[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy reevaluating-copyright.html
|
From: |
Therese Godefroy |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy reevaluating-copyright.html |
|
Date: |
Sun, 19 Sep 2021 11:16:32 -0400 (EDT) |
CVSROOT: /webcvs/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Therese Godefroy <th_g> 21/09/19 11:16:32
Modified files:
philosophy : reevaluating-copyright.html
Log message:
Reorganize references more logically (#1 = Oregon Lake Rev) & move
them to the end; add breadcrumbs; update to boilerplate 1.96;
give meaningful names to later notes; only list copyrightable years.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.35&r2=1.36
Patches:
Index: reevaluating-copyright.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html,v
retrieving revision 1.35
retrieving revision 1.36
diff -u -b -r1.35 -r1.36
--- reevaluating-copyright.html 18 Nov 2016 06:31:39 -0000 1.35
+++ reevaluating-copyright.html 19 Sep 2021 15:16:32 -0000 1.36
@@ -1,17 +1,20 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays laws copyright" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Reevaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/reevaluating-copyright.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>Reevaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail</h2>
-<pre>
- Reevaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail
- [Published in Oregon Law Review, Spring 1996]
-
- Richard Stallman
-</pre>
+<address class="byline">by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/";>Richard
+Stallman</a> <a href="#ft1"><sup>[1]</sup></a></address>
<p>The legal world is aware that digital information technology poses
“problems for copyright,” but has not traced these
@@ -20,12 +23,12 @@
publishers, understanding their own interest, have set forth a
proposal through the Clinton Administration to fix the
“problems” by deciding the conflict in their favor. This
-proposal, the Lehman White Paper <a href="#ft2">[2]</a>, was the
-principal focus of the “Innovation and the Information
-Environment” conference at the University of Oregon (November
+proposal, the Lehman White Paper,<a href="#ft2"><sup>[2]</sup></a> was the
+principal focus of the <cite>Innovation and the Information
+Environment</cite> conference at the University of Oregon (November
1995).</p>
-<p>John Perry Barlow <a href="#ft3">[3]</a>, the keynote speaker,
+<p>John Perry Barlow,<a href="#ft3"><sup>[3]</sup></a> the keynote speaker,
began the conference by telling us how the Greatful Dead recognized
and dealt with this conflict. They decided it would be wrong to
interfere with copying of their performances on tapes, or with
@@ -33,7 +36,7 @@
copyright for CD recordings of their music.</p>
<p>Barlow did not analyze the reasons for treating these media
-differently, and later Gary Glisson <a href="#ft4">[4]</a> criticized
+differently, and later Gary Glisson <a href="#ft4"><sup>[4]</sup></a>
criticized
Barlow's idea that the Internet is inexplicably unique and unlike
anything else in the world. He argued that we should be able to
determine the implications of the Internet for copyright policy by the
@@ -43,7 +46,7 @@
<p>Barlow suggested that our intuitions based on physical objects as
property do not transfer to information as property because
information is “abstract.” As Steven
-Winter <a href="#ft5">[5]</a> remarked, abstract property has existed
+Winter <a href="#ft5"><sup>[5]</sup></a> remarked, abstract property
has existed
for centuries. Shares in a company, commodity futures, and even paper
money, are forms of property that are more or less abstract. Barlow
and others who argue that information should be free do not reject
@@ -71,8 +74,8 @@
decisions</a> by analogy to physical object property, or even to older
intellectual property policies, is a mistake. Winter argued
persuasively that it is possible to make such analogies, to stretch
-our old concepts and apply them to new decisions <a href=
-"#ft6">[6]</a>. Surely this will reach some answer—but not a
+our old concepts and apply them to new decisions.<a href=
+"#ft6"><sup>[6]</sup></a> Surely this will reach some answer—but not a
good answer. Analogy is not a useful way of deciding what to buy or at
what price.</p>
@@ -89,7 +92,7 @@
<p>This also shows why Laurence Tribe's principle, that rights
concerning speech should not depend on the choice of
-medium<a href="#ft7">[7]</a>, is not applicable to copyright
+medium,<a href="#ft7"><sup>[7]</sup></a> is not applicable to copyright
decisions. Copyright is a bargain with the public, not a natural
right. Copyright policy issues are about which bargains benefit the
public, not about what rights publishers or readers are entitled
@@ -208,7 +211,7 @@
of collective responsibility, whereby a computer owner is required to
monitor and control the activities of all users, on pain of being
punished for actions in which he was not a participant but merely
-failed to actively prevent. Tim Sloan <a href="#ft8">[8]</a> pointed
+failed to actively prevent. Tim Sloan <a href="#ft8"><sup>[8]</sup></a>
pointed
out that this gives copyright owners a privileged status not accorded
to anyone else who might claim to be damaged by a computer user; for
example, no one proposes to punish the computer owner if he fails
@@ -221,16 +224,16 @@
<p>When the United States Constitution was drafted, the idea that
authors were entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed—and
-rejected <a href="#ft9">[9]</a>. Instead, the founders of our country
+rejected.<a href="#ft9"><sup>[9]</sup></a> Instead, the founders of our country
adopted a different idea of copyright, one which places the public
-first <a href="#ft10">[10]</a>. Copyright in the United States is
+first.<a href="#ft10"><sup>[10]</sup></a> Copyright in the United States is
supposed to exist for the sake of users; benefits for publishers and
even for authors are not given for the sake of those parties, but only
as an inducement to change their behavior. As the Supreme Court said
-in Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal: “The sole interest of the United
+in <cite>Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal</cite>: “The sole interest of the United
States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly
lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
-authors.” <a href="#ft11">[11]</a></p>
+authors.”<a href="#ft11"><sup>[11]</sup></a></p>
<p>Under the Constitution's view of copyright, if the public prefers
to be able to make copies in certain cases even if that means somewhat
@@ -250,12 +253,12 @@
<p>This error is so ingrained today that people who oppose new
copyright powers feel the need to do so by arguing that even authors
and publishers may be hurt by them. Thus, James
-Boyle <a href="#ft12">[12]</a> explains how a
+Boyle <a href="#ft12"><sup>[12]</sup></a> explains how a
strict <a href="#later-2">intellectual property system</a> can
interfere with writing new works. Jessica
-Litman <a href="#ft13">[13]</a> cites the copyright shelters which
+Litman <a href="#ft13"><sup>[13]</sup></a> cites the copyright shelters
which
historically allowed many new media to become popular. Pamela
-Samuelson <a href="#ft14">[14]</a> warns that the White Paper may
+Samuelson <a href="#ft14"><sup>[14]</sup></a> warns that the White
Paper may
block the development of “third-wave” information
industries by locking the world into the “second-wave”
economic model that fit the age of the printing press.</p>
@@ -275,7 +278,7 @@
to oppose the White Paper, for the sake of authors, libraries,
education, poor Americans, technological progress, economic
flexibility, and privacy concerns—all valid arguments, but
-concerned with side issues <a href="#ft15">[15]</a>. Conspicuously
+concerned with side issues.<a href="#ft15"><sup>[15]</sup></a> Conspicuously
absent from the list is the most important reason of all: that many
Americans (perhaps most) want to continue making copies. The DFC fails
to criticize the core goal of the White Paper, which is to give more
@@ -292,94 +295,103 @@
opportunity for the open flow of information can we ensure that the
public prevails.</p>
-<h3>ENDNOTES</h3>
+<h3 class="footnote">Later Notes</h3>
-<p id="ft2">[2] Informational Infrastructure Task
+<p id="later-1"><em>Intellectual property:</em>
+This article was part of the
+path that led me to recognize the <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">
+bias and confusion in the term “intellectual
+property”</a>. Today I believe that term should never be used
+under any circumstances.</p>
+
+<p id="later-2"><em>Intellectual property system:</em>
+Here I fell into the
+fashionable error of writing “intellectual property” when
+what I meant was just “copyright.” This is like writing
+“Europe” when you mean “France”—it
+causes confusion that is easy to avoid.</p>
+
+<div class="infobox">
+<hr />
+<ol>
+<li id="ft1">Published in <cite>Oregon Law Review</cite>, Spring 1996.</li>
+
+<li id="ft2">Informational Infrastructure Task
Force, Intellectual Property and the National Information
-Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual
-Property Rights (1995).</p>
+Infrastructure: <cite>The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual
+Property Rights</cite> (1995).</li>
-<p id="ft3">[3] John Perry Barlow, Remarks at the
-Innovation and the Information Environment Conference (Nov.
+<li id="ft3">John Perry Barlow, Remarks at the
+<cite>Innovation and the Information Environment Conference</cite> (Nov.
1995). Mr. Barlow is one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, an organization which promotes freedom of expression in
digital media, and is also a former lyricist for the Grateful
-Dead.</p>
+Dead.</li>
-<p id="ft4">[4] Gary Glisson, Remarks at the
-Innovation and the Information Environment Conference (Nov. 1995);
+<li id="ft4">Gary Glisson, Remarks at the
+<cite>Innovation and the Information Environment Conference</cite> (Nov.
1995);
see also Gary Glisson, A Practitioner's Defense of the NII White
Paper, 75 Or. L. Rev. (1996) (supporting the White Paper).
Mr. Glisson is a partner and chair of the Intellectual Property Group
-at Lane Powell Spears Lubersky in Portland, Oregon.</p>
+at Lane Powell Spears Lubersky in Portland, Oregon.</li>
-<p id="ft5">[5] Steven Winter, Remarks at the
-Innovation and the Information Environment Conference (Nov.
+<li id="ft5">Steven Winter, Remarks at the
+<cite>Innovation and the Information Environment Conference</cite> (Nov.
1995). Mr. Winter is a professor at the University of Miami School of
-Law.</p>
+Law.</li>
-<p id="ft6">[6] Winter, supra note 5.</p>
+<li id="ft6">Winter, supra note 5.</li>
-<p id="ft7">[7] See Laurence H. Tribe, The
+<li id="ft7">See Laurence H. Tribe, “The
Constitution in Cyberspace: Law and Liberty Beyond the Electronic
-Frontier, Humanist, Sept.-Oct. 1991, at 15.</p>
+Frontier,” <cite>Humanist</cite>, Sept.-Oct. 1991, at 15.</li>
-<p id="ft8">[8] Tim Sloan, Remarks at the Innovation
-and the Information Environment Conference (Nov. 1995). Mr. Sloan is
+<li id="ft8">Tim Sloan, Remarks at the <cite>Innovation
+and the Information Environment Conference</cite> (Nov. 1995). Mr. Sloan is
a member of the National Telecommunication and Information
-Administration.</p>
+Administration.</li>
-<p id="ft9">[9] See Jane C. Ginsburg, A Tale of Two
-Copyrights: Liberary Property in Revolutionary France and America, in,
-Of Authors and Origins: Essays on Copyright Law 131, 137-38 (Brad
-Sherman & Alain Strowel, eds., 1994) (stating that the
+<li id="ft9">See Jane C. Ginsburg, “A Tale of Two
+Copyrights: Literary Property in Revolutionary France and America,” in
+<cite>Of Authors and Origins: Essays on Copyright Law</cite> 131, 137-38 (Brad
+Sherman & Alain Strowel, eds., 1994), stating that the
Constitution's framers either meant to “subordinate[] the
author's interests to the public benefit,” or to “treat
-the private and public interests…even-handedly.”).</p>
+the private and public interests … even-handedly.”</li>
-<p id="ft10">[10] U.S. Const., art. I, p. 8, cl. 8
+<li id="ft10"><cite>U.S. Const.</cite>, art. I, p. 8, cl. 8
(“Congress shall have Power…to promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
-Discoveries.”).</p>
+Discoveries.”)</li>
-<p id="ft11">[11] 286 U.S. 123, 127 (1932).</p>
+<li id="ft11"><cite>286 U.S. 123</cite>, 127 (1932).</li>
-<p id="ft12">[12] James Boyle, Remarks at the
-Innovation and the Information Environment Conference (Nov.
+<li id="ft12">James Boyle, Remarks at the
+<cite>Innovation and the Information Environment Conference</cite> (Nov.
1995). Mr. Boyle is a Professor of Law at American University in
-Washington, D.C.</p>
+Washington, D.C.</li>
-<p id="ft13">[13] Jessica Litman, Remarks at the
-Innovation and the Information Environment Conference (Nov.
+<li id="ft13">Jessica Litman, Remarks at the
+<cite>Innovation and the Information Environment Conference</cite> (Nov.
1995). Ms. Litman is a Professor at Wayne State University Law School
-in Detroit, Michigan.</p>
-
-<p id="ft14">[14] Pamela Samuelson, The Copyright
-Grab, Wired, Jan. 1996. Ms. Samuelson is a Professor at Cornell Law
-School.</p>
-
-<p id="ft15">[15] Digital Future Coalition,
-Broad-Based Coalition Expresses Concern Over Intellectual Property
-Proposals, Nov. 15, 1995<!-- (available at URL:
-<a
href="http://home.worldweb.net/dfc/press.html";>http://home.worldweb.net/dfc/press.html</a>)-->.</p>
+in Detroit, Michigan.</li>
-<h3>LATER NOTES</h3>
-
-<p id="later-1">[1] This article was part of the
-path that led me to recognize the <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">
-bias and confusion in the term “intellectual
-property”</a>. Today I believe that term should never be used
-under any circumstances.</p>
+<li id="ft14">Pamela Samuelson, “The Copyright
+Grab,” <cite>Wired</cite>, Jan. 1996. Ms. Samuelson is a Professor at
Cornell Law
+School.</li>
+
+<li id="ft15">Digital Future Coalition,
+“Broad-Based Coalition Expresses Concern Over Intellectual Property
+Proposals,” Nov. 15, 1995<!-- (available at URL:
+home.worldweb.net/dfc/press.html</a>)-->.</li>
+</ol>
+</div>
+</div>
-<p id="later-2">[2] Here I fell into the
-fashionable error of writing “intellectual property” when
-what I meant was just “copyright”. This is like writing
-“Europe” when you mean “France”—it
-causes confusion that is easy to avoid.</p>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
+<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
@@ -397,16 +409,33 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org";>
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <p>For information on coordinating and contributing 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>
+information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.</p>
</div>
-<p>Copyright © 1996, 1999, 2016 Richard M. Stallman</p>
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 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 © 1996, 1999, 2006, 2007 Richard Stallman</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
@@ -416,10 +445,10 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2016/11/18 06:31:39 $
+$Date: 2021/09/19 15:16:32 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-</div>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy reevaluating-copyright.html,
Therese Godefroy <=