[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www/philosophy copyright-and-globalization.pt-b...

From: GNUN
Subject: www/philosophy copyright-and-globalization.pt-b...
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 06:38:04 -0500 (EST)

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     21/11/09 06:38:04

Modified files:
        philosophy     : copyright-and-globalization.pt-br.html 
                         selling.pt-br.html use-free-software.pt-br.html 
        philosophy/po  : selling.pt-br-diff.html 
Added files:
        philosophy/po  : copyright-and-globalization.pt-br-diff.html 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.


Index: copyright-and-globalization.pt-br.html
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.20
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -u -b -r1.20 -r1.21
--- copyright-and-globalization.pt-br.html      5 Sep 2021 08:35:41 -0000       
+++ copyright-and-globalization.pt-br.html      9 Nov 2021 11:38:04 -0000       
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" 
value="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.pt-br.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.pt-br.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" 
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" 
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-09-10" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.en.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.pt-br.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -14,6 +19,7 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.pt-br.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.pt-br.html" -->
 <div class="article reduced-width">
 <h2>Copyright e Globalização na Era das Redes de Computadores</h2>
@@ -1281,7 +1287,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Última atualização:
-$Date: 2021/09/05 08:35:41 $
+$Date: 2021/11/09 11:38:04 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->

Index: selling.pt-br.html
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/selling.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.23
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -b -r1.23 -r1.24
--- selling.pt-br.html  19 Aug 2021 08:13:21 -0000      1.23
+++ selling.pt-br.html  9 Nov 2021 11:38:04 -0000       1.24
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/selling.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/selling.pt-br.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/selling.pt-br.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/selling.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/selling.pt-br-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-09-10" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/selling.en.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.pt-br.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -13,6 +18,7 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.pt-br.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.pt-br.html" -->
 <div class="reduced-width">
 <h2>Vender Software Livre</h2>
@@ -270,7 +276,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Última atualização:
-$Date: 2021/08/19 08:13:21 $
+$Date: 2021/11/09 11:38:04 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->

Index: use-free-software.pt-br.html
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/use-free-software.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- use-free-software.pt-br.html        21 Aug 2021 18:32:30 -0000      1.8
+++ use-free-software.pt-br.html        9 Nov 2021 11:38:04 -0000       1.9
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/use-free-software.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/use-free-software.pt-br.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/use-free-software.pt-br.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/use-free-software.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" 
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-09-10" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/use-free-software.en.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.pt-br.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -14,6 +19,7 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.pt-br.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.pt-br.html" -->
 <div class="reduced-width">
 <h2 style="margin-bottom: .2em">
@@ -225,7 +231,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Última atualização:
-$Date: 2021/08/21 18:32:30 $
+$Date: 2021/11/09 11:38:04 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->

Index: po/selling.pt-br-diff.html
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/selling.pt-br-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -b -r1.4 -r1.5
--- po/selling.pt-br-diff.html  18 Nov 2016 07:33:02 -0000      1.4
+++ po/selling.pt-br-diff.html  9 Nov 2021 11:38:04 -0000       1.5
@@ -11,16 +11,26 @@
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
-&lt;!-- Parent-Version: <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.79</em></ins></span> --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --&gt;
 &lt;title&gt;Selling Free Software
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/selling.translist" --&gt;
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div <span 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="article 
 &lt;h2&gt;Selling Free Software&lt;/h2&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html"&gt;Some 
views on the
 ideas of selling exceptions to free software licenses, such as the GNU
 GPL&lt;/a&gt; are also available.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;hr class="thin" /&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;div 
 Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you
@@ -31,16 +41,16 @@
 Actually, we encourage people who redistribute
 &lt;a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"&gt;free software&lt;/a&gt; to charge as 
-as they wish or can.  If <span class="inserted"><ins><em>a license does not 
permit users to make
-copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license.  If</em></ins></span> this seems
+as they wish or can.  If a license does not permit users to make
+copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license.  If this seems
 surprising to you, please read on.&lt;/p&gt;
 The word &ldquo;free&rdquo; has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer
-either to freedom or to price.  When we speak of &ldquo;free software&rdquo;,
-we're talking about freedom, not price.  (Think of &ldquo;free speech&rdquo;,
-not &ldquo;free beer&rdquo;.)  Specifically, it means that a user is free to 
-the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or
+either to freedom or to price.  When we speak of &ldquo;free <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>software&rdquo;,</strong></del></span> <span 
+we're talking about freedom, not price.  (Think of &ldquo;free <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>speech&rdquo;,</strong></del></span> <span 
+not &ldquo;free <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>beer&rdquo;.)</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>beer.&rdquo;)</em></ins></span>  Specifically, it 
means that a user is free to run
+the program, study and change the program, and redistribute the program with or
 without changes.&lt;/p&gt;
@@ -53,7 +63,7 @@
 &lt;a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware"&gt;Nonfree 
 are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes a store will give you
 a copy at no charge.  That doesn't make it free software, though.
-Price or no price, the program is nonfree because <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>its</em></ins></span> users <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>don't have</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>are denied</em></ins></span>
+Price or no price, the program is nonfree because its users are denied
@@ -69,7 +79,7 @@
 Free software is a community project, and everyone who depends on it
 ought to look for ways to contribute to building the community.  For a
 distributor, the way to do this is to give a part of the profit to free 
software development projects or to the
-&lt;a href="/fsf/fsf.html"&gt;Free Software Foundation&lt;/a&gt;.  This way 
you can
+&lt;a <span 
Software Foundation&lt;/a&gt;.  This way you can
 advance the world of free software.&lt;/p&gt;
@@ -132,7 +142,7 @@
 The most direct way to do this is by writing needed
-&lt;a href="http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/tasklist"&gt;free 
+&lt;a <span 
 &lt;a href="/doc/doc.html"&gt;manuals&lt;/a&gt; yourself.  But if you do
 distribution rather than writing, the best way you can help is by
@@ -148,7 +158,8 @@
 However, when people think of
-&lt;a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#SellSoftware"&gt;&ldquo;selling 
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;a 
software&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt;,</strong></del></span> <span 
 they usually imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the
 software proprietary rather than free.&lt;/p&gt;
@@ -164,7 +175,7 @@
 Except for one special situation, the
-&lt;a href="/copyleft/gpl.html"&gt;GNU General Public License&lt;/a&gt; (GNU 
+&lt;a <span 
General Public License&lt;/a&gt; (GNU GPL)
 has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a
 copy of free software.  You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or
 a billion dollars.  It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't
@@ -192,10 +203,12 @@
 defending freedom.  When we defend users' freedom, we are not
 distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is
 charged.  Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.&lt;/p&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;/div&gt;</strong></del></span>
 &lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
-&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer" role="contentinfo"&gt;
 &lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
@@ -213,19 +226,19 @@
         to &lt;a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"&gt;
-        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and contributing translations 
         our web pages, see &lt;a
         README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
 Please see the &lt;a
-README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and contributing translations
 of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;!-- 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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>3.0 
US.</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>4.0.</em></ins></span>  Please do NOT change or 
remove this
+     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
@@ -240,23 +253,22 @@
      There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
      Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;
-&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2007, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2013</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2015, 2016</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1996-1998, 2001, 2007, 2015, 2021
 Free Software Foundation, Inc.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
-Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United 
States</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 
International</em></ins></span> License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
 &lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
 &lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
-$Date: 2016/11/18 07:33:02 $
+$Date: 2021/11/09 11:38:04 $
 &lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --&gt;

Index: po/copyright-and-globalization.pt-br-diff.html
RCS file: po/copyright-and-globalization.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N po/copyright-and-globalization.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/copyright-and-globalization.pt-br-diff.html      9 Nov 2021 11:38:04 
-0000       1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1358 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks -
+GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.translist" 
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div class="article reduced-width"&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer 
+&lt;div class="infobox"&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The following is an edited transcript from a speech given
+at &lt;abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology"&gt;MIT&lt;/abbr&gt; 
+the Communications Forum on Thursday, April 19, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2001 from 5:00pm -
+7:00pm&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
+&lt;hr class="thin" /&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;DAVID THORBURN, moderator&lt;/b&gt;: Our speaker today, Richard 
+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 <span 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>MIT</em></ins></span> professor told me
+that Stallman needs to be understood as a charismatic figure in a
+biblical <span class="removed"><del><strong>parable &mdash; 
a</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>parable&mdash;a</em></ins></span> kind of Old 
Testament anecdote-lesson.
+&ldquo;Imagine,&rdquo; he said, &ldquo;a Moses or a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>Jeremiah &mdash;
+better</strong></del></span> <span 
+a Jeremiah.&rdquo; And I said, &ldquo;Well, that's very
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>admirable.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>admirable.</em></ins></span>
+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
+&lt;b&gt;RICHARD STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;: 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 
+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;&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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;&lt;/p&gt;
+And, of course, people asked silly questions like, &ldquo;Well, should
+hardware be free?&rdquo; &ldquo;Should this microphone be
+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 <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>&ldquo;Star Trek,&rdquo;</strong></del></span> 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;cite&gt;Star 
Trek&lt;/cite&gt;,</em></ins></span> 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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 <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>commentary&rdquo; &mdash; 
that</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>commentary&rdquo;&mdash;that</em></ins></span> was a
+common thing to <span class="removed"><del><strong>do &mdash; 
and</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>do&mdash;and</em></ins></span> these commentaries were
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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;&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+Now, is this an advantageous trade?  Well, when the general public
+can't make copies because they can only be efficiently made on
+printing <span class="removed"><del><strong>presses &mdash; 
and</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>presses&mdash;and</em></ins></span> most people don't 
own printing <span class="removed"><del><strong>presses
+&mdash; the</strong></del></span> <span 
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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 <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>surveillance &mdash; an intrusion
+&mdash; and</strong></del></span> <span 
+harsh punishments, and we are seeing these being enacted
+into law in the U.S. and other countries.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.  
+&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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 <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>have &mdash; the</strong></del></span> <span 
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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 <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>secret &mdash; it</strong></del></span> <span 
+was meant to be <span class="removed"><del><strong>secret &mdash; 
and</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>secret&mdash;and</em></ins></span> 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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 <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>is &mdash;
+they</strong></del></span> <span 
+know whom they're working <span class="removed"><del><strong>for &mdash; 
and</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>for&mdash;and</em></ins></span> they pass the laws to
+give business more power.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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 <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>Samizdat</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;i&gt;samizdat&lt;/i&gt;</em></ins></span> 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
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>responsibility &mdash; 
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>responsibility&mdash;You!</em></ins></span>  
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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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;&lt;/p&gt;
+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
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+Democracy is the problem in their view, and these treaties are
+designed to put an end to the problem.  For instance,
+&lt;abbr title="North American Free Trade Agreement"&gt;NAFTA&lt;/abbr&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+There are attempts being made to extend this
+beyond <span 
 <span class="inserted"><ins><em>NAFTA.</em></ins></span>  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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.  
+&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.  
+&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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?&lt;/p&gt;
+So we need to look at different kinds of works, and I'd like to
+propose a way of doing this.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.  
+&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p id="opinions"&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+The next question is: Should people have the right to do commercial
+verbatim copying?  Or is <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercial</em></ins></span> enough?  You see, 
these are
+two different activities we can distinguish, so that we can consider
+the questions <span class="removed"><del><strong>separately &mdash; 
the</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>separately&mdash;the</em></ins></span> right to do 
<span class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial</strong></del></span> <span 
+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
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercial</em></ins></span> verbatim 
copying.  This way, the copyright on the
+commercial verbatim copying, as well as on all modified <span 
+&mdash; only</strong></del></span> <span 
+the author could approve a modified <span class="removed"><del><strong>version 
&mdash; would</strong></del></span> <span 
+still provide the same revenue stream that it provides now to fund the
+writing of these works, to whatever extent it does.&lt;/p&gt;
+By allowing the <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercial</em></ins></span> 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 <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>benefit &mdash; and</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>benefit&mdash;and</em></ins></span> avoid most
+of the <span class="removed"><del><strong>horror &mdash; 
of</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>horror&mdash;of</em></ins></span> the current 
+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.  
+&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;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
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.  
+&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;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
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+I recommend you read Courtney Love's article in <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>&ldquo;Salon&rdquo;</strong></del></span> <span 
+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
+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
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.  &lt;span 
class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;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
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;THORBURN&lt;/b&gt;:   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
+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
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;: First of all, I have to point out that we 
+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
+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
+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
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+Anyway, I made that digression, but it's terribly important.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>someone &mdash; 
things</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>someone&mdash;things</em></ins></span> 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
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>years &mdash; maybe</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>years&mdash;maybe</em></ins></span> 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
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;:  [A comment and question about free downloading 
+about Stephen King's attempt to market one of his novels serially over
+the web.]&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;: 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
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;SPEAKER&lt;/b&gt;: The details were that he required a certain <span 
+&mdash; I</strong></del></span> <span 
+don't know the exact percentage, around 90% sounds <span 
+&mdash; of</strong></del></span> <span 
+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
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;:  Isn't the scheme where there's no copyright but 
people are
+asked to make voluntary donations open to abuse by people
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;:  No.  That's not what I proposed.  Remember, I'm 
+that there should be copyright covering commercial distribution and
+permitting only verbatim redistribution <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercially.</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercially.</em></ins></span>  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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;:  I see.  So you're still imagining a world in 
which there is
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;:  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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;THORBURN&lt;/b&gt;: 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 <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>completely &mdash; in</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>completely&mdash;in</em></ins></span> the
+way that Stephen King refused to <span class="removed"><del><strong>do &mdash; 
and</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>do&mdash;and</em></ins></span> might establish a
+personal relationship.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;:  Well, they can and, in fact, this voluntary 
+is one.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;THORBURN&lt;/b&gt;:  You think of that as not involving going through 
+publisher at all?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;: 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.  
+&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;:  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?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;: Well, people are working on this.  But for 
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;:  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?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;: 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.  
+&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;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.  
+&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;THORBURN&lt;/b&gt;:  Well, what about the other two 
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;: For the other two classes of work, I don't know.  
+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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>except &mdash; 
Anyway,</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>except&mdash;Anyway,</em></ins></span> 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;:  How would you really expect to implement this 
+copyright system under the chokehold of corporate interests on
+American politicians due to their campaign-finance system?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;:  It beats me.  I wish I knew.  It's a terribly 
+problem.  If I knew how to solve that problem, I would solve it and
+nothing in the world could make me prouder.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;:.  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?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;:  I have a suggestion.  If I were to suggest 
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;THORBURN&lt;/b&gt;: 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.  
+&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>higher &mdash; 
even</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>higher&mdash;even</em></ins></span> when I make 
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;: 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;:  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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;: 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?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;:  Well, the idea of giving everyone permission for
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercial</em></ins></span> 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?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;:  To extend the conversation for just a moment, in 
+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, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial,</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercial,</em></ins></span> verbatim copying, to 
+less than that but more than the present concept of fair use.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;:  I used to think that that might be enough, and 
then Napster
+convinced me otherwise because Napster is used by its users for
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercial,</em></ins></span> verbatim 
redistribution.  The Napster server, itself,
+is a commercial activity but the people who are actually putting
+things up are doing so <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercially,</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercially,</em></ins></span> 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
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercially,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercially,</em></ins></span> 
redistributed, verbatim copies of everything.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;: One analogy that was recently suggested to me for 
+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
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;:  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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;:  Can these ideas about copyright suggest any 
ideas for
+certain issues about patent law such as making cheap, generic drugs
+for use in Africa?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;: No, there's absolutely no similarity.  The issues 
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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
+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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>less &mdash; 
namely,</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>less&mdash;namely,</em></ins></span> living things.  
+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
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;:  There's more to making a model successful than 
just the
+licensing.  Can you speak to that?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;: 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;&lt;/p&gt;
+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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>universities &mdash; 
maybe</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>universities&mdash;maybe</em></ins></span> they're in 
high-school; maybe
+they're in <span class="removed"><del><strong>college &mdash; 
where</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>college&mdash;where</em></ins></span> 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;: That's what I proposed.  But the funny thing is, 
I do
+know the history of education.  That's what I <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>do &mdash; educational,</strong></del></span> 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>do&mdash;educational,</em></ins></span>
+electronic media projects.  I couldn't find an example.  Do you know
+of one?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;:  No, I don't.  I started proposing this free 
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;:  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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;:  Actually, copyright doesn't cover the facts.  It 
+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
+&lt;b&gt;QUESTION&lt;/b&gt;:  But I can't write by myself all the textbooks 
that a
+student needs going through school.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;b&gt;STALLMAN&lt;/b&gt;: 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;hr class="no-display" /&gt;
+&lt;div class="edu-note c"&gt;&lt;p id="fsfs"&gt;This speech is published in
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. Stallman&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer" role="contentinfo"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to &lt;a 
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- 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 &lt;a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"&gt;
+        &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and contributing translations 
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and contributing translations
+of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;!-- 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. --&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2001, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2021/11/09 11:38:04 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --&gt;

Index: po/use-free-software.pt-br-diff.html
RCS file: po/use-free-software.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N po/use-free-software.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/use-free-software.pt-br-diff.html        9 Nov 2021 11:38:04 -0000       
@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays upholding fsmovement" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;The Free Software Community After 20 Years
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/use-free-software.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div <span 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="article 
+&lt;h2 style="margin-bottom: .2em"&gt;
+The Free Software Community After 20 Years: &lt;/h2&gt;
+&lt;h3 style="margin: 0 0 1.2em"&gt;
+With great but incomplete success, what now?&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;address class="byline"&gt;by &lt;a 
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;div 
+It was 5 Jan 1984, twenty years ago today, that I quit my job at MIT
+to begin developing a free software operating system,
+&lt;a href="/gnu/thegnuproject.html"&gt;GNU&lt;/a&gt;.  While we have never
+released a complete GNU system suitable for production use, a variant
+of the GNU system is now used by tens of millions of people who mostly
+are not aware it is such.  Free software does not mean
+&ldquo;gratis&rdquo;; it means that users are free to run the program,
+study the source code, change it, and redistribute it either with or
+without changes, either gratis or for a fee.&lt;/p&gt;
+My hope was that a free operating system would open a path to escape
+forever from the system of subjugation which is proprietary software.
+I had experienced the ugliness of the way of life that nonfree
+software imposes on its users, and I was determined to escape and give
+others a way to escape.&lt;/p&gt;
+Nonfree software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits
+cooperation and community.  You are typically unable to see the source
+code; you cannot tell what nasty tricks, or what foolish bugs, it
+might contain.  If you don't like it, you are helpless to change it.
+Worst of all, you are forbidden to share it with anyone else.  To
+prohibit sharing software is to cut the bonds of society.&lt;/p&gt;
+Today we have a large community of users who run GNU, Linux and other
+free software.  Thousands of people would like to extend this, and
+have adopted the goal of convincing more computer users to &ldquo;use
+free <span class="removed"><del><strong>software&rdquo;.</strong></del></span> 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>software.&rdquo;</em></ins></span>  But what 
does it mean to &ldquo;use free
+software&rdquo;?  Does that mean escaping from proprietary software,
+or merely installing free programs alongside it?  Are we aiming to
+lead people to freedom, or just introduce them to our code?  In other
+words, are we working for freedom, or have we replaced that goal with
+the shallow goal of popularity?&lt;/p&gt;
+It's easy to get in the habit of overlooking this distinction, because
+in many common situations it makes no difference.  When you're trying
+to convince a person to try a free program, or to install the
+&lt;a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html"&gt;GNU/Linux&lt;/a&gt; operating system,
+either goal would lead to the same practical conduct.  However, in
+other situations the two goals inspire very different actions.&lt;/p&gt;
+For instance, what should we say when the nonfree Invidious video
+driver, the nonfree Prophecy database, or the nonfree Indonesia
+language interpreter and libraries, is released in a version that runs
+on GNU/Linux?  Should we thank the developers for this
+&ldquo;support&rdquo; for our system, or should we regard this
+nonfree program like any other&mdash;as an attractive nuisance, a
+temptation to accept bondage, a problem to be solved?&lt;/p&gt;
+If you take as your goal the increased popularity of certain free
+software, if you seek to convince more people to use some free
+programs some of the time, you might think those nonfree programs are
+helpful contributions to that goal.  It is hard to dispute the claim
+that their availability helps make GNU/Linux more popular.  If the
+widespread use of GNU or Linux is the ultimate goal of our community,
+we should logically applaud all applications that run on it, whether
+free or not.&lt;/p&gt;
+But if our goal is freedom, that changes everything.  Users cannot be
+free while using a nonfree program.  To free the citizens of
+cyberspace, we have to replace those nonfree programs, not accept
+them.  They are not contributions to our community, they are
+temptations to settle for continuing <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>non-freedom.&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
+There are two common motivations to develop a free program.  One is
+that there is no program to do the job.  Unfortunately, accepting the
+use of a nonfree program eliminates that motivation.  The other is
+the will to be free, which motivates people to write free replacements
+for nonfree programs.  In cases like these, that motive is the only
+one that can do the job.  Simply by using a new and unfinished free
+replacement, before it technically compares with the nonfree model,
+you can help encourage the free developers to persevere until it
+becomes superior.&lt;/p&gt;
+Those nonfree programs are not trivial.  Developing free replacements
+for them will be a big job; it may take years.  The work may need the
+help of future hackers, young people today, people yet to be inspired
+to join the work on free software.  What can we do today to help
+convince other people, in the future, to maintain the necessary
+determination and persistence to finish this work?&lt;/p&gt;
+The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is
+to spread understanding of the value of freedom&mdash;to teach more
+people to recognize the moral unacceptability of nonfree software.
+People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;/div&gt;</strong></del></span>
+&lt;div <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>class="infobox"&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>class="infobox extra" 
+&lt;hr /&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Originally published on <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>NewsForge.&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer" role="contentinfo"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to &lt;a 
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- 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 &lt;a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"&gt;
+        &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and contributing translations 
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and contributing translations
+of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;!-- 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. --&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2004, 2021 Richard Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2021/11/09 11:38:04 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --&gt;

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]