www/philosophy copyright-and-globalization.html

[Therese Godefroy]

CVSROOT:        /webcvs/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Therese Godefroy <th_g> 21/10/14 09:02:24

Modified files:
        philosophy     : copyright-and-globalization.html 

Log message:
        * Fuse the 2 <p>s of Thorburn's introduction to avoid splitting a
        speech quote.
        * non-commercial > noncommercial.
        * Use <cite> instead of quotes for movie and magazine titles.
        * Italicize 'samizdat'.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.51&r2=1.52

Patches:
Index: copyright-and-globalization.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html,v
retrieving revision 1.51
retrieving revision 1.52
diff -u -b -r1.51 -r1.52
--- copyright-and-globalization.html    19 Sep 2021 14:35:29 -0000      1.51
+++ copyright-and-globalization.html    14 Oct 2021 13:02:23 -0000      1.52
@@ -16,8 +16,7 @@
 <div class="infobox">
 <p>The following is an edited transcript from a speech given
 at <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr> in
-the Communications Forum on Thursday, April 19, 2001 from 5:00pm -
-7:00pm</p>
+the Communications Forum on Thursday, April 19, 2001.</p>
 </div>
 <hr class="thin" />
 
@@ -30,8 +29,7 @@
 biblical parable&mdash;a kind of Old Testament anecdote-lesson.
 &ldquo;Imagine,&rdquo; he said, &ldquo;a Moses or a Jeremiah&mdash;better
 a Jeremiah.&rdquo; And I said, &ldquo;Well, that's very
-admirable.&rdquo;</p>
-<p>
+admirable.
 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
@@ -72,7 +70,7 @@
 Well, what does that mean?  Should you be free to copy it and change
 it?  Well, as for changing it, if you buy the microphone, nobody is
 going to stop you from changing it.  And as for copying it, nobody has
-a microphone copier.  Outside of &ldquo;Star Trek,&rdquo; those things
+a microphone copier.  Outside of <cite>Star Trek</cite>, 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
@@ -338,7 +336,7 @@
 <p>
 The U.S. though is not the first country to make a priority of this.
 The Soviet Union treated it as very important.  There this
-unauthorized copying and redistribution was known as Samizdat and to
+unauthorized copying and redistribution was known as <i>samizdat</i> 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
@@ -552,19 +550,19 @@
 the only thing that people really need to be allowed to do.</p>
 <p>
 The next question is: Should people have the right to do commercial
-verbatim copying?  Or is non-commercial enough?  You see, these are
+verbatim copying?  Or is noncommercial enough?  You see, these are
 two different activities we can distinguish, so that we can consider
-the questions separately&mdash;the right to do non-commercial
+the questions separately&mdash;the right to do noncommercial
 verbatim copying and the right to do commercial verbatim copying.
 Well, it might be a good compromise policy to have copyright cover
 commercial verbatim copying but allow everyone the right to do
-non-commercial verbatim copying.  This way, the copyright on the
+noncommercial verbatim copying.  This way, the copyright on the
 commercial verbatim copying, as well as on all modified versions&mdash;only
 the author could approve a modified version&mdash;would
 still provide the same revenue stream that it provides now to fund the
 writing of these works, to whatever extent it does.</p>
 <p>
-By allowing the non-commercial verbatim copying, it means the
+By allowing the noncommercial 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
@@ -630,7 +628,7 @@
 public in the name of the authors and musicians are giving those
 authors and musicians the shaft all the time.</p>
 <p>
-I recommend you read Courtney Love's article in &ldquo;Salon&rdquo;
+I recommend you read Courtney Love's article in <cite>Salon</cite>
 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
@@ -878,7 +876,7 @@
 <p>
 <b>STALLMAN</b>:  No.  That's not what I proposed.  Remember, I'm proposing
 that there should be copyright covering commercial distribution and
-permitting only verbatim redistribution non-commercially.  So anyone
+permitting only verbatim redistribution noncommercially.  So anyone
 who modified it to put in a pointer to his website, instead of a
 pointer to the real author's website, would still be infringing the
 copyright and could be sued exactly as he could be sued today.</p>
@@ -1088,7 +1086,7 @@
 care to lay out for us?</p>
 <p>
 <b>STALLMAN</b>:  Well, the idea of giving everyone permission for
-non-commercial verbatim copying of two kinds of works, certainly, may
+noncommercial 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
@@ -1100,18 +1098,18 @@
 So, for example, copyright does not prevent us from singing Christmas
 carols seasonally but it prevents the public performance.  And I'm
 wondering if it might be useful to think about instead of expanding
-fair use to unlimited, non-commercial, verbatim copying, to something
+fair use to unlimited, noncommercial, verbatim copying, to something
 less than that but more than the present concept of fair use.</p>
 <p>
 <b>STALLMAN</b>:  I used to think that that might be enough, and then Napster
 convinced me otherwise because Napster is used by its users for
-non-commercial, verbatim redistribution.  The Napster server, itself,
+noncommercial, verbatim redistribution.  The Napster server, itself,
 is a commercial activity but the people who are actually putting
-things up are doing so non-commercially, and they could have done so
+things up are doing so noncommercially, and they could have done so
 on their websites just as easily.  The tremendous excitement about,
 interest in, and use of Napster shows that that's very useful.  So I'm
 convinced now that people should have the right to publicly
-non-commercially, redistributed, verbatim copies of everything.</p>
+noncommercially, redistributed, verbatim copies of everything.</p>
 <p>
 <b>QUESTION</b>: One analogy that was recently suggested to me for the
 whole Napster question was the analogy of the public library.  I
@@ -1322,7 +1320,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2021/09/19 14:35:29 $
+$Date: 2021/10/14 13:02:23 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>