Редактирование: Richard Stallman, Copyright vs Community in the Age of Computer Networks

Материал из eSyr's wiki.

Перейти к: навигация, поиск

Внимание: Вы не представились системе. Ваш IP-адрес будет записан в историю изменений этой страницы.

Правка может быть отменена. Пожалуйста, просмотрите сравнение версий, чтобы убедиться, что это именно те изменения, которые вас интересуют, и нажмите «Записать страницу», чтобы изменения вступили в силу.

Текущая версия Ваш текст
Строка 1: Строка 1:
Лекция прошла в 18:00 5 марта 2008 года в ИФ РАН.
Лекция прошла в 18:00 5 марта 2008 года в ИФ РАН.
- 
-
[[Изображение:RMS_ifran1.png|thumb|240px|Ричард Мэттью Столлман]]
 
== Диктофонные записи ==
== Диктофонные записи ==
Строка 9: Строка 7:
* [http://aiya.ru/rms-moscow-2008-copyright-vs-community.ogg Видеозапись], взятая с http://rms-moscow-2008.narod.ru/ (Зеркала: [http://file.linux.spb.org/Stallman/rms-moscow-2008-copyright-vs-community.ogg Санкт-Петербург], [ftp://ftp.linux.kiev.ua/pub/media/video/rms-moscow-2008-copyright-vs-community.ogg Украина], [http://linuxrsp.ru/media/rms-moscow-2008-copyright-vs-community.ogg Германия], [http://boids.name/talks/rms-moscow-2008-copyright-vs-community.ogg США], [http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4066450/rms-moscow-2008-copyright-vs-community.4066450.TPB.torrent BitTorrent]; [http://abbra.livejournal.com/119052.html источник])
* [http://aiya.ru/rms-moscow-2008-copyright-vs-community.ogg Видеозапись], взятая с http://rms-moscow-2008.narod.ru/ (Зеркала: [http://file.linux.spb.org/Stallman/rms-moscow-2008-copyright-vs-community.ogg Санкт-Петербург], [ftp://ftp.linux.kiev.ua/pub/media/video/rms-moscow-2008-copyright-vs-community.ogg Украина], [http://linuxrsp.ru/media/rms-moscow-2008-copyright-vs-community.ogg Германия], [http://boids.name/talks/rms-moscow-2008-copyright-vs-community.ogg США], [http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4066450/rms-moscow-2008-copyright-vs-community.4066450.TPB.torrent BitTorrent]; [http://abbra.livejournal.com/119052.html источник])
-
== Расшифровка лекции ==
+
== Расшифровка лекции в ИФ РАН «Copyright vs Community in the Age of Computer Networks» ==
-
 
+
-
(расшифровка взята с [http://rms-moscow-2008.narod.ru], счетчик времени по [[#Видеозаписи|видеозаписи]],
+
-
подзаголовки добавлены после расшифровки, только для ориентации по тексту --[[Участник:PavelSutyrin|PavelSutyrin]] 07:37, 1 июля 2008 (UTC))
+
-
 
+
-
=== Introduction. The extents of freedoms ===
+
-
 
+
-
{00:00:38}
+
-
 
+
-
So, in my previous speeches elsewhere I spoke about the free software
+
-
movement, about software that respect the user's freedom, and I explained,
+
-
why software users deserve four essential freedoms. Freedom 0, the
+
-
freedom to run the program as you wish, freedom 1, the freedom to study
+
-
the source code and to change it, so that the program does what you wish,
+
-
freedom 2, the freedom to help you neighbor, the freedom to distribute
+
-
exact copies, make and distribute exact copies, when you wish, and
+
-
freedom 3, the freedom to contribute to your community, the freedom to
+
-
make and distribute copies of your modified versions, when you wish. If
+
-
the program gives you all four these freedoms, it is free software,
+
-
freedom-respecting software, "svobodny" software. [light laughter]
+
-
 
+
-
{00:01:43}
+
-
 
+
-
So, once the GNU+Linux system existed in the 90s and people started to
+
-
use it, I started getting invited to give more speeches, and at the
+
-
end of the speech sometimes people would ask, whether the same ideas
+
-
of the free software movement -- that all software should be free and
+
-
all users should have these freedoms -- do those apply to anything
+
-
but software? Sometimes they would say: "what about hardware? Should
+
-
computers be free or microphones, or tables, or chairs? [points at these
+
-
items around] Well, that was a silly question, because it doesn't even
+
-
make sense entirely.
+
-
 
+
-
What would it mean, for this table to be free in the same sense? Well,
+
-
it would mean that you have freedom 0, the freedom to use the table as
+
-
you wish, well, if you buy the table, you pretty much can use it as you
+
-
wish, so you have freedom 0. What about freedom 1, the freedom to study
+
-
the source code of the table and then change it to make the table to do
+
-
what you wish? Well, there is no source code. So, this freedom doesn't
+
-
entirely make sense, but you can study the table and you can modify the
+
-
table. This table is made of wood, I could cut an inch of every leg if
+
-
I wanted to and I have a lower table, there are various modifications
+
-
you can do. And the fact is: for the most part nobody will stop you,
+
-
if it's your table, you can modify it. So, you have freedom 0 and you
+
-
have freedom 1, partly to the extent it makes sense.
+
-
 
+
-
But on the other hand, a computer, you basically can't modify very much,
+
-
it's impossible. Nobody can modify the circuitry in a chip, you will
+
-
just destroy it.
+
-
 
+
-
(Can we open a window, it's getting hot in here?)
+
-
 
+
-
{00:03:45}
+
-
 
+
-
What about freedom 2, the freedom to copy and to distribute the
+
-
copies, well there are no copiers for tables, so that's completely
+
-
meaningless. And what about freedom 3, the freedom to copy and distribute
+
-
copies of your modified versions of the table. Well, if you change this
+
-
table, by cutting an inch of each leg, well, there is still no copiers, so
+
-
you won't be able to put the modified table into a copier and distribute
+
-
copies to people. So, basically, these physical objects in most cases are
+
-
as free as they can possibly be, but that's a very partial extent. So,
+
-
that was a silly question. He didn't really understand, the people who
+
-
ask that question about hardware didn't really understand what "free"
+
-
means, they didn't think careful.
+
-
 
+
-
But, there are other things about which this question makes sense. And
+
-
those are other works of authorship, that you may have a copy of, because
+
-
those you can copy and those you can modify, and so question of whether
+
-
you are permitted to do so is a real and important question. That is
+
-
the question, that this speech is about.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:05:10}
+
-
 
+
-
If you have a copy of something, some work, which is not software, then
+
-
for the most part, the only thing that could restrict your freedom to
+
-
copy or distribute or modify it is copyright law. So, the same question
+
-
looked at from the other side is: what should copyright law say about
+
-
those works?
+
-
 
+
-
=== The history of copyright law ===
+
-
 
+
-
{00:05:41}
+
-
 
+
-
Now, to think about issues of copyright law, it's useful to look at the
+
-
history, and the history of copyright law is connected with the history of
+
-
copying technology, for very good reasons, because changes in technology
+
-
can affect our ethical judgements. Now, changes in technology cannot
+
-
touch our basic ethical principles, which are too deep for mere changes
+
-
in technology to reach them. But when we apply these principles to a
+
-
specific question, we do it by looking at various alternative choices and
+
-
look at the consequences of each one. A change in a context can alter the
+
-
consequences of the same action and thus make it more good or more bad.
+
-
 
+
-
For instance, if we could reliably resurrect the dead, then murder
+
-
wouldn't be so bad. You would just say: "all right, you've killed him,
+
-
you'll have to pay for his new body", and that's it.
+
-
 
+
-
==== The ancient world ====
+
-
 
+
-
{00:06:53}
+
-
 
+
-
So, let's look at the history of copyright and copying technology.
+
-
 
+
-
Copying began in the ancient world, where it was done with a writing instrument
+
-
on a writing surface. Now, this copying technology has some interesting
+
-
consequences. First of all, there was no built-in economy of scale. Making
+
-
ten copies was ten much as work as making one copy. (Excuse me, I'm
+
-
looking for my clock... I thought was in here.. Ah.)
+
-
 
+
-
Another consequence of ancient world copying technology was: it did
+
-
not use any specialized equipment, only the ordinary equipment for
+
-
writing. And it didn't require any special skill, only the skill of
+
-
reading and writing. The result was a decentralized system, in which
+
-
copies of any given book were made in quantity starting one. Wherever
+
-
somebody had a copy and wanted another.
+
-
 
+
-
As far as I can tell, there was no such thing as copyright in the ancient
+
-
world. If you had a copy and you wanted to copy it, you could do so,
+
-
and no one would object, except perhaps if the king didn't like what the
+
-
book said, and then he may put you in prison or kill you or whatever,
+
-
of course, that was censorship, not copyright, but the two are closely
+
-
related.
+
-
 
+
-
==== The age of printing press ====
+
-
 
+
-
{00:08:48}
+
-
 
+
-
So there was no system of copyright anywhere in the ancient world,
+
-
as far as I know. But then there was a tremendous advance in copying
+
-
technology: the printing press, which made copying more efficient,
+
-
but not uniformly so. It made some kinds of copy a lot more efficient,
+
-
and didn't help in other kinds, because the printing press has a big
+
-
economy of scale. It takes a lot of work to set the type, probably the
+
-
more work than writing a copy by hand, but once you have set the type,
+
-
you can make many identical copies very efficiently.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:09:35}
+
-
 
+
-
Furthermore, the printing press and the type were expensive specialized
+
-
equipment that most regular /?/ people did not have. And it took special
+
-
knowledge to use them, different skills from the skills of reading and
+
-
writing. So, the result was a centralized system of producing copies,
+
-
where copies of any given book were made in a few places, and then they
+
-
were brought to whoever wanted to buy them.
+
-
 
+
-
In the first few centuries of printing, many copies were still made
+
-
by hand. I recall it was a large fraction of the old copies, that were
+
-
almost half. This was done either on behalf of very rich people to
+
-
show how rich they were, or by poor people, because, as the song goes,
+
-
"time ain't money, if all you got is time".
+
-
 
+
-
{00:10:55}
+
-
 
+
-
In the first few centuries of printing printed books were still very
+
-
expensive, and there were poor people who couldn't afford printed copy,
+
-
but they had the time to write the copy.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:11:17}
+
-
 
+
-
Copyright began in the age of the printing press. For instance, in
+
-
the Italy, in the 1500s, it was commonplace that if you wrote a book,
+
-
you could then ask a prince to give you a monopoly on printing it. And
+
-
if he liked you and the book started by saying nice things about him,
+
-
then he would probably give you this monopoly. Princes used to hand out
+
-
monopolies of all sorts of things to whoever they wished to reward.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:12:00}
+
-
 
+
-
Copyright in England began as a system of censorship in the 1500s. If
+
-
someone wanted to publish a book, he had to... someone had to apply
+
-
to the government for permission, and this permission was given to one
+
-
publisher, and it was permanent monopoly for that publisher.
+
-
 
+
-
In the 1600s there was a revolution in England, and the system of
+
-
censorship became obsolete, there was a revolution of 1688. And they began
+
-
to think of getting rid of that system, and replacing it with another
+
-
system, designed to be good for the public and so they established the
+
-
system where copyright was given to the author for a limited period of
+
-
time, at that time, I believe, that was 14 years.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:13:06}
+
-
 
+
-
When the US Constitution was written, there was a proposal, that
+
-
authorship be entitled to a copyright. You'd never believe it from
+
-
listening to the US companies today, but that proposal was rejected. And
+
-
the US Constitution says: "Congress shall have the power to promote
+
-
the progress of science and the useful arts by reserving to authors
+
-
and inventors for a limited time the exclusive use of their respective
+
-
writings and inventions". And in US law this one sentence is the sum total
+
-
of everything there is in common between copyright law and patent law,
+
-
everything else is different.
+
-
 
+
-
In any case, we can see a few things from this sentence. First of all,
+
-
the Constitution does no require copyright to exist, in only permits
+
-
the option of having a copyright system. Second, it says that if
+
-
copyright exists, it's purpose is to promote progress, the purpose is
+
-
not to give authors something that they deserve, it doesn't say that
+
-
they deserve anything, it only allows a system of copyright as a way to
+
-
promote progress. And third, it says copyright can only be for a limited
+
-
time. These were wise decisions and ever since the publishers will be
+
-
trying to get rid of them.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:14:55}
+
-
 
+
-
Copyright in the age of the printing press operated as an industrial
+
-
regulation. It restricted publishers, the decisions were made by authors
+
-
and all this was organized so as to benefit the general public. Because it
+
-
acted as an industrial regulation, nobody ever thought about prosecuting
+
-
somebody from making copies by hand, it applied to publication and
+
-
printing, not hand-copying for your own use, no one would even have
+
-
thought of that, because everyone understood that it was meant as an
+
-
industrial regulation.
+
-
 
+
-
And because of this, copyright was easy to enforce, pretty much
+
-
uncontroversial, and arguably beneficial for the general public. It was
+
-
easy to enforce, because it didn't require invading everybody's home and
+
-
computer, it only have to be applied in cases of publication, and it's
+
-
easy to find out, who is printing the books, you go to the bookstore
+
-
and say: where did these copies come from?
+
-
 
+
-
It was uncontroversial, because it didn't restrict what readers could
+
-
do. It only restricted what you can do as a publisher and ordinary
+
-
readers were not publishers, so they haven't felt any burden from
+
-
it. And it was arguably beneficial, because the public traded certain
+
-
nominal freedoms, that the public was not in a position to exercise,
+
-
and thus lost effectively nothing. And in exchange we see benefits of
+
-
more writing, more books you could buy, more conversation about important
+
-
issues that might help society decide what to do.
+
-
 
+
-
==== The age of computer networks ====
+
-
 
+
-
So, in the age of the printing press copyright seemed to be beneficial,
+
-
I would not be criticizing it, but the age of the printing press is
+
-
giving way slowly, gradually to the age of the computer networks,
+
-
another major advance in copying technology, which once again makes
+
-
copying more efficient, and once again this advance is not uniform,
+
-
it affect some cases more than others.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:17:47}
+
-
 
+
-
In the ancient world copying was always hard and slow. The printing press
+
-
made some cases a lot more efficient, and now computer networks make it
+
-
all a lot more efficient, and the variation in efficiency is much less
+
-
now. We don't have mass production of identical copies very efficient
+
-
and everything else very painful, now everything is pretty easy and
+
-
fast. This is not perfectly true, it remains the case, for instance,
+
-
that mass produced CDs are cheaper and more durable than one-off CDs,
+
-
but one-off CDs are cheap enough, that hundreds of millions of people
+
-
can make them.
+
-
 
+
-
So, we're in a situation once again, like the ancient world, where
+
-
anybody, who can use the work, can copy it too.
+
-
 
+
-
This completely changes the effect of copyright law, even if the law
+
-
itself were unchanged, because now the freedom that we traded away
+
-
because we couldn't use it, now we can use it! Now it's important to us.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:19:12}
+
-
 
+
-
The result it that copyright law has changed its social role, it is no
+
-
longer an industrial regulation on publishers in the hands of authors
+
-
to benefit the public, now it restricts the public, it's controlled
+
-
by the publishers and they do it only in the name of the authors. So
+
-
everything was turned upside down by this technological change. And
+
-
back in the 70s you could see that the publishers were up to no good,
+
-
because they started talking about how digital technology created problems
+
-
for copyright law. And that is clearly backwards, because, after all,
+
-
laws are supposed to do something that good in the situation that we are
+
-
in. So, I would have said: copyright law creates problems for enjoying
+
-
the use of digital technology. But publishers turned it around, because
+
-
their goal was the opposite of our goal. Our goal is to get the best
+
-
good we can out of our computers, their goal was to stop us from doing
+
-
that. Digital technology is useful, because it facilitates copying and
+
-
manipulating and communicating information. They don't want that to be
+
-
easy for us. They don't want us to get the full benefits of our computers.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:20:48}
+
-
 
+
-
So, what would a democratic government do in a situation like this? When
+
-
this democratic government trades away our freedom to get benefits from
+
-
us, except that now we want to start using that freedom, what would
+
-
the government say? It would say to those publishers: "Sorry, we used
+
-
to trade away these freedoms on behalf of our citizens, because the
+
-
didn't mind and they were happy to encourage writing, but now they want
+
-
to keep these freedoms, so we can't continue the same deal that we used
+
-
to make. Now we're going to reduce it, maybe we can trade you a part of
+
-
this freedom, but the public wants to keep the rest, and it is our duty
+
-
to represent interests of the public."
+
-
 
+
-
That, in theory, what the democratic government does, it represents
+
-
the interests of the public. We can measure how undemocratic various
+
-
governments are, by the extent to which they have done the exact opposite:
+
-
extending copyright power, when they ought to reduce it.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:22:00}
+
-
 
+
-
For instance, there is a world wide press to make copyright last
+
-
longer and longer. In the 1700s copyright in the UK lasted, I think, 14
+
-
years, in the US it lasted 14 years but could be renewed once. But in
+
-
the US in recent decades it has been extended over and over and over.
+
-
And the last time was in 1999, when they extended copyright by 20 more
+
-
years for existing works and potential future works. Now, what possible
+
-
justification could there be for extending copyright on works already
+
-
written? Works, for instance, written in the 1920s? How could they
+
-
convince, motivate, incent the now dead authors of 1920s to write more
+
-
back then by extending copyright now?
+
-
 
+
-
{00:23:09}
+
-
 
+
-
They never answered that question for us, and if they had a time machine,
+
-
they apparently did not use it, because our history books does not
+
-
record, that there was an explosion of artistic activity in the 1920s,
+
-
when authors learned that in 1998 (1999, maybe? --Pavel) they will be
+
-
granted 20 more years of copyright. It is at least vaguely conceivable
+
-
that extending copyright for future works could create more motivation
+
-
to write them, but, practically speaking, no, and the reason is that
+
-
copyright already lasted such a long time that additional time tapped
+
-
on to the end of that had a discounted economic value, so small, that
+
-
it wouldn't motivate anything.
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
{00:24:23}
+
-
 
+
-
What really happened, the real reason for this was: companies like
+
-
Disney payed for the law, you see, that's why we call it "The Mickey
+
-
Mouse copyright act". You see, the character Mickey Mouse was going to
+
-
go into the public domain. Mickey Mouse appeared for the first time in
+
-
the movie called "Steambot Willie", in 1929, so time when its copyright
+
-
was going to expire was getting close. And if that happened, others could
+
-
make movies having Mickey Mouse in them, or other publications and have
+
-
pictures of Mickey Mouse in them, and Disney didn't want that ever happen,
+
-
so they payed for this 20 year extension and this... but they really want
+
-
copyright to last forever, and, in fact the Motion Picture Association
+
-
of America says it wants perpetual copyright, but even they don't have
+
-
enough power yet to amend the US Constitution to permit that, so the
+
-
worked out a scheme that has the same results without permitting it,
+
-
which we called "The perpetual copyright on the instalment plan". The
+
-
idea is: every 20 year they extend copyright 20 more years, and the
+
-
will do that forever. Thus, at anywhere in the time, if you pick up
+
-
a particular work, there is a certain day, where it is supposed to go
+
-
into the public domain, but don't hold your breath, because by the time
+
-
you get there, it will have been postponed 20 years and by the time you
+
-
get there, it will be postponed 20 more years, and this way, they hope,
+
-
nothing will go into the public domain again, and, in fact, nothing has
+
-
gone into the public domain in the US for decades.
+
-
 
+
-
=== Dimensions of the copyright power. Digital Restrictions Management ===
+
-
 
+
-
{00:26:35}
+
-
 
+
-
The duration is the one dimension of copyright power, the other
+
-
dimension is the extent of the power: which activities, which uses
+
-
are controlled by copyright. Now. In the age of the printing press,
+
-
copyright was never supposed to control every use of copyrighted work,
+
-
in the broad space of what you can do with the work, copyright was an
+
-
exception. The rest were unregulated uses. However, the publishers have
+
-
envisioned that with digital technology they can totally control access,
+
-
they hoped to establish a "pay per read" universe, when you have to get
+
-
permission even to read the part of the book. This is done with Digital
+
-
Restrictions Management or DRM, which means designing products so that
+
-
they restrict the users, specifically, products for playing music,
+
-
playing videos, reading book or accessing any sort of information,
+
-
they are designed to control you, not serve you. And we have seen this
+
-
problem in a broad spectrum of different kinds of works.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:28:10}
+
-
 
+
-
For instance, we see it in videos. DVDs were the first widely adopted
+
-
product designed to restrict the user. DVD movies are usually in an
+
-
encrypted format and the format details were secret. The DVD conspiracy
+
-
was set up to make sure that public would not be able to access the
+
-
data on DVDs, except in limited restricted ways. Here is how it works.
+
-
This conspiracy knows the format of DVDs, anybody who wants to make a
+
-
DVD player has to go to the conspiracy and ask for the secret, and the
+
-
conspiracy says: "we will tell you the secret, if you sign this contract
+
-
where you promise that your DVD players will restrict users just like
+
-
other DVD players do, we require that of all the manufactures of DVD
+
-
players". This is why there is effectively no competition in the DVD
+
-
players, because no matter how many different manufacturers they are,
+
-
all the players restrict the users the same way.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:29:47}
+
-
 
+
-
Naturally, people try to escape from these restrictions. People, in fact,
+
-
figured out the format of DVD encryption and wrote a free program to break
+
-
the encryption. That program is censored in the US today. (Is the window
+
-
is actually open?.. It is getting hotter.. Get open any more, that will
+
-
help. There are lot of people in here, and we really need ventilation.)
+
-
 
+
-
{00:30:28}
+
-
 
+
-
So, the United States practices censorship of software. This was
+
-
established by the law "Digital Millennium Copyright Act", also in
+
-
1998. Which says: when a work is published in encrypted form, in any form
+
-
that is designed to restrict the public, then distributing anything that
+
-
enables people to escape from these restrictions is a crime. In other
+
-
words, instead of defending us, what the government should have done,
+
-
it joined with our enemies to oppress us. So, I call it the government
+
-
of occupation... [applause] ...for the corporate empire.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:31:39}
+
-
 
+
-
Now, people ask me how I know about this conspiracy. The answer is: it's
+
-
not secret. They announced the existence of this conspiracy. They have
+
-
so little fear that anything will be done to stop them from attacking
+
-
the public, that they don't even see the need to hide what they're
+
-
doing. I think, what they're doing ought to be a crime, any conspiracy
+
-
of companies to restrict the technology available to the public should
+
-
be a crime. [applause]
+
-
 
+
-
{00:32:21}
+
-
 
+
-
And that would require a democratic government, and not very many of
+
-
those left in the world.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:32:36}
+
-
 
+
-
Now. Even though that program is censored, it is widely available. You
+
-
can get a copy of free software to play DVD, it's not hard. Now. In some
+
-
other countries it's a crime even to have a copy, for instance, in France,
+
-
you can be put in prison just for having a copy of free software to play
+
-
DVD. But the fact is the software is available, so they have designed a
+
-
new scheme to restrict the access to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs. That scheme
+
-
is called AACS, but I call it "the axe", and we should "give it the axe",
+
-
so don't buy HD-DVD, don't buy Blu-Ray, don't buy any product with digital
+
-
restrictions management, unless you personally have the means to break
+
-
the restrictions of the product. Now, in fact, people have broken the axe,
+
-
a year ago code was released that can result in a proper algorithm...
+
-
 
+
-
([looks at someone who closes window] keep it open, it's still hot in
+
-
here, please keep it open, it's still hot. [someone near the window
+
-
replies: "It's cold!"]. Well, how about if I stand over there?.. [reply:
+
-
"It's a good idea", laughter]. [RMS makes several steps towards window]
+
-
Well, it's seems inconvenient to get there, a sort of mountain is in
+
-
the way. [laughter, RMS returns to his place])
+
-
 
+
-
{00:34:35}
+
-
 
+
-
And then a few months later I saw a strange photo, a friend showed it to
+
-
me, it showed two very cute adorable puppies and above them there was
+
-
sixteen hex numbers. And I asked myself: what in a world is this? Why
+
-
put these sixteen hex digits and these two cute puppies? I wonder if
+
-
it's some sort of key. And it turned out that was the key to break
+
-
the axe. Somebody posted this on a site called dig [digg?], and the
+
-
editors deleted it, because publishing that in they US is illegal, it's
+
-
censored. And then somebody else posted it again and they took in down
+
-
again, and hundreds of people posted it and then editors said: "okay,
+
-
we give up, we can't stop people from circulating this information". And
+
-
eventually these sixteen hex digits were posted in over 700,000 web pages
+
-
in the strong show of public opposition to these conspiracies to restrict
+
-
our technology. But this doesn't mean the axe is defeated, because it
+
-
was designed that they can change the key, and they did. [light laughter]
+
-
 
+
-
{00:36:11}
+
-
 
+
-
So perhaps the people who had found that key should have waited a year or
+
-
two, because the discs that are already published those, can be decoded,
+
-
but the future ones which will use a new key, those will not be decodable
+
-
until someone finds that key, so the people engaged in breaking DRM
+
-
has to think strategically, it's like you are breaking enemy's codes,
+
-
how do you cause the enemy the most damage, and set back, how do you
+
-
basically going to defeat our enemy? Because all those companies making
+
-
things designed to restrict our use of our technology are our enemies.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:37:12}
+
-
 
+
-
We've also seen DRM in music. Starting most of a decade ago we started
+
-
to see things that looked like CDs, but they were not real CDs, because
+
-
they didn't follow... it were not real Compact Discs, because the didn't
+
-
follow the specifications of the CD format. So we called them Corrupt
+
-
Discs. I was once invited to give a speech on this topic by one of the
+
-
regions of Spain, and then they gave me a gift, some records of music of
+
-
that region, and one of them I was curiously to listen to, but before I
+
-
opened it I know it... instead of saying "Compact Disc" it said "Copy
+
-
Control. This disc can be played on Windows and Macintosh systems.",
+
-
[laughter] meaning that it can't be played with free software. It was
+
-
a good thing that I haven't opened it yet, because I handed it back to
+
-
my host and have said: here you can see the face of the enemy, please
+
-
take this back to the store, because they shouldn't be able to keep
+
-
your money. I don't want them to get money from me, they shouldn't get
+
-
your money either. So, I've never heard that music, but that's okay,
+
-
I'd rather not hear that music, than accept DRM.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:38:46}
+
-
 
+
-
Sony about 3 years ago implemented a very interesting DRM scheme on
+
-
music recordings. You would put this Corrupt Disc into the computer
+
-
and it would load software into the system without telling you. And
+
-
that software was called a RootKit, because it's something like what
+
-
security breakers do, crackers, something like what a virus might do. That
+
-
software was installed deep into the system and then it modified some of
+
-
the system commands, so that they would lie and disguise the presence of
+
-
that software, and it modified other commands so that it would be hard
+
-
to remove that software. Now, this was a crime in fact, but that's not
+
-
all, because it also damaged the security of the computer, and it also
+
-
committed copyright infringement, because it contained free software
+
-
that have been released under the GNU GPL [light laughter] included in
+
-
the combination that was not free and without giving the user a copy of
+
-
GNU GPL to inform him of his rights. People got very angry of this. But,
+
-
unfortunately, most of the anger focused on the other side nasty things,
+
-
that Sony had done and not on the nasty purpose of that all, which was
+
-
to restrict the user's access to the music that they have bought.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:40:31}
+
-
 
+
-
It turns out thought, that there was a couple of things that made this
+
-
scheme actually less harmful than most. First of all, it only affected
+
-
Windows users [light laughter]. And second, even a Windows user could
+
-
protect himself by holding down a certain key on the keyboard when
+
-
putting the disc in. [light laughter] So it was actually fairly easy
+
-
to bypass. But, you know, millions of people didn't know about this,
+
-
so their machines got infected. They got very angry, they sued Sony,
+
-
and Sony settled the suit by promising that next time they try to control
+
-
your access to your copies of data, they wouldn't do the other secondary
+
-
nasty things [light laughter]. But they learned their lesson. Next time
+
-
the RootKit will be built in before you get the machine and it will be
+
-
impossible to remove. [light laughter] And that's already the case in
+
-
the PlayStation 3, it is a very nasty thing.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:41:56}
+
-
 
+
-
We also see attempts to impose digital restrictions management on
+
-
books. Several years ago there was a powerful campaign in some countries
+
-
at least, trying to convince us to switch to e-books, and, of course,
+
-
these e-book have DRM. Basically, the publishers want to take away
+
-
certain traditional freedoms of readers. Freedoms to do things like
+
-
selling book to the used books store, borrowing from the public library,
+
-
buying anonymously by paying cash or lend it to your friend. And even the
+
-
freedom to keep the book for as long as you like and read it many times
+
-
and then pass it on to you children and they might read it and pass it
+
-
on, all these freedoms they wanna take away from us. They want total
+
-
control over what we do with our books. But there are so many people
+
-
that read books and are accustomed to certain freedoms, that they will
+
-
have trouble passing the law in the US taking away these freedoms from
+
-
readers. So they came up with two-stage plan to achieve the same goal.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:43:20}
+
-
 
+
-
The first stage was take away these freedoms for e-books and that they
+
-
achieved fairly easily, that's the result of the Digital Millennium
+
-
Copyright Act, which was passed in 1998 by the House of Representatives
+
-
without even bothering to vote, because no one dared to say: "I demand
+
-
a vote on this". The second stage was to convince people to switch from
+
-
printed books to e-books. That they tried and it didn't work.
+
-
 
+
-
Now. There was an organized PR campaign to convince people to use e-books,
+
-
I know this, because in 2001 I was in an airplane in Brazil on a domestic
+
-
flight, and I pulled out the in-flight magazine, which I rarely do,
+
-
an ordinary magazine would had an editorial, this one had an article:
+
-
discussing the question of how many years it would take before that
+
-
we all are using e-books. Now, those magazines never publish anything
+
-
unless they have a specific business reason to do so. Either it convinces
+
-
the people to fly more, or they pay. So I know, there was an organized
+
-
campaign for this. One publisher thought it would be effective to start
+
-
off it's line of e-books with my biography. [light laughter] So they
+
-
found an author and sent him to me, and he asked if I would like to
+
-
cooperate, and I said: sure, provided this book is published without
+
-
encryption [laughter, applause]. And they said no. So I suggested he
+
-
try a different publisher who said "yes", and the book was written and
+
-
published and it nominally is not encrypted, it's actually free, and
+
-
you can download the whole text with markup, and then you can edit it
+
-
and publish your own version. [laughter, applause].
+
-
 
+
-
{00:45:46}
+
-
 
+
-
Well, e-book were failure commercially, and I have been telling people
+
-
for years, they will try again. Well, now they're trying again. We've
+
-
seen a couple of e-book readers announced recently, there is the "Sony
+
-
Shredder", which describes what it will do to our books. And there is
+
-
"Amazon swindle" [light laughter]. And make sure your friends know,
+
-
before they buy one of these, that buying one of these is tenth amount
+
-
to saying: "I'm not gonna lend my friend's books any more", so it means
+
-
being a jerk. [laughter, applause]
+
-
 
+
-
Make sure that your friends know, that if they buy one of these and start
+
-
using it, you and, it should be a lots of people who tell him this,
+
-
will interpret this basically as refusal to be friends anymore. So,
+
-
across the board we have seen attempts to use digital technology in our
+
-
own computers against us. To subject us, to the power of the publishers.
+
-
They want to control whatever we do with our own copies, taking away
+
-
rights, that legally otherwise we would still have under the copyright
+
-
law. They're trying to make copyright total control. They do this because
+
-
they buy the support of governments, and governments don't defend us. But
+
-
what would a democratic government do?
+
-
 
+
-
{00:47:56}
+
-
 
+
-
I should mention another dimension of extending copyright power, and
+
-
that is increasing the penalties for unauthorized copying. And there
+
-
Russia may be the world champion [laughter] with six-year punishments
+
-
for unauthorized copying. That law is a total injustice it should be
+
-
eliminated. But what would democratic governments do?
+
-
 
+
-
=== Reducing copyright power ===
+
-
 
+
-
{00:48:21}
+
-
 
+
-
Well, they would reduce copyright power, so that we, the general public,
+
-
keep some of our natural rights, instead of trading them away. But what,
+
-
more specifically.
+
-
 
+
-
First of all, they should reduce copyright each dimension. First of all,
+
-
there is a dimension of time. While copyright has been extended and
+
-
extended, the publication cycle was getting shorter and shorter. In the
+
-
US today most books are remainder, which means: sold off cheap within
+
-
two years, and they go out of print within three. So, they don't need
+
-
copyright to last for up to a hundred and fifty years. So I propose
+
-
that copyright should last for ten years starting with the date of
+
-
publication. [applause]
+
-
 
+
-
{00:49:32}
+
-
 
+
-
I say "starting with the date of publication", because while the
+
-
work remains unpublished, we don't have copies, so we're not losing
+
-
anything, it's a purely theoretical question, whether we would be
+
-
allowed to copy them if we had them. We might as well let the author
+
-
to wait how long it takes to find a publisher for the work, but then
+
-
it should be ten years. Now. I propose this as a first adjustment, I'm
+
-
not sure ten years is right, I'm saying: let's try ten years. Let's see
+
-
how it works. Maybe we'll want to extend it some, maybe we'll want to
+
-
shorten it even more, I don't know. Ten year seems, because ten years
+
-
is three times the usual publication cycle, I'm comfortable that it's
+
-
long enough. However, not everyone agrees with this. I proposed this
+
-
at a panel discussion with some writers. And I expected fireworks and
+
-
I got some. Because the award-winning fantasy writer, sitting next to
+
-
me, said: "Ten years? Absolutely not! Anything more than five years is
+
-
unacceptable." [laughter, applause].
+
-
 
+
-
{00:50:53}
+
-
 
+
-
Now I was surprised when he said that, because I've been believing that
+
-
publishers' propaganda, since the publishers said they were doing this
+
-
for the authors. I assumed naively that the authors wanted this too. But
+
-
the fact is those same publishers, that demand more power over us in
+
-
the name of the authors, are grinding those authors into the ground with
+
-
the ground of their heels, frequently.
+
-
 
+
-
For instance, this author, the writer who objected, who didn't wanted more
+
-
than five years copyright, he had a legal lawsuit with his publisher. You
+
-
see, his contract said that if the book was out of print, if the books
+
-
were out of print, the rights will revert to him and he would be allowed
+
-
to distribute copies again. Well, practically speaking, he had found that
+
-
his book was out of print, people couldn't get it, but the publisher
+
-
refused to acknowledge that and was using copyright to stop him from
+
-
distributing copies of his own books, which he wanted to do, so that
+
-
people could read them.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:52:14}
+
-
 
+
-
He knew that unless he became a superstar, more than ten years of
+
-
copyright was not likely to do.. more than five years of copyright was not
+
-
likely to do him much good. So he said: five years maximum. Well, we could
+
-
try ten years, maybe we'll decide then to shorten it even more. I won't
+
-
argue against it, I just propose ten years as a good first adjustment,
+
-
which we could then further adjust.
+
-
 
+
-
=== Three categories of works ===
+
-
 
+
-
{00:52:57}
+
-
 
+
-
But what about the other dimension of copyright, its extent, the range
+
-
of activities it covers. Well, we should reduce that too, but not the
+
-
same for everything. I don't think that we should treat all works the
+
-
same and I distinguish three broad categories of works that I think we
+
-
should treat in different ways, each one according to way it's used.
+
-
 
+
-
These categories are: first, functional, practical works, works that you
+
-
use to do a job in your life; second, works of opinion and testimony,
+
-
the works that express... those social contribution is they say what
+
-
certain people thought; third: the works of art and entertainment,
+
-
whose social contribution lies in the impact of the work itself. Three
+
-
different ways that a work can contribute to society. And because these
+
-
contributions work differently, I think that different copyright laws
+
-
are appropriate for them.
+
-
 
+
-
==== Practical works ====
+
-
 
+
-
First, the works of... functional, practical works, the works you use to
+
-
do a practical job. These include software, recipes, educational works,
+
-
reference works, text funds, and various other things, things that
+
-
ordinary people could use to do practical jobs. These must be free. The
+
-
same arguments that apply to the software, why software should be free,
+
-
are applied to the other kinds of the functional works. If you're using
+
-
a work to do a job in your life and you can control what the work does,
+
-
then you can control your life. So you must be free to change it, and
+
-
once you changed it you should be free to publish your version, because
+
-
other people might have needs similar to yours, or preferences similar to
+
-
yours. Your version, which you made, because it's useful to you perhaps,
+
-
could be useful to other people as well. So you should be able to publish
+
-
your version. And this leads to the conclusion that they have to be free.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:55:23}
+
-
 
+
-
Now, people might say: but if there is no way to restrict the users and
+
-
interfere with their use of the works, they'll never be made. Well, we
+
-
don't have to be afraid that this (...)/?/ will follow if these works
+
-
are free, because now we have enough examples that show that they will
+
-
be made, they are made even today, lots of these works are made and
+
-
they are free. We have the example of the free software community, which
+
-
has developed thousands of useful applications, we have the example of
+
-
all the recipes that are circulating and it's normal for cooks to copy
+
-
recipes and modify recipes, and then we have, in the area of reference
+
-
works we have the example of Wikipedia and some of the other reference
+
-
sites of the similar sort, which are free and have done a tremendous job.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:56:20}
+
-
 
+
-
So, there is no need to be scared. We don't need to sabotage the use of
+
-
these work in order to get them developed. We should make them free. And
+
-
this is the answer to that question I posed in the beginning. This is
+
-
how far the ideas of free software go, in my opinion.
+
-
 
+
-
Now. The question for other two categories of works is the same, but I
+
-
don't think it's the same answer. Mean, you could apply the same answer
+
-
but that's not what I think is right. I don't try to generalize every
+
-
view that I've ever hold as far as it can possibly go, because even if
+
-
the answer makes sense over here, it doesn't mean it's the right answer
+
-
over here. We have to think about each area.
+
-
 
+
-
==== Works of opinion and testimony ====
+
-
 
+
-
{00:57:14}
+
-
 
+
-
Let's get to the category two, the category of works, whose social
+
-
contribution is they say what certain people thought. This includes
+
-
memoirs and other biographies, essays of opinion, scientific papers. After
+
-
all, the real purpose of a scientific paper is it says: "we did this and
+
-
we saw this", and the names of the authors on that paper are crucial. It
+
-
wouldn't be the same if it just said: "somebody did this" or "somebody
+
-
saw this" and we don't know who. You couldn't rely on it that way, but
+
-
when their authors' names are on it, and their reputations are behind
+
-
the honesty of it and the validity of it, then it's good for something.
+
-
 
+
-
Now. Publishing a modified version of these works is not socially useful,
+
-
that is just misrepresenting somebody. There is no particular reason why
+
-
we want that to be allowed. And that means we would have a compromise
+
-
copyright system, where everyone is free to redistribute exact copies
+
-
of the work non-commercially, but anything else requires permission,
+
-
just as now. So it will still be a copyright system, and it will cover
+
-
commercial use, and it will cover modification, but non-commercial
+
-
redistribution of the exact copies, that freedom we would all have.
+
-
 
+
-
{00:58:54}
+
-
 
+
-
And that, I believe, is the minimum freedom that we must have for all
+
-
kinds of works. To take away this freedom is what makes copyright into
+
-
tyranny. To take away this freedom, the freedom to share, is what requires
+
-
dracony /?/ and punishments and outrageous means of enforcement. By
+
-
winning back this freedom, by making these works shareable, we can turn
+
-
copyright back into an industrial regulation as it ought to be. So,
+
-
that's what I recommend for these works.
+
-
 
+
-
==== Artistic and entertainment works ====
+
-
 
+
-
{00:59:36}
+
-
 
+
-
What about the third category, artistic and entertainment works? For
+
-
that category it was hard for me to decide about modification, because
+
-
there are various arguments on both sides. There is the argument
+
-
that work can have an artistic integrity and modified versions could
+
-
destroy that integrity, and I think this is sometimes true, although,
+
-
most authors don't have as much integrity as they pretend to, and you
+
-
can see that by the way they allow Hollywood to butcher those works
+
-
in exchange for money. But there are some who won't, there are some
+
-
who won't let Hollywood to butcher it, and they will say: "You have to
+
-
make it faithfully, you have to do it right". Okay, those authors may
+
-
have integrity, but on the other side modifying art could produce good
+
-
contributions, interesting contributions to art.
+
-
 
+
-
{01:00:41}
+
-
 
+
-
Consider the folk process, where a series of people can transform a work
+
-
and produce something very rich and beautiful. But if we want to consider
+
-
only named authors, consider Shakespeare. Some of Shakespeare's plays
+
-
used stories that were copied from other works published a few decades
+
-
before. If today's copyright law had been in effect then, those plays of
+
-
Shakespeare would not have been allowed and probably they wouldn't have
+
-
been written. And surely, not published or performed. So, if Shakespeare
+
-
had complained about this, which he probably wouldn't have, but if he
+
-
had, then the copyright holders, who might have been perhaps the children
+
-
of the authors, people not particularly artistic themselves, they might
+
-
have said: "How dare you propose to make a cheap rip-off of my father's
+
-
work? [light laughter] It has to be a cheap rip-off, because you want
+
-
to copy from it, so why don't you go away and think of something else?"
+
-
 
+
-
We, listening to this, since we would never have seen that play of
+
-
Shakespeare which would never had written it, we wouldn't know that it
+
-
wasn't true. Since we have seen these plays we can say they're great
+
-
works of literature, but if we hadn't seen them, we wouldn't know that.
+
-
So we could easily been mislead by these arguments made by the copyright
+
-
holders.
+
-
 
+
-
{01:02:23}
+
-
 
+
-
For many years I wasn't sure what to do about these two valid arguments
+
-
and then I realized that while modifying art work could be useful,
+
-
it's not urgent. If you are using a functional work to do a job today
+
-
and it's not quite right, you have to be free to change it today. And
+
-
you should be free to publish your modified version today, so tomorrow
+
-
other people can get the benefit. But with the work of art, we can wait,
+
-
so if copyright last for ten years, makes, for ten years we can have a
+
-
compromise copyright system where people are free to non-commercially
+
-
redistribute exact copies, and that's all. And then after ten years it
+
-
will go into the public domain and then you could publish your modified
+
-
version. So that's what I propose for art.
+
-
 
+
-
And that's how I propose to change copyright law, that's what I think
+
-
the right solution is today. In particular this means legalizing the
+
-
peer-to-peer sharing. [applause]
+
-
 
+
-
=== Proposed ways to support artists ===
+
-
 
+
-
{01:03:50}
+
-
 
+
-
But some people say: If we share things peer-to-peer, that's taking money
+
-
out of mouths of that starving musicians [laughter], that's bullshit,
+
-
the starving musicians get nothing from the present system, they can't
+
-
lose what they can't get. The record companies treat musicians very
+
-
badly. When I buy a commercial CD, which I do, I feel ashamed that I'm
+
-
not supporting the musicians. [light laughter, applause], because unless
+
-
I'm buying it from the musicians, I know that musicians are probably
+
-
going to get nothing, zero.
+
-
 
+
-
{01:04:43}
+
-
 
+
-
You might wonder about this: isn't that part of the price is for
+
-
musicians? Well, yes, theoretically, but the production and publicity
+
-
expenses are treated as an advance to the musicians, which means that when
+
-
you buy the CD that share that is for the musicians comes from one account
+
-
of the record company to another, and the musicians never get it, and
+
-
very few records actually sell so many copies that they finish repaying
+
-
the so-called advance and start actually giving the musicians money,
+
-
some records can go gold and still not reach this point. The exception
+
-
of course is for the long-established superstars, because they finish
+
-
they first record contract, which usually covers five or seven records
+
-
and then they can negotiate a new contract and since they're superstars,
+
-
they can now get a decent contract, that doesn't exploit them.
+
-
 
+
-
{01:05:51}
+
-
 
+
-
So, If you're buying their records, they actually get some, then,
+
-
of course, they're rich anyway, so it's not crucial. So, really the
+
-
musicians don't stand to lose anything, except for superstars, who are
+
-
already rich, they don't stand to lose anything from peer-to-peer sharing.
+
-
 
+
-
Now. This does not mean that musicians don't get any benefit from their
+
-
record contracts, because the publicity does have an effect, that more
+
-
people go to their concerts, they have more concerts, and they make some
+
-
money that way, and then at the concerts they can sell things including
+
-
records, and they do make money from that, so they do benefit, but
+
-
there's more than one way to give musicians publicity. In fact, this
+
-
method of publicity is based on commercial planning, it's hype. It's
+
-
the hype musical complex. And it distorts music, so I'd rather give
+
-
musicians publicity in the way I do it, which is, by saying to people:
+
-
hey, listen to that music, isn't that wonderful?..
+
-
 
+
-
{01:07:07}
+
-
 
+
-
How about e-mailing a copy of somebody's song to your friend, that's
+
-
a great way to give musicians publicity, I'd rather see musicians get
+
-
publicity this way. It not only means that we can get rid of this nasty
+
-
record companies and have them stop them interfering with us enjoying
+
-
the music, but it also healthier for music to have music publicity and
+
-
popularity not be controlled by money.
+
-
 
+
-
{01:07:42}
+
-
 
+
-
So, a site /?/ from a superstar musicians will not be any worse if we
+
-
will legalize the peer-to-peer sharing. But we might do a better job
+
-
than the current system of supporting musicians. I would like to, and
+
-
I have two proposals that have to do that.
+
-
 
+
-
==== Taxes and cube root of popularity ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:08:04}
+
-
 
+
-
One method uses tax. You tax blank discs, or internet connectivity,
+
-
or whatever, something that vaguely relates to enjoying music and
+
-
then you distribute that money entirely to the musicians, composers and
+
-
song-writers, based on their popularity, but not in linear proportion. And
+
-
the reason is this: a superstar could be a thousand times as popular
+
-
as somebody else, as a successful musician, and fairly popular. If
+
-
you distribute the money in linear proportion [shows it by hand as
+
-
a straight line], a few superstars will take almost all the money,
+
-
leaving very little for all the other musicians, which means the system
+
-
will work very inefficiently at supporting the activity of music, so,
+
-
what I propose is take the cube root of the popularity of each artist,
+
-
or maybe the fourth root, well, you could adjust this, the point is
+
-
you have a mathematical formula, and it looks like this [shows it by
+
-
hand as a typical root curve], so if the superstar is a thousand times
+
-
as popular, if we use the cube root, well, the superstar will get ten
+
-
much as money. Instead of the thousand times. Well, this way a few
+
-
superstars, although each on get more than the usual amount, it still
+
-
ends up to a small fraction of the money, meaning most of the money can
+
-
go to supporting lots of other musicians who are fairly popular but not
+
-
superstars. And the result is a system that works efficiently to support
+
-
the musicians who really need it. And still gives you to whatever extent
+
-
such an incentive does any good, because it could do harm instead. /?/
+
-
External incentives can kill creativity, they can be quite harmful,
+
-
but nonetheless, the superstars could still expect to get more, now,
+
-
if you get more popular you do get more, but it's on a sliding scale,
+
-
so a thousand times a popularity doesn't give you a thousand times as
+
-
much money, only ten times as much, and the result is paying less than
+
-
we do now to the copyright system, we can support musicians a lot better.
+
-
 
+
-
==== Voluntary payments ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:10:47}
+
-
 
+
-
But, some people don't like taxes. I don't mind taxes, I believe in
+
-
a wealthier state and the wealthier state means to collect taxes. But,
+
-
some people don't like taxes, so I have another approach to suggest. And
+
-
that is voluntary payments. Imagine that every player has a button you
+
-
can push, that would send one dollar to the artists, whether the e-book
+
-
reader, or television set, or music box, whatever, push the button and
+
-
send the dollar. Lots of people will do this, because.. first of all,
+
-
the dollar is not that much money. Well, they are poor people in the
+
-
world, they can't afford to send the dollar, and that's okay, they
+
-
shouldn't. We don't need to squeeze money out of them to support the
+
-
arts. They are plenty people in the world for whom one dollar is not
+
-
that much, who can push the button and who wouldn't mind, they wouldn't
+
-
notice the money, if the push it once a week, they won't mind. And they
+
-
will do. And I expect we can convince a lot of people even to push it
+
-
once a day. And if we are not satisfied with how much money people are
+
-
sending to the musicians or whoever in this way, we can have a friendly,
+
-
warm, loving publicity campaign: "Have you sent a dollar to the people
+
-
who made this song or a movie this week? (or wrote a book?) If not --
+
-
why not? Didn't you enjoy it? Send them a little bit, it's so easy,
+
-
you'll never miss the money." And this would be instead of these cruel,
+
-
fictitious /?/ PR propaganda campaigns saying that sharing is theft.
+
-
 
+
-
{01:13:00}
+
-
 
+
-
Society is based on the spirit of good will, and the practice of sharing
+
-
with and cooperating with other people in your community, to attack this
+
-
is to attack society. Today's copyright law is an attack on society and
+
-
it is intolerable. But once we get rid of it, we'll have a system that
+
-
treats us ethically, and if we wish to increase our support for those
+
-
who write, we have easy ways to do it.
+
-
 
+
-
{01:13:40}
+
-
 
+
-
So, at this point I will answer questions.
+
-
 
+
-
(Where is the box, is it here now? So I've got some... [to person X:]
+
-
Did you get the box? [X: I've sent somebody to retrieve it] He obviously
+
-
didn't return, there must be a monster in that office that ate him up
+
-
or something like that. [laughter, X leaves the room]. So be careful,
+
-
bring someone else with you! [light laughter] Splitting up is the recipe
+
-
for getting eaten.)
+
-
 
+
-
=== Questions ===
+
-
 
+
-
{01:14:14}
+
-
 
+
-
Anyway, questions.
+
-
 
+
-
==== What countries are democratic? ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:14:17}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: What countries are democratic in your sense?]
+
-
 
+
-
I'm not sure that they are any [laughter, applause]. New Zealand seems
+
-
better than most. Certainly not the US, Bush stole the election twice
+
-
and Congress just sells laws to.. ([discovers some cloth in the box
+
-
just brought:] uh-oh, what's this? [laughter] Ah.) And certainly not the
+
-
European Union, which keeps on adopting laws more and more nasty for the
+
-
sake of publishers. Certainly not Russia, I read that in the election
+
-
for Parliament the vote counts are too round, apparently somebody chose
+
-
what the vote counts would be and he picked round fractions like ten
+
-
percent and twenty percent, I'm sure next time they would make that
+
-
mistake. [laughter, applause] But you see, democracy doesn't just mean
+
-
that people vote. It means that those who are especially powerful are
+
-
not allowed to have political power in proportion to their own personal
+
-
influence and wealth. If you let rich people deploy their influence to
+
-
make people vote for what they want, that is not democracy.
+
-
 
+
-
==== Becoming member of the Congress ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:16:20}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: Richard, Lawrence Lessig tried... well, not tried, but
+
-
he thought about becoming member of the Congress..]
+
-
 
+
-
I don't know about that.
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: Yes. What do you think about becoming member of
+
-
Congress?]
+
-
 
+
-
You mean for Lawrence Lessig?
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: Maybe for you.]
+
-
 
+
-
For Lawrence Lessig I think he's honest so I guess he would be better
+
-
than most of the people in Congress now. As for me, I don't think people
+
-
would vote for me. [laughter] For one thing: I'm an atheist. And in the
+
-
US an atheist can't get elected docash /?/. A lot of people believe that
+
-
atheists are evil. [light laughter] They believe that to be an atheist is
+
-
to have no ethics. And then, well, I see plenty of people who claims to be
+
-
religious and in the name of their religion they do horrible things. Bush
+
-
says that god told him to launch his war of conquest to Iraq [laughter,
+
-
applause]. But then what would you expect from a god like that?
+
-
 
+
-
==== RFID chips ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:17:54}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: So, Richard, (can I ask you a question) in the beginning of
+
-
your conversation you touched theme of hardware. There is a sort
+
-
of restriction of human rights, it's the RFID chips, so what's your
+
-
opinion on this and will you start a company like "Stop DRM"
+
-
(apparently
+
-
listener mispronounced 'company' for 'campaign', which has lead to a
+
-
confusion. --Pavel)]
+
-
 
+
-
I don't mind starting a companies, I don't mind what I will do with
+
-
one, I'm so busy doing what I'm already doing, I don't see I can start
+
-
anything new. But I am worried about RFIDs, well, there are some uses
+
-
for RFIDs that I think are okay, when a shipment from the manufacturer
+
-
to a store has an RFID on it for the sake of making sure that things
+
-
don't get stolen, I see no harm in that.
+
-
 
+
-
{01:18:46}
+
-
 
+
-
It's when they start putting RFIDs into the things we carry, then it
+
-
becomes dangerous. Now, I have a card that I've used to pay for subway
+
-
in Boston, and it has an RFID in it, the only reason I had it is because
+
-
they give you discount if you use that. But I've made sure they don't
+
-
know who has it and I always kept it an aluminium foil except when I
+
-
actually go into the subway and then I put it right back in, so it can't
+
-
be tracked anywhere else, and third, after every couple of months I get
+
-
a new one and I give away the old one to somebody else and so by trying
+
-
to get people going swapping them around so that they are not good for
+
-
surveillance. We have to resist these things. RFIDs in passports, are
+
-
very... a nasty and stupid idea. And I worry also about RFIDs in credit
+
-
cards, I don't know, it's sometimes hard to tell.
+
-
 
+
-
{01:20:03}
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: Implantation to...?]
+
-
 
+
-
Well, that's obviously nasty, but it doesn't have to go that far to be
+
-
nasty. For instance, in the US a lot of people have an RFID in their
+
-
cars and they use this to pay toll on the highways and bridges, and of
+
-
course, this means that system keeps track of everywhere they go. So,
+
-
people shouldn't use that. Well, those systems could be built a way that
+
-
is anonymous way, you can make anonymous payment system, the technology
+
-
is not the hard part, but our government wants to spy on people and has
+
-
no respect for human rights.
+
-
 
+
-
{01:20:49}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: Usually they mention terrorists...]
+
-
 
+
-
Oh, yes, they always say they are protecting us from terrorists unless
+
-
they say they're protecting us from child pornographers they are some
+
-
kind of deem /?/ that they are protecting us from, but that's absurd
+
-
because the big danger is them. [laughter]
+
-
 
+
-
==== The era of "software as a service" ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:21:15}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: How do you see a future of free software in the era of "software as
+
-
a service"?]
+
-
 
+
-
Well, I don't like that term, "software as a service", I think it's
+
-
misleading and I do not use it. It's a confusing way to refer to two
+
-
different practices, which we need to distinguish. One of them is sites
+
-
that send a program to you browser to run on your machine. What I think,
+
-
if I'm going to run that program, I want to get in in the usual way,
+
-
I want to have it installed on my machine, and I want it to be free
+
-
software,and I want to be able to change my copy of it. So I consider
+
-
those things totally unacceptable. But the other thing, that this confused
+
-
with, is using a server to do computation. And that may be okay or may
+
-
be unacceptable depending on details of what the computation is.
+
-
 
+
-
{01:22:20}
+
-
 
+
-
Is it your computation that you do on your data or it is some other kind
+
-
of thing? Well, on most sites are some other kind of thing. Let's suppose
+
-
it's a search engine. Well, that's looking thought the company's data. You
+
-
say: please look through your data for me. Okay. It's not your data, it's
+
-
their data. Or suppose you're buying
+
-
something, then you make a deal with the owner of the site. That's not
+
-
doing your computation with your data, it's not something you can do on
+
-
your own computer.
+
-
 
+
-
On the other hand, look at Google Docs, basically, it's a spreadsheet
+
-
and a word processor, and it's sends a large program to run in your
+
-
browser and that's not good because that program is not free. But okay,
+
-
suppose they make that program free, it'll still be a problem, and that
+
-
is you are using their server to do your computing with your data. And
+
-
you should have control of that. But if you do it on somebody else's
+
-
server you don't have control. And note that it doesn't matter whether
+
-
the software on the server is free. Suppose... You know, a lot
+
-
of software running on that server is free software, and the rest is
+
-
is probably custom software, Google is the only user, only Google has
+
-
it, Google will never release it in any fashion, I would expect. Well,
+
-
that's okay as far as it goes, but the point is you don't control what
+
-
it does on their server. But suppose that they release all the source
+
-
code for that custom software. You sill wouldn't control what it does
+
-
on their server, it will all be free software, but if you run in on
+
-
their server, you don't control them. If were free software, you could
+
-
install it on your computer and then you would control. So the point is
+
-
for doing you own computing on your data, if you want to have control,
+
-
you have to do it on your computer with your copy of the program, and
+
-
it has to be free software. So, some kinds of web servers are okay,
+
-
some cause a problem. This is a different kind of issue, its structure
+
-
is different, from the issue of free versus proprietary software, we
+
-
have to think about it differently.
+
-
 
+
-
==== Standartization committees ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:25:00}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: What is your opinion about activity of various standardization
+
-
committees, especially those which pretend to regulate programming
+
-
languages?]
+
-
 
+
-
Well, standards are useful, it is a way of achieving compatibility, for
+
-
instance it's useful that there is a C standard, and that C compilers
+
-
will interpret a lot of things the same way.
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: But maybe... my question is about different
+
-
thing. What about the case when they actually change languages, like C99?]
+
-
 
+
-
It's useful, you know, people came up with ways to improve C, some of
+
-
the changes in C99 came from me [laughter, applause], I implemented
+
-
extensions in GCC and some of them people liked and then they were put
+
-
in the C spec.. Great!
+
-
 
+
-
==== Licenses for scientific articles ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:26:16}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: What do you think about licenses for scientific jobs, for example
+
-
articles, what exact types of license for example....]
+
-
 
+
-
Well, first of all, scientific articles, papers are in second category,
+
-
they're works of testimony.
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: And what exact type of licenses...]
+
-
 
+
-
Okay, let me answer please, let me answer, I'm trying to answer you,
+
-
okay? [light laughter] So, I believe we should all have the freedom to
+
-
at least the freedom to non-commercially redistribute the exact copies
+
-
of them. So, that's what I recommend, release them under the license
+
-
that permits that. Now, you could permit commercial exact copying too,
+
-
that, you know, there is no reason not, if you want to. So, for instance,
+
-
there are two Creative Commons licenses that would do this, and there
+
-
is no-derivs-no-commercial license and there is no-derivs license,
+
-
and I think they both are fine.
+
-
 
+
-
Now, the journal publishers try to prevent this. So right now science is
+
-
faced with the obstruction of the publishers of scientific journals who
+
-
are trying to interfere with the dissemination of scientific knowledge
+
-
for the sake of their own profits. We have to defeat them, we have to
+
-
perhaps get rid of them.
+
-
 
+
-
Now, they way I suggest for this is that universities should sign
+
-
contracts with all their faculty and staff and students where the
+
-
university reserves in advance the right of second publication on the
+
-
university's website of the final version of any article that they
+
-
publish, after it has been published by somebody else. So they have
+
-
to look for publication in the same way they do now, and once that's
+
-
done, the university can put a copy on its website under one of those CC
+
-
licenses, and this way everything becomes available. The nice thing about
+
-
this is that it doesn't matter, what the author signed with the journal
+
-
publisher, because they can't take away the rights that the university
+
-
already has. Of course, even better would be to simply put this into a
+
-
law, or, for instance, funding agencies that fund research could make this
+
-
a requirement, and one already has, I believe, it's called "The Welcome
+
-
Trust" which funds biological research, or medical research, and they
+
-
make it a requirement: if you get their fund, you have to agree to one
+
-
way or another, I don't know exactly, but the theme is this, but one way
+
-
or another they require the authors to publish their articles in a ways
+
-
that are open to the public and allow redistribution. So, we're starting
+
-
to do this, if enough funding sources do this, we will win the fight.
+
-
 
+
-
([somebody says through mic: Пожалуйста,
+
-
берите микрофон, чтобы в запись
+
-
попало.] What? [laughter] [I just get to make a microphone to
+
-
them...] I don't understand..)
+
-
 
+
-
==== Cooperating with occupation government ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:30:09}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: How do you understand, is it permittable for us cooperate with
+
-
occupation government. I meant that a government are now neutral support
+
-
of free software in some of bits /?/ aspects, but they do not agree with
+
-
idea as it all.]
+
-
 
+
-
We should cooperate them when they propose to do something that advances
+
-
our freedom.
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: But, if there is no absolute agreement, can we
+
-
sacrifice anything?]
+
-
 
+
-
I don't understand, it's too general, I'm sorry, I don't know to think
+
-
about such a general question.
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: Okay, for example, we propose some new amendments /?/
+
-
to the copyright law...]
+
-
 
+
-
Sorry, new what?
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: Amendments.] Okay. [the same listener: And we
+
-
cannot get the whole thing, and the final effect of the copyright law,
+
-
remains that.]
+
-
 
+
-
Well, if it is a step in the right direction, we can support it, but we
+
-
have to be clear and say: "it's only part, it only corrects a part of
+
-
the problem".
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: I see, thank you.]
+
-
 
+
-
So, we have to advocate what is needed to really solve the problem,
+
-
but if we win only part of that it's still a victory, a partial victory.
+
-
 
+
-
==== Ten years expiry for the GNU GPL ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:31:34}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: If copyright goes out of effect in ten years, then GNU GPL software
+
-
will not be GNU GPL software in ten years?]
+
-
 
+
-
That's right, it would not be GPL in ten years anymore. Well, what I
+
-
propose for works in the first category, functional practical works,
+
-
that they should all be free.
+
-
 
+
-
(Did you want to ask a question? I want the guy who is standing against
+
-
a wall in a brownish coat...)
+
-
 
+
-
==== How many people will push buttons ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:31:11}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: Mr. Stallman, you said us about the way to support musicians and
+
-
writers by pressing button and sending them money. But do you really
+
-
believe that lots of people will push these buttons...]
+
-
 
+
-
Oh, sure, we know it, for instance, a few months ago Radiohead released
+
-
record and said: pay as much as you like and they didn't say what have
+
-
they got, but there are estimates that they got millions of dollars. And
+
-
the same record was being distributed in the same time through BitTorrent,
+
-
so I think it's now proved, that it's not only possible to support
+
-
musicians this way, but that they can even get rich.
+
-
 
+
-
[another listener: I can actually add a more recent example, just two days ago Nine Inch
+
-
Nails released their latest album under the Creative Commons Share-alike
+
-
license.. ]
+
-
 
+
-
Wow! [light laughter]
+
-
 
+
-
[..and they published first nine tracks of that album of thirty six
+
-
tracks at the website for free, that instantly got into the Pirate Bay
+
-
torrent and then you can buy for five dollars all the tracks in the
+
-
FLAC or MP3 format without DRM, or you can pay ten or seventy of three
+
-
hundred dollars for different packages.]
+
-
 
+
-
Oh, good!
+
-
 
+
-
[Three hundred dollars package is already sold out. (RMS and some
+
-
listeners laugh) That was 4500 packages]
+
-
 
+
-
What this shows: a lot of people like giving money to the musicians
+
-
whose work they love. [laughter, applause]
+
-
 
+
-
You know, anybody who bought a three hundred dollar package, he was not
+
-
trying to save money, he was expressing his love. And the thing is art
+
-
can do that, art makes people.. arouses people's intense feelings. When
+
-
people love works of art, they want to support the artists, and in the
+
-
past it has been too hard. You know, there were many times when I would
+
-
happily sent some money to some musicians, but how in the world would
+
-
I do that? It was too much work. If I all I had to do is push a button,
+
-
suppose I could send ten dollars by pushing this button ten times... Well,
+
-
that's so easy! Of course, I would do it.
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: If they are not popular?]
+
-
 
+
-
{01:34:54}
+
-
 
+
-
Well, If they are not popular, they would not get so much money,
+
-
obviously, but...
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: If they are unknown?]
+
-
 
+
-
But what happens to unknown musicians today? For the most part, they
+
-
don't get anything! Now. For the most part, unknown musicians are totally
+
-
exploited by their record companies and they don't get any money if you
+
-
buy their CDs, so when people who think that we would lose something
+
-
important if we get rid of the present system, of even partly get rid of
+
-
the present system, which is what I'm proposing, after all, they're taking
+
-
for granted something that isn't true. The publishers, they always say:
+
-
"we are doing this to support the musicians", it's easy to make a mistake
+
-
of believing that the current system does support the artists. And the
+
-
fact is that it almost always does not. They are rare exceptions, they
+
-
are not zero, but they are rare, who make it big and get rich, and then
+
-
they are all the others, who have some success, but the current system
+
-
doesn't support them. You know, it supports the superstars.
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: Oh, I can see.]
+
-
 
+
-
==== Existing licenses for scientific works ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:36:12}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: Which of existing licenses do you mean as the best approximation to
+
-
your second case...]
+
-
 
+
-
Second case?...
+
-
 
+
-
[second case, scientific and other testimony...]
+
-
 
+
-
Oh, what I have said, there is Creative Commons, that is
+
-
CC-no-derivs-no-commercial license...
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: Aha.]
+
-
 
+
-
...that permits non-commercial redistribution of exact copies, and it
+
-
is least permissive Creative Commons license, and its okay for these
+
-
works but, of course, if you choose to permit more, that's okay too. So,
+
-
any Creative Commons license is okay for these two categories [points
+
-
by hand to second and third category as he had drawn them in the air
+
-
around himself previously]
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: Are you sure that these licenses are appropriate
+
-
now to use it to publish student and scientific works of some university?]
+
-
 
+
-
Yes. [A silent pause. Laughter, applause]
+
-
 
+
-
I usually permit commercial redistribution as well, when I publish
+
-
something, my essays, they permit distribution of exact copies and they
+
-
don't limit this to non-commercial.
+
-
 
+
-
==== Promoting free software to business ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:37:48}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: What ways do you see in promoting the free software to
+
-
business? Because, it's also... it's rather.. it gets population /?/...]
+
-
 
+
-
I'm not an expert on that, I don't focus on business, I focus on teaching
+
-
people about the human rights that they should have as software users,
+
-
you see, part of the reason that business has so much power is that many
+
-
people focus on... many people fond /fan? phone?/ on business, they say:
+
-
Oh, how can I convince the business to do this, to accept this idea,
+
-
but if you focus on convincing business that means you're accepting
+
-
the values of business. Well, I don't accept those values and that's
+
-
my most important point. So, I don't want to give these speeches as
+
-
if I was talking to business. My main point is about the rest of life,
+
-
about the values that business ignores.
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: But not every business is evil?]
+
-
 
+
-
I don't say they're all evil, what I'm saying is that I don't want
+
-
to... You see, business is one narrow area of life. If you focus on
+
-
business, in effect you strengthen that narrow area of life as if it were
+
-
everything and ignoring everything outside that, and that is harmful. So,
+
-
I'm not saying businesses should never exist, I'm not a communist,
+
-
[laughter, growing applause] but I do say, that what I care about is
+
-
our values.
+
-
 
+
-
==== Implementing the button, online payments ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:39:30}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: You've got the musicians. How do you practically see,
+
-
how could it be done, that button implemented?]
+
-
 
+
-
I'm not an expert, but I know that technology exists, the technology
+
-
for instance, for digital cash has been developed, it's not a technical
+
-
problem, it's the social problem, how would you get this to put it to
+
-
effect, that's our problem, but designing the algorithms is not the
+
-
problem. I'm not an expert in this area, I just know that the methods
+
-
exist.
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: I meant to say that some people /...?/ seeing danger
+
-
in online money transfers just the same as in RFID, it is being used
+
-
just too much.]
+
-
 
+
-
Sorry, see danger in what?
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: in online payments. Tracking and so on...]
+
-
 
+
-
Online payments. Well, I see danger in it too, because right now
+
-
e-commerce requires a credit card, it's not anonymous, so I don't do it. I
+
-
don't buy things with credit card, I buy things with cash, in a store,
+
-
a physical store, because I don't want to be recorded for where I was,
+
-
what I bought, I see that that is dangerous, I agree, well, maybe we
+
-
agree, if you are saying the same thing, then we agree.
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: Yep. That was just concern.. my concern, and
+
-
practicatorent.. /?/]
+
-
 
+
-
I have to leave, I have to stop in two minutes. I have to get out of
+
-
your... [RMS peers at previously mentioned mountain. laughter] by eight.
+
-
 
+
-
[points to another person who wants to ask]
+
-
 
+
-
{01:41:28}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: What whould you say to such and example /?/. If I buy table I
+
-
don't have to give the manufacturer any information about me, if I buy
+
-
copyrighted software, I should give give a lot of information..]
+
-
 
+
-
Well, actually, that's not necessarily true. You might be able to go to
+
-
a store and buy a copy, and probably you can buy a copy like a book in
+
-
a store and you can pay cash and they will not know who you are. But I
+
-
agree, anonymity is important right and in general, non-free software
+
-
tramples your rights in a lot of ways, that's what I say: don't use
+
-
non-free software, protect your freedom.
+
-
 
+
-
[the same listener: Thank you]
+
-
 
+
-
==== Private software, military technologies ====
+
-
 
+
-
{01:42:09}
+
-
 
+
-
[Q: All software should be free, but do you understand that always will be
+
-
some fields where software can't be free, such as military technologies?]
+
-
 
+
-
Well, that's different. You see, software for military use is not
+
-
available to the public at all. That's different from proprietary
+
-
software. Microsoft doesn't say: "You can't have Windows, it's a secret",
+
-
they say: "Sure, you can have it, but you don't control it, we control
+
-
you." [laughter] I'm not against private software, that you develop and
+
-
use, your company might use it internally, and not release it to the
+
-
public, that I don't criticize. What I do criticize is when they offer
+
-
it to you but in a way that tramples your freedom. [Applause]
+
-
 
+
-
{01:43:12}
+
-
(So, now I will end the question period. I should point that there are
+
(в процессе завершения, скоро выложу сюда и [http://rms-moscow-2008.narod.ru/ сюда] --[[Участник:PavelSutyrin|PavelSutyrin]] 10:42, 20 июня 2008 (UTC))
-
stickers here, please take the stickers, and I'm sure that some of you
+
-
will be able to make use of that, if these are /uneral?/, please take
+
-
it to one organization or another will be able to take these, so...)
+
{{RMS}}
{{RMS}}

Пожалуйста, обратите внимание, что все ваши добавления могут быть отредактированы или удалены другими участниками. Если вы не хотите, чтобы кто-либо изменял ваши тексты, не помещайте их сюда.
Вы также подтверждаете, что являетесь автором вносимых дополнений, или скопировали их из источника, допускающего свободное распространение и изменение своего содержимого (см. eSyr's_wiki:Авторское право).
НЕ РАЗМЕЩАЙТЕ БЕЗ РАЗРЕШЕНИЯ ОХРАНЯЕМЫЕ АВТОРСКИМ ПРАВОМ МАТЕРИАЛЫ!


Отменить | Справка по редактированию (в новом окне)

Шаблоны, использованные на этой странице:

Получено с http://esyr.us/wiki/Richard_Stallman%2C_Copyright_vs_Community_in_the_Age_of_Computer_Networks
Личные инструменты
Разделы