Re: [Fsfe-uk] Young Greens moving on FS

[Mark Preston]

Lee Braiden wrote:

> Mark Preston wrote:
>
> > Yes Gnu GPL free software is copyrighted, or copylefted, at present. 
> > This can be regarded as just a workaround because the laws relating 
> > to copyright aren't likely to disappear anytime soon. A lot of people 
> > who support the use of free software would also like to see copyright 
> > laws abolished, especially in relation to files distributed over the 
> > internet.
>
>
> As I understand it, many Free Software folks are quite happy with 
> Copyright, as it is precisely what makes the GPL possible.  I think 
> the problem is that Copyright is being distorted and abused, rather 
> than that it is fundamentally flawed.  Feel free to enlighten me if 
> I'm wrong, though ;)
>
> - Lee.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fsfe-uk mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
Hi Lee,
You are almost certainly correct when you state that "many Free Software 
folks are quite happy with Copyright". The Gnu GPL would not be 
necessary if there was no copyright laws that could be infringed. The 
Gnu project could happily continue IMHO if copyright laws were abolished.



The core problem with copyright in relation to the internet is that 
enforcement of it requires monitoring
of all communications, and you cannot guarantee free speech if someone is
monitoring everything you say. This is important, most people fail to
address this point when debating the issue of copyright, simply put:

You cannot guarantee freedom of speech and enforce copyright law.

I would prefer to have the benefits of anonymity and freedom of speech 
at the
expense of copyright law and censorship when dealing with the internet.
Therefore I tend to look very closely at the copyright terms before
agreeing to them, and avoid them if at all possible.

No issue is completely black and white. Just like the death penalty or 
banning foxhunting, opinions differ. There is no easy right answer, 
certainly not one that everybody will agree on.
Copyright law really came into being along with the printing press. In
order to regulate printing society deemed it desirable to sacrifice
some of their rights to copy printed documents (which in effect most
people couldn't do anyway); for the benefit of being able to read
books that were mass produced. In many ways it has outlived it's
usefulness in terms of copying over the internet. Before the printing
press anybody could copy books, but most people didn't have the time,
knowledge or ability to write them by hand, and so questions of
copyright did not arise.
 But now we reach the crazy point at which people stick things on the
internet and copyright them so nobody can copy them without risk of
prosecution.


For an example of the crazy world of digital copyrighting extending it's 
coverage how about this:-

Password protected dental text books are becoming a reality.
One of the first "successes" of the DMCA.
For the argument in favour see

http://www.vitalbook.com/press/2001/0310_cutteeth.html

And a discussion of the wider issues, which mostly disapproves see

http://slashdot.org/yro/00/08/28/1158221.shtml

Copyright and software patent issues are difficult issues to get right
in the digital age. The way things are heading looks in many ways like 
George
Orwell's 1984 nightmare to me.

This imaginary quote based on the situation at NYU would be funny if
it weren't actually so close to the truth.
"But professor, this book contains material that supports my
arguements. However, you'll need to pay $399.95 in order to read it.
I could let you read it, but then I'd have to have you arrested."

This is bad enough, but in the future it could be a lot more grim.
"Fair use" and "fair dealing" rights are being removed. Digital Rights 
Management
(DRM) software to stop cutting and pasting or printing of documents is 
coming in.
The follow up to the DMCA is a proposed new law called the Security
Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). This is being
promoted by lobbying organizations such as the Music Publisher's
Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association
of America. The MPAA brought the case against Napster. This law has at
it's core the idea that making copies of files is evil. Computers will
be manufactured to make sure that trying to circumvent copyright is
impossible. Computer programming will be illegal without a licence,
and everything you do on a computer will be supervised to ensure
compliance. Is this the future most free software proponents desire?

Best regards,
Mark Preston