Richard Stallman is the founder of the GNU Project, launched in 1984 to develop the free operating system GNU (an acronym for "GNU's Not Unix"), and thereby give computer users the freedom that most of them have lost. Created the GNU General Public Licence and runs the Free Software Foundation. 
"Copyright was developed in the age of the printing press, and was designed to fit with the system of centralized copying imposed by the printing press. But the copyright system does not fit well with computer networks, and only draconian punishments can enforce it. The global corporations that profit from copyright are lobbying for draconian punishments, and to increase their copyright powers, while suppressing public access to technology. But if we seriously hope to serve the only legitimate purpose of copyright - to promote progress, for the benefit of the public - then we must make changes in the other direction." - Richard Stallman (quote used in publicity).
What does free software mean? Software that respects the users freedom. (Free as in the sense of freedom)
Four freedoms:
0. Can run it whenever you like.
1. Freedom to study the source code. (The freedom to help yourself)
2. Freedom to make copies. (Freedom to help your neighbour)
3. Freedom to publish modified version (Freedom to build a community)
cf. with non-free software. Designed to keep users helpless and divided: you can't get the source code. A "prisoner of your software".
Non free software does what the developer wants.
Free software puts the user in control.
Gets the benefit of the work of the community.
Not the same as freeware which appeared in the 80's (freedom 0 and 2).
The one thing Stallman claims to be good at is making operating systems. Create a way for people to escape from non-free software by writing an operating system. 1983 - announced GNU, programmers humour (recursive acronym).
By 1991, several parts released. Still did not have system kernel.
1990 - started developing a kernel ("Hurd").
1992 - Linux released under GPL.
People forgetting that GNU/Linux wasn't started in 1992.
Condemns anybody who uses mixed FS and non-FS software.
Objective: not just to have fun and learn.
He wouldn't mind if somebody 'copied' his car. The use of GPL (etc.) in hardware is not then relevant.
History of copyright law and the history of copying:
The ethical decisions of an act depend on the technological context.
Pen and ink: anyone who could read and write could copy about as well as anybody else. Books could be disseminated by anyone who could read and write. No economy of scale - it takes ten times to make ten copies as it does to make one. Compendiums and commentaries were encouraged in the ancient world. Anyone who had a text could make copies - no copyright.
Improvement in copying technology...
Printing press: takes a lot of work to set the type, but once this was done you could make as many copies as you like. Introduced an economy of scale. Specialised and expensive equipment - need to have skills to use.
Copyright in England was set up so that publishers could have monopolies. Later reformed to make them temporary, and to transfer to author. An industrial regulation on publishing - never used to enforce one-by-one copying.
US Constitution rejected a constitutional copyright: not an entitlement to authors, an optional system for protecting progress - the 'Useful Arts and Sciences' clause. Same general philosophical ideal upheld in UK and former colonies.
1900: printing became more efficient. Poor people could afford to get printed books. Copying by hand became rare - people forgot that you could do it. Copyright remained - fairly painless (only restricted businesses), easy to enforce (anybody selling books needs to advertise them) and arguably beneficial. Copyright bargain was beneficial in 1900.
The age of the printing press gave way to the age of the computer network. Changes the context.
Printing press made mass reproduction efficient but the computer made it efficient in the same way as single reproduction.
We are now losing something through the copyright bargain.
No longer 'fairly painless' (restricting everybody), no longer 'easy to enforce' (one has to intrude to find people who are breaking law) and no longer beneficial.
Copyright law is extended in all dimensions:
Time: extending it over and over. The movie companies (record companies etc.) want perpetual copyright. US Constitution doesn't allow perpetual copyright. Every twenty years you extend copyright by another twenty years. There is a nominal public domain date - never really get there because of term extensions.
Breadth: never intended to cover all uses. Publishers want total control over individual's usage of copyright. Two stage plan: (1) take away freedom to do this in e-books (no e-books, no complaints), (2) get everyone to switch from books to e-books (reasoning? Probably practical...).
Digital Millenium Copyright Act: EUCD. Launching a vicious war on sharing.
Publishers buying laws that take away more of our freedom, even though we need more freedom. No longer democratic. Democracy in danger all around the world.
Good copyright policy?
Renegotiate deal that was advantageous in the printing press era - perhaps reduced sized.
Non-uniformity - why does the price we pay in freedom has to be the same in different types of work?
The way that work is used is the way we need to differentiate between works. Three different categories of work:
Functional/useful - use them to get practical functions done (computer programmes, recipes, reference works etc.) If you can't control it, it gets in the way of your life. Must be free. Would these works get written if they were no revenue stream? Functional replacements can be made for them if they aren't free (eg. Wikipedia).
Works that represent what somebody thinks. Scientific reports, memoirs, essays, opinions and offers to buy/sell. Modified versions are not of social benefit. Compromised copyright system: mainly a restriction for businesses.
Art/entertainment - social usefulness in the sensation one gets in viewing or using the work. Raises problems of modified versions - artistic work can have artistic integrity. There is value to society in modificiation process - the folk process. Shakespeare used stories from other plays in his own works. Today that would be a ripoff, they are masterpieces.
1. No need for copyright law for as long as it is. >150 years is too long, RMS suggests 10 yrs. Publication cycles - most books are remaindered (USA) in two years, most out of print by four. Ten years from the date of publication.
2. Less urgency on the restrictions of artistic works compared to functional works.
3. Automatic licencing for modifications.
Compromised copyright system for the use of artistic work which would work at a fraction of the way that it currently does.
Author: Ten years? Anything longer than five is an outrage.
Many authors are in disputes with publishers over contracts and copyright payments.
Musicians: not supporting musicians. Stealing the money from the musicians from record companies? No, the record companies did it first. Only the superstars get money. Most people don't. Very few records sell enough to actually give any money to the musicians. Multiple platinum before any musicians get money. Artists who have complained about: Courtney Love (the music pirates), Janis Ian, Joe Walsh (from The Eagles), Prince (The Artist Formerly Known As Prince - his record company forbid him to release music under his pseudonym).
Record companies getting rich is no reason to restrict freedom. For the sake of the musicians is the reason that record companies give. 4% of their income goes to musicians overall (the superstars are getting 4%+, others aren't). Records publicise artists. Internet music sharing is a much healthier system.
Musicians wouldn't lose any money - they'd get healthier out of it. Superstars wouldn't be as rich, but they wouldn't be poor:
1. Tax that could go to artists.
2. Legalising copying.
3. Distribution of money goes in non-linear popularity - square root curve.
"Click here to send $1.00 to the band" - electronic donations etc.
Any donations that are given is more than musicians get already. Nice promotions!
Doesn't carry a mobile phone - tracking device.
Book publications - Stephen King experiment.
Convenient, anonymous 'pay a small amount' systems would do the job.
Put pressure on the candidates for European Parliament to go against software idea patenting. Developing a substantial powerful programme will be like crossing a minefield if software patenting becomes legal.
Software idea patents are an elimination for free trade - which is why they are being included in free trade agreements. United States government: instead of making problems better in the US, they spread the problems to the rest of the world.
EU Parliament voted against software patenting. Ministers reversed it. Support from a wide range of parties - match party candidates up with existing party members who voted against it.
Comments | TrackBack
