“Copyright 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. This talk by Richard M. Stallman is broken into two parts: the main talk and the question and answer sessions following the talk. Both are available in only OGG/Theora format in keeping with Stallman’s wishes.”
nice to see some Stallman on here…
This will be my final post on osnews….take care!
(vote me up)
😉
Why final post?
that there are no text version.
It is pretty big, 700mb, so I expect it to hit a streaming video site before long.
ah, video. i missed the theora part.
yea, youtube would be nice.
just wish that we already had ubiquitous ogg streaming like what opera is trying to push for next gen html.
RMS has hold a similar talk already back in 2001. For the 2001 talk you can find a transcript here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html
Maybe the recorded talk contains some changes and improvements but mostly it should be the same like in 2001.
you dont expect him to change his message much huh?
..well…probably about as much as we expect him to change his appearance…
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.
The purpose of copyright is not to benefit the public. It is there to protect the individual; to protect the person’s basic, innate, inalienable human rights to create property and to own and protect their creations, from the type of person who would steal and abuse their works.
This guy shouldn’t talk about things he doesn’t understand.
This guy shouldn’t talk about things he doesn’t understand.
Copyright 101:
The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts—that is—knowledge.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/departs/copyright/tutorial/module1/page3.htm
Copyright 411:
The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the economic interests of the authors and artists, but rather to promote the progress of the useful arts—that is knowledge and creative works—by providing an incentive for the creation through giving the creative community exclusive rights in their works for a limited period.
http://itle.okstate.edu/copyright/module1/page-1-03.htm
Some people shouldn’t talk about things they don’t understand.
Copyright kills culture. Economists aren’t friends of culture, so it’s nonsense to hear their sayings.
Those may be officially stated purposes for copyright, but the actions and current rhetoric around it indicate otherwise. For example: retroactive extensions of copyright serve an economic, rather than a social, purpose. Likewise, copyright discussion is currently put into terms of “intellectual property”. Again, that implies economic motives.
As for Stallman not really wanting freedom, with restrictive conditions like the GPL, just think of it as a practical view of freedom. The GPL basically says if we are going to have these freedoms we have to protect them from exploitation. (Cynical, eh?) I do agree that the GPL in inherently non-free because of that. I also recognize why it is necessary to place some restrictions on the software. And in contrast to many commercial EULAs, some of which seek to restrict freedom of speech, or give the vendor the right to cease your computers (and enter your home/business without your authorization), or suggest that you agree to the EULA by merely using the software even if they never showed the EULA to you, or use your computer for their own purposes in a non-apparent way (possible because most people don’t read EULAs), or even forbid you from driving SUVs, then I would say that the GPL is pretty darned free.
As for Stallman not really wanting freedom, with restrictive conditions like the GPL, just think of it as a practical view of freedom.
Tell me one person who really wants freedom then, the implication being that they favor no restrictions whatsoever. Only total anarchists would qualify.
The GPL basically says if we are going to have these freedoms we have to protect them from exploitation. (Cynical, eh?) I do agree that the GPL in inherently non-free because of that.
Of course, furthering your view to its logical extreme, any software license is inherently “non-free” compared to the public domain. So all software licenses are inherently “non-free”. Since licenses grant freedoms for a copyrighted work, the GPL justifiably discusses freedoms.
> Only total anarchists would qualify.
Anarchy isn’t very free either, since then you aren’t free to go about without being harassed by muggers and rapists and whatnot.
As long as there exists freedoms which require restrictions (and almost all do) there simply can’t logically be any “total freedom”.
So, the important thing becomes which freedoms are more important than the restrictions they require. For me, personally, GPL seems just fine, thank you very much.
It depends on which kind of anarchism you are talking about. Your definition doesn’t fit Collective Anarchism nor does it fit Individualistic Anarchism.
You are probably confusing Anarchism with chaos. Quite common for people who don’t understand the ideology of either version of Anarchism.
Just being off-topic
> It depends on which kind of anarchism you are talking about.
> […]
> You are probably confusing Anarchism with chaos.
Well, kinda. I thought that was what b3timmons meant by “total anarchists”. The actual philosophical categories of anarchism are even more restricted than chaos. But now we’re really digressing…
http://www.copyright.com/ccc/viewPage.do?pageCode=cr10-n
How are the punishments draconian? If an author, rightsholder or what-have-you has specific charges recorded for reuse of his/her material, someone violates that, the rightsholder has a right to garner the money owed him/her.
FAIR USE
The concept of fair use can be confusing and difficult to apply to particular uses of copyright protected material. Understanding the concept of fair use and when it applies may help ensure your compliance with copyright law.
Fair use is a uniquely U.S. concept, created by judges and enshrined in the law. Fair use recognizes that certain types of use of other people’s copyright protected works do not require the copyright holder’s authorization. In these instances, it is presumed the use is minimal enough that it does not interfere with the copyright holder’s exclusive rights to reproduce and otherwise reuse the work.
Fair use is primarily designed to allow the use of the copyright protected work for commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education. However, fair use is not an exception to copyright compliance so much as it is a “legal defense.” That is, if you use a copyright protected work and the copyright owner claims copyright infringement, you may be able to assert a defense of fair use, which you would then have to prove.
Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act lists four factors to help judges determine, and therefore to help you predict, when content usage may be considered “fair use.”
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit, educational purposes.
If a particular usage is intended to help you or your organization to derive financial or other business-related benefits from the copyright material, then that is probably not fair use.
The nature of the copyrighted work.
Use of a purely factual work is more likely to be considered fair use than use of someone’s creative work.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyright protected work as a whole.
There are no set page counts or percentages that define the boundaries of fair use. Courts exercise common-sense judgment about whether what is being used is too much of, or so important to, the original overall work as to be beyond the scope of fair use.
The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyright protected work.
This factor looks at whether the nature of the use competes with or diminishes the potential market for the form of use that the copyright holder is already employing, or can reasonably be expected soon to employ, in order to make money for itself through licensing.
At one extreme, simple reproduction of a work (i.e., photocopying) is commonly licensed by copyright holders, and therefore photocopying in a business environment is not likely to be considered fair use.
At the other extreme, true parody is more likely to be considered fair use because it is unlikely that the original copyright holder would create a parody of his or her own work.
While the factors above are helpful guides, they do not clearly identify uses that are or are not fair use. Fair use is not a straightforward concept, therefore the fair use analysis must be conducted on a case-by-case basis.
Understanding the scope of fair use and becoming familiar with those situations where it applies and those where it does not can help protect you and your organization from unauthorized use of copyright materials, however, many individuals do not want this responsibility. Corporate Copyright Policies (link to section) often provide guidelines for determining whether a use may be considered fair use. Frequently, a complete risk analysis is required. Most organizations prefer to follow the motto “when in doubt, obtain permission.”
Thousands of cases, and many, many books and articles have attempted to analyze fair use in order to define specific examples.
Examples of Fair Use include:
Quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment.
Quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations.
Reproduction of material for classroom use where the reproduction was unexpected and spontaneous–for example, where an article in the morning’s paper is directly relevant to that day’s class topic.
Use in a parody of short portions of the work itself.
A summary of an address or article, which may include quotations of short passages of the copyrighted work.
INFRINGING COPYRIGHT
In utilizing any of the exclusive rights provided to the copyright holder without his permission, you may be violating or infringing on his rights under the Copyright Act. If the copyright holder has registered the infringed work with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to the infringement, the copyright holder may be entitled to compensation for his loss. Compensation may include damages, such as lost profits from the infringing activity, or statutory damages ranging from $250 to $150,000 for each infringing copy or higher if the court feels that the infringement was committed “willfully.”
You may also be criminally liable if you willfully copy a work for profit or financial gain, or if the work has a value of more than $1,000. Penalties can include a one year jail sentence plus fines. If the value is more than $2,500, you may be sentenced to five years in jail plus fines. Criminal penalties generally apply to large-scale commercial piracy.
…Click the link to see the rest.
Edited 2007-07-22 01:30
It’s not so much that the punishments are draconian. The draconian part is that restricting the natural flow of information is not universally enforceable and doesn’t benefit society as a whole. The same arguments have been used to question the government’s campaign to outlaw a plant that grows naturally across much of the planet.
These are just two examples of government opposing widely popular and predominantly victimless behaviors because of special interests. Big Media is afraid of the piracy just as American whites were afraid of immigration. Several decades later, immigration is still a hot-button issue in America, because instead of attacking the cause, we attacked the symptom, and indirectly at that.
So instead of another campaign to create a new “scourge of society,” why don’t we take a look the underlying causes of piracy? Well, with piracy, people can get the media they want free of charge and consume it whenever and wherever they want. OK, so now we know what Big Media is competing with. They need to provide a service that rivals or surpasses those features.
They need to reinvent exactly what they’re selling. They can’t sell media, because then people will steal it. They have to give it away and let people do what they want with it. The content itself cannot be monetized, but the ideas it communicates can.
Advertisers will buy rights to integrate certain ideas into the content. Traditional ad spots have some limitations, since the content can be processed and redistributed. Product placement and subtle messaging tactics (think push-polling) will become the lifeblood of commercial media.
Will consumers appreciate these forms of integrated messaging? Probably not. But they’ll have to live with it if they want commercial media. If they want art, they can look beyond the commercial media industry to aspiring artists on YouTube and such.
The age of commercial media as art is over. If people want better art with higher production value, then they’ll have to support it through private contribution or through the expansion of tax-supported cultural programs such as America’s perennially-cut NEA.
Edited 2007-07-22 02:48
:/ Sounds like a conundrum.
Not if the people take responsibility for the furtherance of the arts. I don’t quite understand why we have largely delegated the responsibility of creating culture to mega-corporations. Do these entities dutifully represent our range of perspectives on the world and its people?
My personal political belief is that public funding of the arts and sciences is beneficial to the long-term unity and stability of a society. We should invest in pursuits that aren’t profitable in the short-term, and we cannot entrust the private sector to make this sacrifice.
However, society can at least partially support its own culture by pursuing the arts as a recreation or hobby. Writing novels, composing music, producing videos, or practicing various fine arts is certainly enjoyable as an activity in and of itself.
The creation of art doesn’t necessarily need to be funded at all. Especially as significant portions of society are comfortable enough financially not to worry about basic survival, personal investment in art is not an unreasonable expectation.
The bottom line is that the cultures of the world are at stake. If we lose our culture, we will lose a whole lot more, including our freedom. There’s a richness in our diversity and creativity that isn’t adequately captured by Madison Avenue, K Street, and Hollywood. If we don’t expand public participation in the arts, their world-view will be all we have left.
As Stallman notes, a tax of $1 per person would support musicians at the current rate that they receive from the record companies. Imagine how much art we could get for $10 per person if we simply cut out the private corporations that take a 96% cut of the money we spend on the arts.
If we do what’s right for the interest of society as a whole, the media conglomerates will probably die. Good riddance. Why should we sacrifice the richness of our culture to support a corrupt, outmoded industry? Wake up, they’re trying to control us by suppressing our exposure to art that challenges and inspires.
“As Stallman notes, a tax of $1 per person would support musicians at the current rate that they receive from the record companies. Imagine how much art we could get for $10 per person if we simply cut out the private corporations that take a 96% cut of the money we spend on the arts.
If we do what’s right for the interest of society as a whole, the media conglomerates will probably die. Good riddance. Why should we sacrifice the richness of our culture to support a corrupt, outmoded industry? Wake up, they’re trying to control us by suppressing our exposure to art that challenges and inspires.”
Well, I’m a libertarian and feel the gov’t should not be involved in this at all (not even as much as it is now) so that approach would not work for me. If we want the arts to survive then we, as individuals, need to focus on them, donate to them, attend events, etc.
The number of laws should be reduced and should be common sense and interpretive and judges should be elected on a regular term basis (and should have some sort of legal qualifications for basic law interpretation).
But a socialistic approach is wrong. It removes the responsibility from the people and puts it in the hands of the government upon who we become more and more dependent. Wake up (as you said) we are slowly losing all our rights but trying to “insure that we do the right thing for society.”
The problem with libertarianism is that they frame their cause as favoring people over government, but the actual result is favoring corporations over people. Remember, democratic government represents the people. Corporations represent their balance sheets.
Everybody gets one vote in government, but the public can only vote with their dollar to control corporations. The question is, should everybody have the same amount of control over essential services or should everybody have however much control they can afford?
You know why people have so little faith in government? Because they respond to special interests and seemingly ignore the public. So while I understand your argument for small government, I think that more privatization will make the problems worse. Huge corporations will fill the power vacuum left by a libertarian government and trample the will of the people.
I think you misunderstand libertarianism a little. It doesn’t necessarily advocate NO government, but more localized gov’t, allowing the people to better govern themselves. Federal government has grown out of control, far beyond what it was originally meant to be.
You make a good point about favoring the private sector, it is a capitalist form of government for sure. I tend to be naive and have hopes that if business does not have the government to lobby that it would resort to trying to please its surrounding community. A sort of social effect.
But I also agree with your comment about special interests, for sure!
“As Stallman notes, a tax of $1 per person would support musicians at the current rate that they receive from the record companies. Imagine how much art we could get for $10 per person if we simply cut out the private corporations that take a 96% cut of the money we spend on the arts.”
I want creators to get paid in accordance to the popularity of their works. Will your “art tax” be distributed to creators in such a fashion? Or will everyone get the same amount? It suspiciously sounds like the latter. And what of the artists that would make more under the current system than your “art tax”?
And I notice that RMS and his ilk always talk of “music” and “musicians”. They do that because music is perceived to be inexpensive to create. But what about big budget movies? How large a tax should be imposed to support movies? How about Video games?
RMS is making a fundamental mistake, IMO. RMS started crusading for “free as in speech” software, and is now trying to impose his model on *all* works. The problem is that while RMS has convinced programmers to work for free (or at least for lower compensation that they could garner in the free market), he has not convinced musicians, movie producers, actors, authors, etc to do the same. So transposing his ideas onto those other endeavors is a fool’s errand.
Edited 2007-07-22 18:53
You obviously do not know RMS’s view on the subject, since taxation is but one possible source of funding that he discussed. He also mentioned facilitating (micro-) payment systems for fans of the arts.
Copyrighted works such as software binaries can easily be thought of as “information.” Economists, for example, commonly make such references, say when speaking of two distinguishing features of informational products: nonrivalry and information being able to be both input and output of its own production process. Information clearly can be defined on any of multiple levels, and, indeed, the example I have given is central to the motivation behind re-evaluating copyright today.
RMS makes proposals, just as you are free to do. He has never held an office, and his looks are as far from a politician’s as imaginable, so I find his ability to impose anything highly unlikely. Devise your own software license and software, and you are free to make your own rules–you have every bit as much right as he does. Thus, to think of RMS as imposing is an insult to the many very intelligent people who recognize the value of software freedom and are paid to work on software under the GPL.
Anyone who knows what is in the talk realizes that his opinions follow from a straightforward analysis of the rights that have been bargained away by politicians to make state-sponsored limited monopolies for the the sole purpose of increasing works available to the public. Technologies such as the printing press and computer networks naturally change what the public can bargain with, so it is no wonder that copyright should be reconsidered in such a light.
Finally, all of these creations of the mind can be done for fun, as RMS often points out. Is there anything wrong with that? There is no particular reason why the distribution of other works cannot be similar to what the free software movement has encouraged for software. Indeed, if you saw the talk you would know of the obvious counterexamples to your claims, such as what authors have done in the important case of Wikipedia, the increasing number of free books, etc.
Edited 2007-07-22 19:43
In the same vein, you could say that stores have to compete with grand larceny; grand larceny is cheaper, gets you whatever you want, and can be done anywhere and anytime. I could make more metaphors, but you see my point.
You can’t compare business to piracy; that’s comparing apples and oranges. Heck, that’s like comparing apples to fish.
You could, but then you’d be lying. Unless you live in some kind of bizarro world where bits and bytes are physical goods and must be restocked periodically in the iTunes store or something?
Not to mention you speak of something hypothetical which isn’t and can’t possibly be happening, whereas piracy is here and now, and pretending you don’t have to compete with it won’t make it go away.
“It’s not so much that the punishments are draconian. The draconian part is that restricting the natural flow of information is not universally enforceable and doesn’t benefit society as a whole.”
Please feel free to post your social security number, driver’s license number, credit card numbers, ATM card number and PIN, etc. After all, you wouldn’t want to “restrict the natural flow of information”, would you?
Besides, there’s a question as to what constitutes “information”. RMS and his followers believe that any thing that can be represented in bytes is “information”. I don’t agree.
First, I don’t agree that a fictional work qualifies as “information”.
Second, I don’t agree that software programs are “information”. The source code might be, but not the compiled binary. Halo is a video game, not “information”. Excel is a spreadsheet processing program, not “information”. I don’t think pirating software programs (be they business apps, video games, whatever) has anything to do with the free flow of “information”.
“They need to reinvent exactly what they’re selling. They can’t sell media, because then people will steal it. They have to give it away and let people do what they want with it. The content itself cannot be monetized, but the ideas it communicates can.”
So, Bungie should give Halo away for free, and try to sell the “ideas it communicates”? Or Apple should give OSX away for free and try to sell the “ideas it communicates”? Please elaborate, if you will.
“Advertisers will buy rights to integrate certain ideas into the content. Traditional ad spots have some limitations, since the content can be processed and redistributed. Product placement and subtle messaging tactics (think push-polling) will become the lifeblood of commercial media.”
I have a vision of Frodo drinking Dr. Pepper on the big screen. *blech*
“The age of commercial media as art is over. If people want better art with higher production value, then they’ll have to support it through private contribution or through the expansion of tax-supported cultural programs such as America’s perennially-cut NEA.”
Ah, so we return to the patronage model, where only the rich get to indulge in experiencing “art of higher production value”? So a rich person would pay Bungie millions to create the Halo video game so that only he and those whom he invites can enjoy it. Or a rich guy would pay Peter Jackson 300 million dollars to create the LOTR movies so that only he and his friends/family could watch it. That “benefits society as a whole”?
As for government sponsored art, such art must, by definition, be government *approved* art. The art produced by government funding is at the whim of whoever is in power at the time. No thanks. Government sponsored art has its place (particularly for works that are of quality but not popular/mainstream enough to thrive in the private sector), but such art would not suffice to server “society as a whole”.
There has been a greater amount of art produced under the copyright system than all the years before that system was put into place combined. And that art has been accessible to all, not just the rich. Copyright has been “good for society as a whole”. Without copyright, we wouldn’t have had the LOTR movies, Harry Potter, Halo, Dark Side of the Moon, etc.
Edit:
I have to respond to “Big Media is afraid of the piracy just as American whites were afraid of immigration.” As an American of color, I take great offense at equating the right to pirate copyrighted works (i.e. the rights of “freeloaders”) with civil rights for minorities, or even comparing the two as if they are in any way comparable.
Edited 2007-07-22 18:25
Well if Shakespeare lived in a copyrighted renaissance world the big cooperations would sue him making his work dead for the planet .
Even Leonardo Da Vinci would have legal problems with companies that follow trademark law .
Because of copyright we still live in the 90’s evolution-wise (except for computer technology)
We dont drive Sun/wind empowered cars our kids dont own a hoverboard and the companies are abusing their authorities more and more .
And yes Copyright kills culture. Economists aren’t friends of culture, so it’s nonsense to hear their sayings , i agree with you Oliver.
You don’t protect the individual by violating fundamental human rights. Copyright is such a violation and the proof is that draconian punishment is required. If ownership of thought (what copyright (and all other forms of “intellectual” property) essentially are) was natural, then the draconian punishments weren’t necessary.
In regard to not knowing what he is talking about, I don’t think you should say anything, considering this statement from you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Almafeta
Talk about not understanding copyright laws and licenses… *sigh*
EDIT: fixed a tyop. And might as well put this one in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_protectionism
Edited 2007-07-21 22:09
Replying in private message.
I suppose you mean email? Either that or OSNews have some secret functionality
http://www4.osnews.com
Some OSNews functions only work there, unfortunately. Most definately not email, that’d be excessively familiar ^^;
Edited 2007-07-22 00:18 UTC
Okay, I’ll use the new version then
See my previous post:
“Criminal penalties generally apply to large-scale commercial piracy. “
I fail to see your point. The abstract for the talk mentions draconian punishments that are being lobbied for. Moreover, merely claiming a current (unspecified) punishment applying to large-scale commercial copyright infringement is not draconian does not imply that none of the current punishments for infringement are draconian.
Edited 2007-07-22 02:19
If only some of the current punishments are draconian then why would this be such a big deal?
The punishments being lobbied for are for the protection of the rightsholders and to discourage rampant infringment, which does occur whether you believe it does or not.
I’m not saying that some are not extreme and that maybe some PROPOSED (not actual) laws would be worse. But doesn’t the tone of this sound a bit extreme?
As its title suggests, the talk addresses more than just software, which after all, is but a subset of digital products. A better understanding of the background of copyright gives a better basis for anyone’s views, regardless of how they lean.
Random notes:
1. For Microsoft Windows users who cannot play the Ogg files, VLC is one player that does:
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.html
2. At least one complete transcript of the talk portion of this _exact_ talk can be found on a recent Slashdot discussion.
“1. For Microsoft Windows users who cannot play the Ogg files, VLC is one player that does:
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.html ”
…or you could just download the codec and use any player you want:
Audio: http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Vorbis_Ogg_ACM.htm
Video:
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Filters_for_Ogg_Vorbis_Speex_Th…
Edited 2007-07-23 08:44
If I want to believe I go to church. You have to have courage to actually live real freedom. A copyleft is a mockery of freedom, so is RMS. Sol lucet omnibus.
Oliver wrote:
-“If I want to believe I go to church. You have to have courage to actually live real freedom. A copyleft is a mockery of freedom, so is RMS. Sol lucet omnibus.”
you obviously ‘believe’ in your definition of ‘real freedom’, so does that make you a religious zelot of the church of BSD?
believing in something does not make you religious. heck, I try to live by the larger part of the ten commandments and I’m not the least bit religious.
so how about you try and make some rational arguments for your dislike of the GPL.
The irony in all of this is that if it were not for the corporatist greed to perpetually own everything in the relm of “Intellectual Property”, even that they declare OBSOLETE the GPL in all of its forms may have NEVER existed.
I have read about the events that led up to the creation of GPL v 1 (Originally called the Emacs Public License) and therefore to v 2 and v 3 as well and it was largely because Richard Stallman had to junk an entire computer system at MIT because the proprietary owner of its buggy printer driver would not release the OBSOLETE code of the driver to Stallman for the purpose of fixing the bugs. This particular event is ultimately what led to the entire “copyleft” Free Software concept and hence the three GPLs.
Therefore if OBSOLETE software had been allowed to go into the Public Domain in a timely manner, (as soon as possible after its end of support as “obsolete” and complete with source code) Stallman may had never had to junk his “obsolete” MIT computer system and the event that created the GPL would have never happened.
You have to have courage to actually live real freedom.
You’re so correct, which makes it such a shame that you cannot apply your own logic. Courage means resolve in the face of hardship or opposition. It means standing up for your beliefs, even if it’s not in your best interests. You have to believe in something in order to be courageous. Faith is a test of courage, not a substitute for courage.
The notion of freedom is a leap of faith. It’s not clear from history of from social sciences that human societies trend toward freedom. But nevertheless, the belief that the human spirit yearns to be free is among the most popular and unifying beliefs held by people of various religions and cultures the world over.
I think that there’s a difference between billions of people with a desire to be free and a society of billions of people that lives together in freedom. I think that there’s a undercurrent of selfishness in the human condition that results in valuing individual freedom over collective freedom. I think that we must yield some individual freedom in order to gain collective freedom, and I think that collective freedom is the ultimate predictor of peace, progress, and prosperity.
This is what I believe. I believe that we have to sacrifice a little in order to achieve real freedom, and I believe that personal sacrifice is courageous. I believe that courage, resolve, and strength have been falsely attributed to selfish absolutists. I believe that freedom is a compromise that requires courage.
Faith is not a substitute for courage. I think that you have a little too much faith in humanity and not enough courage to confront reality.
Both are available in only OGG/Theora format in keeping with Stallman’s wishes.”
And that means the people who he wants to hear this the most probably don’t have the needed codecs installed, including me. Nice going, Stallman.
This reminds me of a document that Microsoft once put out, who’s target audience was the *nix/open source community, and they released in their XPS format. *pffffft*
But I agree with him … when it comes to digital distribution as it pertains to copyright, the cat is out of the bag, and there’s no putting it back in. Any system that depends on people being honest is a system that’s going to fail. Of course, many of the people who will steal the content are the same ones who rail against corporations being greedy and dishonest, but I digress.
Edited 2007-07-21 23:03
Yep, as long as it is not in a sensible format, I’m not going to bother.
Heaven forbid someone stick to their principles.
Ogg/Theora is THE most sensible format … anyone can use it.
Even oppressed Windows users can use it.
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.html
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/K_Lite_Codec_Pack.htm
http://www.vorbis.com/setup_windows/
http://xiph.org/downloads/
Enjoy!
sensible format? give me a break, ffmpeg decodes it, and if you dont even have the best decoding package there is, then you are a fool, and shouldnt blame others for actually using a format that everyone can use FREELY. but i guess you’d rather be chained somewhere to a proprietary format you’d have to go to jail for using…
Well, install them then… or use VLC. The codecs are completely free – in every sense. So no excuse for not having ’em around
WorknMan wrote:
–“And that means the people who he wants to hear this the most probably don’t have the needed codecs installed, including me. Nice going, Stallman.”
it’s an OPEN format. there are a variety of players on windows that can handle it,
http://videolan.org/
stand alone player that works with ogg/theora and practically any other format you may think of.
directshow plugins, codecs, source code
http://www.theora.org/
And that means the people who he wants to hear this the most probably don’t have the needed codecs installed, including me. Nice going, Stallman.
You do not have to agree with him in order to see that his wish for a free and open format of video distribution is consistent with the theme of the very video being distributed. Some may consider a non-free or non-open format in this case to be hypocritical.
Of course, many of the people who will steal the content are the same ones who rail against corporations being greedy and dishonest, but I digress.
First, copyright infringement is not stealing.[1] Second, your statement that those who criticize corporations for greed and dishonesty are also copyright infringers is not remotely justifiable. E.g., corporate critic Noam Chomsky bothering to infringe on something? The mind boggles.
[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement_of_software
(Although the article is about software, it presents general facts about copyrighted material.)
Edited 2007-07-21 23:37
The purpose of copyright law is to expand the public domain, not to reward authors. Granting publishers a temporary monopoly is a means to that end; a temporary monopoly in return for a permanent increase in knowledge available to the public.
When copyright has been weak or unenforced, private printings were common. Authors would solicit subscriptions, and print their works only when sufficent copies had been sold. The market rewarded authors for their creative work, but the public at large was usually left out. The modern equivalent is the limited edition; small numbers at high prices.
As a means to an end, that of making more knowledge freely available to the public, copyright does work. But only when the length of copyright is short enough that the work enters the public domain while it is still useful. Any longer than that, and the public benefit evaporates, any justification for government involvement evaporates, and special interests are simply using law to distort the market in their favor.
While there are obvious abuses to the current system, I think it is highly ignorant to simply do away with copyrights. Sources cited here are mere opinions to enforce a belief that there should be no copyrights. While saying copyrights do not protect the author might make for nice headline, unfortunately for them history bears out that without copyright protection many authors would be left out in the cold.
What we have is a certain segment who desire just basically everything free in this world, yet basic economics dictates this will not work. This whole concept of today’s generation of “gimme gimme gimme for free” is just a slap in the face of reality.
You must not be referring to the talk itself, since what is proposed very much depends upon copyright. Some of the comments here, OTOH, have indeed suggested no copyright, but they are not mere assertions but contain arguments which you have not addressed. Moreover, these commenters have not shown ignorance, especially regarding issues around copyrights.
If copyrights protect the author as you suggest, it follows that all authors are protected, right? This is contradicted, however, by the existence of authors who have wished for the copyright on their work to expire when their work no longer sells but their contract extends longer. If the copyright term were shorter, i.e., if their work were no longer under copyright, then they could take the work and, say, add substantial revisions that they had prepared, and release it under copyright again (along perhaps with new contract). So much for the author being protected by copyright.
Your point about people wanting things free of charge is not that simple. In particular, you are presumably focused on not “basically everything” but works of information, and the economics for it are fundamentally different than for (physical) property. (Of course, the talk itself never suggested that all creators of such works never be paid for their creation.)
Edited 2007-07-22 01:59
Fortunately, copyright laws are strong in civilized world. I write software myself and I would burn my computers and smash hard discs and CD’s before letting
my software to be distributed for free.
Well, most of it.
I understand why some of us find the idea of copyright essential to the responsible distribution of intellectual property but frankly, just because we are told that copyright is the fundamental reason why we have creative works does not actually make that statement true.
When I first started hearing such nonsense, I went looking for a reason why people would think this tripe is true. The only reason I could find was that whenever a major label of publisher spoke of distribution, they respeatedly stressed said fallacy.
In fact, from a political standpoint, that statement would be considered spin.
People create works of art and labor for many reasons, not all of witch are financial. I am currently a member of a rock band and I can safely say that the reason for my participation in said project is purely for fun.
The founders of our modern day copyright systems did not do so for the benefit of the holder solely but rather for the benefit of everybody. These fact are easly looked up on wikipedia or even just by Googleing copyright.
What I hear all the time when discussions of copyright ensue is that creative works are the sole property of the creator. This is actually not the case. What copyright law actually stipulates is that the concerned work belongs to everybody yet grants the copyright holder exclusive rights of distribution for a limited time only
So let me ask you this. Are you happy with the fact that, every time a copyright is extended, you are being robed of what is rightfully yours? Or will you stand up and ask why (invariably) large corporations are allowed to do so with impunity?
Great post!
To those of you who agree with Stallman about this and enjoyed his talk I would like to recommend the book “Free culture” by Lawrence Lessig. It is available as a free download at http://www.free-culture.cc/ or in print.
Prof. Lessing teaches constitutional law in USA and his opinion is a refreshing deviation from the allmighty IANAL.