ 
¼å¼çš„秘密。大家就该禁令发起请愿。我很自豪地说，我签署了该请愿，虽然我在这次斗争中只是一个很小的角色。</p>
+<p>
+美国政府直接站在了另一边。当你
结合数字千禧版权法案被前期通过来考虑时，你
对政府的态度就不那么意外了。原因
在于美国的选举财务系统，它实际
上是合法的贿赂——候选人在被选举之前已经被商业收买了。当然，候选人知道谁是主子&mdash;&mdash;他们知道在为谁干事&mdash;&mdash;他们通过的法律会给商业更大的权力。</p>
+<p>
+那个斗争的结果会如何，我们还不知道。但是与此同时，澳大利亚通过了类似的法律，欧洲也å‡
 ä¹Žå®Œæˆäº†ä¸€æ 
·çš„事；所以大家看到的是地球上不再有地方可以向人们公开
+DVD 的格式。美国在阻止人们分发已经å…
¬å¼€çš„信息方面还是世界的领头羊。</p>
+<p>
+不过，美国并不是第一个重视这件事的国家。前苏联曾对此非常重视。在前苏联æ—
 æŽˆæƒå¤åˆ¶å’Œåˆ†å‘被称为
+Samizdat，为了界定这些行为，他们制定了一系列方法：第一，每台复印机都有人看守并监督和阻止人们非法复制。第二，对非法复制è€
…进行严厉的处罚。你可能因
此被流放到西伯利亚。第三，安插线人，让每个人向警察汇报å
…¶é‚»å±…和同事的活动。第四，连带责任&mdash;&mdash;你！你
对一组人负责！如果我抓到其中任何人违规，那么你
也要进监狱。因此，最好看紧点。第五，宣传
，从儿童开始灌输只有可恶的敌人才会非法复制的思想。</p>
+<p>
+现在，美国也在使用同æ 
·çš„方法。第一，看守复制设备。虽然，在复印店，看管人可以查看ä½
 å¤å°çš„东西。但是，用人来看管你
在电脑里复制东西就太昂贵了；人工太高。因
此，他们安排了机器警卫。这就是数字千禧版权法案的目的。这个软件会安è£
…在你的电脑里；这是你访问有å…
³æ•°æ®çš„唯一途经，而且它会防止你复制。</p>
+<p>
+目前的计划是在每块硬盘上都部署这种软件，那样在你
硬盘上的某些文件你
只有在得到指定网络服务器的授权才能访问。跳过这个软件，甚至只是告诉å
…¶ä»–人如何跳过这个软件都是犯罪。</p>
+<p>
+第二，严厉处罚。几年前，你
为了帮助朋友复制一些东西并不是犯罪；在美国，这从来也不是犯罪。现在，这成了重罪，和邻å±
…分享会坐几年监狱。</p>
+<p>
+第三，线人。你
可能在电视上看过广告，波士顿地铁的广告要人们向信息警察报告同事的消息，信息警察的正式名称是软件出版商联盟。</p>
+<p>
+第四，连带责任。在美国，这个通过绑定网络提供商来搞定，网络服务商要对å
…¶å®¢æˆ·å‘布的任何东西负法律责任。唯一的å…
è´£æ‰‹æ®µå°±æ˜¯åœ¨æŽ¥åˆ°æŠ•è¯‰åŽçš„两周内断网或删除信息。就在几
天前，几个批评城市银行的抗议网站就因
此被断网。现如今，你甚至没有时间到法庭申辩；你
的网站直接被切掉。</p>
+<p>
+最后，宣传。他们用的字眼是 &ldquo;盗版&rdquo;。如果在几
年前，&ldquo;盗版&rdquo;
+一词就是正式说出版商没有付钱给作者
。但是现在，直接就是反过来了。它说的是å…
¬ä¼—中有人摆脱了出版商的控制。它就是要让人们相信，只有恶毒的敌人才会做非法复制的事。它在说
+&ldquo;和邻居分享在道义上就和杀人越货一æ 
·ã€‚&rdquo;我希望你不同意；如果你不同意，我希望你拒绝按ç…
§ä»–们的意思使用这个词。</p>
+<p>
+因
此，出版商购买法律来给他们更多的权力。此外，他们还延长了版权的有效年限。美国宪法说版权å¿
…
须有期限，但是出版商希望版权永远有效。不过，通过宪法的修正案比较困难，所以他们找了一条简单的途经。每隔
+20 年他们就把版权延长 20 
年。所以结果就是，版权名义上是有期限的，它会在将来的某个时间点过期。但是这个过期的时间点会每隔
 20 年往后移动 20
+年，永远也到不了；这样的话，没有作品会成为å…
±æœ‰é¢†åŸŸçš„作品。这就是 &ldquo;版权永久执行的计划。&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+这个 1998 年的延长版权 20 年法律就是
+&ldquo;米老鼠版权延长法案&rdquo;，因为其主要支持者
之一就是迪斯尼。迪斯尼意识到米老鼠
的版权就要过期，他们当然不想要这件事发生，因
为这个版权为他们赚了很多钱。</p>
+<p>
+本来，这次讲话的题目应该是
+&ldquo;版权与全球化。&rdquo;如果你看一下全球化，你
会看到它是由一组政策形成的。这些政策以经济效率的名义或称之为自由贸易协定，而实é™
…
上就是通过法律和政策给予商业更多的权力。他们不是真的自由贸易。他们是在转移权力：把å
…¬æ°‘决定法律的权力转移给商业，å…
¬æ°‘会考虑自身的利益，而商业不会考虑公民的利益。</p>
+<p>
+在他们看来，民主是个麻烦，而这些协定会解决这些麻烦。例如，我确信，<abbr
 title="北美自由贸易协议">NAFTA</abbr>
+实际上有条款允许公司控告一个政府通过法律干扰他们在å…
¶ä»–国家的利润。所以外国公司比本国公民更有权力。</p>
+<p>
+他们还在扩展 <abbr>NAFTA</abbr>
+的范围。比如，美洲自由贸易区的一个目æ 
‡å°±æ˜¯æŠŠä»¥ä¸ŠåŽŸåˆ™æ‰©å±•åˆ°å—美洲和加
勒比各国，而多边投资协议的企图是将其扩展到全世界。</p>
+<p>
+在 90
+年代，我们看到这些协定开始把版权强加
给世界，而且是以更强硬、更有限制的方式。这些协定不是自由贸易协定。他们实é™
…上是由企业控制的贸易协定，是要让企业控制å…
¨çƒè´¸æ˜“，为的是消灭自由贸易。</p>
+<p>
+在十九世纪初，当美国还是一个发展中国家时，美国并不承认外国版权。这个决定是深思熟虑之后做出的，它是一个明智的决定。美国知道承认外国版权对美国只有坏处，那æ
 ·åªä¼šè®©ç¾Žå›½äº¤é’±è€Œä¸ä¼šå¸¦æ¥ä»€ä¹ˆç›Šå¤„。</p>
+<p>
+这个逻辑也适用于现在的发展中国家，但是美国有足够的力量来迫使这些国家做违背自己利益的事。实é™
…上，在这种语境下说出国家利益是一个错误。实际情
况是，我确信在座的大多数人都听说过一种谬误，就是用把所有人的财富åŠ
 èµ·æ¥çš„方法来判断公众利益。如果美国工薪阶级损失
+10 亿美元，而比尔·盖茨收益 20
+亿美å…
ƒï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆç¾Žå›½äººæ˜¯æ›´å¯Œè£•äº†å—？这对美国更有益吗？如果你
只看总数，那么数字很好。然而，这个例子告诉我们只看总数是错的，å›
 ä¸ºæ¯”尔·盖茨并不需要再多 20
+亿美元，但是其他没有太多积蓄的人损失 10 亿美å…
ƒä¼šæ˜¯ç—›è‹¦çš„。  
+在讨论这些贸易协定时，当你
听到人们说这个国家的利益或那个国家的利益，他们都是在看总数，富人和穷人åŠ
 åœ¨ä¸€èµ·çš„总数。因此，使用这个谬误实际上就是要让你
忽略财富分配的不均、让你
忽略该协定是否让财富更不均，就象在美国一样。</p>
+<p>
+因此，在å…
¨çƒæŽ¨è¡Œç‰ˆæƒå¹¶ä¸æ˜¯ç¾Žå›½çš„真正利益所在。它是某些商业å…
¬å¸çš„利益所在，他们有的在美国，有的在其他国家。无
论怎样，它都不是为了公众的利益。</p>
+<p>
+但是究竟怎么做才有意义呢？如果我们相信版权的目的，譬如美国宪法所言，是为了促进发展，那么在计算机网络时代什么æ
 ·çš„政策才是明智的呢？很明显，不是要加
强版权的威力，而是要回收一些权力，这样才能让å…
¬ä¼—有自由从数字技术中获益，从计算机网络中获益。但是究竟应该自由到什么程度呢？这是个有趣的问题，我自己不觉得我们应该完å
…¨æŠ›å¼ƒç‰ˆæƒã€‚  
+在某种程度上，用部分自由来交换一些进步也许还是一个不错的交易，即使ä¼
 
统的版权放弃了太多自由。但是为了更理性的思考这件交易，首å
…
ˆè¦æ˜Žç™½ï¼Œå®ƒæ²¡æœ‰ç†ç”±æ˜¯å¹³å‡ä¸»ä¹‰ï¼Œæ²¡æœ‰ç†ç”±å¯¹æ‰€æœ‰çš„作品都坚持同æ
 ·çš„交易。</p>
+<p>
+事实上，这个已经不是问题了，因
为就音乐作品来说已经有很多例外。音乐在版权法里的处理非常不一æ
 ·ã€‚但是坚持完å…
¨ä¸€è‡´çš„概念被出版商狡狤地利用了。他们选择一些特定的案例，并争辩说，版权达到如此的程度是有益的。然后他们就说，为了一致起见，对所有的æƒ
…况版权都应该达到这æ 
·çš„程度。当然，他们会挑选最有说服力的案例，即使这些案例非常特殊，完å
…¨æ²¡æœ‰ä»£è¡¨æ€§ã€‚</p>
+<p>
+但是对那些案例我们也许是应该那么处理版权。我们却不应该对所有的事æƒ
…都那么做。一千美å…
ƒä¹°ä¸ªæ–°è½¦å¯èƒ½æ˜¯å¾ˆåˆ’算的买卖。一千美å…
ƒä¹°å¬ç‰›å¥¶å´æ˜¯ç³Ÿç³•é€é¡¶çš„交易。你
不会为生活中的每件事都付出特别的代价。那么为什么在版权这件事æƒ
…上要这样呢？</p>
+<p>
+所以我们应该区别对待不同的作品。我提议一种方法。</p>
+<p>
+这包括菜谱、电脑程序、手册和教科书，以及象字å…
¸å’Œç™¾ç§‘全书之类的参看书。对于这些工å…
·ç±»ä½œå“ï¼Œæˆ‘相信它们的问题和软件一样，解决方法也一æ 
·ã€‚人们应该有自由发布原版乃至修改版，因为对工å…
·ç±»ä½œå“çš„修改是非常有用的。人们的需求不会一直一æ 
·ã€‚如果我按照我的需求撰写了该作品，那么你也可以按照你
的不同需求改写该作品，因为你要做的事情有所不同。  
+现在，可能有些人的需求和你类似，而你
的修改版对他们就有好处。做饭的人都明白这个，已经几
百年了。把菜谱的副本给å…
¶ä»–人很正常，修改菜谱也很正常。如果你修改了菜谱，请你
的朋友品尝，他们觉得味道不错，他们也许会问你
，&ldquo;我可以看菜谱吗？&rdquo;然后你会写下你的菜谱并给你
的朋友。这正是后来自由软件社区开始做的事情。</p>
+<p id="opinions">
+这是一类作品。第二类作品是表达某些人的思想的作品。讨论某些人是这类作品的目的。它åŒ
…
括，比如，回忆录、小品文集、科学论文、价目表，商品目录等。这些作品的意义就是告诉ä½
 æŸäº›äººæ€Žä¹ˆæƒ³ã€æŸäº›äººæ€Žä¹ˆçœ‹æˆ–者
某些人相信什么。对这类作品做修改就违背了原作者
的意思；所以修改这类作品并没有什么社会意义。所以对此人们希望的是原封不动地复制。</p>
+<p>
+接下来地问题是：人们是否有权进行商业化的å…
¨æ–‡å¤åˆ¶ï¼ŸæŠ‘或非商业化就够了？你
看，我们可以区分两类不同的活动，所以我们可以分开讨论&mdash;&mdash;非商业化的å
…¨æ–‡å¤åˆ¶æƒå’Œå•†ä¸šåŒ–çš„å…
¨æ–‡å¤åˆ¶æƒã€‚一个不错的妥协政策是，商业å…
¨æ–‡å¤åˆ¶ç”±ç‰ˆæƒç®¡è¾–，而人们都有权进行非商业å…
¨æ–‡å¤åˆ¶ã€‚这样，版权负责商业å…
¨æ–‡å¤åˆ¶ä»¥åŠæ‰€æœ‰çš„修改版&mdash;&mdash;只有作者
能够批准修改版&mdash;&mdash;这样的方式应该仍然可以为作者
写作提供资金，就像现在一样，无论推广到什么范围都一æ 
·ã€‚</p>
+<p>
+允许非商业的全文复制意味着版权不能再å…
¥ä¾µæ¯ä¸ªäººçš„家庭。它又变成了行业规范，容易执行，没有痛点，不再需要严厉的惩罚，也不需要线人。å›
 æ­¤ï¼Œæˆ‘们获得了现有系统的最大利益&mdash;&mdash;又避免了å…
¶æœ€å¤§çš„恐怖。</p>
+<p>
+第三类作品是美学或娱乐作品，这类作品的最重要意义就是观赏作品时的感觉。对它们而言，修改是极å
…¶å›°éš¾çš„，一方面因为这些作品反映了艺术家的眼å…
‰ï¼Œä¿®æ”¹ä½œå“ä¼šå¯¼è‡´è¿™äº›çœ¼å…
‰å˜åŒ–。另一方面，会出现民间流传过程<sup><a
+href="#TransNote2">2</a></sup>，人们会改来改去，导致作品变得异常丰富。艺术家在创作时，借鉴以前的作品常常是非常有用的。有些莎士比亚戏剧里的æ•
…事就是来自å…
¶ä»–戏剧作品。如果那是就使用现今的版权法，那么这些戏剧将是非法的。
  
+因
此对美学或艺术类作品的修改版如何处理是一个难题，我们或许还需要看更细的分类才能解决问题。例如，计算机游戏场景要么需要一个方案；要么就是大家都可以发布自己的修改版。但是小说可能就要不同的处理；或许商业修改版的发布需要和原作è€
…签署协议。</p>
+<p>
+如果美学作品的商业发布受版权控制，那么现在作者
和音乐家获取的收入中的大部分还会保持，因
为现有方案本来就没解决好这个问题。所以这也是一个妥协的方案，正如这些作品代表某类人的案例一æ
 ·ã€‚</p>
+<p>
+如果我们把目光放远一点，展望计算机网络完å…
¨åˆ°æ¥çš„时代，当我们完成了过渡期，我们可以想象另一种作è€
…通过作品获得报é…
¬çš„方式。假想我们有一个数字现金系统，它可以让你
通过作品赚钱。  
+假设我们有数字现金系统让你
可以通过互联网给别人转钱；这个通过加
密方法有多种实现方式。然后假设美学作品的全文复制是被å…
è®¸çš„。这些作品播放时或被欣赏时会有一个小窗说，&ldquo;点此给作è€
…
+1 美元作为感谢&rdquo; 等等。只是一个靠
边的静态小窗；不会影响你什么。它也不干涉你，只是待
在那里提醒你对作家和音乐家的支持是一件好事。</p>
+<p>
+因此，如果你喜欢某个作品，最后你
会说，&ldquo;为什么不给作者 1 美元呢？只是 1
+美元而已。有什么了不起？你
可能都不会记住这件事。&rdquo;那么人们就会给 1
+美元。美妙的是这件事会在作家和音乐家的同盟者
中复制。当有人把作品拷贝发给朋友，这个朋友可能也会给 1
+美元。如果你真的很喜欢这个作品，你
也能多次给钱。这些钱要比作家和艺术家现在从销售一张 CD
+里获得的微薄收益要高。以作家和音乐家的名义对å…
¬ä¼—要求å…
¨éƒ¨ç‰ˆæƒçš„发行商从来都是在欺骗作家和音乐家，并没有给他们应得的份额。</p>
+<p>
+我建议大家读一下 Courtney Love 在 &ldquo;Salon&rdquo;
+杂志的一篇文章
，它讲得是海盗使用音乐家作品而不付费的计划。海盗指的就是录音å
…¬å¸ï¼Œä»–们平均只付给音乐家销售额的 4%
+作为报é…
¬ã€‚当然，非常成功的音乐家获得较高的份额。他们得到大销售额的高于
 4% 的分成，而大多数音乐家只得到小销售额的低于 4% 
的分成。</p>
+<p>
+事情是这么运作的：录音公司为宣传
花钱，并把它作为给音乐家的预付款，当然音乐家从来也没有收到过这笔钱。所以名义上，ä½
 æ¯ä¹°ä¸€å¼ 
+CD，就会有一定比例的钱给到音乐家，但是事实并非如此。实é™
…上，这些钱作为宣传费返还给录音å…
¬å¸äº†ï¼Œåªæœ‰éžå¸¸æˆåŠŸçš„音乐家才能看到分成的钱。</p>
+<p>
+而音乐家，当然签了录音合同，因
为他们希望自己成为少数暴富者之一。因
此，原则上，音乐家就在玩一个由录音å…
¬å¸æä¾›çš„转盘彩票。虽然他们擅
长音乐，但是他们未毕能够认真地、有逻辑地看穿这个陷阱。所以他们就会签署合同，然后他们的所有收å
…¥å°±åªæ˜¯å®£ä¼ è´¹ã€‚那么，我们为什么不可以把这部分宣传
费以另一种方式给他们呢？不通过限制å…
¬ä¼—的系统，不通过复杂的行业系统，这些系统只会向我们推广易卖的蹩脚音乐。反过来，为什么不通过听众自然而然的分享构建音乐家的同盟？如果我们在播放器上有那么一个赞赏
+1 美å…
ƒç»™éŸ³ä¹å®¶çš„小窗，那么计算机网络就是音乐家收回宣传
费的平台，就是那些被录音公司收去的宣传费。</p>
+<p>
+我们要认识到现有的版权系统对音乐家的支持非常差劲。在工业区，每个人窝在ç
 ´æ—§çš„工作间里创作。我早就知道å…
¨çƒåŒ–不是提高海外人民生活水平的有效途径。比如说，如果一个美国人时薪是
+20 美元，那么有可能一个墨西哥人做同样的事每天只得到 6
+美元；事实是你
从一个美国工人那里拿走了一大部分钱，只给了一个墨西哥工人å
…¶ä¸­æžå°‘一部分，剩下的钱全部归了公司。所以如果你
的目的是提高墨西哥工人的生活水平，那么这个方法太糟糕了。</p>
+<p>
+同样的事情也在版权行业上演，就是一æ 
·çš„道理，很有趣。借着给工人付钱的名义——他们当然应得报é
…¬ï¼Œä½ å»ºè®®åªç»™ä»–们少得可怜的一份，实际
上主要是支持大企业来控制我们生活的权力。</p>
+<p>
+如果你要替换一个很好的系统，那么你
需要努力创建一个更好的系统。如果你
知道当前的系统非常糟糕，那么找到一个较好的替代就不是那么难；当前的比较基准是非常之低的。在考虑版权政策的时候，我们å¿
…须时刻记着这一点。</p>
+<p>
+因
此，我们觉得我已经把要说的都说完了。我想提一下，明天是åŠ
 æ‹¿å¤§çš„ Phone-In Sick
+假日。明天就是结束美洲自由贸易区谈判的峰会开始，这个谈判就是要把大企业的权力扩展到更多国家，明天在魁北å
…
‹ä¼šæœ‰ä¸€ä¸ªå¤§åž‹æŠ—议活动。我们已经看到有人采取一些极端手段来ç
 ´åæ­¤æ¬¡æŠ—议活动。大量美国人不准进入加
拿大，而本来他们是可以随时过境的。  æ 
¹æ®æœ€çƒ‚的借口，魁北克市中心建起了一道围墙来把抗议者
拦截在外。我们已经看到众多对付抗议公众的肮脏手段。因
此，在民选政府的权力被商业和非民选国际
实体夺走之后剩下的民主也许很难超过抗议å…
¬ä¼—要保护的那点民主。</p>
+<p>
+我已经为自由软件及其相关问题奉献了 17
+年。我这样做并不是因
为我觉得它是世界上最重要的政治问题。我这样做是因
为我看到对此我能用我的技能带来许多益处。但是政治的一般性问题发生了变化，当今世界的最大政治问题是给予商业è¶
…越å…
¬ä¼—和政府权力的趋势。我认为我们今天讨论的自由软件及å…
¶ç›¸å…
³é—®é¢˜æ˜¯æ•´ä¸ªä¸»è¦é—®é¢˜çš„一部分。所以，我觉得我自己也在为解决这个大问题做努力。我希望我的努力对此有所贡献。</p>
+<p>
+<b>互动</b>：</p>
+<p>
+<b>THORBURN</b>：我们接下来就要进å…
¥å¬ä¼—提问的环节。不过，请让我稍微总结一下。在我看来，Stallman
+带给大家两个最强烈和最重要的实际
指导。一个是对版权的老旧假设的认识，老旧的假设现在不合适了；它们受到电脑和电脑网络进步的挑战或ç
 ´åã€‚这虽然明显，但是非常重要。</p>
+<p>
+第二是对数字时代的认识，它要求我们重新审视如何区分和评价智力和创新工作的形式。Stallman
+关于某类智力行业比å…
¶ä»–行业更看重版权保护的评价非常正确。对各类不同水平的版权保护进行系统地区分对我来说是一个有价值的手段，它可以用来ç
 ”究因为计算机发展带来的智力工作的问题。</p>
+<p>
+但是，我觉得我发现了一个话题，它介于 Stallman
+所述和完全与计算机不直接相å…
³ä¹‹é—´ï¼Œè€Œæ˜¯æ›´å¹¿æ³›çš„涉及民主主权和政府及企业对我们生活不断åŠ
 å¼ºçš„权力。这是 Stallman
+演说的民粹主义和反对大企业的一面，很有营养，但是也å…
·æœ‰è¿˜åŽŸä¸»ä¹‰çš„意味，甚至达到简约。不过它可能也过于理想化了。例如，在这个勇敢的新时代，如果人们只是被鼓励付费而不是要求付费，那么小说家、诗人、歌曲作è€
…、音乐家或教科书的作者
该如何生存呢？换句话说，在我看来，现有实情和
+Stallman 的愿景之间还是有非常大的鸿沟。</p>
+<p>
+所以，我做个结论，请 Stallman 
扩展一下演讲里的部分要点，尤å…
¶æ˜¯ä»–是否考虑过在他的版权系统里我们称之为 &ldquo;ä¼ 
统创造者&rdquo;
+的作者将如何被保护。</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：首先，我必须指出我们不应该使用 
&ldquo;保护&rdquo;
+一词来描述版权的作用。版权是对人进行约束。&ldquo;保护&rdquo;
 一词是拥有版权的行业使用的宣传语。&ldquo;保护&ldquo;
+意味着防止什么东西被破坏。不过，我不觉得多复制了几
遍、多播放了几遍就ç 
´åäº†ä¸€é¦–歌曲。我也不觉得小说被更多的人看了几
遍就是被ç 
´åäº†ã€‚所以，我不会使用保护这个词。我认为它让大家站在错误的一边。</p>
+<p>
+而且，知识产权有两个非常糟糕的问题：第一，它扭曲了该领域的最基本问题，既我们应该怎么对å¾
…这些事物？应该把它们当作一种资产来对待吗？使用
+&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo; 来描述该领域就是把答案预设为 
&ldquo;是,&rdquo;，而不考虑其他对待方式。</p>
+<p>
+第二，它宣扬过分普遍化。知识产权把好几
个不同的法律系统鼓捣在一起，而这些法律系统都有各自独立的渊源，比如版权、专利、商æ
 ‡ã€äº¤æ˜“秘密等等。它们甚至完全不同；毫无
瓜葛。当时人们听到
+&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;
+时就被带到一个错误的场景：他们想象有一个普遍的知识产权的准则，它会应用到不同的专门领域，å›
 
此这些不同的法律系统就变得差不多了。这不但导致人们判断正误时的迷茫，还导致人们对法律理解的迷茫，å›
 ä¸ºä»–们以为版权法和专利法差不多，而实际上它们完å…
¨ä¸åŒã€‚</p>
+<p>
+因此，如果你要鼓励人们认真思考和清
晰理解法律，那么请在讨论版权、专利、商æ 
‡ç”šè‡³ä»»ä½•è¯é¢˜æ—¶é¿å…ä½¿ç”¨ &ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;
+这个字眼，就是不要提及知识产权。对知识产权的看法几
乎总是愚不可及的。我对知识产权没看法。我对版权、专利和商æ
 ‡æœ‰çœ‹æ³•ï¼Œå®ƒä»¬æ˜¯ä¸ä¸€æ ·çš„东西。因为它们的法律完å…
¨ä¸åŒï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥æˆ‘是经过不同的思考得出的看法。</p>
+<p>
+无论如何，我做了消化，这非常重要。</p>
+<p>
+那么，我们直å…
¥ä¸»é¢˜ã€‚当然，我们现在还看不到它究竟会怎æ 
·ï¼Œè¯·æ±‚人们自愿为自己喜爱的作家和音乐家付费是否能行我们不知道。有一件事æƒ
…是显而易见的，这个方法的好坏程度和加å…
¥åˆ°ç½‘络中的人数称比例，而我们知道这个数字每年都是在以倍增的形式增长。我们今天使用这种方法也许没成功，但这不能证明什么，å›
 ä¸ºéšç€äººæ•°å¢žåŠ åˆ°
+10 倍，这种方法可能就行得通了。</p>
+<p>
+另一方面，我们还没有数字现金系统；所以我们今天还没有办法尝试这种方法。我们也许可以试一试类似的方法。人们可以注册某些服务来付钱给别人&mdash;&mdash;比如
+PayPal。但是在你可以使用 PayPal 之前，你必
须经过许多繁琐步骤、填写个人信息，而且系统还会收集你
的交易记录。你敢确保他们没有滥用这些数据？</p>
+<p>
+所以问题不在于美元支付，而在于支付时的种种麻烦事让你
不爽。其中关键的思想是付费应该非常简单，因
此除了金额之外你无需担心什么。如果金额很小，那么你
又有什么不爽呢？我们知道，歌迷真的喜爱音乐家，我们还知道鼓励歌迷复制和分发音乐的乐队有的很成功，比如
+&ldquo;Grateful
+Dead&rdquo;。他们可以靠音乐为生，他们并没有因
为鼓励乐迷复制和分发磁带就穷困潦倒。他们的唱片销量甚至也没有损失。</p>
+<p>
+我们正逐渐从印刷时代走向计算机网络时代，这个过程不会一蹴而就。人们还会购买大量的唱片，这个可能还会持续很ä¹
…&mdash;&mdash;或许永久
。只要人们还买唱片，支持商业销售的版权还应该存在，它还应该能够很好地支持音乐家，正如它今天一æ
 
·ã€‚当然，这并不是说它很好，只是至少它没变得更糟糕。</p>
+<p>
+<b>讨论</b>：</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：[一个关于自由下载和 Stephen King 在网络上推广å…
¶ç³»åˆ—小说之一的市场活动的评论和问题。]</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：是的，他的所作所为以及后来发生的事听来很有趣。当我第一次提说此事时，我非常高å
…´ã€‚我在想，或许他将向没有å…
¬ä¼—压迫的世界迈出一步。然后，我看到他实际
上在让大家为写作付费。我来解释一下他的操作，他把小说作为系列来发表；操作时，他会说，&ldquo;如果我收到了足够多的钱，我就发表更多小说。&rdquo;但是这个要求很难说是一个要求。这是在胁迫读è€
…。他说，&ldquo;如果你不付费，那么你
就是作恶。如果作恶的人太多，那么我就不再写了。&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+你看，很明显，这不是让大家觉得应该付费的方法。你
应该让大家喜爱你，而不是害怕你。</p>
+<p>
+<b>听众</b>：具体细节是他要求一个比例&mdash;&mdash;å…
·ä½“多少我不太清楚，大概是 90% 左右&mdash;&mdash;
+的人需要支付一定数额的钱，我记得是一美元或两美å…
ƒï¼Œåæ­£å·®ä¸å¤šæ˜¯è¿™ä¸ªæ°´å¹³ã€‚你需要输å…
¥è‡ªå·±çš„名字和邮件地址等信息才能下载文稿，如果在写完第一ç«
 
之后，付费的人数比例没有达到要求，他说他就不再发表下一ç«
 èŠ‚。这对下载文稿的读者是非常有敌意的。</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：不靠版权，而是靠
自愿捐助的方法不会导致抄袭泛滥吗？</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：不。我没有建议那么做。回想一下，我的提议是用版权应对商业发布，而非商业只å
…è®¸å…
¨æ–‡å¤åˆ¶ã€‚所以，如果有人做了修改并发布到自己的网站，而不是作è€
…
的网站，那么他还是侵犯了版权，他还是会受到和今天侵权一æ
 ·çš„控告。</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：我明白了。那么你
仍然在构想一个有版权的世界？</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：是的。如我所说，这个世界为多种作品而存在。我不是说任何事æƒ
…都被允许。我建议减少版权的权力，而不是摈弃之。</p>
+<p>
+<b>THORBURN</b>：Richard，刚才你
演讲时，我想到一个问题。现在，你
回答问题时，我又想到一个问题。为什么年不考虑计算机本身作为一个解决方法，用它来完å
…¨æ¶ˆç­ä¸­é—´äºº&mdash;&mdash;不是
+Stephen King 拒绝使用的方法&mdash;&mdash;而是建立一种个人å…
³ç³»ã€‚</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：好吧，它们可以。实际上，自愿捐助就是这æ 
·çš„方法。</p>
+<p>
+<b>THORBURN</b>：你认为这个就像是完全没有经过出版商吗？</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：绝对没有。我希望它没有，你知道，因
为出版商会残酷剥削作者。当你
问出版商时，他们会说，&ldquo;是的，如果作者
或乐队不想经过我们，那么没有法律要求他们必
须经过我们。&rdquo;但是，实际上，他们会极力布局让作者
或乐队无
法不经过他们。例如，他们正在推行限制复制的媒体æ 
¼å¼ï¼Œå¦‚果要按照这种格式出版，那么你就必
须经过大型出版商，因为他们不会告诉其他人æ 
¼å¼çš„秘密。因此，他们期望的是一个播放器播放这些æ 
¼å¼çš„世界，你的作品想要被这些播放器播放，你就必
须经过这些出版商。  
+所以，虽然没有法律阻止作者或音乐家直接发表，但是实际
上不可能做到。还有就是一夜暴富的诱惑。他们会说，&ldquo;我们为ä½
 å‘布，你可能会和披头士一样富有。&rdquo;随便选一个你
知道的非常成功的乐队，当然，只有极少数的音乐家做到那æ 
·ã€‚但是他们可能就被诱惑着签了合同，后面就一直被套牢。</p>
+<p>
+出版商倾向于不遵守给作者
的合同。比如，出书的合同一般会说如果书卖完了，那么权利回归到作è€
…，而出版商普遍不会遵守此条款。必
须要强制他们才行。现在，他们开始使用电子出版作为借口，他们会说书永远也不会售罄；这æ
 ·ä»–们就永远不会让权利回归作者。他们想的是，在作者
没有什么影响力的时候让他签单，此后作者
就永远没有权力了；权力都在出版商这边。</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：各种作品都使用自由许可证来保护用户用适当方法复制这些作品的自由好吗？</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：人们正在为此努力。但是对于非功能性的作品来说，一件东西并不能代替另一个。让我们来看一看一个功能性的作品，比如，一个文字处理程序。如果有人开发了一个自由的文字处理程序，ä½
 å¯ä»¥ä½¿ç”¨ï¼›ä½ 
不需要非自由的文字处理程序了。但是我不能说一个自由的歌曲会替代所有非自由的歌曲或è€
…
一个自由的小说替代所有非自由的小说。这类作品有所不同。å›
 
此，我认为我们要做的很简单，就是要认识到这些法律并不值得遵守。和友邻分享没有错，如果有人来告诉ä½
 ä¸èƒ½å’Œé‚»å±…分享，那么你不要听他的。</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：对于功能性作品，就你自己的想法，你
该如何平衡废弃版权的需求和经济激励的需求，以保证功能性作品的发展？</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：好的。首å…
ˆï¼Œæˆ‘们看到的是，这种经济刺激远没有人们假想的那么必
要。请看一下自由软件运动，我们有超过 100,000
+志愿者在业余开发自由软件。我们也看到å…
¶ä»–一些筹集资金的方法，它们并没有阻止å…
¬ä¼—复制和修改这些作品。  
+自由软件运动的这个经历有意思。除了它让你
可以使用计算机并且保持和人们分享及合作的自由之外，它还向我们展示了负面假设——除非能够强制人们付钱，人们才不会做类似自由软件的事——的错误显而易见。很多人会做的。然后，如果ä½
 
看一下，比如说，撰写许多学科教育的专著，除了那些非常基础的教科书，并不能赚钱。
  
+我们现在有一个自由的百科å…
¨ä¹¦é¡¹ç›®ï¼Œäº‹å®žä¸Šï¼Œè¿™æ˜¯ä¸€ä¸ªå•†ä¸šçš„自由百科å…
¨ä¹¦è®¡åˆ’，它正在进行中。我们曾经有一个 GNU
+百科全书，不过当这个商业百科å…
¨ä¹¦é‡‡çº³äº†æˆ‘们的许可证后我们的项目也合并了进去。在一月份，百科å
…¨ä¹¦çš„所有文章都切换成 GNU
+自由文档许可证。因此我们说，&ldquo;好的，我们一起加å…
¥å¹¶æ•¦ä¿ƒäººä»¬ä¸ºä¹‹åšè´¡çŒ®ã€‚&rdquo;它的名字是&ldquo;Nupedia，&rdquo;它的链接是
+http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia，你们可以看一下。因
此，我们把自由的有用知识的社区开发从软件扩展到了百科å…
¨ä¹¦ã€‚现在我非常自信在所有功能性作品的领域，我们不需要把经济刺激搞到使用这些作品都变得一团糟。</p>
+<p>
+<b>THORBURN</b>：好的，那么其他两类怎么样？</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：对于å…
¶ä»–两种作品，我不知道。我不知道将来人们是否会不为赚钱而写小说。在一个富足的社会，我猜他们会。也许我们要进å
…¥å¯Œè¶³ç¤¾ä¼šéœ€è¦åšçš„是摆脱大公司对经济和法律的控制。因
此，这等效于鸡生蛋蛋生鸡的问题。我们å…
ˆåšå“ªä¸ªå‘¢ï¼Ÿæˆ‘们如何才能到达一个人们无
需极力赚钱（除了要摆脱商业的控制）的世界呢？我们如何能够摆脱商业的控制&mdash;&mdash;说到底，我不知道，但是这正是我要提议的原å›
 
，第一：一个折中的版权系统；第二，一个自愿的支付系统，它在此版权系统下为撰写作品的人们提供收å
…¥ã€‚</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：在当今美国政客被企业通过竞选系统牢牢控制的现实下，ä½
 å¦‚何真正地实施这个带有妥协性质地版权系统呢？</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：这个问题难倒我了。我也希望知道答案。这是一个非常难的问题。如果我知道解决方案，那么我就会解决问题而世上再也没有更令我自豪的事æƒ
…了。</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：你如何与企业控制做斗争？因为你
看下法律案件涉及的企业游说资金，它们的总和是惊人的。我想ä½
 è°ˆåˆ°çš„ DECS 案件的辩方金额可能有 50
+万美元。鬼知道企业投入的金额有多大。你
知道怎么对付这么大数额的资金吗？</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：我有个建议。如果我们建议å…
¨é¢æŠµåˆ¶ç”µå½±ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆæˆ‘想大家都会忽略这个建议。大家会觉得这个建议太离谱。所以我稍微变通一下我的建议——最终结果å‡
 ä¹Žæ²¡å˜â€”—我建议，除非你有充
分的理由说电影很好，我们都不要去看电影。实际
上，这个建议会导致和完全抵制好莱坞电影一æ 
·çš„结局。外延看结局一样，内
涵却非常不同。我注意到许多人看电影的原因是无
事可干，而无关电影是否好看。因此，如果建议变成只有有å…
…分的理由觉得电影好看，你才会看电影，那么你
就能让他们少挣好多钱。</p>
+<p>
+<b>THORBURN</b>：一个å…
¨é¢ç†è§£æœ¬æ¬¡è®¨è®ºçš„方法，我觉得是，要认识到无
论社会上什么时候出现彻底的、转型式的技术变革，总会有谁来控制这些技术的斗争。我们今天就在重复过去发生的事æƒ
…。所以从此出发，我们不应该对长远未来发生的事情
表示绝望，更不应该悲观。但是，短期来看，针对文本、图像以及所有信息形式的控制权之争很可能还是痛苦和惨烈的。
  
+比如，作为一个媒体教师，近年来我对图形的访问权就受到前所未有的限制。如果我写文ç«
 
时还想使用静态图片，即使图片来自电影，我也很难拿到许可，而且使用这些静态图片的价æ
 ¼ä¹Ÿå˜å¾—更高&mdash;&mdash;即使我使用知识研究和法律上的
+&ldquo;合理使用&rdquo;
+来讨价还价。因
此我认为，在这个外部转型的时刻，长期的期望实际
上可能没有短期现实那么令人烦恼。但是无
论如何，我们需要理解整个现代的经历都是一个不断重复的西方社会对技术资源控制斗争史的新版本。</p>
+<p>
+我们还要理解，老旧技术的历史本身也是一个复杂的事情
，这一点也很重要。印刷术在西班牙的影响，举例来说，就和它在英国或法国的影响大相径庭。</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：当我聆听å…
³äºŽç‰ˆæƒçš„讨论时，令我不安的一件事情
是人们经常一开始就说，&ldquo;我们要进行 180
+度的改变。我们要æ 
¹é™¤ä»»ä½•æŽ§åˆ¶ã€‚&rdquo;对我来说，目前的三个分类背后似乎表明版权还是有一些道理的。事实上，有些版权评论家相信，版权应该被支持，而且它的期限应该更象专利和商æ
 ‡é‚£æ ·ã€‚我想知道嘉宾对此有什么评论。</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：我同意缩短版权的期限是个好主意。在现有法律体系下，版权期限可能长达
 150
+年，对于鼓励出版来说这个长度绝无必要。现在有公司说 75
+年期限的版权对他们生产职务作品还不够长。我要挑战这些å
…
¬å¸ï¼Œè¯·ä»–们拿出来支持此论点的预计资产负债表。他们想要的ä»
…仅是延长老作品的版权期限，这æ 
·ä»–们就可以继续限制这些作品的使用。但是我无
法理解今天延长版权能对
+1920 
年代作品的生产有多大的影响，除非他们有时间机器。当然，在他们的一部电影里，他们是有一个时间机器。大概是那个机器影响了他们的思考。</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：你是否想过扩展 &ldquo;合理使用&rdquo; 的概念，å…
¶ä¸­æ˜¯å¦æœ‰äº›ç»†èŠ‚展示给我们？</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：好吧。上面提到，任何人对两类作品的非商业化å
…
¨æ–‡å¤åˆ¶æƒå¯èƒ½å°±æ˜¯ä¸€ç§å¯¹åˆç†ä½¿ç”¨çš„扩展。它比我们目前的合理使用要大。如果ä½
 çš„想法是公众通过交易一些自由来获得更多的进步，那么你
就可以在不同的地方画出条条框框。å…
¬ä¼—要交易哪些自由、保留哪些自由呢？</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：我们暂时扩展一下话题，在某些娱乐领域，我们有一个å
…
¬æ¼”的概念。所以，举例来说，版权不禁止我们定时唱赞歌，但是会禁止我们进行å
…±æ¼”。我在想，把合理使用从无限制的非商业å…
¨æ–‡å¤åˆ¶ç¼©å°ä¸€ç‚¹èŒƒå›´æ˜¯ä¸æ˜¯æ›´åˆç†ï¼Ÿ</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：我也曾经觉得那就足够了，然后 Napster 
让我觉得那样不行。因为 Napster
+就是被其用户进行非商业的全文再分发。Napster 
的服务器本身是一个商业活动，但是人们实际
使用时是在进行非商业活动。不用
+Napster，他们也能一样容易地在自己的网站上做同æ 
·çš„事。大家对 Napster 的兴趣很大、极度兴奋的原因是 Napster
+很有用。因此我确信人们应该有权利对任何东西å…
¬å¼€è¿›è¡Œéžå•†ä¸šçš„、全文复制的再分发。</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：最近关于整个 Napster 问题的一个类比就是公å…
±å›¾ä¹¦é¦†ã€‚假定你们有人听说过 Napster
+以此类比做的辩论。你对此有什么评论？支持 Napster
+应该继续、不应该被限制的人有时会说：&ldquo;人们到公å…
±å›¾ä¹¦é¦†å€Ÿä¹¦ï¼Œå¹¶ä¸ä»˜é’±ï¼Œè€Œä¸”可以借好多次、上百次，都不用额外付钱。Napster
+又有什么不同？&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：好吧，它们并不完å…
¨ç›¸åŒã€‚但是需要指出，出版商想要把公å…
±å›¾ä¹¦é¦†å˜æˆæŒ‰ä½¿ç”¨ä»˜è´¹çš„零售机构。因此他们是反对公å…
±å›¾ä¹¦é¦†çš„。</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：非洲生产和使用便宜的复制药物受到专利问题的困扰。这里的版权思想能够提供借鉴吗？</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：不，它们之间没有相似性。专利的问题和版权的问题完å
…¨ä¸åŒã€‚它们之间发生关联是使用 &ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;
+这一术语的不幸后果之一，这让人们把这些问题扯在一起。å›
 ä¸ºæ­£å¦‚你所说，我一直在谈复制问题，价格并不是å…
³é”®ã€‚但是为非洲生产艾滋病药的关键问题是什么？是价æ 
¼ï¼Œè€Œä¸æ˜¯åˆ«çš„。</p>
+<p>
+我讨论的问题之所以出现，是因
为数字信息技术赋予了每个用户复制的能力。不过，还没有什么让我们大家都有能力复制药物。我没有能力复制那些我拿到的药。事实上，没有人有这个能力；药不是复制出来的。这些药只能在昂贵的工厂里制é€
 ï¼Œè€Œä¸”是集中在昂贵的工厂里制造，无
论是复制药，还是美国进口药。不管是哪个，它们都要在少数工厂里生产，问题简单归结为它们的成本是多少，它们的价æ
 ¼æ˜¯å¦æ˜¯éžæ´²äººæ°‘可以承受的。</p>
+<p>
+因此，这个问题是一个非常重要的问题，但是它是一个完å…
¨ä¸åŒçš„问题。专利和复制自由相å…
³çš„问题只有一个，就是在农业领域。因
为有些专利的东西是多多少少可以复制的&mdash;&mdash;生长的东西。它们生产时就会自我复制。不是完å
…¨å¤åˆ¶ï¼›åŸºå› 
有交换。但事实是，一直以来农民都在利用作物的这个能力。农业，基本上就是复制他们种的东西，每年都复制。当作物和动物的变种有了专利，当基å›
 æœ‰äº†ä¸“利并应用于作物，结果就是农民被禁止复制。</p>
+<p>
+一个加
拿大农民的田里生长着一种带专利的变种，他说，&ldquo;我并不是有意为之。花粉被风吹到我的田里，结果就有了这些基å›
 
。&rdquo;人们告诉他没事；他还是把这些作物销毁了。这是政府会偏袒垄断集团到何种程度的极端例子。</p>
+<p>
+因此，我坚信，根据和复制电脑里的东西一æ 
·çš„法则，农民也应该毫无
争议地拥有保留种子和繁殖家畜的权利。也许，专利可以管辖种子å
…¬å¸ï¼Œä½†æ˜¯ä¸åº”该限制农民。</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：让软件成功比授权更有益。你觉得是这æ 
·å—？</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：绝对是这æ 
·ã€‚不过，我并不知道答案。但是我觉得开发自由、好用信息的理想主义是å
…¶ä¸­å…³é”®çš„部分。人民必
须认识到信息自由是重要的，当信息自由的时候，你就可以å…
…分使用。当它受限制时，你就不能充分利用。人们必
须认识到非自由信息想要分裂他们、让他们无
助、让他们屈服。然后他们想，&ldquo;我们一起来创造
我们要用的信息，这æ 
·æˆ‘们就不用受某些权贵的控制，也不用让独裁者
告诉我们该做什么了。&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+这会极大地推动自由信息。但我不知道它在其他领域会怎æ 
·ï¼Œä¸è¿‡åœ¨æ•™è‚²é¢†åŸŸï¼Œä½ 
看看教科书，我觉得这里大有可为。世界上有许多老师，多数老师并不在名牌大学里&mdash;&mdash;有些可能在高中；有些可能在社区大学&mdash;&mdash;他们不需要撰写和发表很多文ç«
 
，对他们并没有那么大的要求。但是很多老师很聪明，他们很了解自己的专业课程，他们可以撰写å
…³äºŽä¸“业课的教科书并分享给全世界。他们会收到大量学习
这些课程的人的感激。</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：我也曾这么建议。但是可笑的是，我并不了解教育史。我做了&mdash;&mdash;教育的、电子媒体的项目。我找不到案例。ä½
 çŸ¥é“吗？</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：不，我不知道。我在几
年前开始提议自由百科全书和学习资源，我觉得可能需要 10
+年才能有所建树。现在我们已经有了可以运转的百科å…
¨ä¹¦ã€‚所以事情
的发展比我希望的要快。我认为现在需要的是有人开始写一些自由的教科书。就写ä½
 è‡ªå·±æœ€æ“…长的课程，或者写其中的一部分。写一些章
节，再抛砖引玉，让其他人写其他章节。</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：实际上，我在找比这更多的东西。你
的重点是创建一个设施让大家都来做贡献。从 K 到 12<sup><a
+href="#TransNote4">4</a></sup> 都没有这样的设施来贡献。</p>
+<p>
+我可以从好多地方获得信息，但都不是自由许可证，所以我不能用它们制作自由的教科书。</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：实际
上，版权不管这个。它只涉及作品是怎么写的。因此，你
可以从各种地方学习，然后撰写一本教科书，而你可以让你
的教科书自由，只要你愿意。</p>
+<p>
+<b>问题</b>：但是我自己无
法撰写学生需要的所有教科书。</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>：是的，没错。我也没有编写整个自由软件操作系统。我写了一部分，然后邀请å
…¶ä»–人加入写另外的部分。因此我做了一个榜æ 
·ã€‚我说，&ldquo;我要往这个方向走。加å…
¥è¿›æ¥ï¼Œæˆ‘们会到达那里。&rdquo;后来，足够多的人加å…
¥äº†ï¼Œæˆ‘们就到了。所以，如果你
考虑的是我要如何完成如此巨大的工作，那么确实艰巨。所以，重点是不要那么看问题。å
…ˆè€ƒè™‘一小步，要了解在你完成一小步之后，å…
¶ä»–人会往前再走几步，大家一道，最终我们会达成目标。</p>
+<p>
+假定人类没有毁灭自己，我们今天为人类创建了自由教育设施、自由教育资源，它会一直伴随着人类而存在。如果要花
 20
+年才能完成，又有什么关系？因
此，不要想太多整个工作的工作量。想一想我们要做的那部分工作的工作量。这会告诉人们这件事可以完成，å›
 æ­¤å…¶ä»–人就会去完成其他部分。</p>
+
+
+<hr />
+<blockquote id="fsfs"><p>本演讲发表于 <a
+href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/";><cite>自由软件，自由世界：理查德·斯托曼选集</cite></a>。</p></blockquote>
+
+<div class="translators-notes">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
+<h3>译注</h3>
+<ol>
+<li id="TransNote1">原文是：it is now a Draconian restriction on a general
+public。Draconian 指严苛的（法律）。</li>
+<li id="TransNote2">folk
+process：指民间故事、民族音乐等民间艺术通过人传
人代代相传的过程，这使民间艺术丰富多样化。</li>
+<li id="TransNote3">Napster：第一个被广泛使用的点对点音乐å…
±äº«æœåŠ¡ã€‚</li>
+<li id="TransNote4">K through 12：即 K12，kindergarten through twelfth
+grade，是国际社会对基础教育的统称。</li>
+</ol></div>
+</div>
+
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.zh-cn.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>请将有关自由软件基金会(FSF) &amp; 
GNU的一般性问题发送到<a
+href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org";>&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>。也可以通过<a
+href="/contact/">其他联系方法</a>联系自由软件基金会(FSF)。有å…
³å¤±æ•ˆé“¾æŽ¥æˆ–其他错误和建议，请发送邮件到<a
+href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org";>&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</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:web-translators@gnu.org";>
+
+        &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</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>. -->
+我们尽最大努力来提供精准和高质量的翻译，但难å…
ä¼šå­˜åœ¨é”™è¯¯å’Œä¸è¶³ã€‚如果您在这方面有评论或一般性的建议，请发送至
 <a
+href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org";>&lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>。</p><p>å
…³äºŽè¿›è¡Œåè°ƒä¸Žæäº¤ç¿»è¯‘的更多信息参见
+<a href="/server/standards/README.translators.html">《译者
指南》</a>。</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- 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 4.0.  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 &copy; 2001, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2020 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>本页面使用 <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative Commons
+Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a> 授权。</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.zh-cn.html" -->
+<div class="translators-credits">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
+<b>翻译团队</b>：<a rel="team"
+href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-zh-cn/";>&lt;CTT&gt;</a>，2021。</div>
+
+<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
+最后更新：
+
+$Date: 2021/04/09 15:32:28 $
+
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+<!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
+</body>
+</html>

Index: po/copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn-en.html
diff -N po/copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn-en.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/copyright-and-globalization.zh-cn-en.html        9 Apr 2021 15:32:30 
-0000       1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1322 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
+<title>Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks -
+GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks</h2>
+
+<p>
+<i>The following is an edited transcript from a speech given
+at <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr> in
+the Communications Forum on Thursday, April 19, 2001 from 5:00pm -
+7:00pm</i></p>
+
+<p>
+<b>DAVID THORBURN, moderator</b>: Our speaker today, Richard Stallman,
+is a legendary figure in the computing world, and my experience in
+trying to find a respondent to share the podium with him was
+instructive.  One distinguished <abbr>MIT</abbr> professor told me
+that Stallman needs to be understood as a charismatic figure in a
+biblical parable &mdash; a kind of Old Testament anecdote-lesson.
+&ldquo;Imagine,&rdquo; he said, &ldquo;a Moses or a Jeremiah &mdash;
+better a Jeremiah.&rdquo; And I said, &ldquo;Well, that's very
+admirable.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+That sounds wonderful.  It confirms my sense of the kind of
+contribution he has made to the world.  Then why are you reluctant to
+share the podium with him?&rdquo; His answer: &ldquo;Like Jeremiah or
+Moses, he would simply overwhelm me.  I won't appear on the same panel
+him, but if you asked me to name five people alive in the world who
+have truly helped us all, Richard Stallman would be one of
+them.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+<b>RICHARD STALLMAN</b>: I should [begin by explaining why I have
+refused to allow this Forum to be web cast], in case it wasn't clear
+fully what the issue is: The software they use for web broadcasting
+requires the user to download certain software in order to receive the
+broadcast.  That software is not free software.  It's available at zero
+price but only as an executable, which is a mysterious bunch of numbers.</p>
+<p>
+What it does is secret.  You can't study it; you can't change it; and
+you certainly can't publish it in your own modified version.  And
+those are among the freedoms that are essential in the definition of
+&ldquo;free software.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+So if I am to be an honest advocate for free software, I can hardly go
+around giving speeches, then put pressure on people to use nonfree
+software.  I'd be undermining my own cause.  And if I don't show that
+I take my principles seriously, I can't expect anybody else to take
+them seriously.</p>
+<p>
+However, this speech is not about free software.  After I'd been
+working on the free software movement for several years and people
+started using some of the pieces of the GNU operating system, I began
+getting invited to give speeches [at which] &hellip; people started
+asking me: &ldquo;Well, how do the ideas about freedom for software
+users generalize to other kinds of things?&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+And, of course, people asked silly questions like, &ldquo;Well, should
+hardware be free?&rdquo; &ldquo;Should this microphone be
+free?&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+Well, what does that mean?  Should you be free to copy it and change
+it?  Well, as for changing it, if you buy the microphone, nobody is
+going to stop you from changing it.  And as for copying it, nobody has
+a microphone copier.  Outside of &ldquo;Star Trek,&rdquo; those things
+don't exist.  Maybe some day there'll be nanotechnological analyzers
+and assemblers, and it really will be possible to copy a physical
+object, and then these issues of whether you're free to do that will
+start being really important.  We'll see agribusiness companies trying
+to stop people from copying food, and that will become a major
+political issue, if that technological capability will ever exist.  I
+don't know if it will; it's just speculation at this point.</p>
+<p>
+But for other kinds of information, you can raise the issue because
+any kind of information that can be stored on a computer, conceivably,
+can be copied and modified.  So the ethical issues of free software,
+the issues of a user's right to copy and modify software, are the same
+as such questions for other kinds of published information.  Now I'm
+not talking about private information, say, personal information,
+which is never meant to be available to the public at all.  I'm
+talking about the rights you should have if you get copies of
+published things where there's no attempt to keep them secret.</p>
+<p>
+In order to explain my ideas on the subject, I'd like to review the
+history of the distribution of information and of copyright.  In the
+ancient world, books were written by hand with a pen, and anybody who
+knew how to read and write could copy a book about as efficiently as
+anybody else.  Now somebody who did it all day would probably learn to
+be somewhat better at it, but there was not a tremendous difference.
+And because the copies were made one at a time, there was no great
+economy of scale.  Making ten copies took ten times as long as making
+one copy.  There was also nothing forcing centralization; a book could
+be copied anywhere.</p>
+<p>
+Now because of this technology, because it didn't force copies to be
+identical, there wasn't in the ancient world the same total divide
+between copying a book and writing a book.  There are things in
+between that made sense.  They did understand the idea of an author.
+They knew, say, that this play was written by Sophocles but in between
+writing a book and copying a book, there were other useful things you
+could do.  For instance, you could copy a part of a book, then write
+some new words, copy some more and write some new words and on and on.
+This was called &ldquo;writing a commentary&rdquo; &mdash; that was a
+common thing to do &mdash; and these commentaries were
+appreciated.</p>
+<p>
+You could also copy a passage out of one book, then write some other
+words, and copy a passage from another book and write some more and so
+on, and this was making a compendium.  Compendia were also very
+useful.  There are works that are lost but parts of them survived when
+they were quoted into other books that got to be more popular than the
+original.  Maybe they copied the most interesting parts, and so people
+made a lot of copies of these, but they didn't bother copying the
+original because it wasn't interesting enough.</p>
+<p>
+Now as far as I can tell, there was no such thing as copyright in the
+ancient world.  Anyone who wanted to copy a book could copy the book.
+Later on, the printing press was developed and books started to be
+copied on the printing press.  Now the printing press was not just a
+quantitative improvement in the ease of copying.  It affected
+different kinds of copying unevenly because it introduced an inherent
+economy of scale.  It was a lot of work to set the type and much less
+work to make many identical copies of the page.  So the result was
+that copying books tended to become a centralized, mass-production
+activity.  Copies of any given book would probably be made in only a
+few places.</p>
+<p>
+It also meant that ordinary readers couldn't copy books efficiently.
+Only if you had a printing press could you do that.  So it was an
+industrial activity.</p>
+<p>
+Now for the first few centuries of printing, printed books did not
+totally replace hand-copying.  Hand-copied books were still made,
+sometimes by rich people and sometimes by poor people.  The rich
+people did this to get an especially beautiful copy that would show
+how rich they were, and poor people did it because maybe they didn't
+have enough money to buy a printed copy but they had the time to copy
+a book by hand.  As the song says, &ldquo;Time ain't money when all
+you got is time.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+So hand-copying was still done to some extent.  I think it was in the
+1800s that printing actually got to be cheap enough that even poor
+people could afford printed books if they were literate.</p>
+<p>
+Now copyright was developed along with the use of the printing press
+and given the technology of the printing press, it had the effect of
+an industrial regulation.  It didn't restrict what readers could do;
+it restricted what publishers and authors could do.  Copyright in
+England was initially a form of censorship.  You had to get government
+permission to publish the book.  But the idea has changed.  By the
+time of the U.S. Constitution, people came to a different idea of the
+purpose of copyright, and I think that that idea was accepted in
+England as well.</p>
+<p>
+For the U.S. Constitution it was proposed that authors should be
+entitled to a copyright, a monopoly on copying their books.  This
+proposal was rejected.  Instead, a crucially different proposal was
+adopted which is that, for the sake of promoting progress, Congress
+could optionally establish a copyright system that would create these
+monopolies.  So the monopolies, according to the U.S. Constitution, do
+not exist for the sake of those who own them; they exist for the sake
+of promoting the progress of science.  The monopolies are handed out
+to authors as a way of modifying their behavior to get them to do
+something that serves the public.</p>
+<p>
+So the goal is more written and published books which other people can
+then read.  And this is believed to contribute to increased literary
+activity, increased writing about science and other fields, and
+society then learns through this.  That's the purpose to be served.
+The creation of private monopolies was a means to an end only, and the
+end is a public end.</p>
+<p>
+Now copyright in the age of the printing press was fairly painless
+because it was an industrial regulation.  It  restricted only the
+activities of publishers and authors.  Well, in some strict sense, the
+poor people who copied books by hand may have been infringing
+copyright, too.  But nobody ever tried to enforce copyright against
+them because it was understood as an industrial regulation.</p>
+<p>
+Copyright in the age of the printing press was also easy to enforce
+because it had to be enforced only where there was a publisher, and
+publishers, by their nature, make themselves known.  If you're trying
+to sell books, you've got to tell people where to come to buy them.
+You don't have to go into everybody's house to enforce copyright.</p>
+<p>
+And, finally, copyright may have been a beneficial system in that
+context.  Copyright in the U.S. is considered by legal scholars as a
+trade, a bargain between the public and authors.  The public trades
+away some of its natural rights to make copies, and in exchange gets
+the benefit of more books' being written and published.</p>
+<p>
+Now, is this an advantageous trade?  Well, when the general public
+can't make copies because they can only be efficiently made on
+printing presses &mdash; and most people don't own printing presses
+&mdash; the result is that the general public is trading away a
+freedom it is unable to exercise, a freedom that is of no practical
+value.  So if you have something that is a byproduct of your life and
+it's useless and you have the opportunity to exchange it for something
+else of any value, you're gaining.  So that's why copyright may have
+been an advantageous trade for the public in that time.</p>
+<p>
+But the context is changing, and that has to change our ethical
+evaluation of copyright.  Now the basic principles of ethics are not
+changed by advances in technology; they're too fundamental to be
+touched by such contingencies.  But our decision about any specific
+question is a matter of the consequences of the alternatives
+available, and the consequences of a given choice may change when the
+context changes.  That is what is happening in the area of copyright
+law because the age of the printing press is coming to an end, giving
+way gradually to the age of the computer networks.</p>
+<p>
+Computer networks and digital information technology are bringing us
+back to a world more like the ancient world where anyone who can read
+and use the information can also copy it and can make copies about as
+easily as anyone else could make them.  They are perfect copies and
+they're just as good as the copies anyone else could make.  So the
+centralization and economy of scale introduced by the printing press
+and similar technologies is going away.</p>
+<p>
+And this changing context changes the way copyright law works.  You
+see, copyright law no longer acts as an industrial regulation; it is
+now a Draconian restriction on a general public.  It used to be a
+restriction on publishers for the sake of authors.  Now, for practical
+purposes, it's a restriction on a public for the sake of publishers.
+Copyright used to be fairly painless and uncontroversial.  It didn't
+restrict the general public.  Now that's not true.  If you have a
+computer, the publishers consider restricting you to be their highest
+priority.  Copyright was easy to enforce because it was a restriction
+only on publishers who were easy to find and what they published was
+easy to see.  Now the copyright is a restriction on each and everyone
+of you.  To enforce it requires surveillance &mdash; an intrusion
+&mdash; and harsh punishments, and we are seeing these being enacted
+into law in the U.S. and other countries.</p>
+<p>
+And copyright used to be, arguably, an advantageous trade for the
+public to make because the public was trading away freedoms it
+couldn't exercise.  Well, now it can exercise these freedoms.  What do
+you do if you have been producing a byproduct which was of no use to
+you and you were in the habit of trading it away and then, all of a
+sudden, you discover a use for it?  You can actually consume it, use
+it.  What do you do?  You don't trade at all; you keep some.  And
+that's what the public would naturally want to do.  
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>That's what the
+public does whenever it's given a chance to voice its preference; it
+keeps some of this freedom and exercises it.  Napster is a big example
+of that, the public deciding to exercise the freedom to copy instead
+of giving it up.  So the natural thing for us to do to make copyright
+law fit today's circumstances is to reduce the amount of copyright
+power that copyright owners get, to reduce the amount of restriction
+that they place on the public and to increase the freedom that the
+public retains.</p>
+<p>
+But this is not what the publishers want to do.  What they want to do
+is exactly the opposite.  They wish to increase copyright powers to
+the point where they can remain firmly in control of all use of
+information.  This has led to laws that have given an unprecedented
+increase in the powers of copyright.  Freedoms that the public used to
+have in the age of the printing press are being taken away.</p>
+<p>
+For instance, let's look at e-books.  There's a tremendous amount of
+hype about e-books; you can hardly avoid it.  I took a flight in
+Brazil and in the in-flight magazine, there was an article saying that
+maybe it would take 10 or 20 years before we all switched to e-books.
+Clearly, this kind of campaign comes from somebody paying for it.  Now
+why are they doing that?  I think I know.  The reason is that e-books
+are the opportunity to take away some of the residual freedoms that
+readers of printed books have always had and still have &mdash; the
+freedom, for instance, to lend a book to your friend or borrow it from
+the public library or sell a copy to a used bookstore or buy a copy
+anonymously, without putting a record in the database of who bought
+that particular book.  And maybe even the right to read it twice.</p>
+<p>
+These are freedoms that the publishers would like to take away, but
+they can't do this for printed books because that would be too obvious
+a power-grab and would raise an outcry. So they have found an indirect
+strategy:  First, they obtain the legislation to take away these
+freedoms for e-books when there are no e-books; so there's no
+controversy.  There are no pre-existing users of e-books who are
+accustomed to their freedoms and will defend them.  That they obtained
+with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998.  Then they
+introduce e-books and gradually get everybody to switch from printed
+books to e-books and eventually the result is, readers have lost these
+freedoms without ever having an instant when those freedoms were being
+taken away and when they might have fought back to retain them.</p>
+<p>
+We see at the same time efforts to take away people's freedom in using
+other kinds of published works.  For instance, movies that are on DVDs
+are published in an encrypted format that used to be secret &mdash; it
+was meant to be secret &mdash; and the only way the movie companies
+would tell you the format, so that you could make a DVD player, was if
+you signed a contract to build certain restrictions into the player,
+with the result that the public would be stopped even from fully
+exercising their legal rights.  Then a few clever programmers in
+Europe figured out the format of DVDs and they wrote a free software
+package that would read a DVD.  This made it possible to use free
+software on top of the GNU+Linux operating system to watch the DVD
+that you had bought, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.  You
+ought to be able to do that with free software.</p>
+<p>
+But the movie companies objected and they went to court.  You see, the
+movie companies used to make a lot of films where there was a mad
+scientist and somebody was saying, &ldquo;But, Doctor, there are some
+things Man was not meant to know.&rdquo; They must have watched their
+own films too much because they came to believe that the format of
+DVDs is something that Man was not meant to know.  And they obtained a
+ruling for total censorship of the software for playing DVDs.  Even
+making a link to a site where this information is legally available
+outside the U.S. has been prohibited.  An appeal has been made against
+this ruling.  I signed a friend-of-the-court brief in that appeal, I'm
+proud to say, although I'm playing a fairly small role in that
+particular battle.</p>
+<p>
+The U.S. government intervened directly on the other side.  This is
+not surprising when you consider why the Digital Millennium Copyright
+Act was passed in the first place.  The reason is the campaign finance
+system that we have in the U.S., which is essentially legalized
+bribery where the candidates are bought by business before they even
+get elected.  And, of course, they know who their master is &mdash;
+they know whom they're working for &mdash; and they pass the laws to
+give business more power.</p>
+<p>
+What will happen with that particular battle, we don't know.  But
+meanwhile Australia has passed a similar law and Europe is almost
+finished adopting one; so the plan is to leave no place on earth where
+this information can be made available to people.  But the U.S.
+remains the world leader in trying to stop the public from
+distributing information that's been published.</p>
+<p>
+The U.S. though is not the first country to make a priority of this.
+The Soviet Union treated it as very important.  There this
+unauthorized copying and redistribution was known as Samizdat and to
+stamp it out, they developed a series of methods: First, guards
+watching every piece of copying equipment to check what people were
+copying to prevent forbidden copying.  Second, harsh punishments for
+anyone caught doing forbidden copying. You could be sent to Siberia.
+Third, soliciting informers, asking everyone to rat on their neighbors
+and co-workers to the information police.  Fourth, collective
+responsibility &mdash; You!  You're going to watch that group!  If I
+catch any of them doing forbidden copying, you are going to prison.
+So watch them hard.  And, fifth, propaganda, starting in childhood to
+convince everyone that only a horrible enemy of the people would ever
+do this forbidden copying.</p>
+<p>
+The U.S. is using all of these measures now.  First, guards watching
+copying equipment.  Well, in copy stores, they have human guards to
+check what you copy.  But human guards to watch what you copy in your
+computer would be too expensive; human labor is too expensive.  So
+they have robot guards.  That's the purpose of the Digital Millennium
+Copyright Act.  This software goes in your computer; it's the only way
+you can access certain data and it stops you from copying.</p>
+<p>
+There's a plan now to introduce this software into every hard disk, so
+that there could be files on your hard disk that you can't even access
+except by getting permission from some network server to access the
+file.  And to bypass this software or even tell other people how to
+bypass it is a crime.</p>
+<p>
+Second, harsh punishments.  A few years ago, if you made copies of
+something and handed them out to your friends just to be helpful, this
+was not a crime; it had never been a crime in the U.S.  Then they made
+it a felony, so you could be put in prisons for years for sharing with
+your neighbor.</p>
+<p>
+Third, informers.  Well, you may have seen the ads on TV, the ads in
+the Boston subways asking people to rat on their co-workers to the
+information police, which officially is called the Software Publishers
+Association.</p>
+<p>
+And fourth, collective responsibility.  In the U.S., this has been
+done by conscripting Internet service providers, making them legally
+responsible for everything their customers post.  The only way they
+can avoid always being held responsible is if they have an invariable
+procedure to disconnect or remove the information within two weeks
+after a complaint.  Just a few days ago, I heard that a clever protest
+site criticizing City Bank for some of its nasty policies was
+disconnected in this way.  Nowadays, you don't even get your day in
+court; your site just gets unplugged.</p>
+<p>
+And, finally, propaganda, starting in childhood.  That's what the word
+&ldquo;pirate&rdquo; is used for.  If you'll think back a few years,
+the term &ldquo;pirate&rdquo; was formerly applied to publishers that
+didn't pay the author.  But now it's been turned completely around.
+It's now applied to members of the public who escape from the control
+of the publisher.  It's being used to convince people that only a
+nasty enemy of the people would ever do this forbidden copying.  It
+says that &ldquo;sharing with your neighbor is the moral equivalent of
+attacking a ship.&rdquo; I hope that you don't agree with that and if
+you don't, I hope you will refuse to use the word in that way.</p>
+<p>
+So the publishers are purchasing laws to give themselves more power.
+In addition, they're also extending the length of time the copyright
+lasts.  The U.S. Constitution says that copyright must last for a
+limited time, but the publishers want copyright to last forever.
+However, getting a constitutional amendment would be rather difficult,
+so they found an easier way that achieves the same result.  Every 20
+years they retroactively extend copyright by 20 years.  So the result
+is, at any given time, copyright nominally lasts for a certain period
+and any given copyright will nominally expire some day.  But that
+expiration will never be reached because every copyright will be
+extended by 20 years every 20 years; thus no work will ever go into
+the public domain again.  This has been called &ldquo;perpetual
+copyright on the installment plan.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+The law in 1998 that extended copyright by 20 years is known as the
+&ldquo;Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act&rdquo; because one of the
+main sponsors of this law was Disney.  Disney realized that the
+copyright on Mickey Mouse was going to expire, and they don't want
+that to ever happen because they make a lot of money from that
+copyright.</p>
+<p>
+Now the original title of this talk was supposed to be
+&ldquo;Copyright and Globalization.&rdquo; If you look at
+globalization, what you see is that it's carried out by a number of
+policies which are done in the name of economic efficiency or
+so-called free-trade treaties, which really are designed to give
+business power over laws and policies.  They're not really about free
+trade.  They're about a transfer of power: removing the power to
+decide laws from the citizens of any country who might conceivably
+consider their own interests and giving that power to businesses who
+will not consider the interests of those citizens.</p>
+<p>
+Democracy is the problem in their view, and these treaties are
+designed to put an end to the problem.  For instance,
+<abbr title="North American Free Trade Agreement">NAFTA</abbr>
+actually contains provisions, I believe, allowing companies to sue
+another government to get rid of a law that they believe is
+interfering with their profits in the other country.  So foreign
+companies have more power than citizens of the country.</p>
+<p>
+There are attempts being made to extend this
+beyond <abbr>NAFTA</abbr>.  For instance, this is one of the goals of
+the so-called free trade area of the Americas, to extend this
+principle to all the countries in South America and the Caribbean as
+well, and the multilateral agreement on investment was intended to
+spread it to the whole world.</p>
+<p>
+One thing we've seen in the '90s is that these treaties begin to
+impose copyright throughout the world, and in more powerful and
+restrictive ways.  These treaties are not free-trade treaties.
+They're actually corporate-controlled trade treaties being used to
+give corporations control over world trade, in order to eliminate free
+trade.</p>
+<p>
+When the U.S. was a developing country in the 1800s, the U.S. did not
+recognize foreign copyrights.  This was a decision made carefully, and
+it was an intelligent decision.  It was acknowledged that for the U.S.
+to recognize foreign copyrights would just be disadvantageous, that it
+would suck money out and wouldn't do much good.</p>
+<p>
+The same logic would apply today to developing countries but the U.S.
+has sufficient power to force them to go against their interests.
+Actually, it's a mistake to speak of the interests of countries in
+this context.  In fact, I'm sure that most of you have heard about the
+fallacy of trying to judge the public interest by adding up
+everybody's wealth.  If working Americans lost $1 billion and Bill
+Gates gained $2 billion, would Americans generally be better off?
+Would this be good for America?  Or if you look only at the total, it
+looks like it's good.  However, this example really shows that the
+total is the wrong way to judge because Bill Gates really doesn't need
+another $2 billion, but the loss of the $1 billion by other people who
+don't have as much to start with might be painful.  
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>Well, in a
+discussion about any of these trade treaties, when you hear people
+talk about the interests of this country or that country, what they're
+doing, within each country, is adding up everybody's income.  The rich
+people and the poor people are being added up.  So it's actually an
+excuse to apply that same fallacy to get you to ignore the effect on
+the distribution of wealth within the country and whether the treaty
+is going to make that more uneven, as it has done in the U.S.</p>
+<p>
+So it's really not the U.S. interest that is being served by enforcing
+copyright around the world.  It's the interests of certain business
+owners, many of whom are in the U.S. and some of whom are in other
+countries.  It doesn't, in any sense, serve the public interest.</p>
+<p>
+But what would make sense to do?  If we believe in the goal of
+copyright stated, for instance in the U.S. Constitution, the goal of
+promoting progress, what would be intelligent policies to use in the
+age of the computer network?  Clearly, instead of increasing copyright
+powers, we have to pull them back so as to give the general public a
+certain domain of freedom where they can make use of the benefits of
+digital technology, make use of their computer networks.  But how far
+should that go?  That's an interesting question because I don't think
+we should necessarily abolish copyright totally.  
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>The idea of trading
+some freedoms for more progress might still be an advantageous trade
+at a certain level, even if traditional copyright gives up too much
+freedom.  But in order to think about this intelligently, the first
+thing we have to recognize is, there's no reason to make it totally
+uniform.  There's no reason to insist on making the same deal for all
+kinds of work.</p>
+<p>
+In fact, that already isn't the case because there are a lot of
+exceptions for music.  Music is treated very differently under
+copyright law.  But the arbitrary insistence on uniformity is used by
+the publishers in a certain clever way.  They pick some peculiar
+special case and they make an argument that, in that special case, it
+would be advantageous to have this much copyright.  And then they say
+that for uniformity's sake, there has to be this much copyright for
+everything.  So, of course, they pick the special case where they can
+make the strongest argument, even if it's a rather rare special case
+and not really very important overall.</p>
+<p>
+But maybe we should have that much copyright for that particular
+special case.  We don't have to pay the same price for everything we
+buy.  A thousand dollars for a new car might be a very good deal.  A
+thousand dollars for a container of milk is a horrible deal.  You
+wouldn't pay the special price for everything you buy in other areas
+of life.  Why do it here?</p>
+<p>
+So we need to look at different kinds of works, and I'd like to
+propose a way of doing this.</p>
+<p>
+This includes recipes, computer programs, manuals and textbooks,
+reference works like dictionaries and encyclopedias.  For all these
+functional works, I believe that the issues are basically the same as
+they are for software and the same conclusions apply.  People should
+have the freedom even to publish a modified version because it's very
+useful to modify functional works.  People's needs are not all the
+same.  If I wrote this work to do the job I think needs doing, your
+idea as a job you want to do may be somewhat different.  So you want
+to modify this work to do what's good for you.  
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>At that point, there
+may be other people who have similar needs to yours, and your modified
+version might be good for them.  Everybody who cooks knows this and
+has known this for hundreds of years.  It's normal to make copies of
+recipes and hand them out to other people, and it's also normal to
+change a recipe.  If you change the recipe and cook it for your
+friends and they like eating it, they might ask you, &ldquo;Could I
+have the recipe?&rdquo; Then maybe you'll write down your version and
+give them copies.  That is exactly the same thing that we much later
+started doing in the free-software community.</p>
+<p id="opinions">
+So that's one class of work.   The second class of work is works whose
+purpose is to say what certain people think.  Talking about those
+people is their purpose.  This includes, say, memoirs, essays of
+opinion, scientific papers, offers to buy and sell, catalogues of
+goods for sale.  The whole point of those works is that they tell you
+what somebody thinks or what somebody saw or what somebody believes.
+To modify them is to misrepresent the authors; so modifying these
+works is not a socially useful activity.   And so verbatim copying is
+the only thing that people really need to be allowed to do.</p>
+<p>
+The next question is: Should people have the right to do commercial
+verbatim copying?  Or is non-commercial enough?  You see, these are
+two different activities we can distinguish, so that we can consider
+the questions separately &mdash; the right to do non-commercial
+verbatim copying and the right to do commercial verbatim copying.
+Well, it might be a good compromise policy to have copyright cover
+commercial verbatim copying but allow everyone the right to do
+non-commercial verbatim copying.  This way, the copyright on the
+commercial verbatim copying, as well as on all modified versions
+&mdash; only the author could approve a modified version &mdash; would
+still provide the same revenue stream that it provides now to fund the
+writing of these works, to whatever extent it does.</p>
+<p>
+By allowing the non-commercial verbatim copying, it means the
+copyright no longer has to intrude into everybody's home.  It becomes
+an industrial regulation again, easy to enforce and painless, no
+longer requiring draconian punishments and informers for the sake of
+its enforcement.  So we get most of the benefit &mdash; and avoid most
+of the horror &mdash; of the current system.</p>
+<p>
+The third category of works is aesthetic or entertaining works, where
+the most important thing is just the sensation of looking at the
+work.  Now for these works, the issue of modification is a very
+difficult one because on the one hand, there is the idea that these
+works reflect the vision of an artist and to change them is to mess up
+that vision.  On the other hand, you have the fact that there is the
+folk process, where a sequence of people modifying a work can
+sometimes produce a result that is extremely rich.  Even when you have
+artists' producing the works, borrowing from previous works is often
+very useful.  Some of Shakespeare's plays used a story that was taken
+from some other play.  If today's copyright laws had been in effect
+back then, those plays would have been illegal.  
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>So it's a hard
+question what we should do about publishing modified versions of an
+aesthetic or an artistic work, and we might have to look for further
+subdivisions of the category in order to solve this problem.  For
+example, maybe computer game scenarios should be treated one way;
+maybe everybody should be free to publish modified versions of them.
+But perhaps a novel should be treated differently; perhaps for that,
+commercial publication should require an arrangement with the original
+author.</p>
+<p>
+Now if commercial publication of these aesthetic works is covered by
+copyright, that will give most of the revenue stream that exists today
+to support the authors and musicians, to the limited extent that the
+present system supports them, because it does a very bad job.  So that
+might be a reasonable compromise, just as in the case of the works
+which represent certain people.</p>
+<p>
+If we look ahead to the time when the age of the computer networks
+will have fully begun, when we're past this transitional stage, we can
+envision another way for the authors to get money for their work.
+Imagine that we have a digital cash system that enables you to get
+money for your work.  
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>Imagine that we have a digital cash system that
+enables you to send somebody else money through the Internet; this can
+be done in various ways using encryption, for instance.  And imagine
+that verbatim copying of all these aesthetic works is permitted.  But
+they're written in such a way that when you are playing one or reading
+one or watching one, a box appears on the side of your screen that
+says, &ldquo;Click here to send a dollar to the author,&rdquo; or the
+musician or whatever.  And it just sits there; it doesn't get in your
+way; it's on the side.  It doesn't interfere with you, but it's there,
+reminding you that it's a good thing to support the writers and the
+musicians.</p>
+<p>
+So if you love the work that you're reading or listening to,
+eventually you're going to say, &ldquo;Why shouldn't I give these
+people a dollar?  It's only a dollar.  What's that?  I won't even miss
+it.&rdquo; And people will start sending a dollar.  The good thing
+about this is that it makes copying the ally of the authors and
+musicians.  When somebody e-mails a friend a copy, that friend might
+send a dollar, too.  If you really love it, you might send a dollar
+more than once and that dollar is more than they're going to get today
+if you buy the book or buy the CD because they get a tiny fraction of
+the sale.  The same publishers that are demanding total power over the
+public in the name of the authors and musicians are giving those
+authors and musicians the shaft all the time.</p>
+<p>
+I recommend you read Courtney Love's article in &ldquo;Salon&rdquo;
+magazine, an article about pirates that plan to use musicians' work
+without paying them.  These pirates are the record companies that pay
+musicians 4% of the sales figures, on the average.  Of course, the
+very successful musicians have more clout.  They get more than 4% of
+their large sales figures, which means that the great run of musicians
+who have a record contract get less than 4% of their small sales
+figures.</p>
+<p>
+Here's the way it works: The record company spends money on publicity
+and they consider this expenditure as an advance to the musicians,
+although the musicians never see it.  So nominally when you buy a CD,
+a certain fraction of that money is going to the musicians, but really
+it isn't.  Really, it's going to pay back the publicity expenses, and
+only if the musicians are very successful do they ever see any of that
+money.</p>
+<p>
+The musicians, of course, sign their record contracts because they
+hope they're going to be one of those few who strike it rich.  So
+essentially a rolling lottery is being offered to the musicians to
+tempt them.  Although they're good at music, they may not be good at
+careful, logical reasoning to see through this trap.  So they sign and
+then probably all they get is publicity.  Well, why don't we give them
+publicity in a different way, not through a system that's based on
+restricting the public and a system of the industrial complex that
+saddles us with lousy music that's easy to sell.  Instead, why not
+make the listener's natural impulse to share the music they love the
+ally of the musicians?  If we have this box that appears in the player
+as a way to send a dollar to the musicians, then the computer networks
+could be the mechanism for giving the musicians this publicity, the
+same publicity which is all they get from record contracts now.</p>
+<p>
+We have to recognize that the existing copyright system does a lousy
+job of supporting musicians, just as lousy as world trade does of
+raising living standards in the Philippines and China.  You have these
+enterprise zones where everyone works in a sweatshop and all of the
+products are made in sweatshops.  I knew that globalization was a very
+inefficient way of raising living standards of people overseas.  Say,
+an American is getting paid $20 an hour to make something and you give
+that job to a Mexican who is getting paid maybe six dollars a day,
+what has happened here is that you've taken a large amount of money
+away from an American worker, given a tiny fraction, like a few
+percents, to a Mexican worker and given back the rest  to the
+company.  So if your goal is to raise the living standards of Mexican
+workers, this is a lousy way to do it.</p>
+<p>
+It's interesting to see how the same phenomenon is going on in the
+copyright industry, the same general idea.  In the name of these
+workers who certainly deserve something, you propose measures that
+give them a tiny bit and really mainly prop up the power of
+corporations to control our lives.</p>
+<p>
+If you're trying to replace a very good system, you have to work very
+hard to come up with a better alternative.  If you know that the
+present system is lousy, it's not so hard to find a better
+alternative; the standard of comparison today is very low.  We must
+always remember that when we consider issues of copyright policy.</p>
+<p>
+So I think I've said most of what I want to say.  I'd like to mention
+that tomorrow is Phone-In Sick Day in Canada.  Tomorrow is the
+beginning of a summit to finish negotiating the free trade area of the
+Americas to try to extend corporate power throughout additional
+countries, and a big protest is being planned for Quebec.  We've seen
+extreme methods being used to smash this protest.  A lot of Americans
+are being blocked from entering Canada through the border that they're
+supposed to be allowed to enter through at any time.  <span 
class="gnun-split"></span>On the flimsiest
+of excuses, a wall has been built around the center of Quebec to be
+used as a fortress to keep protesters out.  We've seen a large number
+of different dirty tricks used against public protest against these
+treaties.  So whatever democracy remains to us after government powers
+have been taken away from democratically elected governors and given
+to businesses and to unelected international bodies, whatever is left
+after that may not survive the suppression of public protest against
+it.</p>
+<p>
+I've dedicated 17 years of my life to working on free software and
+allied issues.  I didn't do this because I think it's the most
+important political issue in the world.  I did it because it was the
+area where I saw I had to use my skills to do a lot of good.  But
+what's happened is that the general issues of politics have evolved,
+and the biggest political issue in the world today is resisting the
+tendency to give business power over the public and governments.  I
+see free software and the allied questions for other kinds of
+information that I've been discussing today as one part of that major
+issue.  So I've indirectly found myself working on that issue.  I hope
+I contribute something to the effort.</p>
+<p>
+<b>RESPONSE</b>:</p>
+<p>
+<b>THORBURN</b>:   We'll turn to the audience for questions and comments in a
+moment.  But let me offer a brief general response.  It seems to me
+that the strongest and most important practical guidance that Stallman
+offers us has two key elements.  One is the  recognition that old
+assumptions about copyright, old usages of copyright are
+inappropriate; they are challenged or undermined by the advent of the
+computer and computer networks.  That may be obvious, but it is
+essential.</p>
+<p>
+Second is the recognition that the digital era requires us to
+reconsider how we distinguish and weigh forms of intellectual and
+creative labor.  Stallman is surely right that certain kinds of
+intellectual enterprises justify more copyright protection than
+others.  Trying to identify systematically these different kinds or
+levels of copyright protection seems to me a valuable way to engage
+with the problems for intellectual work posed by the advent of the
+computer.</p>
+<p>
+But I think I detect another theme that lies beneath what Stallman has
+been saying and that isn't really directly about computers at all, but
+more broadly about questions of democratic authority and the power
+that government and corporations increasingly exercise over our lives.
+This populist and anti-corporate side to Stallman's discourse is
+nourishing but also reductive, potentially simplifying.  And it is
+also perhaps overly idealistic.  For example, how would a novelist or
+a poet or a songwriter or a musician or the author of an academic
+textbook survive in this brave new world where people are encouraged
+but not required to pay authors.  In other words, it seems to me, the
+gap between existing practice and the visionary possibilities Stallman
+speculates about is still immensely wide.</p>
+<p>
+So I'll conclude by asking if Stallman would like to expand a bit on
+certain aspects of his talk and, specifically, whether he has further
+thoughts about the way in which what we'll call &ldquo;traditional
+creators&rdquo; would be protected under his copyright system.</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>: First of all, I have to point out that we shouldn't
+use the term &ldquo;protection&rdquo; to describe what copyright does.
+Copyright restricts people.  The term &ldquo;protection&rdquo; is a
+propaganda term of the copyright-owning businesses.  The term
+&ldquo;protection&ldquo; means stopping something from being somehow
+destroyed.  Well, I don't think a song is destroyed if there are more
+copies of it being played more.  I don't think that a novel is
+destroyed if more people are reading copies of it, either.  So I won't
+use that word.  I think it leads people to identify with the wrong
+party.</p>
+<p>
+Also, it's a very bad idea to think about intellectual property for
+two reasons: First, it prejudges the most fundamental question in the
+area which is: How should these things be treated and should they be
+treated as a kind of property?  To use the term &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo; to describe the area is to presuppose the answer is
+&ldquo;yes,&rdquo; that that's the way to treat things, not some other
+way.</p>
+<p>
+Second, it encourages over-generalization.  Intellectual property is a
+catch-all for several different legal systems with independent origins
+such as, copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets and some other
+things as well.  They are almost completely different; they have
+nothing in common.  But people who hear the term &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo; are led to a false picture where they imagine that
+there's a general principle of intellectual property that was applied
+to specific areas, so they assume that these various areas of the law
+are similar.  This leads not only to confused thinking about what is
+right to do, it leads people to fail to understand what the law
+actually says because they suppose that the copyright law and patent
+law and trademark law are similar, when, in fact, they are totally
+different.</p>
+<p>
+So if you want to encourage careful thinking and clear understanding
+of what the law says, avoid the term &ldquo;intellectual
+property.&rdquo; Talk about copyrights.  Or talk about patents.  Or
+talk about trademarks or whichever subject you want to talk about.
+But don't talk about intellectual property.  Opinion about
+intellectual property almost has to be a foolish one.  I don't have an
+opinion about intellectual property.  I have opinions about copyrights
+and patents and trademarks, and they're different.  I came to them
+through different thought processes because those systems of law are
+totally different.</p>
+<p>
+Anyway, I made that digression, but it's terribly important.</p>
+<p>
+So let me now get to the point.  Of course, we can't see now how well
+it would work, whether it would work to ask people to pay money
+voluntarily to the authors and musicians they love.  One thing that's
+obvious is that how well such a system would work is proportional to
+the number of people who are participating in the network, and that
+number, we know, is going to increase by an order of magnitude over a
+number of years.  If we tried it today, it might fail, and that
+wouldn't prove anything because with ten times as many people
+participating, it might work.</p>
+<p>
+The other thing is, we do not have this digital cash payment system;
+so we can't really try it today.  You could try to do something a
+little bit like it.  There are services you can sign up for where you
+can pay money to someone &mdash; things like PayPal.  But before you
+can pay anyone through PayPal, you have to go through a lot of
+rigmarole and give them personal information about you, and they
+collect records of whom you pay.  Can you trust them not to misuse
+that?</p>
+<p>
+So the dollar might not discourage you, but the trouble it takes to
+pay might discourage you.  The whole idea of this is that it should be
+as easy as falling off a log to pay when you get the urge, so that
+there's nothing to discourage you except the actual amount of money.
+And if that's small enough, why should it discourage you.  We know,
+though, that fans can really love musicians, and we know that
+encouraging fans to copy and redistribute the music has been done by
+some bands that were, and are, quite successful like the
+&ldquo;Grateful Dead.&rdquo; They didn't have any trouble making a
+living from their music because they encouraged fans to tape it and
+copy the tapes.  They didn't even lose their record sales.</p>
+<p>
+We are gradually moving from the age of the printing press to the age
+of the computer network, but it's not happening in a day.  People are
+still buying lots of records, and that will probably continue for many
+years &mdash; maybe forever.  As long as that continues, simply having
+copyrights that still apply to commercial sales of records ought to do
+about as good a job of supporting musicians as it does today.  Of
+course, that's not very good, but, at least, it won't get any
+worse.</p>
+<p>
+<b>DISCUSSION</b>:</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>:  [A comment and question about free downloading and
+about Stephen King's attempt to market one of his novels serially over
+the web.]</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>: Yes, it's interesting to know what he did and what
+happened.  When I first heard about that, I was elated.  I thought,
+maybe he was taking a step towards a world that is not based on trying
+to maintain an iron grip on the public.  Then I saw that he had
+actually written to ask people to pay.  To explain what he did, he was
+publishing a novel as a serial, by installments, and he said,
+&ldquo;If I get enough money, I'll release more.&rdquo; But the
+request he wrote was hardly a request.  It brow-beat the reader.  It
+said, &ldquo;If you don't pay, then you're evil.  And if there are too
+many of you who are evil, then I'm just going to stop writing
+this.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+Well, clearly, that's not the way to make the public feel like sending
+you money.  You've got to make them love you, not fear you.</p>
+<p>
+<b>SPEAKER</b>: The details were that he required a certain percentage
+&mdash; I don't know the exact percentage, around 90% sounds correct
+&mdash; of people to send a certain amount of money, which, I believe,
+was a dollar or two dollars, or somewhere in that order of magnitude.
+You had to type in your name and your e-mail address and some other
+information to get to download it and if that percentage of people was
+not reached after the first chapter, he said that he would not release
+another chapter.  It was very antagonistic to the public downloading
+it.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>:  Isn't the scheme where there's no copyright but people are
+asked to make voluntary donations open to abuse by people
+plagiarizing?</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>:  No.  That's not what I proposed.  Remember, I'm proposing
+that there should be copyright covering commercial distribution and
+permitting only verbatim redistribution non-commercially.  So anyone
+who modified it to put in a pointer to his website, instead of a
+pointer to the real author's website, would still be infringing the
+copyright and could be sued exactly as he could be sued today.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>:  I see.  So you're still imagining a world in which there is
+copyright?</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>:  Yes.  As I've said, for those kinds of works.  I'm not
+saying that everything should be permitted.  I'm proposing to reduce
+copyright powers, not abolish them.</p>
+<p>
+<b>THORBURN</b>: I guess one question that occurred to me while you
+were speaking, Richard, and, again, now when you're responding here to
+this question is why you don't consider the ways in which the
+computer, itself, eliminates the middle men completely &mdash; in the
+way that Stephen King refused to do &mdash; and might establish a
+personal relationship.</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>:  Well, they can and, in fact, this voluntary donation
+is one.</p>
+<p>
+<b>THORBURN</b>:  You think of that as not involving going through a
+publisher at all?</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>: Absolutely not.  I hope it won't, you see, because
+the publishers exploit the authors terribly.  When you ask the
+publishers' representatives about this, they say, &ldquo;Well, yes, if
+an author or if a band doesn't want to go through us, they shouldn't
+be legally required to go through us.&rdquo; But, in fact, they're
+doing their utmost to set it up so that will not be feasible.  For
+instance, they're proposing restricted copying media formats and in
+order to publish in these formats, you'll have to go through the big
+publishers because they won't tell anyone else how to do it.  So
+they're hoping for a world where the players will play these formats,
+and in order to get anything that you can play on those players, it'll
+have to come through the publishers.  
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>So, in fact, while there's no
+law against an author or a musician publishing directly, it won't be
+feasible.  There's also the lure of maybe hitting it rich.  They say,
+&ldquo;We'll publicize you and maybe you'll hit it as rich as the
+Beatles.&rdquo; Take your pick of some very successful group and, of
+course, only a tiny fraction of musicians are going to have that
+happen.  But they may be drawn by that into signing contracts that
+will lock them down forever.</p>
+<p>
+Publishers tend to be very bad at respecting their contracts with
+authors.  For instance, book contracts typically have said that if a
+book goes out of print, the rights revert to the author, and
+publishers have generally not been very good about living up to that
+clause.  They often have to be forced.  Well, what they're starting to
+do now is use electronic publication as an excuse to say that it's
+never going out of print; so they never have to give the rights back.
+Their idea is, when the author has no clout, get him to sign up and
+from then on, he has no power; it's only the publisher that has the
+power.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>:  Would it be good to have free licenses for various kinds of
+works that protect for every user the freedom to copy them in whatever
+is the appropriate way for that kind of work?</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>: Well, people are working on this.  But for non-functional
+works, one thing doesn't substitute for another.  Let's look at a
+functional kind of work, say, a word processor.  Well, if somebody
+makes a free word processor, you can use that; you don't need the
+nonfree word processors.  But I wouldn't say that one free song
+substitutes for all the nonfree songs or that a one free novel
+substitutes for all the nonfree novels.  For those kinds of works,
+it's different.   So what I think we simply have to do is to recognize
+that these laws do not deserve to be respected.  It's not wrong to
+share with your neighbor, and if anyone tries to tell you that you
+cannot share with your neighbor, you should not listen to him.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>:  With regard to the functional works, how do you, in your
+own thinking, balance out the need for abolishing the copyright with
+the need for economic incentives in order to have these functional
+works developed?</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>: Well, what we see is, first of all, that this
+economic incentive is a lot less necessary than people have been
+supposing.  Look at the free software movement where we have over
+100,000 part-time volunteers developing free software.  We also see
+that there are other ways to raise money for this which are not based
+on stopping the public from copying and modifying these works.  
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>That's
+the interesting lesson of the free software movement.  Aside from the
+fact that it gives you a way you can use a computer and keep your
+freedom to share and cooperate with other people, it also shows us
+that this negative assumption that people would never do these things
+unless they are given special powers to force people to pay them is
+simply wrong.  A lot of people will do these things.  Then if you look
+at, say, the writing of monographs which serve as textbooks in many
+fields of science except for the ones that are very basic, the authors
+are not making money out of that.  
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>We now have a free encyclopedia
+project which is, in fact, a commercial-free encyclopedia project, and
+it's making progress.  We had a project for a GNU encyclopedia but we
+merged it into the commercial project when they adopted our license.
+In January, they switched to the GNU Free Documentation License for
+all the articles in their encyclopedia.  So we said, &ldquo;Well,
+let's join forces with them and urge people to contribute to
+them.&rdquo; It's called &ldquo;Nupedia,&rdquo; and you can find a
+link to it, if you look at http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia.  So here
+we've extended the community development of a free base of useful
+knowledge from software to encyclopedia.  I'm pretty confident now
+that in all these areas of functional work, we don't need that
+economic incentive to the point where we have to mess up the use of
+these works.</p>
+<p>
+<b>THORBURN</b>:  Well, what about the other two categories?</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>: For the other two classes of work, I don't know.  I
+don't know whether people will write some day novels without worrying
+about whether they make money from it.  In a post-scarcity society, I
+guess they would.  Maybe what we need to do in order to reach the
+post-scarcity society is to get rid of the corporate control over the
+economy and the laws.  So, in effect, it's a chicken-or-the-egg
+problem, you know.  Which do we do first?  How do we get the world
+where people don't have to desperately get money except by removing
+the control by business?  And how can we remove the control by
+business except &mdash; Anyway, I don't know, but that's why I'm
+trying to propose first a compromise copyright system and, second, the
+voluntary payment supported by a compromise copyright system as a way
+to provide a revenue stream to the people who write those works.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>:  How would you really expect to implement this compromise
+copyright system under the chokehold of corporate interests on
+American politicians due to their campaign-finance system?</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>:  It beats me.  I wish I knew.  It's a terribly hard
+problem.  If I knew how to solve that problem, I would solve it and
+nothing in the world could make me prouder.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>:.  How do you fight the corporate control?  Because when you
+look at these sums of money going into corporate lobbying in the court
+case, it is tremendous.  I think the DECS case that you're talking
+about is costing something like a million-and-a-half dollars on the
+defense side.  Lord knows what it's costing on the corporate side.  Do
+you have any idea how to deal with these huge sums of money?</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>:  I have a suggestion.  If I were to suggest totally
+boycotting movies, I think people would ignore that suggestion.  They
+might consider it too radical.  So I would like to make a slightly
+different suggestion which comes to almost the same thing in the end,
+and that is, don't go to a movie unless you have some substantial
+reason to think it's good.  Now this will lead in practice to almost
+the same result as a total boycott of Hollywood movies.  In extension,
+it's almost the same but, in intention, it's very different.  Now I've
+noticed that many people go to movies for reasons that have nothing to
+do with whether they think the movies are good.  So if you change
+that, if you only go to a movie when you have some substantial reason
+to think it's good, you'll take away a lot of their money.</p>
+<p>
+<b>THORBURN</b>: One way to understand all of this discourse today, I
+think, is to recognize that whenever radical, potentially transforming
+technologies appear in society, there's a struggle over who controls
+them.  We today are repeating what has happened in the past.  So from
+this angle, there may not be a reason for despair, or even pessimism,
+about what may occur in the longer run.  But, in the shorter term,
+struggles over the control of text and images, over all forms of
+information are likely to be painful and extensive.  
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>For example, as a
+teacher of media, my access to images has been restricted in recent
+years in a way that had never been in place before.  If I write an
+essay in which I want to use still images, even from films, they are
+much harder to get permission to use, and the prices charged to use
+those still images are much higher &mdash; even when I make arguments
+about intellectual inquiry and the legal category of &ldquo;fair
+use.&rdquo; So I think, in this moment of extended transformation, the
+longer-term prospects may, in fact, not be as disturbing as what's
+happening in the shorter term.  But in any case, we need to understand
+the whole of our contemporary experience as a renewed version of a
+struggle over the control of technological resources that is a
+recurring principle of Western society.</p>
+<p>
+It's also essential to understand that the history of older
+technologies is itself a complicated matter.  The impact of the
+printing press in Spain, for example, is radically different from its
+impact in England or in France.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>: One of the things that bothers me when I hear
+discussions of copyright is that often they start off with, &ldquo;We
+want a 180-degree change.  We want to do away with any sorts of
+control.&rdquo; It seems to me that part of what lay under the three
+categories that were suggested is an acknowledgement that there is
+some wisdom to copyright.  Some of the critics of the way copyright is
+going now believe that, in fact, it ought to be backed up and function
+much more like patent and trademarks in terms of its duration.  I
+wonder if our speaker would comment on that as a strategy.</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>:  I agree that shortening the time span of copyright is a
+good idea.  There is absolutely no need in terms of encouraging
+publication for a possibility of copyrights' lasting as much as 150
+years, which, in some cases, it can under present law.  Now the
+companies were saying that a 75-year copyright on a work made for hire
+was not long enough to make possible the production of their works.
+I'd like to challenge those companies to present projected balance
+sheets for 75 years from now to back up that contention.  What they
+really wanted was just to be able to extend the copyrights on the old
+works, so that they can continue restricting the use of them.  But how
+you can encourage greater production of works in the 1920s by
+extending copyright today escapes me, unless they have a time machine
+somewhere.  Of course, in one of their movies, they had a time
+machine.  So maybe that's what affected their thinking.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>: Have you given thought to extending the concept of
+&ldquo;fair use,&rdquo; and are there any nuances there that you might
+care to lay out for us?</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>:  Well, the idea of giving everyone permission for
+non-commercial verbatim copying of two kinds of works, certainly, may
+be thought of as extending what fair use is.  It's bigger than what's
+fair use currently. If your idea is that the public trades away
+certain freedoms to get more progress, then you can draw the line at
+various, different places.  Which freedoms does the public trade away
+and which freedoms does the public keep?</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>:  To extend the conversation for just a moment, in certain
+entertainment fields, we have the concept of a public presentation.
+So, for example, copyright does not prevent us from singing Christmas
+carols seasonally but it prevents the public performance.  And I'm
+wondering if it might be useful to think about instead of expanding
+fair use to unlimited, non-commercial, verbatim copying, to something
+less than that but more than the present concept of fair use.</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>:  I used to think that that might be enough, and then Napster
+convinced me otherwise because Napster is used by its users for
+non-commercial, verbatim redistribution.  The Napster server, itself,
+is a commercial activity but the people who are actually putting
+things up are doing so non-commercially, and they could have done so
+on their websites just as easily.  The tremendous excitement about,
+interest in, and use of Napster shows that that's very useful.  So I'm
+convinced now that people should have the right to publicly
+non-commercially, redistributed, verbatim copies of everything.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>: One analogy that was recently suggested to me for the
+whole Napster question was the analogy of the public library.  I
+suppose some of you who have heard the Napster arguments have heard
+this analogy.  I'm wondering if you would comment on it.  The
+defenders of people who say Napster should continue and there
+shouldn't be restrictions on it sometimes say something like this:
+&ldquo;When folks go into the public library and borrow a book,
+they're not paying for it, and it can be borrowed dozens of times,
+hundreds of times, without any additional payment.  Why is Napster any
+different?&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>:  Well, it's not exactly the same.  But it should be pointed
+out that the publishers want to transform public libraries into
+pay-per-use, retail outlets.  So they're against public libraries.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>:  Can these ideas about copyright suggest any ideas for
+certain issues about patent law such as making cheap, generic drugs
+for use in Africa?</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>: No, there's absolutely no similarity.  The issues of
+patents are totally different from the issues of copyrights.  The idea
+that they have something to do with each other is one of the
+unfortunate consequences of using the term &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo; and encouraging people to try to lump these issues
+together because, as you've heard, I've been talking about issues in
+which the price of a copy is not the crucial thing.  But what's the
+crucial issue about making AIDS drugs for Africa?  It's the price,
+nothing but the price.</p>
+<p>
+Now the issue I've been talking about arises because digital
+information technology gives every user the ability to make copies.
+Well, there's nothing giving us all the ability to make copies of
+medicines.  I don't have the ability to copy some medicine that I've
+got.  In fact, nobody does; that's not how they're made.  Those
+medicines can only be made in expensive factories and they are made in
+expensive centralized factories, whether they're generic drugs or
+imported from the U.S.  Either way, they're going to be made in a
+small number of factories, and the issues are simply how much do they
+cost and are they available at a price that people in Africa can
+afford.</p>
+<p>
+So that's a tremendously important issue, but it's a totally different
+issue.  There's just one area where an issue arises with patents that
+is actually similar to these issues of freedom to copy, and that is in
+the area of agriculture.  Because there are certain patented things
+that can be copies, more or less &mdash; namely, living things.  They
+copy themselves when they reproduce.  It's not necessarily exact
+copying; they re-shuffle the genes.  But the fact is, farmers for
+millennia have been making use of this capacity of the living things
+they grow to copy themselves.  Farming is, basically, copying the
+things that you grew and you keep copying them every year.  When plant
+and animal varieties get patented, when genes are patented and used in
+them, the result is that farmers are being prohibited from doing
+this.</p>
+<p>
+There is a farmer in Canada who had a patented variety growing on his
+field and he said, &ldquo;I didn't do that deliberately.  The pollen
+blew, and the wind in those genes got into my stock of plants.&rdquo;
+And he was told that that doesn't matter; he has to destroy them
+anyway.  It was an extreme example of how much government can side
+with a monopolist.</p>
+<p>
+So I believe that, following the same principles that I apply to
+copying things on your computer, farmers should have an unquestioned
+right to save their seeds and breed their livestock.  Maybe you could
+have patents covering seed companies, but they shouldn't cover
+farmers.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>:  There's more to making a model successful than just the
+licensing.  Can you speak to that?</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>: Absolutely.  Well, you know, I don't know the
+answers.  But part of what I believe is crucial for developing free,
+functional information is idealism.  People have to recognize that
+it's important for this information to be free, that when the
+information is free, you can make full use of it.  When it's
+restricted, you can't.  You have to recognize that the nonfree
+information is an attempt to divide them and keep them helpless and
+keep them down.  Then they can get the idea, &ldquo;Let's work
+together to produce the information we want to use, so that it's not
+under the control of some powerful person who can dictate to us what
+we can do.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>
+This tremendously boosts it.  But I don't know how much it will work
+in various different areas, but I think that in the area of education,
+when you're looking for textbooks, I think I see a way it can be done.
+There are a lot of teachers in the world, teachers who are not at
+prestigious universities &mdash; maybe they're in high-school; maybe
+they're in college &mdash; where they don't write and publish a lot of
+things and there's not a tremendous demand for them.  But a lot of
+them are smart.  A lot of them know their subjects well and they could
+write textbooks about lots of subjects and share them with the world
+and receive a tremendous amount of appreciation from the people who
+will have learned from them.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>: That's what I proposed.  But the funny thing is, I do
+know the history of education.  That's what I do &mdash; educational,
+electronic media projects.  I couldn't find an example.  Do you know
+of one?</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>:  No, I don't.  I started proposing this free encyclopedia
+and learning resource a couple of years ago, and I thought it would
+probably take a decade to get things rolling.  Now we already have an
+encyclopedia that is rolling.  So things are going faster than I
+hoped.  I think what's needed is for a few people to start writing
+some free textbooks.  Write one about whatever is your favorite
+subject or write a fraction of one.  Write a few chapters of one and
+challenge other people to write the rest.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>:  Actually what I was looking for is something even more than
+that.  What's important in your kind of structure is somebody that
+creates an infrastructure to which everybody else can contribute.
+There isn't a K through 12 infrastructure out there in any place for a
+contribution for materials.</p>
+<p>
+I can get information from lots of places but it's not released under
+free licenses, so I can't use it to make a free textbook.</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>:  Actually, copyright doesn't cover the facts.  It only
+covers the way it's written.  So you can learn a field from anywhere
+and then write a textbook, and you can make that textbook free, if you
+want.</p>
+<p>
+<b>QUESTION</b>:  But I can't write by myself all the textbooks that a
+student needs going through school.</p>
+<p>
+<b>STALLMAN</b>: Well, it's true.  And I didn't write a whole, free
+operating system, either.  I wrote some pieces and invited other
+people to join me by writing other pieces.  So I set an example.  I
+said, &ldquo;I'm going in this direction.  Join me and we'll get
+there.&rdquo; And enough people joined in that we got there.  So if
+you think in terms of, how am I going to get this whole gigantic job
+done, it can be daunting.  So the point is, don't look at it that way.
+Think in terms of taking a step and realizing that after you've taken
+a step, other people will take more steps and, together, it will get
+the job done eventually.</p>
+<p>
+Assuming that humanity doesn't wipe itself out, the work we do today
+to produce the free educational infrastructure, the free learning
+resource for the world, that will be useful for as long as humanity
+exists.  If it takes 20 years to get it done, so what?  So don't think
+in terms of the size of the whole job.  Think in terms of the piece
+that you're going to do.  That will show people it can be done, and so
+others will do other pieces.</p>
+
+
+<hr />
+<blockquote id="fsfs"><p>This speech 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>.</p></blockquote>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org";>&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org";>&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</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:web-translators@gnu.org";>
+        &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</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 see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- 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 4.0.  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 &copy; 2001, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2020 Free Software 
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/04/09 15:32:30 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
+</body>
+</html>
reply via email to
[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]