Stallman: Ending the War on Sharing

[Moejoe]

Interesting article by your friend and mine Richard Stallman on the ridiculous anti-sharing stances of the music industry. I thought this would be an interesting read because the book industry seems to be in the same position the Music industry was ten years ago with their swings-and-roundabouts approach to DRM.

http://stallman.org/end-war-on-sharing.html

When record companies make a fuss about the danger of "piracy", they're not talking about violent attacks on shipping. What they complain about is the sharing of copies of music, an activity in which millions of people participate in a spirit of cooperation. The term "piracy" is used by record companies to demonize sharing and cooperation by equating them to kidnaping, murder and theft.

[Phogg]

Well, not quite as bad as the music industry as far as behavior.

If you recall the RIAA spent huge sums and years of time going after the original MP3.com (which was at that time a marketing site for Indy artists - not a Napster clone).

Their lawyers had to have told them the only chance they ever had would be if the site ran out of funds to continue the litigation, but the RIAA continued on for years to the inevitable bitch slapping they got from the judge when it was over.

So far the publishing industry hasn't matched that.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Well, not quite as bad as the music industry as far as behavior.

If you recall the RIAA spent huge sums and years of time going after the original MP3.com (which was at that time a marketing site for Indy artists - not a Napster clone).

Their lawyers had to have told them the only chance they ever had would be if the site ran out of funds to continue the litigation, but the RIAA continued on for years to the inevitable bitch slapping they got from the judge when it was over.

So far the publishing industry hasn't matched that.

I was more refering to the deluded belief in DRM as a solution to a problem that isn't even a problem, but a paranoid invention.

[Kali Yuga]

Stallman is a fanatic about defending his (and only his) interpretations of rights and what is ethical behavior in regards to digital distribution. He also happens to engage in quixotic quests (e.g. renaming "Linux" as "GNU/Linux") and, last I heard, doesn't place much value in compromise. I haven't found much to admire about his opinions.

As to his arguments:

• The technical ability to distribute digital content at low cost, or the human tendency to "share," does not, in and of itself, confer the legal or moral right to infringe copyright.
• Musicians willingly and knowingly enter into contracts with record companies. If an artist doesn't hire a lawyer to thoroughly review the contract and/or gets a raw deal, it is their own fault (unless there is actual criminal misconduct involved). It is also far easier today to self-publish and self-distribute your own works to a global audience, at almost no cost, than at any time in history.
• The purpose of copyright is not just to encourage artists, it is also to protect the integrity of the artists' / distributor's / publisher's work and commercial interests. As per usual, Stallman's recommendations to fund artists are -- at best -- hopelessly idealistic. (However, I fully support an artists' or publisher's right to try alternate distribution models, whether commercial or non-commercial in origin.)
• Stallman does not appear to recognize that an alternative to what he calls the "War on Sharing" is to offer better options than the infringing methods. E.g. consistent quality (which commercial ebooks have yet to offer ), proper formatting, customer service, a system to distribute royalties and so forth.

I agree that the music industry was and is heavy-handed, in many cases to the detriment of their cause of protecting the work of artists. The book companies (as far as I know) have yet to use similarly draconian tactics. However, Stallman seems to also go against the idea of paying for any digital download whatsoever, regardless of the use of DRM, which (if that is a correct interpretation) strikes me as.... difficult to defend.

[tompe]

The original purpose of copyright was to stimulate creative production and nothing more. And many people still think that is the correct view.

I think Stallman defends his opinions pretty well. Maybe you have not understood the arguments?

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

• The purpose of copyright is not just to encourage artists, it is also to protect the integrity of the artists' / distributor's / publisher's work and commercial interests. As per usual, Stallman's recommendations to fund artists are -- at best -- hopelessly idealistic. (However, I fully support an artists' or publisher's right to try alternate distribution models, whether commercial or non-commercial in origin.)

I don't know about your country (whatever that is), but in the USA, copyright has only one purpose as detailed in the Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

In other words, protecting the artists' interests are means, not ends in and of themselves.

Now this does not mean I support protecting the interest of authors. It does mean however that I believe that copyright has started to drift from its intended purpose of getting works into the public domain.

[quote]

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

• The technical ability to distribute digital content at low cost, or the human tendency to "share," does not, in and of itself, confer the legal or moral right to infringe copyright.

No, but laws should take human nature and the habits of thousands of years of history into account--a law that declared "Food-sharing can lead to disease, therefore anyone who eats off the same plate as another person is guilty of a misdemeanor, and will be fined from $100 to $1000 and jailed for no more than 30 days" will be soundly ignored and mocked.

There is no innate, moral right to copy protections on one's creative efforts. Our species survived without such protections for tens of thousands of years (millions, according to some); there's no human "need" for copyrights, except to allow our current cultures to flourish. Laws to encourage creativity and protect financial interests need to work with, not against, human nature, or they are doomed to failure.

• Musicians willingly and knowingly enter into contracts with record companies. If an artist doesn't hire a lawyer to thoroughly review the contract and/or gets a raw deal, it is their own fault (unless there is actual criminal misconduct involved). It is also far easier today to self-publish and self-distribute your own works to a global audience, at almost no cost, than at any time in history.

I'm not a fan of "if they didn't consult a legal expert, or the right legal expert, before signing, screw them." However, Stallman does seem to believe that ALL recording contracts are so abusive as to be worthless to the artists, and I don't agree with that.

• The purpose of copyright is not just to encourage artists, it is also to protect the integrity of the artists' / distributor's / publisher's work and commercial interests.

Not in the U.S. Protecting integrity & commercial interests temporarily is the means to getting new creative content available to everyone. However, I do agree that Stallman's proposed fixes aren't realistic. They're useful as starting concepts--if we tried to fund artists as a sort of national resource, how could we go about it? Certainly worth considering. But not worth implementing as he's imagined it; Stallman is no great judge of human nature, himself.

• Stallman does not appear to recognize that an alternative to what he calls the "War on Sharing" is to offer better options than the infringing methods.

I like Stallman's rants; they give me much to think about. I generally agree with his goals but think he has flawed concepts of how to reach them.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by tompe

The original purpose of copyright was to stimulate creative production and nothing more. And many people still think that is the correct view.

Current copyright law does recognize the financial interests of the artists (e.g. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf, § 801) and it's very clear that recent changes in US law, at least, intend to protect an artists' commercial interests. It is very typical for a law to grow beyond its initial scope, especially when the subject of that law takes on a different role or presence in society as time goes on.

Originally Posted by tompe

I think Stallman defends his opinions pretty well. Maybe you have not understood the arguments?

No, I understand his position fairly well; he believes that all digital data should be free, and payment for anything you download should be purely voluntary. Disagreement does not mean misunderstanding, especially when it's with Stallman.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Laws should take human nature and the habits of thousands of years of history into account....

True, especially since many laws are designed to curtail the less beneficial aspects of human nature. But I don't see a problem with laws that protect not just the integrity of the artist, but also their financial interests as well (assuming the artist chooses to put their work into a commercial context).

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

There is no innate, moral right to copy protections on one's creative efforts.

I'm not sure Kant would agree, but I am not the one claiming that there is an innate right involved here. I guess you could say I view it more on the "social contract" level. Stallman's position implies that the mere ability to reproduce a digital version of an artwork:

Stallman: "Today's digital technology enables everyone to make and share copies.... The law which was acceptable when it restricted only publishers is now an injustice because it forbids cooperation among citizens. To stop people from sharing goes against human nature...."

However, the desire to download digital content without paying for it has more than one interpretation. It could be the "desire to share freely," but it can also be a maximization of one's own economic interests at the expense of others, a desire for Free Stuff, an impulse to collect myriad objects, a wish to "stick it to The Man," and so forth. I.e. it seems to me that he is claiming a right that does not necessarily exist or may not legitimately supersede the right of an artist to control the duplication and distribution of their own works.

Moreover, it would be quite easy to suggest that unpleasant actions like theft and murder are parts of "human nature" -- they appear to have been part of humanity from the start, and we certainly haven't been able to legislate them out of existence. That hardly justifies the legitimization of these acts, yes?

[fugazied]

Stallman always put forward rational well thought out opinions. However I'm not very familiar with his opinions on exactly how music and ebook creators and distributors should be fairly rewarded for their work. Code can be collaborative in a way that music and art often isn't. A program can have 10 creators and 1000 contributors, a song doesn't work in that way. The creator is often a single person, who usually expects a rewrad commiserate with the number of people enjoying their work.

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by fugazied

Stallman always put forward rational well thought out opinions. However I'm not very familiar with his opinions on exactly how music and ebook creators and distributors should be fairly rewarded for their work. Code can be collaborative in a way that music and art often isn't. A program can have 10 creators and 1000 contributors, a song doesn't work in that way. The creator is often a single person, who usually expects a rewrad commiserate with the number of people enjoying their work.

tax people, pay artists for making their work public/ based on the number of people who view it. I don't know how the system will work honestly.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by fugazied

Stallman always put forward rational well thought out opinions. However I'm not very familiar with his opinions on exactly how music and ebook creators and distributors should be fairly rewarded for their work.

He gives a brief sketch at the end of the essay. Basically: volunteer payments, government funding of the arts, selling merchandising -- apparently anything but paying a direct, pre-set price for digital content.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

He gives a brief sketch at the end of the essay. Basically: volunteer payments, government funding of the arts, selling merchandising -- apparently anything but paying a direct, pre-set price for digital content.

We already have one of those in Europe and its been working great for years - government funded arts projects. We have some brilliant theatre, poetry and fiction that exists because of government grants in the UK. The pre-set price belongs to an era when the object itself had a fixed and tangible cost. Paying before you enjoy anything in the digital world seems less and less natural as time goes by. Pay-what-you-like-and-if-you-like is more digital and democratic.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Current copyright law does recognize the financial interests of the artists (e.g. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf, § 801) and it's very clear that recent changes in US law, at least, intend to protect an artists' commercial interests. It is very typical for a law to grow beyond its initial scope, especially when the subject of that law takes on a different role or presence in society as time goes on.

Its fine for copyright law to take the financial interests of artists into account. Indeed, it is that interest that is one of the means by which copyright obtains it goal. That being said, if copyright law ignores its primary purpose -- to get works into the public domain -- then I think an argument can be made that such a law would no longer be constitutional in the United States. Certainly, at that point, copyright laws in the United States would loose any moral authority that they might still retain.

--
Bill

[pholy]

For more on the notion of 'free information' go to the llounge thread:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54347

It's a talk Eben Moglen gave about six months ago to a bunch of lawyers - about an hour long, but I found a transcript for speed readers...

More food for thought.

Phil

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

We already have one of those in Europe and its been working great for years - government funded arts projects. We have some brilliant theatre, poetry and fiction that exists because of government grants in the UK. The pre-set price belongs to an era when the object itself had a fixed and tangible cost. Paying before you enjoy anything in the digital world seems less and less natural as time goes by. Pay-what-you-like-and-if-you-like is more digital and democratic.

Yes, you have that in Europe -- bureaucrats spending the 50% the average (!) worker gets deducted from his paycheck every month for everything the bureaucrats deem worthy. I don't feel that that is a good system to replicate! And in spite of those subsidies, tickets for theaters, classical concerts, etc are sky high. The city I was born in has only 250,000 people and spent 50 million Euros to build a theater which puts up performances only some old ladies watch who go there to show off their expensive clothes. How is that for "democratic".