"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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
"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."
Member since:2005-07-08
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.
Member since:2006-07-04
"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
Member since:2006-08-26
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
Member since:
2005-07-08
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.