Stallman Attacks Corporate DRM, Demands Ten-Year Copyright Limit

斯托曼抨击企业DRM，要求将版权期限限制为十年 由于数字网络使复制变得轻而易举，除非将版权期限削减至十年并将非商业共享合法化，否则执行现代版权法需要动用破坏公众自由的严苛监控手段。 斯托曼认为，计算机网络颠覆了版权的历史功能，将一项针对产业的监管法规变成了针对普通公民的侵入性监控与控制体系。他批评了数字限制管理（DRM）、永久延长版权期限以及企业恶意软件等行业滥用行为，并以索尼CD rootkit和亚马逊远程删除电子书等事件为例。为保护人权与数字自由，斯托曼提议将非商业原样分享合法化，将版权期限缩短至最多十年，并确保像软件这样的功能性作品完全自由。为了在杜绝企业剥削的同时支持艺术家，他提出了替代方案，包括匿名自愿微支付，以及通过累进立方根公式分配税收资助的公共资金系统。 理查德·斯托曼认为，版权法已从针对印刷机的产业监管，转变为对普通公民的压迫性限制，必须借助严苛的监控和惩罚手段方能执行。 (26:29) 为了在数字时代恢复平衡，斯托曼提议自出版之日起将商业版权期限统一下调至十年。 (62:36) 斯托曼将创作作品划分为三个不同类别：功能性作品必须完全自由（赋予四大自由）；表达观点的作品必须防止未经授权的篡改，同时允许原样分享；艺术作品则应允许重新混剪和非商业复制。 (67:35) 为了在不强制推行人为数字稀缺的情况下支持职业艺术家，斯托曼主张采用结合匿名自愿微支付、并依据基于热度的立方根公式分配公共资金的模式。 (89:18)

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道“RU Computer Science”于 2013 年 6 月 29 日发布。页面描述显示，这是自由软件运动领袖理查德·斯托曼（Richard Stallman）于 2012 年 11 月 7 日在雷克雅未克大学发表的题为《版权 vs 社区》（Copyright vs. Community）的公开演讲。讲座旨在揭示脱胎于印刷术时代的版权体系如何与数字计算机网络脱节，批判跨国公司借严刑峻法强化版权特权，并倡导以保障公众利益与数字自由为核心推动制度变革。 ## TL;DR 斯托曼从自由软件的四大基本自由切入，系统梳理了版权法从印刷时代的“出版业行业规制”蜕化为数字时代针对普通公众的“全民枷锁”的演变过程。他尖锐抨击了商业巨头通过数字限制管理（DRM / 数字手铐）、间谍监控、后门程序以及无休止游说延长保护期对公众自然权利的剥夺。为此，他提出了系统性的版权改革框架：将作品划分为功能性、观点性与艺术性三大门类，彻底合法化非商业性的原样副本分享（P2P），并将艺术作品的版权期大幅缩短至十年。针对艺术家的生存困境，斯托曼拒绝“赔偿”与“报酬”的话术陷阱，主张通过基于立方根法则的公共文化基金以及完全匿名的自愿小额打赏机制，构建一个兼顾创作者回报与公民自由的数字新生态。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场讲演充满了一种毫不妥协、旗帜鲜明的黑客理想主义色彩。斯托曼的表达严谨犀利又冷峻辛辣，他不仅给听众立下“严禁上传照片到 Facebook”、“提问务必大声发清辅音”等硬性规矩，还在台上直言不讳地痛斥跨国巨头应当被施以“企业死刑”。现场节奏张弛有度，听众在斯托曼关于“谋杀险”、“米老鼠法案”以及好莱坞“系统性制造垃圾”的机智讽刺中时而会心大笑，时而在面对数字监控与技术极权的深刻警示中陷入沉思，全场洋溢着一场为了赛博空间公民自主权而誓死自卫的智性战斗氛围。 ## Bulletin - [26:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=1589s) 版权制度在印刷术时代本质是规范出版商的行业规制，但进入计算机网络时代后演变为限制全体公众的枷锁，失去了原有的合法性基础与社会正当性。 - [30:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=1838s) 跨国娱乐与出版集团通过游说政府推行米老鼠法案、部署数字限制管理（DRM）并要求 ISP 惩罚用户，将商业垄断特权强加于公共领域与个人自由之上。 - [01:02:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=3753s) 理查德·斯托曼提出版权保护期应从出版起大幅缩短至 10 年，且必须将所有公开发表作品的非商业性原样复制与自由分享彻底合法化。 - [01:28:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=5326s) 为保障创作者生计，斯托曼主张废除“补偿”与“报酬”的语境陷阱，建立基于人气“立方根法则”的公共资助基金及具备严格匿名保护的自愿小额支付机制。 ## Key takeaways - [02:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=164s) 自由软件的核心在于尊重用户自由与社区，由四大基本自由构成：运行程序（自由0）、研究修改源码（自由1）、重新分发原版（自由2）以及分发修改版（自由3）。 - [06:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=369s) 专有软件本质上是不公正权力的工具，充斥着间谍监视、数字手铐（DRM）以及远程通用后门等恶意功能，使用户完全任由软件所有者摆布。 - [14:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=853s) 物理实体因材料属性无法轻易修改，且现实中缺乏大众复制设备，因此自由问题在物理世界受限，但在具备零边际成本复制与修改能力的数字出版作品上成为焦点。 - [22:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=1362s) 印刷术催生了高成本、规模经济的集中化生产体系，版权法最初作为规范出版商的行业规制而设立，因不限制普通读者且易于执行而具备正当性。 - [28:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=1713s) 计算机网络让单件复制效率迎来革命性飞跃，版权方企图将针对出版商的法律枷锁套在全体公众头上，导致版权法的社会效果彻底反转。 - [30:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=1838s) 出版商通过政治献金推动美国国会延长版权期（如米老鼠版权法），试图以每 20 年延期一次的方式推行永久版权，严重阻碍经典作品回归公共领域。 - [35:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=2144s) 出版巨头通过非自由软件在 DVD、蓝光光盘中植入 DRM（数字手铐），并推动 DMCA 等立法将破解手铐的行为定罪，将日常技术转化为监视与控制用户的监狱看守。 - [43:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=2604s) 索尼在音乐光盘中植入包含隐藏自身与防删除功能的 rootkit 代码，并侵犯 GNU GPL 自由许可证，涉嫌触犯破坏计算机安全与商业侵权两项重罪却免于起诉。 - [49:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=2991s) 以亚马逊 Kindle 为代表的专有电子书阅读器剥夺了读者的匿名购买、转售和借阅自由，甚至借助中心化后门远程静默抹除合法购买的书籍，构成了数字时代的虚拟焚书。 - [01:07:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=4055s) 应对版权法进行分类改革：功能性作品必须完全自由；观点言论作品必须允许非商业性分享但禁止擅自篡改；艺术娱乐作品版权缩减至 10 年且必须合法化混音创作。 - [01:11:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=4284s) 出版业针对分享行为发动了严酷战争，推行取消公正审判的惩处机制；社会必须让点对点（P2P）等非商业分享原样副本的行为完全合法化。 - [01:21:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=4860s) 唱片工业的版税合约充斥财务陷阱，将制作与宣传费用转化为预付款，使绝大多数音乐人即便唱片大卖也分文未得，主要依靠巡演与周边维生。 - [01:28:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=5326s) 通过公共税收资助艺术创作时，应采用人气的“立方根法则”（∛）进行资金分配，有效平抑超级明星的马太效应，将资金精准输送给中坚创作者。 - [01:32:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=5524s) Humble eBook Bundle 的成功验证了无 DRM、无 EULA 的自愿小额支付模式切实可行，但当前的互联网基础设施亟需建立保护付款方隐私的匿名支付机制。 - [01:39:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=5956s) 大学应强制推行“自由出版”政策，打破传统商业学术期刊的垄断；学术研究需要自由的再分发与重用权利，而非仅仅局限于“开放获取”。 - [01:52:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=6737s) 应当彻底摒弃“知识产权”这一混淆视听的统称，版权与专利属于性质与机制完全不同的两套法律，必须分开审视与讨论。 - [02:04:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=7455s) 赛博空间的解放战争哪怕无法立刻取得全胜，只要有一部分人成功摆脱专有软件与数字枷锁的束缚、实现自身的自由，本身就是不可磨灭的胜利。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=6s) 开场致辞与斯托曼的两项现场要求 雷克雅未克大学（Reykjavik University）计算机科学系主任首先致开场白，对理查德·斯托曼（Richard Stallman）的到来表示热烈欢迎。系主任提到，斯托曼是自由软件基金会（Free Software Foundation）的创始人，也是他在科研中高频使用的众多关键工具——包括 Emacs、GCC 以及 GDB 的作者，同时还是 GNU 通用公共许可证（GNU General Public License）的制定者。 随后，斯托曼接管讲台。他开门见山地指出，虽然大众以往是因为他在自由软件领域的工作而邀请他演讲，但今晚的主题并非自由软件本身，而是回应一个他在演讲后经常被问到的问题：“这些理念能否应用于软件之外的其他领域？”为了使后续讨论具备清晰的逻辑基础，他需要先梳理自由软件的核心理念。在正式切入正题前，斯托曼向在场听众提出了两项极其明确且严肃的现场要求： 1. **禁止将他的照片上传至 Facebook**：斯托曼直言 Facebook 是一个监视机器，不仅监视其平台用户，还监视非用户；上传他人的照片实际上是在向该平台提供收集该人信息的途径。斯托曼明确表示：“如果你们拍了我的照片，请不要上传到 Facebook。” 2. **演讲音视频分发的格式与许可限制**：如果有人录制本次演讲并希望传播拷贝，必须仅使用有利于自由软件的格式，例如 Ogg 格式和 WebM，坚决不能使用各类非自由专有格式，包括各类 MP 格式、Flash、RealPlayer、Windows Media Player 或 QuickTime。此外，鉴于本场演讲代表其个人观点，必须附带知识共享署名-禁止演绎（Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs）许可证。 --- ### [02:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=164s) 自由软件的定义与“四大基本自由” 斯托曼阐述了自由软件（Free Software）的本质定义：自由软件是尊重用户自由与社区的软件。他强调这里的“自由”关乎自由而非价格，即“是言论自由的自由，而非免费啤酒的免费”（Think of free speech, not free beer）。相反，非自由软件是用户受到奴役的专有软件，是施加不公正权力的工具。斯托曼总结指出：“面对软件只有两种可能：要么是用户控制程序，要么是程序控制用户。” 为了让用户真正掌控程序，必须赋予用户四项必不可少的基本自由（Four Essential Freedoms）： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 自由软件的四大基本自由结构图 accDescr: 展示自由0与自由1构成个体控制，自由2与自由3构成集体控制的层级结构。 subgraph Individual["个体控制 (Individual Control)"] F0["自由 0：按意愿运行程序的自由"] F1["自由 1：研究并修改源码的自由"] end subgraph Collective["集体控制 (Collective Control)"] F2["自由 2：重新分发精确副本的自由"] F3["自由 3：分发修改后版本的自由"] end Individual --> Total["充分掌控软件与计算自主"] Collective --> Total ``` 斯托曼逐一解析了这四项自由及其层级关系： - **自由 0（Freedom 0）**：根据个人意愿运行程序的自由。 - **自由 1（Freedom 1）**：研究源代码并根据自身计算需求进行修改的自由。这两项自由赋予了用户“个体控制”（Individual Control）。但斯托曼特别分析，单纯拥有个体控制是不够的，因为多数用户并不懂编程，即便像他这样的专业程序员，也没有精力逐一研究和修改日常使用的成千上万个程序。 - **自由 2（Freedom 2）**：在愿意时向他人重新分发程序原始副本的自由。 - **自由 3（Freedom 3）**：向他人分发修改后版本的自由。自由 2 与自由 3 构成了“集体控制”（Collective Control），允许用户群体协同协作，共同维护和改进他们所使用的程序版本。 斯托曼总结了缺少这些自由的后果：“当用户没有全部四项自由时，他们就无法完全掌控程序，这意味着程序反过来控制了他们。” --- ### [06:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=369s) 专有软件的不公正权力与恶意功能 当软件所有者控制了程序并借此支配用户时，就会形成不公正的权力结构。软件所有者非常清楚自己手中的权力，往往难以抵挡滥用权力的诱惑；而在现代商业社会中，如果所有者是一家商业公司，其体制结构决定了它会毫无犹豫地屈服于牟取利益的诱惑。因此，专有软件中充斥着各类恶意功能（Malicious Features）： - **间谍监视功能（Spy Features）**：暗中收集用户隐私并传回服务器。例如，《愤怒的小鸟》（Angry Birds）的真实意图之一便是搜集玩家的地理位置信息；Flash Player 也同样内置监视机制。 - **数字手铐（Digital Handcuffs / DRM）**：即数字限制管理，限制用户在自己的计算机中如何处理自身的数据。苹果公司的 iOS 设备（被斯托曼戏称为“i-things”）和 macOS，以及亚马逊的 Kindle 电子书阅读器（被斯托曼称为“Swindle / 骗局”）都部署了数字手铐，剥夺了读者的传统阅读自由。 - **万能后门（Universal Backdoors）**：厂商可以远程强行修改或安装软件。斯托曼指出，微软的 Windows 操作系统同时具备间谍功能、数字手铐与通用后门，“任何今天尚未存在于 Windows 中的恶意功能，明天都可以在不征求计算机所有者许可的情况下被远程安装”。此外，绝大多数便携式手机都内置监控机制和通用后门，甚至可以在用户无需贴近麦克风的情况下，将其转变为远程窃听工具。 斯托曼指出，对抗这一局面的唯一防线就是让用户掌握程序控制权。在自由软件生态中，虽然并非每个用户都是程序员，但总有懂得编程的用户在审查代码、修补漏洞或增加功能的过程中发现并剔除恶意代码，并发布安全的新版本供大家使用。斯托曼感叹道：“非自由程序的用户则完全任凭其所有者摆布。” --- ### [11:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=663s) GNU 操作系统的起源与自由硬件的初步探讨 面对专有软件对用户自由的剥夺，斯托曼回顾了自己在 1983 年发起自由软件运动的历程。他当时宣布计划开发一套完全自由的操作系统——GNU 系统。他强调：“系统必须是百分之百的自由软件，而不能仅仅是百分之九十九的自由软件，因为只要有任何一个组件是专有的，它就会夺走你的自由。” GNU 的开发始于 1984 年 1 月。直到 1992 年 2 月，内核 Linux 采用自由许可证发布，才补齐了 GNU 系统最后缺失的关键拼图，构成了完整的 GNU/Linux 操作系统。 随着 GNU 工具与系统的普及，斯托曼受邀发表演讲的频次显著增加，人们开始频繁向他抛出那个核心问题：“这些理念是否能套用到其他事物上？例如硬件是否也应该是自由的？”斯托曼由此开始剖析物理实体对象在四大自由语境下的对应关系： - **物理对象上的自由 0**：即根据意愿使用物理对象的自由。斯托曼指出，在日常生活中，人们购买实体物品时通常天然拥有这项自由，制造商不会附带许可证来规定你该如何使用它。 - **法律禁令与许可限制的区别**：斯托曼以钢笔为例进行了精彩的类比。欺诈虽然是违法行为，但钢笔厂商绝不会附带一份写着“禁止用本笔实施欺诈”的许可协议。欺诈之所以违法，是因为国家法律明令禁止欺诈，无论行为人是用钢笔、铅笔、用手指在沙滩上写字还是用计算机作案，其法律定性都一样；这取决于法律而非制造商设定的使用限制。因此，对于物理对象，用户通常已经具备了“自由 0”，而真正的分水岭在于“自由 1”。 斯托曼在此处发问：“那么物理对象的自由 1 又该如何界定？”并由此引出对硬件可修改性与制造图纸自由的深入探讨。 ### [14:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=853s) 自由概念在物理实体上的局限与数字作品的提出 理查德·斯托曼（Richard Stallman）接着探讨自由软件的四大自由是否能套用到物理实体上。关于自由 1（研究并修改源代码以符合个人意愿的自由），由于绝大多数物理实体根本没有源代码，这项自由只能变通为“研究并修改该物品的自由”。在现实中，人们通常确实拥有这一自由——如果你买了一个麦克风，你完全有权改造它，但实际操作起来却困难重重：麦克风由金属或塑料制成，改造非常不易。如果是木质物品（比如一把木椅），人们还可以进行一些有用的改装；换成金属就更难，塑料难度更甚；而如果是一个微芯片（chip），擅自修改几乎是不可能的，任何尝试都只会彻底毁掉它。斯托曼强调，这种无法修改并不是源于任何人的恶意，而是芯片等物理实体本身的物理属性所致。 至于自由 2（复制并分发副本的自由）和自由 3（复制并分发修改后版本的自由），在物理世界中更是缺乏现实基础。除了钥匙这类极少数物品，绝大多数物理对象根本不存在现实中的“复制机”；哪怕在科幻小说中人们幻想着物质复制设备，现实中也造不出来。因此对于物理物品而言，人们虽然拥有自由 0 和自由 1，但行使它们存在严重的实际物理限制，而自由 2 和自由 3 则完全无从谈起。斯托曼由此指出，物理实体的非自由并不是当前亟需解决的矛盾。 真正让自由问题变得意义非凡的，是那些既能被自由复制又能被随意修改的对象，即“已出版作品”（published works）。当你的电脑里存有一部作品的副本时，你可以直接利用计算机去复制、分发乃至修改它。此时，法律是否允许你这么做，就成了一个深刻影响人们切身生活的现实问题。讲到此处，斯托曼察觉到演讲现场有些闷热，便中断了讲演，向现场主办人员询问是否可以开门放点冷空气进来：“这里越来越热了，有没有可能放点空气进来？我看外面的空气挺凉爽的。”在现场工作人员把门打开通风后，斯托曼继续展开他的演讲。 - 物理对象修改难度的物理递增：木头（较易） $\rightarrow$ 金属（更难） $\rightarrow$ 塑料（极难） $\rightarrow$ 芯片（无法修改，一碰即毁）。 - 物理世界缺乏大众复制设备（除钥匙配制等少数例外），科幻小说中的复制机并不存在。 - 计算机让每个人都掌握了完美的复制与修改工具，使出版作品的自由权利问题成为现实争论焦点。 --- ### [17:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=1041s) 技术变革如何改变行为后果与道德评价 斯托曼提出核心问题：对于我们拥有副本的各类作品，我们究竟应该拥有哪些自由？除了软件以外，当下限制人们对待手头副本方式的唯一法律就是版权法。因此，该问题也可以反过来表述为：版权法应当对我们手中的作品副本做出何种规定？为了剖析这一点，必须先回溯版权法与复制技术的演进历史，因为版权法从来都是伴随着复制技术的发展而产生和演化的。 斯托曼指出，技术的变化并不会改变人们的基本道德原则，因为底层原则过于深刻，不可能被技术这种表层事物轻易动摇。然而，在将原则应用于具体情境时，人们是通过权衡不同行为的现实后果来进行价值判断的；技术的进步恰恰会剧烈改变同一种行为带来的后果，进而让该行为变得比过去更好或更糟。为了生动阐释这一点，斯托曼打了一个幽默而荒诞的比喻：假如未来人类掌握了万无一失的起死回生术，那么谋杀罪的严重程度就会大打折扣；法官在法庭上只会敲下法槌说：“你杀了他，你必须出钱为他买具新身体！”斯托曼随后调侃道，如果是在美国，普通人恐怕就不得不去买一份“无保险杀手险”，而在文明国家，国民医疗保健服务（NHS）自然会直接把这项费用承担下来。 --- ### [19:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=1164s) 从古代手抄到印刷机的集中化生产 回溯复制技术的源头，古代世界的文字复制完全依赖于人工手抄——阅读一份文本，然后逐字写出另一份。这种技术速度极其缓慢、效率低下，但它具备几个极为关键的特性：第一，完全没有规模经济（economy of scale），抄写 10 份副本花费的时间恰好是抄写 1 份的 10 倍；第二，除了基本的读写识字能力外，不需要任何额外的专门技能；第三，除了笔墨纸张等常规书写用具外，不需要任何昂贵稀有的专用设备。这造就了一种去中心化的复制体系：任何地方只要有人拥有一份文本并且愿意动笔，就可以制作出副本。因此，在古代世界根本不存在类似版权的制度；如果有人想抄书，没有任何人会出面阻拦。唯一的例外是当地统治者不喜欢某本书，但这属于赤裸裸的审查制度（censorship）而非版权。 这种手抄模式维系了数千年，直到印刷机的发明带来了复制技术的巨大飞跃。然而，印刷机对效率的提升是非均质的： - 在古代，单件制作和大规模生产的单本耗时同样漫长； - 印刷机则极大地提升了“大规模批量生产”的效率，却对“单件临时复制”（one-off copying）没有任何助益。 事实上，如果只想复制一本书，手工抄写反而比印刷机更快，因为印刷机在印制之前必须经历极其繁琐耗时的排字（set the type）过程，只有在完成排字后才能迅速印出大量完全相同的副本。这使得印刷机具有极强的规模经济：印制大量副本成本低廉，而仅印一本则代价极其昂贵。此外，印刷机和铅字本身属于造价不菲的专用设备，绝大多数识字阶层根本无力购买，也不会操作这项需要专门技艺的机器。其最终结果是彻底催生了一种高度集中化的复制生产体制：任何书籍的副本只能在少数几个印刷工场集中印制，然后再长途运输销售给有需求的读者。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 古代手抄与印刷术时代复制模式对比 accDescr: 对比古代手抄模式与印刷机集中生产模式在技能、设备和组织形式上的根本差异。 subgraph Ancient["古代手抄模式"] A["仅需识字与书写技能"] --> C["去中心化复制"] B["仅需常规书写工具"] --> C D["无规模经济（10倍时间抄10本）"] --> C end subgraph Press["印刷机时代模式"] E["昂贵专用设备（机具与铅字）"] --> H["高度集中化生产体系"] F["需要专门印刷操作技能"] --> H G["排字耗时，具备强烈规模经济"] --> H H --> I["少数地点印制，长途分销运输"] end ``` --- ### [22:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=1362s) 印刷时代的版权契约：作为行业规制的法定垄断 现代版权体系直接脱胎于印刷机时代，最早可以追溯到 1557 年左右的英国。该体系起初完全是作为国家审查制度的工具建立起来的：任何人想要出版图书，必须向国家申请许可；一旦获得批准，国家便授予该出版商对该作品的永久垄断权。到了 1680 年代，这种基于审查目的的专营体系不再受到官方青睐而失效。出版商们随后强烈要求恢复其垄断特权，但 18 世纪初英国议会颁布的《安妮法案》（Statute of Anne）却确立了一套截然不同的规则：垄断权被授予作者而非出版商，初始期限为 14 年，如果作者当时仍然在世，可再续展一次。自此，版权演变成为一种旨在鼓励写作创作的激励方案。 在制定美国宪法时，曾有人提议作者应当天然享有版权，但该提案遭到了明确否决。美国宪法最终规定，国会“可以选择性地”（optionally）建立版权制度；若要建立，其宪法明文规定的唯一合法目的就是“促进科学和实用技艺的进步”（promote progress），亦即完全是为了公众的利益，而不是为了作者的私利，且版权必须设有时间限制。斯托曼尖锐指出，如今的版权说客极其厌恶并竭力想让公众遗忘这些宪法限制。 在印刷机时代，版权制度的实质是一项由作者控制、旨在惠及广大公众、专门规范出版商的“行业规制”（industrial regulation）。正因如此，它在当时具备三个显著特征： 1. **几乎没有争议**：因为它根本不限制普通读者的日常行为，只限制出版商。普通人若不做出版生意，根本感受不到任何限制，自然不会反对。 2. **极其容易执行**：执法对象仅仅是少数印刷商和书商。执法人员只需走进书店翻看货架上的图书，追查其印刷出处即可，绝不需要侵入每个公民的家庭、私人电脑或网络连接。 3. **在客观上有益于社会**：公众在理论上交出了自己原本就无法行使的自然权利（因为普通大众既无设备也无能力印书），以此为代价，换取了更多书籍被创作和出版的切实社会效益。 斯托曼直言：“如果现在我们依然处于印刷机时代，我今天就不会站在这里发表演讲来批判版权法了。” - 1557 年英国设立特许出版公司（Stationers' Company），版权最初作为皇家审查与出版商永久垄断的工具诞生。 - 1710 年《安妮法案》（Statute of Anne）确立作者享有为期 14 年的垄断权，可续期一次。 - 美国宪法第一条第八款第八项：版权不是作者的天赋权利，而是国会为“促进进步”所创设的附带期限的特许权。 - 印刷时代版权三要素：行业规制、针对出版商、社会与公众以无用的复制权换取作品繁荣。 --- ### [26:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=1589s) 计算机网络带来的逆转：从行业规制到全民枷锁 印刷机时代正在逐步让位于计算机网络时代。这是复制技术的又一次重大飞跃，并且再一次以非均质的方式彻底颠覆了复制效率： - 在印刷时代，大规模批量生产极其高效，而单件复制和古代手抄一样缓慢； - 到了数字网络时代，单件临时复制（one-off copying）的效率发生了翻天覆地的跃升。尽管大规模批量的数字复制仍比单次复制稍微高效一点，但两者的差异已变得极其微小。 这使人类社会重新回到了类似古代世界的去中心化复制格局，唯一的区别在于如今每个人的复制效率都极其惊人。这一技术转变彻底扭转了版权法的实际社会效果。斯托曼强调，即便现行版权法的法条字句一字不改，其在数字时代的现实后果也已经发生了颠倒：“其结果完全改变了版权法的实际作用；哪怕版权法的字面条文保持完全一致，它现在的实际效果也已经变得截然相反。” 在过去，版权法只约束少数出版商；而如今，版权利益集团试图将同样的法律枷锁套在每一个普通读者和网络用户的头上。如果人们按照计算机网络的天生能力去使用它，版权法就会成为压制全体公众的牢笼。版权法的性质因此发生了根本性蜕变：它不再是一项由作者控制、规制出版商以造福公众的“行业规制”，而是彻底堕落为由大型出版商主要假借作者之名、专门用于剥夺和限制普通公众基本自由的制度工具。 | 历史时期 | 复制技术特性 | 生产体制 | 版权法的真实属性与约束对象 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **古代世界** | 人工手抄；无规模经济；仅需读写技能与纸墨 | 完全去中心化 | 无版权制度（仅存在针对异见书籍的政治审查） | | **印刷机时代** | 机械排印；排字成本高、批量印制极快；需要昂贵专用设备 | 高度集中化（少数工场印制、长途物流分发） | **行业规制**：作者控制、约束出版商、惠及公众；易于执行且无争议 | | **计算机网络时代** | 数字网络传输；单件复制效率迎来革命性飞跃；边际成本趋近于零 | 重新回归去中心化（人人皆具备瞬时分发能力） | **全民枷锁**：出版商假借作者之名、针对全体公众的严酷限制 | ### [28:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=1713s) 版权性质的根本逆转：失去正当性与普遍限制 当印刷时代的限制机制被直接套用到数字时代的读者身上时，整个体制的社会基础便彻底瓦解了。曾经被视为推动公共利益的工具，如今却变成了一场针对公众的全面管治。Richard Stallman 强调，过去的理论依据已经不再适用，社会面对的是一个截然不同的新现象。以往的版权法仅针对出版商这一极小群体，因此在社会上几乎没有争议、执行成本极低，且对大众总体有利；如今，法律企图限制每一个人，不仅激起了广泛的民怨与反抗（甚至促成了海盗党等政治势力的兴起），其执行手段也演变成对公民住宅、私人电脑及互联网连接的大肆侵入。更严重的是，过去公众无法自行印刷，让渡一部分复制权利并无痛感；如今公众拥有了行使这些自然权利的技术能力并渴望付诸实践，政府本应顺应民意归还原本属于公众的权利。 Stallman 辛辣地指出，一个真正的民主政府理应缩减版权的权力，将技术带来的自然权利还给人民。然而，现实却背道而驰，全球政府展现出的倾向暴露出民主机制本身的病态——它们非但没有削减版权，反而前所未有地扩大这种垄断特权。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 版权法适用对象变化的影响 accDescr: 对比传统印刷时代版权法针对出版商与数字时代针对全体读者的根本差异 subgraph Past["传统时代：针对出版商"] P1["读者未受直接限制"] --> P2["社会无争议 / 易于执法"] P2 --> P3["公众让渡无用权利换取书籍普及"] end subgraph Present["数字时代：针对全体读者"] C1["企图限制所有公众"] --> C2["引发抗议 / 诞生海盗党"] C1 --> C3["侵犯住宅、电脑与网络隐私"] C1 --> C4["剥夺公众可实际行使的自然权利"] end ``` - “And because copyright law is being applied to the readers, it's no longer uncontroversial, it's no longer easy to enforce, and it's no longer beneficial.”（Stallman 总结版权法性质的三个根本性转变） - “We can measure the sickness of democracy around the world by the tendency of governments to do the exact opposite: they're extending copyright power as never before.”（Stallman 谈及政府逆民意扩张版权时表示） --- ### [30:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=1838s) 时间维度的无休止扩张：买来的“米老鼠法案”与荒谬的时空悖论 版权扩张的第一大维度是时间。全球范围内掀起了一波延长版权保护期的恶浪：欧盟将录音制品的版权期大幅延长，并在数十年间将文字作品的保护期从作者死后 50 年推迟至 70 年；美国紧随其后，在 1998 年通过了俗称“米老鼠版权法”（Mickey Mouse Copyright Act）的法案，将所有过去与未来的作品版权保护期一律追加 20 年。Stallman 指出，根据美国宪法，版权法立法的唯一正当依据是“激励创作更多新作品”，然而为过去既有的作品追加 20 年保护期，除非国会拥有一台时间机器，否则根本无法激励已经逝去的作者： > “Our history books don't record that in 1920-something, when artists discovered that they would get 20 more years of copyright given to them in 1998, that they set to work with renewed vigor.” Stallman 讥讽道，既然有时间机器，国会为何不干脆去多带回一些深受喜爱的经典名著？而至于用延长 20 年来激励未来的创作，经济学上的折现逻辑同样证明其荒谬绝伦——绝大多数创作者是理性的，任何理性人都明白，一笔要在自己死后 50 年才开始计算、再持续 20 年的收益，在当下的现值几乎等于零，根本不可能影响创作者当下的现实决策。 延长版权的真正动机是赤裸裸的财阀游说。大公司手中即将到期的垄断特权利润丰厚，它们不愿放手，便向美国国会出资收买法案。迪士尼公司便是典型代表：它的许多经典动画极大地受益于公共领域（Public Domain），却下定决心绝不向公共领域反哺任何东西。眼看米老鼠形象的版权即将到期并进入公共领域供他人自由绘制，迪士尼等巨头斥巨资购买了 20 年的延期。Stallman 警告，到了 2018 年，这批特权将再次面临到期，届时制片公司必然重施故技。尽管电影公司私下承认希望推行“永久版权”，但因为修改美国宪法难度太大，它们便采取每过 20 年追加 20 年的切香肠战术，企图让任何作品都无法再次落入公共领域。 - 墨西哥将版权期限延长至作者死后 100 年，导致许多创作者在读者出生前去世，读者终其一生也无法看到其作品进入公共领域。 - Stallman 直言在美国国会“法律是明码标价的”（In the US Congress, laws are for sale）。 - “Disney has obtained tremendous value from the public domain, it knows how important the public domain is, and is firmly determined never to contribute anything to it.”（Stallman 揭批迪士尼对待公共领域的双标态度） --- ### [35:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=2144s) 广度维度的垄断企图：从出版例外到 DRM“数字手铐” 相比时间维度的拉长，Stallman 认为影响更恶劣的是“广度维度”的扩张——即版权涵盖了哪些使用行为。在印刷时代，人们对待作品拥有广阔的自由使用空间，版权法仅仅是从中划出一小块不准擅自印刷的“例外”；但在数字时代，出版商企图反客为主，借由数字技术夺取对已出版作品“所有使用方式”的全面控制，构建一个极端的“按次付费”（pay-per-view）世界。 出版商达成这一阴谋的手段是在技术中植入恶意功能，即所谓的数字限制管理（Digital Restrictions Management，业界常称 DRM，Stallman 直呼其为“数字手铐”）。Stallman 强调，这种枷锁无一例外都是通过专有软件（非自由软件）来实现的： > “Through non-free software, they convert our technology into our jailers.” 专有软件赋予了厂商凌驾于用户之上的控制权；倘若企图在自由软件中加入这些限制功能，社区与用户会立刻将其修正、发布去除限制的分支，并且所有人都会转向自由版本。因此，剥夺用户的自由是出版商维系技术枷锁的唯一手段。 公众在 1980 年代主要在小众的电脑游戏中见过限制机制，而第一次大规模遭遇“数字手铐”是在视频 DVD 上。DVD 联盟（DVD conspiracy）将视频内容通过秘密格式加密，并强迫所有播放器硬件厂商加入该联盟：厂商必须签署保密协议，承诺制造带有同等限制机能的播放器，使公众购买的设备充当监视与管制的牢笼。这种同谋机制一度奏效，直到黑客逆向破解了算法并发布了用于解密 DVD 的自由软件。这让用户首次能够使用自由软件合法观看购买的 DVD，但同时也意味着用户具备了自由复制的能力，直接引来了出版商的疯狂反扑。 - 1998 年，出版商出资推动美国国会通过立法（即 DMCA），明令禁止分发能够破解数字手铐的程序，标志着美国政府在出版商与公众的博弈中彻底倒向资方。 - 欧盟在约 2002 年通过了类似的版权指令；Stallman 借此提醒冰岛听众，绝不要加入欧盟。 - 美国还通过其所谓的“自由剥削协定”（指双边自由贸易协定，如与新西兰、哥伦比亚签订的协议）将此类不公法律强行灌输给其他主权国家。 --- ### [40:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=2418s) 反破解军备竞赛与音乐光盘的堕落 尽管法律严厉打压，自由软件社区依然在网络上广泛分发破解工具。作为对抗，娱乐业在蓝光光盘（Blu-ray）中部署了更复杂的 AACS 加密方案。尽管这套曾被宣称不可攻破的方案最终同样被黑客击溃、诞生了用于解密蓝光视频的自由软件，但厂商设计了一套动态密钥更换机制，并在部分光盘上加载每隔三个月就强制更换一次的深层数字手铐。Stallman 感叹，自由世界根本没有足够的技术资源每隔三个月去进行一次高强度的逆向工程，因此公众必须清醒地认识到：蓝光光盘在设计之初就是用来侵犯用户权利的敌对产物。 > “You’ve got to regard Blu-ray discs as designed to attack you; they're your enemy.” Stallman 建议公众，除非个人手中掌握破解手铐的有效工具，否则绝对不要使用任何旨在剥夺个人自由的产品。对于当今通过互联网以秘密加密格式分发视频的流媒体服务，局势更为恶劣：平台可以在一分钟内随时更换加密算法，令民间的逆向破解努力彻底失效。因此，唯一的抵抗策略就是从源头上抵制并拒绝此类网络服务。 在音乐领域，唱片工业同样在约十年前推行了类似的数字枷锁。各大唱片公司发行了外观类似普通 CD 但故意违反标准红皮书规范的光盘（Stallman 将其称为“腐败光盘”，即 corrupt discs），利用刻录音轨上的物理畸变来阻挠电脑光驱读取和抓轨。面对公众的抵制名单，索尼公司随后构想出更为隐蔽而奸诈的手段来打造这些破坏性的光盘。 - “You should never use any product that was designed to attack your freedom unless you personally have available the means necessary to break the handcuffs.”（Stallman 提出对待抗自由技术的个人准则） - 唱片业制造违反 CD 规格的光盘，促使大众通过编制抵制名单拒绝购买破坏标准协议的音乐制品。 ### [43:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=2604s) 索尼 rootkit 丑闻与两项重罪 理查德·斯托曼（Richard Stallman）详细回顾了索尼（Sony）在音频光盘上实施的恶意反盗版手段。索尼在光盘上刻录了标准音频轨道，同时写入了一个恶意程序。一旦用户将光盘插入电脑，该程序便会自动运行并夺取操作系统的控制权。该程序包含若干极为恶劣的行为：它注入代码限制光盘数据的使用；修改了系统查看和排查目录的命令，使用户无法查看到该软件的存在；甚至还篡改了删除代码的系统功能，导致用户即便执行删除也无法真正将其移除。斯托曼指出：“如果这听起来像病毒，那绝非巧合；这正是病毒会做的事，这种代码被称为 rootkit，正是病毒和其他夺取电脑控制权的恶意团队所干的勾当。”斯托曼强调，入侵并控制他人计算机在法律上属于重罪（felony），相关责任人本应面临牢狱之灾。 但这仅仅是第一项重罪。该 rootkit 中竟然还抄袭了一段原本依据 GNU 通用公共许可证（GNU GPL）发布的代码。斯托曼借此纠正了一个常见误区：GNU GPL 绝不是唯一的自由软件许可证（自由软件基金会网站 gnu.org 上的许可证列表中列出了数十种自由许可证以及非自由许可证）。但 GNU GPL 的独特性在于它是一种“Copyleft”（著佐权）许可证：它明确规定，任何人只要将 GPL 代码复制并嵌入到其他程序中，该衍生程序也必须整体依据 GNU GPL 授权发布，从而确保用户获得完全相同的自由。索尼显然没有遵守这一规定，构成了商业侵权；而得益于索尼等企业在 1996 年游说促成的版权法案，商业版权侵权同样构成了联邦重罪。 - 索尼部署的 rootkit 具备典型的特洛伊木马及病毒特征：篡改系统检测命令以隐藏自身进程、篡改删除指令以防止被彻底清除。 - 索尼侵犯了 GNU GPL 许可证，在未开放源码的情况下盗用自由软件代码，构成了严重的商业版权侵权。 - 斯托曼讽刺道：“当然，索尼从未被起诉，因为美国政府官员心里明白，这些法律的目的本就是为了维持像索尼这样的公司对公众的统治权力。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 索尼 Rootkit 机制与双重重罪 accDescr: 展示索尼光盘如何在用户电脑上运行 Rootkit 以及触犯的两项重罪。 subgraph Infection["光盘运行与系统劫持"] A["放入索尼音乐光盘"] --> B["自动运行隐藏程序"] B --> C["获取系统底层控制权 (Rootkit)"] C --> D1["篡改查看命令 (隐藏自身)"] C --> D2["篡改删除指令 (防止被卸载)"] C --> D3["强制施加 DRM 限制"] end subgraph LegalViolations["触犯的两项重罪"] E1["重罪一：部署病毒/Rootkit 非法控制他人计算机"] E2["重罪二：盗用 GNU GPL 代码且不开源（商业侵权）"] end C --> E1 C --> E2 ``` ### [46:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=2771s) 妥协的和解、PS3“降级”与索尼全面抵制令 遭到该 rootkit 侵犯的受害者随后起诉了索尼。然而，斯托曼批评受害者和诉讼方没有把矛头对准索尼剥夺用户自由这一根本性邪恶目的，反而仅仅聚焦于其所采用的恶劣手段等次要问题上。这导致索尼轻松达成了和解：索尼只需保证未来在设计限制用户自由的产品时不再使用这些隐蔽的黑客手段即可。索尼确实“吸取了教训”——在推出 PlayStation 3（PS3）游戏机时，索尼直接在出厂硬件中预先烧录了根本无法移除的 rootkit（即高级访问内容系统 AACS）。 当有技术人员找到绕过该限制的方法后，索尼采取了极端的强制手段。起初销售 PS3 时，索尼承诺用户既可以使用官方系统接入游戏网络，也可以安装第三方操作系统（如 GNU/Linux）。但在破解出现后，索尼发布固件，强制用户做出痛苦的二选一：“如果你安装这个固件升级——我应该叫它‘降级’（downgrade）——你将只能接入游戏网络，再也无法运行第三方系统；如果不安装，你就无法再连接游戏网络。”斯托曼斥责这完全是对消费者的欺诈。后来，一名黑客找到了完全越狱（jailbreak）PS3 的方法，索尼甚至动用警察去搜捕他。斯托曼表示：“正是在那个时候，我们发起了对索尼的全面抵制，这项抵制至今仍然有效：不要从索尼购买任何东西。” ### [48:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=2901s) 音乐 DRM 的反复与流媒体服务的加密枷锁 在音乐领域，光盘和数字下载中的 DRM 曾一度走向消亡。唱片公司逐渐发现苹果公司（Apple）通过附带 DRM 的销售合同占据了绝对主导并盘剥唱片业；随后各公司尝试发行无 DRM 的音乐，结果发现“天并没有塌下来”，于是音乐下载中的 DRM 基本上被放弃了。然而，斯托曼警示道，DRM 正在通过 Spotify 等流媒体服务（music streaming services）卷土重来。 斯托曼揭露了 Spotify 等平台强制要求用户使用非自由（专有）客户端的真实动机：其唯一目的就是为了施加 DRM。对于一个音乐播放软件来说，最显而易见、最理所当然的功能就是允许用户“将这段音乐以文件形式保存到硬盘上”。但平台方绝不允许该功能存在，因此他们使用秘密的加密格式传输音乐流，并强制绑定专有客户端，剥夺用户的保存能力。斯托曼尖锐地指出，这些公司试图误导大众，让人们误以为“因为是流媒体，所以技术上无法提供保存功能”；事实上这纯粹是谎言，专有软件公司只是在掩盖自身剥夺用户权利的主观决定，企图免于承担外界的谴责。 ### [49:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=2991s) 电子书的兴起、斯托曼传记出版风波与专有阅读器 2000 年前后，全球范围内掀起了一场声势浩大的公关宣传，试图让所有人相信大众一定会爱上电子书（e-books）。一两年后，出版商开始售卖电子阅读器和经过加密的电子书，用数字手铐（digital handcuffs）锁死内容。当时有一家出版商突发奇想，计划以理查德·斯托曼的个人传记作为技术极客群体的切入点，打响其电子书产品线的第一枪。他们派了一名作者前来征求斯托曼的授权配合。 斯托曼当即开出了条件：“除非这本书在销售时不带任何加密，人们拥有自由分享的权利，并且不需要专有软件就能阅读，我才会同意。”出版商断然拒绝了这一要求，该计划随即告吹。数月之后，斯托曼找到了另一家愿意出版纸质书的出版商；该出版商不仅同意实体出版，还愉快地同意将全书文本依据《GNU自由文档许可证》（GNU FDL）在线发布，赋予读者软件世界中的“四项基本自由”。该书在销售数年后绝版，目前自由软件基金会（FSF）正在销售由斯托曼亲自修订的第二版传记。斯托曼戏称这是一本“半自传”（semi-autobiography），因为它既保留了原作者萨姆·威廉姆斯（Sam Williams）的视角，又注入了斯托曼本人的辩驳与观点。 斯托曼指出，十年前初代电子书的溃败并非因为公众觉悟高，而是纯粹由于使用不便。因此商业巨头卷土重来，推出了索尼 Reader（被斯托曼讥讽为“Sony Shredder”，即索尼碎纸机）、Barnes & Noble Nook（被讽为“Schnook”，意为笨蛋/易受骗者）以及 Amazon Kindle（被斯托曼讽为“Amazon Swindle”，意为亚马逊骗局）。斯托曼总结了亚马逊 Kindle 对传统阅读自由的全面剥夺： - **匿名购买自由的丧失**：过去读者可以用现金在书店完全匿名购书；而 Kindle 拒绝现金，强制实名认证，导致亚马逊掌握了每个读者完整的阅读书单。斯托曼直言：“这种名单的存在威胁到了人权，我们绝不能容忍任何地方存在这种名单。” - **出借、赠送与转售自由的丧失**：读者读完纸质书后可以赠送他人、借给朋友或卖给二手书店；亚马逊利用数字手铐和最终用户许可协议（EULA）彻底剥夺了这些权利，声称读者从始至终从未真正“拥有”过这本书，仅仅获得了在亚马逊限定条件下的阅读许可。斯托曼痛斥道：“亚马逊对私有财产的概念就是‘一切都属于我们’，这根本不是私有财产。” ### [54:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=3246s) 亚马逊远程删书与《哈利·波特》阅读禁令荒唐剧 Kindle 不仅限制使用，还彻底剥夺了读者永久保留书籍的自由。2009 年发生的一起标志性事件证实了亚马逊留有系统后门：亚马逊通过远程操作，直接从数千名用户的 Kindle 设备上强制删除了某本书。斯托曼着重指出，这些被删书籍并非盗版，而是用户通过正规渠道直接从亚马逊官方全额付费购买的合法授权副本。 极其讽刺的是，这本被亚马逊秘密清除的书正是乔治·奥威尔（George Orwell）的经典预言小说《1984》——这部作品正是“老大哥在看着你”（Big Brother is watching you）这一概念的源头，深刻揭露了极权国家从焚烧不顺眼的书籍开始步入黑暗。面对公众排山倒海的抗议，亚马逊随后发表声明，承诺今后再也不会远程删书，“除非接到政府的命令”。斯托曼讽刺道，只要读过《1984》的人都会明白，这种所谓的保证根本无法给人带来任何安慰。 斯托曼随后谈及政府何时可能下达这种删书命令，并回忆了自己发起抵制《哈利·波特》（Harry Potter）全线产品的渊源。当年，作者 J.K. 罗琳（J.K. Rowling）为了追求商业利益最大化，制定了极其严密的营销计划和上市保密时间节点。然而在加拿大，一家书店在进货时出现失误，在预定销售日期前将几本新书提前摆上了货架。有读者路过看到便掏钱买下离去。当书店发现错误撤下展品时，读者早已不知去向。 得知此事的罗琳大发雷霆，并迅速向加拿大法院申请并获得了一项令人瞠目结舌的禁令：“从字面意义上看，法院的判决就是命令那些已经合法买下这本书的人不准去读它。”斯托曼对此感到无比恶心，随即呼吁发起抵制运动。斯托曼幽默地划清界限：“我并不是说你不应该去读《哈利·波特》，那是作者和出版商才会下达的禁令；我只是说你不应该去买它们，更广泛地说，你不应该在任何《哈利·波特》周边上花一分钱。如果你真的想看，去向朋友借一本来看就好。” - 2009 年亚马逊远程抹杀 Kindle 上的合法购买版《1984》，暴露了专有电子书终端具有不受控的中心化后门。 - 面对公众声讨，亚马逊声称“除非政府要求否则绝不重犯”，但斯托曼指出在威权与审查机制下这种托词毫无保障。 - J.K. 罗琳因加拿大书店提前错售新书，竟诉诸司法禁令剥夺合法买家的阅读权利，促使斯托曼发起全面经济抵制（倡导“可读但不花钱购买”）。 ### [57:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=3459s) 亚马逊“骗局”与数字焚书的隐忧 理查德·斯托曼（Richard Stallman）停下来向现场要了一杯水，随后借着上一段关于电子书监控的话题，深入剖析了数字阅读设备带来的制度性危险。在过去，即便法院下令查禁或销毁某些书籍，执法机关也无法挨家挨户搜查并将书没收，因为书店用现金销售，根本没人知道究竟是谁买走了这些书。然而，亚马逊的电子书阅读器完全打破了这种保护屏障。斯托曼戏谑地将 Kindle 称为“骗局”（Swindle）：一旦出现类似诉讼，法院只需向亚马逊发出指令，远程抹除所有用户设备中的对应书籍即可，理由仅仅是“这些人本就不该拥有这本书”。 斯托曼警告道，即使国家没有彻底堕落成乔治·奥威尔在《一九八四》中描绘的极权体系，出于所谓预防或审查的目的，政府依然可能强制下令远程删书。为了防止武装人员找上门夺走书籍，人们在获取读物时绝不应出卖自己的身份信息，更不能将书籍存放在带有远程后门的设备里。斯托曼借此讽刺了亚马逊这款旗舰产品的名称：“每个人都应该读一读《一九八四》，但显然不该用‘Swindle’来读。” “The official name of that product is Kindle; Kindle means to start a fire, apparently a suggestion that the real purpose of this product is virtual book burning.”（“那款产品的官方名称是 Kindle；Kindle 的意思是引火点燃，这显然是在暗示该产品的真正意图其实是虚拟焚书。”）斯托曼一针见血地指出，这场针对读者的技术规训，本质上就是现代版的数字焚书。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 实体书与电子书管控机制对比 accDescr: 对比传统实体书的匿名性与Kindle等数字阅读设备的后门及远程删除威胁 subgraph PhysicalBook["传统纸质书模式"] A["现金匿名购买"] --> B["读者物理持有"] B --> C["国家/法院无法追踪个人"] end subgraph SwindleDevice["DRM 电子书模式 (Kindle/Swindle)"] D["实名账户绑定"] --> E["中心化服务器留痕"] E --> F["内置系统后门"] F --> G["法院/企业远程静默删除"] end ``` --- ### [59:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=3585s) 限制公众技术的企业阴谋与 Defective by Design 运动 斯托曼指出，在各种不同的媒体形态中，企业都在处心积虑地把技术转化为对付公众的武器，让日常设备沦为监视和关押用户的“监狱看守”。面对这种局面，用户必须坚决抵制这种“数字手铐”（digital handcuffs），除非掌握了能够彻底砸碎它们的技术手段。但仅仅依靠个人的自觉抵制是远远不够的，因为推行数字版权管理（DRM）并不是单家公司的个别行为，而是一群跨国公司勾结形成的行业垄断阴谋，旨在共同剥夺公众对技术的控制权。 这些企业之所以毫不掩饰这种串谋，是因为它们心知肚明政府早已站在它们一边。斯托曼以高清视频加密体系 AACS（Advanced Access Content System）为例，说明这类联盟甚至公开在官网上宣称自己的政策霸权。斯托曼回忆，他在查阅 AACS 规范时发现，规则明确写明自某一年（2011年或2013年）起，所有设备必须彻底废除模拟视频输出端口（Analog Output），以此封死一切不受加密协议控制的播放途径。 “Now a conspiracy of companies to restrict the public's access to technology ought to be a grave crime, just like a conspiracy to fix prices; after all, attacking us in our freedom is even worse than attacking our wallets.”（“多家公司串谋限制公众获取技术的权利，本应构成严重的重罪，就像串谋操纵价格一样；毕竟，侵害我们的自由比搜刮我们的钱包性质更加恶劣。”）斯托曼愤慨地表示，操纵物价尚受反垄断法制裁，而侵害自由的企业共谋却在政府庇护下畅行无阻。为此，自由软件基金会（FSF）发起了名为“原璧归瑕 / 缺陷设计”（Defective by Design，网址为 defectivebydesign.org）的抗议运动，号召全球公众集体参与抗议，让这些公司意识到侵害自由必将承受公众的声讨与唾弃。 - 企业公开建立网站公布反用户技术协议，毫不遮掩其控制市场的企图。 - AACS 强制硬件厂商封杀模拟信号输出接口，强行剥夺用户选择显示设备的权利。 - 民主政府应当做的是削减版权专有权，将不可剥夺的核心自由归还给公民大众。 --- ### [01:02:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=3753s) 缩短版权期限：十年还是五年？ 讨论到真正代表公众利益的民主政府该如何改革版权时，斯托曼从“时间维度”提出了具体主张。他认为目前的版权有效期漫长得荒唐，必须大幅缩短。他建议将作品的版权保护期统一定为自作品公开发布之日起 10 年。之所以从出版日而非创作日算起，是因为在作品正式问世前，公众手里根本没有副本，也就谈不上复制的权利；给作者足够的时间去筹划出版是合理的，但时钟必须在出版的那一刻正式走起。 至于为什么定为 10 年，斯托曼解释道，商业出版界通行的生命周期通常只有短短 3 年，绝大多数书籍在出版 3 年后便已停印绝版。10 年已经是正常商业周期的三倍有余，对于哪怕是畅销书而言也已经足够充裕，因为极少有作品能在市场上持续销售 10 年。 然而，在一次与小说家同台的座谈会上，斯托曼的这番提议却遭到了意外的反驳。一位屡获殊荣的奇幻小说作家当场打断他，直言 10 年实在太长，最多只能给 5 年。这番话让斯托曼深受触动，他意识到自己过去在某种程度上也被出版商的宣传话术所蒙蔽。出版商每次游说扩大版权特权时，总口口声声宣称是为了“艺术家”，甚至将他们拔高为神圣不可侵犯的“创作者”（Creators），并找来少数名利双收的超级巨星站台造势，制造出所有创作者都渴望更严苛版权保护的假象。但现实中，绝大多数普通艺术家非但没有从漫长的版权期中获益，反而在出版商的重压下被碾入尘土。 “His book contract said that if the publisher let the book go out of print, the rights would revert to him and he would be able to do other things with his book however he wished; well, his fans were writing to him saying how can I get a copy, the publisher won't sell me one, it appeared practically speaking that his book was out of print, but the publisher refused to acknowledge that the book was out of print and was using the copyright on his own book against him to stop him from distributing copies to his fans which he wanted to do so they could read it.”（“他的图书出版合同规定，如果出版社让该书绝版，版权将归还给他，他便可以随心所欲地处置自己的书；然而，读者们纷纷写信问他怎样才能买到书，因为出版社根本不卖，实际上这本书已经绝版了，但出版社就是拒绝承认绝版，反而利用他自己作品的版权反制他，阻止他向迫切想读到作品的粉丝分发副本。”） 斯托曼感慨道，除了像 J.K. 罗琳这样被巨额财富腐蚀、一心追求利益最大化的极少数富豪作者之外，绝大多数创作者的初衷只是希望自己的作品能被世人欣赏。那位奇幻作家深知，超过 5 年的版权保护对自己毫无益处，反而只会成为出版社锁死作品流通的枷锁。斯托曼之所以主张 10 年而非 5 年，仅仅是希望采取温和渐进的改良策略，避免在政策层面显得过于激进。 --- ### [01:07:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=4055s) 权力的边界：作品的三大分类与自由权限 在讨论完版权的时间跨度后，斯托曼将焦点转向版权的“管辖范畴”（breadth），即究竟哪些使用行为应当受到版权限制。为了厘清边界，斯托曼将人类所有的智力成果划分为三大本质不同的门类，并强调这三者对社会的贡献方式存在质的差别，绝不能一概而论。 | 作品类别 | 典型例子 | 核心价值属性 | 必须赋予用户的核心自由 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **实用功能性作品**<br>*(Functional Works)* | 计算机软件、菜谱、教育文献、工具参考书、文本字体、3D 打印实用模型 | 实用优先（功能为主，美学为辅），用于完成实际任务 | **必须彻底自由**：赋予完整的软件“四大自由”，用户必须掌控工具才能掌控工作 | | **观点陈述与言论作品**<br>*(Works Presenting Views/Thoughts)* | 政治散文、学术论文、见证陈述、回忆录、个人评论 | 忠实表达特定个人的见解、思想或亲身经历 | **必须合法化非商业共享**（分发原版）；禁止未经许可的擅自修改与商业利用 | | **艺术与娱乐作品**<br>*(Artistic & Entertainment)* | 小说、诗歌、音乐、戏剧、电影等纯审美作品 | 供人鉴赏、审美与情绪共鸣（下文展开） | 详见后续讨论（介于功能作品与观点作品之间） | 首先是用于完成具体实际任务的“功能性作品”（Functional Works）。这类作品尽管可能包含审美属性，但其实用目的压倒一切。斯托曼指出，自由意味着掌控自己的生活，如果一个人使用某种工具工作，他就必须拥有支配该作品的权力，否则就会沦为工具的奴隶。因此，这类作品必须享有同自由软件完全一致的“四大自由”——即自由运行、学习与修改源码、重新分发原版，以及分发修改后版本的权利。 第二类则是阐述个人思想、观点或亲身经历的“言论性作品”（Works presenting people's thoughts）。斯托曼指出，这类作品没有必要提供修改的自由，因为擅自发布被篡改的言论作品，本质上是在扭曲和假冒原作者的真实意愿。如果作者本人授权修改，那自然另当别论，但法律没有必要为了这类作品取消对商业出版和修改的版权限制。然而，斯托曼强调，这一分类底线中有一项权利必须无条件合法化——那就是公众之间的无偿分享。 “Sharing means non-commercially redistributing exact copies of the work, and that must be permitted for every published work.”（“分享意味着非商业性地重新分发作品的精准副本，而这必须对所有公开发布的作品予以允许。”）斯托曼由此确立了他版权改革蓝图中最核心的公民自由底线：非商业性的自由分享神圣不可侵犯。 ### [01:11:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=4284s) 非商业性原样复制合法化与出版商的“反分享战争” 理查德·斯托曼（Richard Stallman）区分了商业使用与非商业使用、原样副本与修改版本。在版权体系中，所有商业使用和所有修改版本仍应受版权管辖，但他坚决主张：“非商业性重新分发原样副本——即分享——应当被合法化。对于所有公开发表的作品，这必须是合法的。”（“noncommercial redistribution of exact copies sharing should be legalized that must be legal for all published works”）斯托曼指出，如今版权制度之所以变得令人无法容忍，正是因为出版业发动了针对“分享”的战争。分享是一种善行，而且在数字技术的帮助下分享变得轻而易举，但出版商竭力阻止公众分享。 为了遏制这种既美好又容易的行为，出版商只能訴诸极端残暴的严刑峻法：从剥夺用户控制权的“数字手铐”（DRM，数字版权管理），到起诉青少年并索赔数十万美元。更有甚者，他们开始仅凭分享指控就直接惩罚民众，彻底践踏了“未经公正审判不得定罪”的基本司法原则。在英国，人们只要被指控分享就会遭到惩罚，根本没有审判或证据可言。斯托曼尖锐地指出，在维持不公帝国的权力面前，“正义根本无关紧要”（“Justice is irrelevant”）。 在美国，奥巴马政府促成了主要互联网服务提供商（ISP）与大型出版商之间的非正式私下协议：当出版商向 ISP 投诉达到一定次数后，ISP 就会非正式地惩罚自己的客户。美国还将类似的恶法强加给哥伦比亚等国（尽管哥伦比亚最高法院后来对此进行了重审）。在日本，未经授权下载一份副本就面临长达两年的监禁。斯托曼语带讽刺地挖苦道，如果这还不够，恐怕下一步就要派出无人机发射火箭弹去轰炸分享者了——这正是奥巴马最热衷的两项特质的结合。斯托曼强调，这些手段之所以残忍，并非偶然，而是因为它们企图达成的目标本身就是错误的；社会必须让点对点（P2P）等互联网分享行为彻底合法化。 - 出版商反分享手段演进：数字手铐（DRM） $\to$ 起诉青少年索赔数十万美元 $\to$ 废除审判原则、仅凭指控实施惩罚。 - 英国推行“指控即惩罚”机制，彻底跳过法庭审判。 - 美国由奥巴马政府牵头，达成 ISP 与出版商联合惩罚用户的私下协议。 - 日本法律规定未经授权下载一份副本可判处最高 2 年监禁。 --- ### [01:15:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=4536s) 艺术娱乐作品的修改权、莎士比亚与缩短版权期限 转向第三类作品——艺术与娱乐作品时，斯托曼承认修改权问题更为复杂，因为正反两方都有合理依据。一方面，艺术作品具有艺术完整性（Artistic Integrity），擅自修改可能会破坏这种完整性。虽然绝大多数作者为了金钱会心甘情愿地任由好莱坞宰割其作品，但也有少数坚守立场的作者拥有真正的艺术完整性。另一方面，对艺术作品的修改本身也是对艺术的贡献，例如民间流传过程（folk process）就是多位艺术家不断改造同一部作品，最终孕育出极其丰富的成果。 即使在知名作家中，修改前人作品也是艺术创作的核心。斯托曼举出莎士比亚的例子：莎士比亚的多部戏剧直接借用了几十年前出版的其他作品的故事框架。虽然整部戏剧不能算作抄袭，但在构思上确实沿用了旧作的情节。“如果当时的版权法像今天这样严苛，那这种做法就会被严厉禁止，那些伟大的戏剧也根本不可能问世。”斯托曼指出，届时版权持有者还会洋洋自得地宣称版权发挥了保护作用，防止了莎士比亚“廉价剽窃”其心血。然而事实是，那些作品成为了人类文学的瑰宝。 权衡两者后，斯托曼意识到艺术修改固然重要，但并不具有极度紧迫性。如果将版权期限缩短至 10 年，创作者完全可以等待原作品进入公有领域后再发布修改版本： > “所以我提出的是为期 10 年的适度缩减版版权制度：它涵盖所有商业使用和所有修改，但分享是合法的；随后作品进入公有领域，任何人都可以发布修改版本。” > （“so that's what I propose for 10 years this somewhat reduced copyright system which covers all commercial use and all modification but sharing is legal and then the work goes into the public domain and you can publish modified versions”） ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 斯托曼关于艺术作品的十年版权方案 accDescr: 区分前十年受限版权与十年后进入公有领域的流动图 subgraph S1["前 10 年：适度缩减版权期"] A["商业性使用与销售"] -->|"版权覆盖 (禁止)"| B["受限操作"] C["派生修改版本"] -->|"版权覆盖 (禁止)"| B D["非商业性原样复制 / 分享"] -->|"法律允许"| E["合法权利"] F["混音 (Remix) / 合理使用"] -->|"法律允许"| E end subgraph S2["10 年后：进入公有领域"] B -.->|"版权到期"| G["公有领域 (Public Domain)"] G --> H["任何人均可自由修改、商业出版与再创作"] end ``` --- ### [01:18:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=4710s) 混音创作合法化、强化合理使用与抵制 EULA 霸王条款 除了整体修改，斯托曼着重强调了“混音”（Remix）的法律地位。混音是指从多部作品中提取片段，拼贴融合出一套与原作截然不同的全新作品，它并非任何单一原作的简单变体。斯托曼坚称混音必须合法化，因为版权制度唯一的合法立足点就是鼓励新作品的诞生；如果版权被解释为阻碍混音创作，那就是彻底本末倒置。“以阻碍混音的方式诠释版权是对版权的曲解，使其背离了初衷。”（“to interpret copyright in a way that blocks remix perverts it turns it against its purpose”）这完全是跨国企业为了私利绑架制度的恶果，法律必须回归公众利益，实现混音合法化。 斯托曼进一步提议将美国的“合理使用”（Fair Use）原则推广至全球，并进行根本性的权利强化。在美国现行法律中，合理使用仅仅是面对侵权指控时的一种抗辩理由（Defense），法官需要综合考量使用方式、转化程度、商业获利以及对原市场替代效应等多重因素。斯托曼呼吁将其从一种事后被动的抗辩手段，转变为一项法定的明确例外（Explicit Exception），让公众在进行正当创作和引用时拥有更确定、更坚实的法律保障。 最后，斯托曼向最终用户许可协议（EULA）开火。许多版权方通过这类私人格式合同，剥夺了传统版权法保留给读者的基本权利，使读者一无所有。他明确指出，绝不能允许 EULA 施加比版权法本身更为严苛的限制。 - 混音（Remix）创作必须合法，不能因版权扼杀新艺术形式。 - 将“合理使用”由事后诉讼抗辩（Defense）升级为法定例外权利（Explicit Exception）。 - 禁止通过 EULA 等霸王条款剥夺读者和用户的法定权益。 --- ### [01:21:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=4860s) 唱片公司的剥削内幕、版税骗局与音乐传播的未来 面对版权放宽的呼声，出版商和唱片公司常常危言耸听，大喊“天要塌了”，宣称分享音乐就是“从音乐家手中偷窃”。斯托曼反唇相讥：“唱片公司早就把音乐家的一切搜刮得一干二净，就算我们想偷，也根本没剩下什么可以偷的。”（“the record companies took everything from the musicians leaving nothing we could take if we wanted to”）斯托曼坦言，自己获取音乐的主要渠道依然是购买实体商业 CD，但每次购买他都感到内疚与羞耻，因为他深知这些钱根本到不了音乐家手里。 斯托曼揭露了唱片合约的财务陷阱：合约表面上给音乐家规定了一定比例的版税，但唱片公司把制作和宣发费用统统算作对音乐家的“预付款”（Advance）。每售出一张 CD，音乐家的版税分成必须先用来偿还这笔高昂的预付款。在现实中，即使唱片达到“白金销量”，往往也无法还清预付款，音乐家依然分不到一分钱。音乐家真正的收入来源是现场演唱会门票以及销售粉丝周边，唱片合约带给他们的唯一好处仅仅是知名度。 斯托曼指出，唱片工业的炒作机器（hype industrial complex）绝非推广音乐的唯一途径；在互联网时代，朋友之间发一封邮件附上“听听这个”，同样能带来巨大的宣传效应。斯托曼解释自己只买实体 CD 是因为拒绝在网上受辱：网络购买既强制用户暴露真实身份，又捆绑剥夺权利的 EULA。他并不反对销售 CD 的唱片公司或唱片店，但他对那些游说恶法、制造数字手铐、派出法律触手起诉青少年的跨国大唱片公司表达了极度愤怒：“那些大唱片公司所应得的下场就是被彻底毁灭，它们配得上企业的死刑判决。”（“what those companies deserve is to be destroyed they deserve the corporate death penalty”）斯托曼呼吁通过修改法律消灭这些掠夺性垄断巨头，建立真正能让音乐家获得回报的版权与分配机制。随后，他将话题引向了成本更为庞大的电影制作领域。 ### [01:25:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=5103s) 电影制作成本的真相与好莱坞的本质 针对“缩短或削弱版权保护期后，人们是否还能继续制作电影”的质疑，Richard Stallman 给出了直接的反驳。一位制片人曾亲口告诉他，好莱坞对外宣称的巨额电影制作成本中，实际上超过一半花在宣传上，真正的制作费用还不到一半；不仅如此，这笔制作费用本身还被精明复杂的做账手法（clever accounting tricks）严重夸大了，实际成本远低于外界想象。此外，大量的电影使用场景属于商业性质，这在 Stallman 提议的适度缩减版版权体系中仍然受到覆盖。他认为电影业依然可以正常运转，哪怕代价可能仅仅是暂时放弃一些极端昂贵的高级特效，“等上五年，直到这些特效变得便宜为止”。 退一步讲，即便好莱坞真的因此无法再拍电影，大众究竟会失去什么？Stallman 辛辣地指出，好莱坞是在“系统性地制造垃圾”（systematically makes crap）。他强调自己用的词不是“通常”，而是“系统性”，因为好莱坞的机制本身就是如此运作并几乎总是产出垃圾。不过 Stallman 随即澄清，这绝不意味着应该禁止好莱坞拍片；他坚决反对任何形式的审查，“无论一部作品有多令人作呕，审查制度都比它更令人作呕”。问题从来不是要审查谁，而是：“rather the question is whether we should give up Freedom we need to help them keep making crap I'm not willing to”（问题在于，我们是否应当放弃自身所需的自由，去帮助他们继续制造垃圾；我可不愿意这么做）。 - 电影宣称的高昂成本中，宣传费用占比超过 50%，实际制作费用被好莱坞会计手法大幅虚标。 - 大多数商业性质的影视播放依然受到保留的商业版权管制，行业资金链并不会彻底断裂。 - 昂贵的特效技术在数年内成本就会迅速下降，无需依赖过度扩张的版权法来支撑虚高成本。 --- ### [01:26:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=5213s) 拒绝“补偿”与“报酬”的语境陷阱 Stallman 进一步指出，虽然经过缩减的版权法仍会像现在一样——以一种相当不充分的方式——继续支持艺术家，但社会理应探索更好的方式去支持他们。在探讨具体方案前，首先必须清理语言上的误区：坚决拒绝“补偿权利人”（compensating the rights holders）这一套说辞。所谓的“权利人”，表面上引导公众以为是艺术家，实际上拿到钱的绝大部分是出版商与发行巨头。 更重要的是，“补偿”（compensation）这个词在道德逻辑上存在严重误导——它预先假定有人蒙受了损失，且这是公众造成的过错，因而公众必须作出赔偿。然而，一个人欣赏了一份作品的副本，并没有让任何人失去任何东西，根本谈不上“损失”，因此也就不存在需要“补偿”的前提。同理，“报酬”（remuneration）一词也应当被摒弃。报酬是指因他人为你提供了雇佣劳动而支付的对价，比如雇用乐手在派对上演奏，双方达成协议，雇主确实欠他们钱并应当支付；但纯粹欣赏一首歌，并不代表你欠任何人钱，也不意味着你背负了必须付款的法律或道德约束。Stallman 强调，这两个词汇暗中把“欣赏艺术作品”与“欠下金钱债务”绑定在一起，必须彻底从讨论中剔除。 - “权利人”（Rights holders）在现实产业链中主要指代出版商和跨国娱乐集团，而非一线创作者。 - 数字化复制具有零边际成本的无损特性，欣赏作品不造成实体或排他性损失，因此“补偿”在逻辑上不成立。 - 雇佣劳动产生应付报酬，但自由欣赏文化作品并不产生债务关系。 --- ### [01:28:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=5326s) 资助艺术家的两条新路径：公共基金与“立方根法则” Stallman 明确表示，在保留传统卖书卖票、演出门票收费等既有渠道的同时，他建议社会设立两种全新的机制来支持创作者。第一种机制是利用公共资金（public funds）：政府可以通过常规国家预算拨款，或者对互联网接入等相关服务征税来筹集资金池，然后根据艺术家的受欢迎程度将其分发给创作者。艺术家的受欢迎程度可以通过抽样民调等方案进行测算。 然而，如何根据人气分配这笔资金至关重要。Stallman 指出，最直观的“线性比例分配”（linear proportion）是极其糟糕的做法。如果在传统线性模式下，知名巨星 A 的人气是优秀且受欢迎的艺术家 B 的 1000 倍，巨星 A 就会拿走 1000 倍的资金，导致资金池几乎全被本就不缺钱的超级巨星吸走，对整体艺术生态毫无益处。为了解决这一财富极化问题，Stallman 提出了极具独创性的“立方根法则”（cube root）： ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Cube Root Distribution Model accDescr: Diagram showing how raw popularity is transformed via cube root to distribute funds equitably to mid-tier artists. subgraph Popularity["人气测算 (民调/统计)"] PopA["超级巨星 A<br/>(人气值 1000)"] PopB["中坚艺术家 B<br/>(人气值 1)"] end subgraph Calculation["立方根函数转换 (∛)"] RootA["∛1000 = 10"] RootB["∛1 = 1"] end subgraph FundPayout["资金池分配结果"] PayA["巨星 A 获得 10 份资金"] PayB["艺术家 B 获得 1 份资金"] end PopA --> RootA --> PayA PopB --> RootB --> PayB ``` 1000 的立方根是 10。按照这一数学模型，即使超级巨星 A 的人气是中坚艺术家 B 的 1000 倍，A 最终拿到的资金也仅仅是 B 的 10 倍，而不是 1000 倍。这种机制保留了“越受欢迎、所得越多”的正向激励，但收益曲线大幅平缓回落（taper off），成功将海量资金从极少数巨星手中转移出来，精准输送给占人口绝大多数的中坚创作者群体。关于该机制的社会效益，Stallman 概括道：“so this change makes the system efficient for supporting the Arts because it directs most of the money at the artists who really could use help”（这一改变使得支持艺术的体系变得高效，因为它把绝大部分资金导向了真正需要帮助的艺术家）。 - 资金来源：国家一般财政预算，或针对互联网连接收取的专门税费。 - 计量依据：通过科学民意调查（polling）统计艺术家的受众面与受欢迎程度。 - 分配模型：按人气的立方根（$\sqrt[3]{x}$）发放，抑制超级明星的马太效应，集中托底中层创作群体。 --- ### [01:32:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=5524s) 匿名自愿小额支付与 Humble eBook Bundle 的实证 Stallman 提出的第二种支持机制是“自愿小额支付”（voluntary payments）。他设想在每一台电子设备或播放软件中都设置一个内置按钮，用户轻轻一按，就能向作品创作者转去一笔固定金额的小钱。在美国，这笔钱可能大约是 0.5 美元；至于冰岛等其他国家，各地应根据自身经济情况设定一个能使“总募集金额最大化”的最佳平衡点——金额设得太低，打赏人数虽多但总额有限；设得太高，愿意支付的人又会骤减。该机制完全建立在自愿基础上，没有任何强制手段或道德绑架，同时可以配合公益宣传让大家意识到支持创作者会带来快乐。对于没有支付能力的贫困人群，完全不必强迫他们出资，富裕与中产阶级所贡献的小额资金已足够支撑艺术创作。 为了证明自愿小额付费在现实中完全可行，Stallman 列举了刚刚发生的一个鲜活案例：就在演讲前一个月，多位著名科幻作家联合推出了“Humble eBook Bundle”。该合辑完全不包含任何数字版权管理（DRM），也没有任何终端用户许可协议（EULA），公开宣布用户可以任意支付自己认为合适的价格，哪怕一分钱不付也能直接免费下载。结果在短短两周之内，该项目就募集到了 100 万美元的纯自愿付款，创作者的收入水平直接媲美《纽约时报》畅销书榜单。 然而，Stallman 指出了当前体系中一个致命的技术缺陷：缺乏匿名支付手段。他强调打赏按钮必须实现付款方的绝对匿名（收款方可以公开），但目前的网络支付根本无法做到这一点。Stallman 甚至专门给发起人之一、科幻作家 Cory Doctorow 写信，询问能否公布一个邮政地址以便读者寄送纸质汇票（money orders）进行匿名付款，但 Doctorow 回复称负责打理项目的志愿者实在抽不出人手来处理繁琐的实体汇票。Stallman 对此略带不满地调侃道，既然他们两周内进账了 100 万美元，完全有能力雇人专门处理汇票，这占总收入的比例微乎其微。他坦言：“I think I'll want to pay them but I'll insist on paying anonymously I can't do that over the Internet so I don't do e-commerce”（我想支持他们，但我坚持要匿名付款；既然在互联网上做不到这一点，我就绝不参与电子商务）。 - Humble eBook Bundle 两周内凭借零 DRM、零 EULA 的自愿付款模式狂揽 100 万美元。 - 支付体系的核心伦理准则：必须保证付款者身份的私密性与匿名权，防止消费记录被追踪监视。 - 因互联网缺乏原生的匿名小额支付机制，Stallman 至今坚持拒绝使用常规的网上电子商务。 --- ### [01:36:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=5782s) 自由软件运动的呼吁与问答环节准备 在演讲的收尾阶段，Stallman 将话题引回自由软件运动的核心阵地。他呼吁在场听众访问 GNU 项目官网（gnu.org）与自由软件基金会官网（fsf.org），获取相关的政策主张与活动资源，并诚挚邀请大家正式加入自由软件基金会成为会员。针对那些习惯线上操作的人，可以通过网站申请；而针对像他一样抵制网络交易的人，Stallman 半开玩笑地表示也可以直接在现场把会费现金交给他。 Stallman 特别破除了外界的一个普遍误区：很多人以为自由软件基金会只需要程序员来贡献代码，但事实上，基金会虽然有大量编程任务需要完成，但眼前最急迫、最匮乏的资源反而是政治维权行动者与社会组织者（political activism and organizing）。即便一个人完全不懂写代码，也同样可以在维权斗争中发挥巨大作用。他鼓励感兴趣的人访问 gnu.org/help 寻找参与途径。 随后，Stallman 宣布进入问答环节。他搬过椅子坐下，并向观众说明自己的身体状况：由于听力存在一定程度的障碍，自己在辨识辅音（consonants）方面有困难，因此恳请提问者在发言时务必“大声且语速放缓”，以便他能够准确捕捉问题。 - 自由软件基金会（FSF）亟需社会活动家、组织者与非技术志愿者，编程并非唯一的参与门槛。 - Stallman 自身存在辅音辨识障碍（hearing impairment focusing on consonants），现场交流需提高音量并放慢语速。 ### [01:38:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=5899s) 提问环节的要求与自由笔记本电脑 Lemote Yeeloong 在演讲进入问答环节时，理查德·斯托曼（Richard Stallman）首先对提问的观众立下了明确的规矩。他要求大家发音时要字正腔圆，清楚地发出每一个辅音，以便他能听懂问题；同时要求提问务必简明扼要，直奔主题，不要以客套的道歉或赞美开场。现场观众提出的第一个问题是请他介绍自己正在使用的电脑。斯托曼举起自己的笔记本电脑介绍道，这是一台龙梦逸珑（Lemote Yeeloong）笔记本，他之所以选择这款设备，是因为它的 BIOS 完全是自由软件。 不过，他也指出了这款硬件的遗憾之处：目前该型号已经停产，但他希望来年能有另一款可以推荐给公众的机型问世。此外，龙梦在出厂销售时预装的是非自由的 GNU/Linux 发行版，用户买来后必须自行替换系统。斯托曼表示自己正努力说服制造商销售预装纯自由软件系统的电脑，以便自由软件基金会（FSF）能够正式对其进行背书。 - 硬件型号：龙梦逸珑（Lemote Yeeloong）笔记本电脑，其核心特性在于拥有完全自由的 BIOS/固件。 - 销售现状与问题：该型号当时已停产；且出厂时附带非自由的 GNU/Linux 发行版，需要用户自行重装纯自由系统。 - 未来期望：希望厂商未来能推出预装全自由软件系统的型号，以获得自由软件基金会的官方认证。 --- ### [01:39:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=5956s) 学术出版的危机：“自由出版”而非“开放获取” 来自大学图书馆的一位工作人员起身提问，表示图书馆目前面临着购买学术资源数据库许可资金匮乏的沉重负担，询问斯托曼对此有何解决方案。斯托曼斩钉截铁地回答：“解决方案就是学术出版物必须自由。”他坦言自己过去曾认为学术论文只要允许公众分享和再分发就足够了，但公共科学图书馆（PLOS）的联合创始人迈克尔·艾森（Michael Eisen）说服了他——为了科学的进步，人们对科学论文需要做的远不止简单的复制和分发。 斯托曼强烈建议大学推行强制性政策，不设任何例外：学校教职员工发表的任何学术论文，最迟必须在一年的禁运期后允许完全自由地公开出版，甚至应该要求“立即允许自由出版”。他回顾历史指出，学术商业期刊在半个世纪前的纸媒时代有其存在的历史必然性，因为当时印在纸上是分发学术成果的唯一手段；但在互联网时代，通过网络自由传播才是正道，那些继续限制论文访问与重用的传统期刊出版商已经退化为“掠夺性的商业恐龙（predatory dinosaurs）”。此外，斯托曼明确拒绝使用流行的“开放获取（Open Access）”一词，认为该词存在严重误导，因为它把重点狭隘地放在了“访问（Access）”上，反而让人们忽视了对作品自由修改、重用和再分发的根本权利。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 学术出版模式对比 accDescr: 对比传统商业学术出版与斯托曼倡导的自由出版机制 subgraph Legacy["传统商业出版模式"] A["学者产出研究成果"] --> B["商业期刊垄断版权"] B --> C["大学图书馆支付高昂许可费"] C --> D["获取受限 / 禁止自由重用与衍生"] end subgraph Proposed["斯托曼倡导的自由出版"] E["学者产出研究成果"] --> F["大学强制执行免责政策"] F --> G["互联网自由发布（立即或1年内）"] G --> H["公众与学术界：自由复制、传播、二次研究"] end ``` - 核心主张：学术论文必须允许自由重用与传播，斯托曼坚持使用“自由出版（Free Publication）”取代“开放获取（Open Access）”。 - 历史变迁：50年前的纸质印刷期刊是传播知识的唯一途径，但如今坚持限制访问的商业学术出版商已沦为“掠夺性恐龙”。 - 院校政策建议：大学应出台无例外的强制政策，要求教职员工的论文在发表后至多一年内（最好是立即）实现自由出版，以打破商业出版商的垄断枷锁。 --- ### [01:42:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=6153s) 版权年限与法律的分类处理 现场有观众提问：既然美国宪法中设立版权的初衷是促进科学与艺术的进步，那么延长版权保护期是否能逼迫创作者去开创新作品，而不是躺在旧作上反复翻新？斯托曼当即驳斥了这一假设。他指出，创作者在行业中所进行的“翻新”和借鉴，绝大多数本来就不构成侵犯版权；专业创作者非常清楚在何种层面上可以重用旧故事的内核，而在何种层面上必须重新执笔撰写。以好莱坞为例，电影工业每天都在翻拍或借鉴旧故事，漫长的版权期根本没有阻止这种翻新行为，只是促成了公司 A 向公司 B 支付版权许可费而已。 随后，观众针对斯托曼在演讲中将作品分为不同类型并适用不同版权规则的主张提出质疑，担心这种区分在司法实践中难以界定，需要法官逐案裁决。斯托曼回应称，法庭和法官存在的意义本就是为了划清界限、作出裁决：“追求毫无区分、将一切一刀切对待的法律是一个错误。”他强调，现实生活中的事物千差万别，如果将追求法律的“简单统一”列为最高目标，最终只会制定出行不通的恶法；不同性质的作品（如表达观点的作品、功能性工具作品等）必须根据其社会属性量身定制法律。 > “在任何情况下，将这些不同的类别一概而论都是错误的，我们必须以适合每个类别的方式来对待它们。”——理查德·斯托曼 --- ### [01:45:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=6344s) 专有软件的陷阱与科技公司的监控 有观众提出常见的经济学质疑：编写软件需要耗费大量的时间和金钱成本，如果缺乏专有版权的利润激励，商业公司开发软件的动力何在？斯托曼对此表达了极度尖锐的否定：“为什么我们要给一家公司制造专有软件的激励？专有软件是一个诱骗我们放弃自由的陷阱，它根本就不应该存在。”他认为，任何帮助商业公司通过专有软件牟利的政策都是坏政策，社会的最终目标应当是彻底消除专有软件。 话题随后转向社交网络，观众提到冰岛有超过90%的人口使用 Facebook 等社交媒体。斯托曼指出，社交网络与普通的软件议题有所不同，但他直言“Facebook 非常糟糕”，而 Twitter 相对而言没那么坏。在观众追问 Facebook 究竟坏在哪里时，斯托曼指出其最核心的罪恶在于全方位的“监视（Surveillance）”，并建议大家访问他的个人网站查看详细列举的抵制原因。当被问及 IT 行业中是否存在值得信任的公司时，斯托曼反驳称问题不在于去“信任”某家公司，而在于审视特定公司的具体行为；专有软件天生就赋予了开发者支配用户的权力，即便某些专有软件碰巧没有内置恶意功能，它们剥夺用户控制权的专有本质也决定了其不可接受。 > “专有软件是一个诱骗我们放弃自由的陷阱，它根本就不应该存在；因此，任何使公司能够通过制造专有软件获利的政策都是糟糕的政策，我们应当确保专有软件不复存在。”——理查德·斯托曼 - 商业激励的反思：拒绝为专有软件的生产提供经济特权激励，视专有软件为剥夺用户计算自由的权力机制。 - 社交媒体批判：Facebook 因对用户实施大规模监控而备受抨击；斯托曼呼吁公众审视其监控机制与数据掠夺。 - 软件与恶意功能：即便是尚未被发现植入恶意后门的专有程序，由于代码不透明且用户缺乏掌控权，依然在伦理上站不住脚。 --- ### [01:49:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=6575s) 2012年美国总统大选、“较小的恶”与维基解密 提问环节中，观众询问斯托曼对当时刚刚进行的2012年美国总统大选的看法。斯托曼透露，他把选票投给了绿党候选人吉尔·斯坦（Jill Stein），因为他拒绝在“两位共和党候选人”——罗姆尼（Mitt Romney）和奥巴马（Barack Obama）——之间做出妥协。斯托曼辛辣地讽刺道，奥巴马所推行的诸多右翼政策最初是共和党提出的，如今民主党也将其照单全收；与理查德·尼克松（Richard Nixon）相比，奥巴马在许多方面甚至比罗纳德·里根（Ronald Reagan）更加偏右。对于流行的“两害相权取其轻（Lesser of two evils）”投票策略，斯托曼予以彻底否定，他认为只要选民因为害怕更坏的人而不断妥协投票，民主党就会继续肆无忌惮地右倾，恶性循环只会让整个体制越来越邪恶。 在最后关于维基解密（WikiLeaks）的提问中，斯托曼表达了对维基解密的敬佩，但他对“信息自由（Free Information）”这一过于笼统的口号提出了严肃修正。他指出，如果无条件鼓吹信息自由，听起来就像主张所有人的个人隐私信息都应该被公之于众。斯托曼强调，公民的个人隐私信息不仅不应该被公开，甚至从一开始就不应该被收集——他本人至今不使用手机，正是因为手机会追踪个人的行踪轨迹。他总结道，社会真正需要做的是区分公共事务与私人生活，在坚决削减政府保密权力、推行政务透明的同时，全力保护个人的数据隐私。 - 政治立场：在2012年美国大选中支持绿党的吉尔·斯坦，严厉抨击奥巴马政府政策右倾化，反对“两害相权取其轻”的妥协逻辑。 - 维基解密与“信息自由”概念的辨析：反对泛化“信息自由”口号，主张将公共领域的知情权与私人领域的隐私权严格区分。 - 个人隐私实践：斯托曼坚持不携带移动电话（手机），以抵制基站与设备对个人地理位置的持续监控。 ### [01:52:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=6737s) 拒绝“自由信息”与“知识产权”概念：版权与专利的本质差异 Richard Stallman 强调自己不愿使用“自由信息”（free information）这一术语，因为这会让人产生一种轻率的类比，将其与“自由软件”（free software）混为一谈。他指出，这两个议题不仅结论大相径庭，背后的论证逻辑也完全没有共同点。当观众问及软件专利时，Stallman 明确表示自己不喜欢在关于版权的演讲中讨论专利，因为“专利和版权彼此毫无关联，没有任何共同之处”（“patents and copyright have nothing to do with each other and nothing in common”）。 Stallman 剖析了大众混淆二者的根源——“知识产权”（intellectual property）这个误导性极强的术语。他表示自己从不真正使用这个词，若非要提及也必定加上引号： - 该术语将十几种功能迥异、运作机制完全不同、彼此毫无实质共性的法律强行捆绑在一起。 - 这种一刀切的归纳让公众误以为这些法律既然被归为一类，背后就一定有相似的合理依据。 - 法学院的学生和专业律师都清楚这些法律毫无共同点，但绝大多数普通大众并不知情。 为了彻底否定将专利与版权绑定的思维，Stallman 主张将二者分开讨论。关于专利问题，他在几周前的《连线》（Wired）杂志上发表了一篇关于如何保护软件免受专利侵害的文章，观众也可以在 gnu.org 的哲学版块找到探讨软件专利危害的论述。他更倾向于将这类专利称为“计算构想专利”（computational idea patents），因为这个名称能更准确地揭示其本质。此外，对于前文提及的可下载电子书合集，他澄清其官方名称为 Humble eBook Bundle。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 知识产权误导性归类关系图 accDescr: 展示所谓知识产权这一术语如何错误地将毫无关联的法律捆绑在一起 subgraph Misleading["误导性统称：所谓的“知识产权”"] Law1["版权法 (Copyright)"] Law2["专利法 (Patents)"] Law3["其他十数种互不相关的法律"] end Misleading -->|"导致公众错误归纳"| Confusion["误以为法律机制与目标相同"] Confusion -->|"法律专业共识反驳"| Reality["实则机制完全独立、无共同点"] ``` --- ### [01:55:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=6923s) 拒绝同台辩论：商业宣传与辩论陷阱 一位听众提问 Stallman 是否曾与企业发言人同台辩论，或者是否有兴趣同台交流，听听企业对 Stallman 批判版权现状客观而精致的反驳。Stallman 明确回绝，表示自己不会去替“敌人”发声，也无意与他们同台。他解释道，企业版权方的观点早已充斥于主流媒体，被日复一日地灌输给大众，以至于几乎每个人都能倒背如流，根本无需专程请他们来构成一场所谓的辩论。 Stallman 进一步指出了公开辩论中的策略陷阱与不对等性： - 狡猾的辩手（clever debater）会抛出大量红鲱鱼（掩饰真相的伪论点），搬出各种 Stallman 当场无法核实的细枝末节。Stallman 必须事后花一周时间去查证才能揭露其荒谬或虚假，但在辩论的当下，看起来却像他自己不了解情况一样。这类人并不在乎真理与正义，只在乎辩论的输赢。 - 面对知名度的博弈：如果对方是知名人物，他们根本不会答应辩论；如果对方毫无名气，辩论就等于是在用 Stallman 自己的名声吸引听众去听对方宣传，这无疑是在助纣为虐。 - 对抗的定性：Stallman 严正指出，“这不像一场体育赛事；这是战争。他们挑起了战争，而我们正在奋起自卫。”（“This is not like a sporting event. This is war. They started the war and we're fighting to defend ourselves.”） --- ### [01:58:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=7080s) 自由软件的职业生存路径与游说政府的局限 关于刚从计算机系毕业的年轻人如何以自由软件为事业并维持生计，Stallman 提出了若干现实途径。他指出，众筹模式正变得越来越有效，已有自由软件项目通过众筹获得了资金支持；同时，政府资助了大量的软件开发，官方理应确立原则——除非有极为特殊的理由不予公开发布，否则所有由公共财政出资开发的软件都必须作为自由软件发布。此外，市场上已经存在规模可观的自由软件商业形态，且对系统管理员等相关岗位的需求极高。例如在全美范围内，GNU/Linux 系统管理员极度匮乏，具备优秀技能的人才能够获得相当丰厚的薪资。 当听众追问该如何说服政府推行这类政策时，Stallman 坦言自己无法给出具体战术。他熟知支持自由软件的所有论据，但如何游说特定国家的政府属于政治运作范畴。作为一名身在冰岛的外国人，他并不了解冰岛本土的政治运作机制，除了美国本土以外，他对别国政治同样不甚了解。Stallman 更直言不讳地讽刺道，在美国本土，想要说服政客违背庞大企业帝国的意志完全是一件毫无希望的事（“in the US it's hopeless to convince any politicians to go against the will of the corporate empire”）。 --- ### [02:00:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=7235s) 专有游戏协议、匿名支付与网络广告监控 话题转向游戏领域，有听众提出某些网络游戏通过最终用户许可协议（EULA）剥夺用户权利，声称其目的是为了维持规则并防止作弊。Stallman 指出作弊预防的说辞根本站不住脚，因为玩家总能找到作弊的办法。他重申这在道德上是不可接受的，因为它剥夺了用户理应享有的自由：“这很恶劣，是的，它总是涉及到剥夺用户的自由——那是软件用户无论何时都理应享有的自由。”（“It's bad, yes. It always involves it involves denying users freedom, the freedom that they that the users of software should always have.”）面对大型多人在线角色扮演游戏（MMO），他建议用户拒绝使用不自由的游戏，宁可与现实中熟悉、互信的朋友一起玩游戏以防止作弊。 就该节讨论的其他技术与社会议题，要点如下： - **十年版权期限的衍生创作**：有听众询问在“十年版权期”设想下，持续修改的书籍如何处理。Stallman 澄清，每个版本的版权期独立计算为十年；十年期满后，他人便有权基于最初的版本进行修改并加入自己的内容重新出版。 - **匿名支付技术**：针对如何在网络上实现匿名支付按钮，Stallman 解释技术方案早已成熟，阻碍匿名支付的“并非技术问题，而是一个社会组织架构问题”（“this is not a technical problem; it's a social organization problem”）。 - **平台与广告监控**：Steam 平台绝大多数分发的是非自由游戏，因此其模式并不值得提倡；自由的游戏符合伦理，非自由的游戏则不符合伦理。关于广告，Stallman 本身并不反对广告，也不反对为了展示不同广告而采用的形式，但自由软件赋予用户移除广告代码的权利；他真正坚决抗争的是与现代互联网广告深度绑定的“监控”（surveillance）。 --- ### [02:04:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=7455s) 终场提问：赛博空间解放战役的胜算与胜利定义 在演讲进行超过两小时之际，Stallman 接受了全场的最后一个提问。观众表达了悲观的困惑：面对早已被便利惯坏的大多数大众，我们是否真的有胜算打赢这场“数字自由之战”？ Stallman 坦诚回答自己无法预知最终的整体胜败，但他对胜利提出了深刻而坚定的定义：“在我看来，只要我们当中的一部分人成功解放了自己，那便已经是一场胜利，即便它还不是彻底的胜利。”（“as I see it, if some of us manage to free ourselves, that's already a victory, even though it's not complete victory.”）他总结道，虽然崇高的终极目标是解放整个赛博空间（the liberation of all of cyberspace），但只要大家能够为自己争取到实实在在的自由，这项抗争就具备不可磨灭的价值。演讲在全场热烈的掌声中落下帷幕。 ## Notable quotes > [02:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=164s) 面对软件只有两种可能：要么是用户控制程序，要么是程序控制用户。 — Richard Stallman > [01:45:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=6344s) 专有软件是一个诱骗我们放弃自由的陷阱，它根本就不应该存在；因此，任何使公司能够通过制造专有软件获利的政策都是糟糕的政策，我们应当确保专有软件不复存在。 — Richard Stallman > [01:42:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4&t=6153s) 追求毫无区分、将一切一刀切对待的法律是一个错误。 — Richard Stallman ## Mentioned Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, Reykjavik University, Emacs, GCC, GDB, GNU General Public License, Facebook, WebM, Ogg, GNU, Linux, GNU/Linux, Apple, iOS, Kindle, Microsoft, Windows, Statute of Anne, Pirate Party, Disney, Mickey Mouse Copyright Act, DMCA, Sony, PlayStation 3, Spotify, GNU FDL, Barnes & Noble Nook, George Orwell, 1984, J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter, Defective by Design, AACS, William Shakespeare, Barack Obama, Humble eBook Bundle, Cory Doctorow, Lemote Yeeloong, PLOS, Michael Eisen, Jill Stein, Mitt Romney, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, WikiLeaks, Steam ## Video description On the 7th of November 2012, Richard Stallman held a lecture at Reykjavik University, entitled "Copyright vs. Community". The following is the abstract of the lecture: "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." The above work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/deed.en_US). This lecture is also available here: http://upptokur.ru.is/stallman2012/ - encoded using formats approved by Stallman. [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4)

[2:44] Richard Stallman: 面对软件只有两种可能：要么是用户控制程序，要么是程序控制用户。 [105:44] Richard Stallman: 专有软件是一个诱骗我们放弃自由的陷阱，它根本就不应该存在；因此，任何使公司能够通过制造专有软件获利的政策都是糟糕的政策，我们应当确保专有软件不复存在。 [102:33] Richard Stallman: 追求毫无区分、将一切一刀切对待的法律是一个错误。

[2:44] Richard Stallman: With software there are just two possibilities: either the users control the program or the program controls the users. [59:45] Richard Stallman: A conspiracy of companies to restrict the public's access to technology ought to be a grave crime, just like a conspiracy to fix prices—after all, attacking us in our freedom is even worse than attacking our wallets. [39:31] Richard Stallman: You should never use any product that was designed to attack your freedom unless you personally have available the means necessary to break the handcuffs. [0:06] Richard Stallman: If you put the photo of someone in Facebook, you give Facebook another opportunity to collect information about that person. [120:35] Richard Stallman: I have nothing against showing me different ads, but I am against the surveillance [124:19] Richard Stallman: The goal is the liberation of all of cyberspace, but if we manage to win some freedom for ourselves that's worth doing

[0:06] good evening welcome to re [0:08] University I am beon I'm the dean of the [0:11] school of computer science here uh we [0:13] are all very pleased to have Dr Richard [0:15] stalman with us here tonight uh he is [0:17] the founder of the free software [0:19] Foundation he's the author of a number [0:21] of tools that I have used heavily in my [0:23] research such as uh emac GCC and GTB and [0:26] he's the author of the new general [0:28] public license uh Dr stalman I would [0:31] like to welcome you on behalf of reik [0:33] University and the free software [0:34] Foundation chapter [0:36] of uh we're of course here to hear you [0:38] talk so uh without further Ado I give [0:40] you the floor [0:49] welcome this the reason people started [0:52] inviting me to give talks is my work on [0:55] free software but this talk is not about [0:57] free software this talk responds to a [1:00] question that people frequently asked me [1:03] at the end of talks about free software [1:06] they asked do these ideas apply to [1:08] anything other than [1:10] software so uh in order for it to make [1:15] sense I had better tell start by briefly [1:19] telling you the ideas of free software [1:21] but first a couple of [1:24] requests if you take photos of me please [1:28] do not put them in Facebook [1:32] Facebook is a surveillance [1:35] engine it surveils its users it surveils [1:39] the people who are not its users if you [1:41] put the photo of someone in Facebook you [1:43] give Facebook another opportunity to [1:46] collect information about that person we [1:49] could dispute whether putting photos of [1:51] your friends in Facebook is a decent way [1:55] to treat your friends but that doesn't [1:57] affect me what does affect me is whether [2:00] you put photos of me there please [2:03] don't second if you record this talk and [2:07] you want to distribute copies please [2:09] only in the formats that are favorable [2:12] to free software that means the AUG [2:15] formats and [2:17] webm not in mp whatever it is not in [2:23] Flash not in Real Player Windows Media [2:28] Player or QuickTime [2:30] and since this is a statement of my [2:32] opinions please put the Creative Commons [2:35] no derivatives license on [2:41] it [2:44] so what is free software free [2:48] software uh is software that respects [2:51] your freedom and your community so it [2:54] would be free El it it it's free as in [2:59] free Freedom not as in price so think of [3:03] free speech not free [3:07] beer when a program is not free we call [3:12] it [3:12] proprietary non-free user subjugating [3:16] software because a non-free program is [3:19] an instrument of unjust [3:22] power the owner uses the program to [3:26] subjugate users [3:29] this should not [3:32] exist with software there are just two [3:34] possibilities either the users control [3:36] the program or the program controls the [3:40] users the first case we call free [3:42] software because in order for the users [3:45] to have control over the program they [3:48] need certain freedoms and those freedoms [3:51] are the Criterion for free software [3:55] there are four essential freedoms [3:57] Freedom zero is the freedom to run the [4:00] program as you [4:02] wish Freedom one is the freedom to study [4:06] the source code and change it so the [4:09] program does your Computing the way you [4:12] wish these two freedoms give you [4:16] individual control over the program [4:18] individual control means each user [4:21] separately has control over what that [4:24] program does for her but individual [4:27] control is not enough [4:30] for in for one thing most users don't [4:32] know how to program they don't know how [4:34] to exercise Freedom one individual [4:37] control alone doesn't do much for them [4:41] but even for a programmer like me [4:43] individual control is not [4:45] enough if you're a programmer then [4:48] you're busy doing a few jobs and you [4:52] don't have time to study the source code [4:54] of thousands of programs that you use or [4:58] to write all the Chang you might wish [5:01] not personally that's more work than one [5:03] person can do so we need Collective [5:07] control too Collective control means any [5:10] group of users are free to work together [5:13] to control a verion that they [5:16] use for this we need two additional [5:20] freedoms Freedom two is the freedom to [5:23] redistribute exact copies to others when [5:26] you wish and freedom three is the [5:28] freedom to distribute modified versions [5:30] to others when you [5:32] wish these freedoms make it possible for [5:35] a group of users to work together [5:38] changing the program to do what they [5:41] together wanted to [5:43] do so with free with all Four Freedoms [5:46] we have both individual control and [5:49] Collective control you can participate [5:52] in a group and that exercises Collective [5:56] control when you wish but you can also [5:58] change their version [6:00] yourself exercising individual control [6:03] on top of the group's Collective [6:09] control however when the users don't [6:13] have all Four [6:15] Freedoms then they don't fully control [6:18] the program which means the program [6:20] controls [6:22] them and the owner controls the program [6:25] and through it exercises power over its [6:29] us users this is why a non-free program [6:32] generates a system of unjust [6:35] power and what do these owners do to the [6:41] users well they put in malicious [6:44] features features that spy on the users [6:47] restrict the [6:49] users there are even back doors to [6:52] attack the users [6:55] basically with a non-free program the [6:58] owner has power over for the users and [7:00] the owner knows it they are fully aware [7:04] nowadays of what that power implies [7:07] which means that they feel [7:09] temptation to abuse it in various [7:13] ways and if the owner is a corporation [7:19] meaning a [7:20] psychopath corporations are psychopaths [7:22] by their [7:24] structure uh what's it going to do when [7:26] it it feels a Temptation it gives gives [7:29] in of course what else would it do it [7:33] wouldn't even [7:37] hesitate so you [7:39] find malicious features all over the [7:42] place in proprietary [7:44] software there are spy features there [7:47] are features to restrict the user and [7:49] there are back doors Microsoft Windows [7:52] has all [7:54] three and the back door is a universal [7:57] back door they can remotely install [7:59] software [8:01] changes so any malicious feature that's [8:03] not in Windows today could be installed [8:07] tomorrow remotely without asking the [8:10] owner of the computer for [8:13] permission Macos is malware too it has [8:17] digital [8:18] handcuffs digital handcuffs or digital [8:21] restrictions management are the features [8:23] to restrict what users can do with the [8:26] data they have in their computers [8:29] the software in the eye things the [8:32] latest monsters from [8:35] Apple has all all three spy features [8:39] digital handcuffs and a back door flash [8:42] player has a surveillance feature and [8:45] digital handcuffs so Flash Player is [8:47] malware [8:51] to Angry [8:53] Birds has a surveillance feature that's [8:56] its real purpose to collect information [8:58] about the users [9:00] it collects their locations and sends [9:02] that sooner or later to home [9:09] base the Amazon [9:12] Swindle Amazon's eBook reader swindles [9:16] readers out of the the traditional [9:19] freedoms of readers through malicious [9:22] features in software and in other ways [9:25] and most portable phones have [9:28] surveillance Fe teachers and a universal [9:31] back door with which they can remotely [9:33] install software changes and these have [9:36] been used to convert phones into [9:39] listening [9:41] devices and they can listen to you from [9:44] across the room you don't have to talk [9:47] into the microphone for Big Brother to [9:49] hear [9:51] you [9:53] so this is what happens when some owner [9:58] controls the program the only defense [10:01] against this is for the users to control [10:04] the [10:05] program if you use a non-free sorry if [10:08] you use a free program and you're not a [10:11] programmer you're probably not the only [10:14] user there are other users and some of [10:16] them do know how to program and they [10:19] sometimes look at the source [10:21] code and because they want to add a [10:23] feature or fix a bug but in the process [10:26] of understanding the source code they [10:28] also see if it's [10:30] malicious and if they find a malicious [10:33] feature they can fix it and release a [10:37] corrected version and most people will [10:40] switch to [10:44] that so this is a defense it's not [10:47] perfect but it's better than being [10:52] defenseless the user of a non-free [10:55] program is totally at the mercy of its [10:57] owner [11:03] so I started the free software movement [11:06] in 1983 by announcing my plan to develop [11:10] a complete free software operating [11:13] system meaning every piece of the system [11:16] will be free [11:18] [Music] [11:23] software because if any piece is [11:25] proprietary it takes away your freedom [11:28] and that means it's no good it's got to [11:31] be 100% free software not just 99% free [11:38] software so I started developing G in [11:42] January [11:43] 1984 the last missing piece was the [11:48] kernel Linux which was freed in February [11:52] 1992 and that filled the last Gap in the [11:55] G system making the combination G Plus l [11:59] Linux so that's when we first had a [12:03] complete free operating system we could [12:06] use of course there have been a lot of [12:09] things to add to the system since [12:12] then [12:14] so uh after we started having pieces of [12:20] ganu that people were [12:22] using like the programs that were [12:24] mentioned in the [12:26] introduction and others people started [12:29] asking me to give more speeches about [12:32] free [12:34] software and I would explain these ideas [12:37] in Greater depth and length and people [12:39] would ask sometimes at the end well do [12:42] these ideas apply to anything [12:45] else like what about Hardware should [12:47] Hardware be free well in this context [12:51] what would it mean for Hardware to be [12:53] free for physical objects to be free it [12:56] would mean that they would carry the [12:57] same Four Freedoms [13:00] so does that make sense well Freedom [13:04] zero is the freedom to run the program [13:06] as you wish that would be the freedom to [13:08] use the physical object As You Wish Well [13:12] normally with a physical object you get [13:14] that freedom manufacturers that sell you [13:17] physical objects they don't put on [13:20] licenses telling you how you can or [13:22] can't use them no you own them you can [13:24] use them any way you like now there are [13:27] certain things you're not allowed to do [13:30] but that has nothing to do with using a [13:32] particular object like you know fraud is [13:35] illegal but a pen doesn't come with a [13:37] license saying you may not use this pen [13:39] to commit fraud there's a law against [13:42] fraud it doesn't matter whether you use [13:44] this pen or a pencil or uh write [13:47] something in the sand with your finger [13:50] or use a computer it's still fraud but [13:53] it has nothing to do with the [13:54] manufacturer of the of the pen it's not [13:57] up to the manufacturer to decide whether [13:59] fraud is illegal it's a it's a different [14:02] kind of thing from a license [14:05] restriction [14:07] so generally you have freedom zero with [14:10] physical objects what about Freedom one [14:13] the freedom to study and change the [14:15] source code to make the program do what [14:17] you wish Well Physical objects generally [14:19] don't have source code so we have to [14:22] adapt this Freedom somewhat it could be [14:24] the freedom to study and change the [14:26] object and generally you have that [14:29] Freedom you know if you bought this [14:32] microphone you'd be free to change it [14:35] but it's not easy to do you know this is [14:37] made of metal and maybe some plastic [14:41] it's not easy to change objects made out [14:43] of those things now a wooden object is [14:46] easier to change a wooden chair you can [14:49] actually do some things too that might [14:51] be useful but with metal it gets harder [14:54] with plastic even harder a chip is [14:57] impossible to change if you tried you [15:00] would just destroy it and this is not [15:03] anybody's not due to anybody's malice [15:05] it's just the nature of chips that they [15:07] are that way not anybody's [15:11] fault [15:16] so what about freedom to the freedom to [15:19] copy it and distribute the copies well [15:22] there are no copers for most physical [15:24] objects in science fiction we speculate [15:27] about them but they don't exist [15:30] uh except for [15:32] keys and what about Freedom three the [15:35] freedom to copy and distribute your [15:37] modified versions well if you manage to [15:41] to modify the object which sometimes you [15:43] can do there's still no [15:46] copiers so basically what we find for [15:49] physical objects is you've got freedom [15:51] zero you've got freedom one but there [15:54] are practical constraints on exercising [15:56] it and freedoms 2 and three don't make [15:58] any sense at all so basically we don't [16:02] have a problem today about making no [16:07] physical objects [16:10] nonfree however there are some things [16:13] for which this question is [16:15] Meaningful things that you can copy and [16:18] you can change namely published [16:22] works if you have a copy of a work in [16:25] your computer you can use your computer [16:27] to to copy it and and distribute copies [16:30] and to change it so the question of [16:32] whether you're allowed to do that is a [16:36] meaningful question with real effects on [16:38] our lives and that's the question this [16:41] talk is really [16:48] about it's getting hot in here is there [16:52] any chance of letting in some [16:55] air the air outside is cool enough I [16:58] think [17:01] what we can [17:07] do can open the [17:17] door [17:21] so what should we be free to do with our [17:24] copies of various [17:27] works now for for the most part if you [17:29] have a copy of some work and it's not [17:32] software the only thing that restricts [17:35] what you can do with it is copyright [17:38] law so we can formulate the same [17:40] question from The Other Side by saying [17:43] what should copyright law say about the [17:46] works that we have copies [17:49] of now to look at this question it's [17:53] useful first to look at the history of [17:55] copyright law and the history of copy in [17:59] because copyright law developed with [18:02] copying [18:07] technology now changes in technology do [18:11] not alter our basic principles because [18:15] our basic principles are too deep to be [18:17] reached by superficial things like [18:20] technology but when we apply our [18:23] principles to a specific question we do [18:26] it by looking at the various things we [18:29] might do and what their consequences [18:31] would be and we judge those [18:34] consequences now changes in technology [18:37] can alter the consequences of the same [18:41] act so they can make the ACT become more [18:44] good or more bad than it was before in [18:47] the [18:48] past for instance if we could reliably [18:51] Resurrect The Dead murder wouldn't be so [18:55] bad the judge would say you killed him [18:59] you will pay for his new body [19:03] bang now in the United States we would [19:06] all need to get uninsured killer [19:09] insurance but in civilized countries the [19:12] National Health Service would take care [19:14] of [19:24] it so let's look at the history of [19:27] copying technology and copyright copying [19:30] began in the ancient world it was done [19:32] by reading one copy and writing another [19:36] now this was slow inefficient technology [19:40] but it had certain other interesting [19:42] characteristics first of all it had no [19:45] economy of scale to make 10 copies would [19:49] take you 10 times as long as making one [19:52] copy second it required no skills other [19:57] than the skill of reading and writing [20:00] third it required no equipment other [20:02] than the equipment for reading and [20:05] writing the result was a decentralized [20:08] system of cop of making copies wherever [20:12] there was somebody who had a copy and [20:14] wanted to make another he [20:18] would there was nothing like copyright [20:21] in the ancient [20:26] world in the ancient world if you had a [20:29] copy and you wanted to make another [20:31] nobody tried to stop [20:34] you except in the case where the local [20:37] potentate didn't like that book in that [20:40] case he might do horrible things to you [20:43] but that wasn't copyright that was [20:45] censorship of course they've been [20:47] closely related ever since the beginning [20:50] of copyright it's the copyright and [20:53] censorship have gone together [20:58] and they still often [21:03] do well it went along that way for [21:05] thousands of years but then there was a [21:07] great advance in copying technology the [21:10] printing press which made copying more [21:12] efficient but not in a uniform way in [21:16] the ancient world we had mass production [21:18] copying and one at a time copying [21:20] equally slow with the printing press we [21:23] got this mass production copying got a [21:26] lot more efficient but one off copying [21:29] did not benefit at all in fact it was [21:31] faster to do that by writing another [21:33] copy than by using a printing press [21:36] because with the printing press it takes [21:37] a lot of time to put to set the type but [21:41] then you can quickly make many identical [21:46] copies so the printing press had an [21:49] economy of [21:51] scale it was cheap to use the printing [21:54] press to make many copies and quite [21:57] expensive to use it to make one copy [22:01] secondly it involved expensive special [22:05] purpose equipment the press and the type [22:08] were expensive things that most literate [22:11] people did not [22:14] have and they also didn't know how to [22:16] use them because using a printing press [22:18] is a different skill from reading and [22:24] writing the result was a centralized [22:27] system of production of [22:32] copies copies of Any Given book were [22:35] made in a few places and then they were [22:37] transported to where someone might want [22:39] to buy [22:42] them copyright began in the age of the [22:44] printing [22:46] press the present system of copyright [22:49] goes back to England where copyright was [22:53] started in [22:55] 1557 I think as a system of [23:00] censorship anyone that wanted to publish [23:02] a book had to ask the state for [23:04] permission this permission was granted [23:07] if it was granted in the form of a [23:09] Perpetual Monopoly for that one [23:16] publisher however in the 1680s the [23:20] censorship was no longer desired and and [23:23] the system was allowed to lapse the [23:25] Publishers then demanded their Monopoly [23:28] back [23:29] but what they what was established in [23:31] the statute of [23:34] an in the 170 something was somewhat [23:39] different it was a monopoly lasting I [23:42] believe 14 years for the author instead [23:46] of the publisher and it could be renewed [23:48] once if the author was still [23:52] alive and thus the idea developed that [23:54] copyright would be a scheme for [23:57] encouraging [24:02] writing when the United States [24:05] Constitution was written there was a [24:07] proposal that authors should be entitled [24:09] to a [24:10] copyright this was [24:13] rejected [24:16] instead what the US Constitution says is [24:19] that Congress can optionally establish a [24:23] copyright [24:25] system if it does the purpose of the [24:27] system the stated explicit purpose is to [24:30] promote progress in other words a [24:33] benefit for the public not for the [24:36] author and the copyright has to last a [24:38] limited [24:40] time of course the copyright Lobby [24:44] doesn't like these restrictions and [24:46] wants to get rid of them or wants us to [24:48] forget [24:49] them but copyright in the age of the [24:52] printing press functioned as an [24:54] industrial regulation regulating [24:57] publishers controlled by authors but the [25:00] system was designed to provide benefits [25:03] to the general [25:05] public as a result it was mostly [25:09] uncontroversial easy to enforce and [25:12] arguably beneficial for a [25:14] society it was mostly uncontroversial [25:17] because it didn't restrict the readers [25:20] it restricted Publishers so if you were [25:23] not a publisher you had nothing to [25:26] object to [25:29] so people didn't object [25:32] much it was easy to enforce because it [25:34] only had to be enforced against [25:37] Publishers and it's easy to see who's [25:39] publishing a book you go to a [25:42] bookstore and you look at their copies [25:45] and you say where do these come [25:47] from and therefore it didn't require [25:51] invading everybody's home everybody's [25:54] computer and everybody's internet [25:57] connection and was arguably beneficial [25:59] for the general public and for society [26:02] because theoretically the public traded [26:07] away certain parts of its natural rights [26:11] that were useless to the public because [26:14] ordinary people were not in a position [26:16] to exercise [26:18] them and in exchange for these useless [26:21] natural rights they got real benefits of [26:24] more books being written [26:29] so if we were still in the age of the [26:31] printing press I wouldn't be giving a [26:34] speech criticizing copyright law but the [26:38] age of the printing press is gradually [26:40] giving way to the age of the computer [26:42] networks another Advan and copying [26:44] technology that once again makes copying [26:47] more efficient in a nonuniform way [26:50] here's what we had in the age of the [26:52] printing press mass production copying [26:55] pretty efficient and gradually getting [26:56] more so and one off copying as slow as [27:01] it ever [27:02] was with digital technology we get this [27:07] so mass production copying is still a [27:09] little more efficient than oneoff [27:12] copying but not much more the difference [27:15] is much smaller now the big Improvement [27:18] is in oneoff [27:20] copying so this brings us to a situation [27:24] more like the ancient world except that [27:26] everything is more efficient [27:31] the result is to change completely the [27:34] effect of copyright law even if the [27:37] words of copyright law were exactly the [27:40] same now its effect would be [27:44] diametrically [27:47] opposed because now they try to apply [27:51] copyright to the readers too to the [27:55] users of works not just to publishers [27:58] they wanted to restrict [28:01] everyone and the even the way the laws [28:04] were written it would it restrict [28:06] everyone if we use computer networks for [28:09] what they're capable of doing the result [28:12] is copyright law is no longer an [28:15] industrial regulation on Publishers [28:18] controlled by [28:19] authors to give benefits to the public [28:23] it's now a restriction on the general [28:25] public controlled by the Publishers [28:27] principle ly in the name of the [28:31] authors this [28:33] means [28:34] that the reasons we used to consider it [28:38] good no longer are re are no longer [28:41] relevant we're dealing with a completely [28:44] different social [28:47] phenomenon and because copyright law is [28:50] being applied to the [28:53] readers it's no longer uncontroversial [28:56] it's no longer easy to to enforce and [28:58] it's no longer [29:00] beneficial it's no longer [29:03] uncontroversial because now they're [29:06] trying to restrict everyone and everyone [29:09] doesn't like this and people are [29:12] starting political parties to fight [29:14] against it it's no longer easy to [29:18] enforce because it's no longer being [29:20] enforced only against Publishers now [29:23] it's being enforced against everyone and [29:25] that requires invading people's homes [29:29] computers and internet connections and [29:31] it's no longer beneficial because the [29:35] part of our natural rights which in the [29:38] past we didn't mind trading away or [29:41] having the government trade away for us [29:44] because we couldn't use it anyway now we [29:46] can [29:47] exercise those natural rights and we [29:50] want to and therefore we want the [29:53] government to BR bring us back the [29:56] rights of ours that we naturally deserve [29:59] that they traded [30:02] away [30:05] so what a democratic government would do [30:10] is bring us back the parts of these [30:14] natural rights that we really need they [30:17] would it would reduce copyright power we [30:21] can measure the sickness of democracy [30:24] around the world by the tendency of [30:26] governments to do the exact [30:29] opposite they're extending copyright [30:31] power as never [30:34] before first there's a dimension of time [30:38] we've seen a wave of copyright term [30:42] extension going around the world the [30:44] European Union recently extended the [30:46] copyright term on sound [30:50] recordings I don't remember the precise [30:53] details but it was a big [30:55] extension and uh [30:58] a few decades ago they extended it from [31:02] uh they extended the term of copyright [31:05] on on textual works for it used to be [31:10] till 50 years after the author's death [31:12] and they extended it to 70 [31:16] years and then the United States did the [31:19] same thing in [31:23] 1998 with the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act [31:27] as we gener call [31:29] it uh which extended copyright by 20 [31:32] years for all works both past and [31:38] future now keep in mind that under the [31:42] US Constitution the only legitimate [31:44] grounds for such a law is [31:47] to en is to encourage making more Works [31:52] how can they encourage the making of [31:54] more works in the past by extending [31:57] copyright past [31:59] Works they'd need a time [32:03] machine and if they have a time machine [32:06] strangely they haven't used [32:09] it our history books don't record that [32:14] in 1920 something when artists [32:17] discovered that they would get 20 more [32:19] years of copyright given to them in 1998 [32:23] that they set to work with renewed vigor [32:27] why don't they use their time machine [32:29] and get us more beloved [32:34] Classics extending copyright on Future [32:37] Works could [32:38] conceivably convince people to put more [32:41] effort into future [32:43] works but only if [32:47] they're only if they're [32:50] irrational and contrary to the myth most [32:54] artists are fairly rational and they [32:57] would understand that the discounted [33:00] present value of 20 more years of [33:03] copyright starting 50 years after your [33:05] dead is so small that it's not enough to [33:09] affect any rational decision about what [33:11] to do [33:15] now no these were these were just the [33:18] excuses the real reason for the [33:21] law was companies had valuable [33:24] monopolies that were scheduled to expire [33:28] well they didn't want those monopolies [33:29] to expire so they paid for an extension [33:32] in the US Congress laws are for sale so [33:36] Disney for instance realized that the [33:37] Monopoly on the image of Mickey Mouse [33:41] the copyright on the image of Mickey [33:43] Mouse would [33:44] expire and then other people would be [33:46] able to use that image inside their [33:49] Works other graphic works [33:52] well since Disney has obtained [33:55] tremendous value from the public domain [33:57] it knows how important the public domain [33:59] is and is firmly determined never to [34:02] contribute anything to [34:04] it so [34:06] Disney paid to extend the Monopoly on [34:10] the image of Mickey Mouse and maybe [34:12] other companies paid too and they got [34:15] what they [34:16] wanted but that only was 20 years which [34:19] means in 2018 they're going to be back [34:22] in the same situation again and they're [34:24] going to try to extend it some more [34:29] the movie companies have already [34:31] admitted that they want Perpetual [34:33] copyright but that would require [34:36] changing the US Constitution and they're [34:38] not powerful enough to do that at least [34:40] not yet so they have to pretend to that [34:44] they're not doing it so instead of [34:47] legislating Perpetual copyright all at [34:49] once they add 20 years and then they'll [34:52] add another 20 years and another every [34:55] 20 years they'll add 20 more years this [34:57] way no copyright would ever expire again [35:01] unless we manage to stop them sooner or [35:18] later but the worst case that I know of [35:22] is in [35:25] Mexico in Mexico copyright for a hundred [35:28] years after the author's death so if the [35:31] author died before you were born the [35:34] copyright might last until the end of [35:37] your life you'll never see those works [35:40] in the public [35:44] domain but even more important is the [35:47] dimension of [35:49] breadth which uses of a copyrighted work [35:52] does copyright cover in the age of the [35:54] printing press those were the exceptions [35:58] there was a broader space of all the [36:00] uses you could make of a of a work and [36:04] initially those were all things you [36:06] could freely do and then copyright cut [36:08] out an exception of things that you're [36:11] not allowed to do but that was not the [36:13] whole Space just part of the things you [36:15] could do with the work were covered by [36:17] copyright and there were still some [36:19] things you could freely do however the [36:23] Publishers see in digital technology [36:28] the opportunity to seize total [36:31] control control over all uses of [36:34] published [36:37] Works they aim to implement [36:40] this to impose on us a payper viiew [36:44] universe through malicious behaviors in [36:49] our technology namely digital handcuffs [36:53] or digital restrictions management [36:59] through nonfree software they convert [37:03] our technology into our [37:06] jailers and it's always done in non-free [37:08] software and the reason is their goal is [37:12] to exercise power over the users and [37:15] it's only non-free software that gives [37:17] them such power if they put restrictive [37:20] features into free software the users [37:23] would fix it they would make a modified [37:26] version that was that didn't didn't [37:27] restrict people and everyone would [37:29] switch to [37:31] that you can't restrict people by res [37:34] respecting their freedom you only [37:36] restrict people by taking away their [37:37] freedom so taking away our freedom is [37:40] what they always [37:43] do the public saw uh outside of the [37:46] narrow area of computer games and it was [37:49] pretty narrow in the [37:51] 1980s the public first encountered [37:55] digital restrictions Management in [37:58] DVDs the video DVDs are designed so that [38:02] the video can be encrypted in a format [38:04] that was [38:05] secret and the DVD conspiracy said if [38:10] you want to make DVD players you have to [38:12] join the conspiracy which means you [38:14] promise to keep the format secret and to [38:17] build your DVD players to restrict the [38:20] public just like all the other DVD [38:22] players this is why they all have the [38:24] same restrictions they're all nasty [38:28] for a while that [38:30] worked but then people figured out the [38:33] format and released a free [38:36] program to decrypt the video in a DVD [38:40] for the first time it was possible to [38:42] buy a DVD and watch it with free [38:46] software however it was also possible to [38:48] copy it the Publishers didn't like [38:52] that [38:54] so they started purchasing l was to [38:59] censor that software starting in the [39:02] US in [39:04] 1998 they obtained a law Banning the [39:08] distribution of programs that could [39:11] break digital handcuffs effectively the [39:13] US government took the side of the [39:16] Publishers against the public against [39:19] the people [39:31] however it wasn't limited to the US the [39:34] European Union adopted a directive like [39:37] that in 2002 I think uh so it's very [39:42] important not to join the European [39:48] Union and the United States has imposed [39:51] similar unjust laws on other countries [39:54] through its free exploitation treaties [39:58] for instance New Zealand [40:02] Colombia H and others have unjust laws [40:07] like these dictated to them by the [40:10] United [40:15] States [40:18] so they like these laws but people kept [40:22] on Distributing the programs anyway [40:24] they're easy to find so they developed [40:27] different scheme for encrypting [40:30] videos called [40:37] aacs [40:39] and that's what's that's one thing [40:41] that's used in Blu-ray discs and they [40:44] thought it would never be broken but [40:45] people did break it there's a free [40:47] program that decrypts the video of [40:51] Blu-ray [40:52] discs the problem is that they arranged [40:55] to change the key from time to time time [40:58] and uh well every so often people re [41:02] find a key and release it but you can't [41:04] read all Blu-ray discs that way and some [41:07] of them have another layer of digital [41:09] handcuffs which they change every 3 [41:13] months and I don't see how the Free [41:16] World is ever going to be able to get [41:18] enough resources to keep up with that [41:23] it's another task of reverse engineering [41:25] every three months you've got to regard [41:28] Blu-ray discs as designed to attack you [41:32] they're your [41:34] enemy you should never use any product [41:38] that was designed to attack your freedom [41:40] unless you personally have available the [41:44] means necessary to break the [41:53] handcuffs and things are getting even [41:56] worse nowadays is there are services [41:58] that [41:59] distribute video over the internet using [42:03] secret encrypted formats and what makes [42:06] that so bad is they could change the [42:08] format in a [42:10] minute so it's almost useless to figure [42:15] out a way to break the handcuffs as soon [42:18] as they see that the public has a way to [42:20] break the handcuffs they'll put in a [42:22] different kind of handcuffs so we have [42:24] to reject those services [42:36] meanwhile we've also [42:38] seen digital handcuffs on music that [42:42] started some 10 years ago we saw discs [42:46] that looked like compact discs but they [42:48] were not written according to the [42:49] standard or the specs for compact discs [42:52] so we called them corrupt discs they [42:55] were CDs but they weren't proper compact [42:58] discs and the reason that they wrote [43:00] them strangely was to try to stop them [43:03] from reading into a [43:05] computer so people made lists of these [43:08] to boycott [43:11] them Sony came up with a clever idea for [43:14] how to make corrupt discs instead of [43:18] writing the tracks in a squiggly way [43:20] that the computer wouldn't read they [43:24] wrote the tracks in the normal standard [43:26] way but they put a program on the [43:29] disc so that if you put the disc into a [43:32] computer the program would run and it [43:34] would take control of the [43:36] system and then it would alter the [43:40] system and it did several things it uh [43:45] res it put in code to restrict the use [43:48] of data from these [43:51] diss it also changed the command that [43:54] you would use to investigate what was in [43:56] the system so that it would not show the [43:58] presence of this [44:00] software installed into the system it [44:03] changed the code you would use to delete [44:06] this code from the system so that it [44:08] would not really delete this [44:10] code if this starts sounding like a [44:13] virus to you that's no [44:16] coincidence this is what viruses do it's [44:19] this code is called a rootkit and this [44:21] is what viruses and other kinds of [44:25] malicious uh teams to take over a [44:28] computer [44:30] do and this is a [44:32] felony they could have gone to jail for [44:35] years for this but this was not the only [44:39] felony uh some of the code in this [44:43] rootkit was copied out of a program that [44:47] had been released under the gnu general [44:49] public license now the gnu general [44:52] public license is one among many free [44:56] software licenses es you may have heard [44:58] that this is the only license that's [45:00] free software that's false there are a [45:03] bunch of others look at g.org [45:05] licenses licens list. HTML you'll see uh [45:10] dozens of licenses that are free and a [45:14] bunch more that are not [45:16] free but in any case the gnu GPL is [45:19] unusual it's what's special about it is [45:22] it's a copy left license it says if you [45:25] copy some of this and put it in another [45:28] program that program has to be released [45:31] under the gnu GPL [45:34] 2 so you have to pass along the same [45:36] freedoms that you got well Sony didn't [45:39] do that that was copyright infringement [45:43] it was commercial copyright infringement [45:45] and thanks to a law purchased in 1996 by [45:49] Sony and other such companies that's a [45:51] felony [45:54] too of course Sony was never prosecuted [45:57] because government officials in the US [46:00] understand that the purpose of these [46:02] laws is to maintain the power of [46:05] companies like Sony over the [46:08] people however the victims of this [46:11] scheme sued [46:13] Sony but instead of focusing their [46:16] condemnation on the evil purpose of what [46:18] Sony was doing they focused it on the [46:21] evil means that were used in other words [46:23] on the secondary wrongs therefore so was [46:27] able to settle the suit with them by [46:31] promising that they would never that in [46:35] the future when they design products to [46:38] restrict people's freedom they wouldn't [46:41] use these [46:43] methods and Sony learned its lesson [46:46] because then it came out with the [46:47] PlayStation 3 in which the rootkit was [46:51] installed before they sold the product [46:54] and was designed to be impossible to REM [46:58] move and it was [47:00] aacs the which I told you [47:04] about and then somebody figured out a [47:07] way to byass [47:11] that and at that point they forced all [47:14] the users to choose between giving up [47:17] one half of the functionality and giving [47:19] up the other half of the functionality [47:21] when they sold it they said you can [47:23] either use our system and get access to [47:26] our Network of games or you can install [47:28] some other system but at that point they [47:32] said you got to give up if if you [47:34] install this firmware upgrade you'll [47:36] only be able to talk to the network of [47:38] games you won't be able to run the other [47:40] system anymore and if you don't install [47:42] this firmware I should call it a [47:44] downgrade then you won't be able to talk [47:47] to the network of games anymore so it [47:49] was lose one half of the functionality [47:51] of the product you that you bought it [47:53] for or lose the other half now is that [47:56] swindling or what uh and then somebody [47:59] found a way to jailbreak the machine and [48:01] they sent the police after [48:05] him which is the point at which we [48:08] called for a complete boycott of Sony [48:10] which is still in effect don't buy [48:13] anything from [48:16] Sony [48:21] meanwhile DRM and music mostly [48:24] disappeared the record companies [48:27] found that their contract with Apple was [48:29] screwing them Apple was selling the [48:32] music with DRM but so they they tried [48:35] Distributing it without DRM and the sky [48:38] didn't fall so they basically got rid of [48:41] DRM on [48:43] music but it's coming back with music [48:48] screaming services like [48:53] Spotify they require the use of a non [48:56] free client program and why for DRM [49:01] because the most obvious feature to add [49:03] would be to save this piece in a file on [49:08] disk but they don't want that feature to [49:11] be there so they make you you so they [49:13] send the music in a secret encrypted [49:15] format that makes you use this non-free [49:18] program which is designed to restrict [49:22] You by not offering this [49:25] feature and and they want people to [49:28] think that somehow because it's [49:29] streaming you couldn't have this feature [49:31] that's ridiculous of course you [49:35] could they just don't want to and they [49:38] don't want to be blamed for their own [49:40] decision so they try to pretend it's not [49:43] a [49:45] decision we've also seen DRM in [49:51] books around 2000 or so we saw worldwide [49:56] R campaign to convince us that we were [49:59] all going to love [50:04] ebooks and a year or two later the [50:07] Publishers started selling ebook readers [50:10] and ebooks and the ebooks were encrypted [50:13] for the sake of digital [50:16] handcuffs and one publisher had the idea [50:19] that it could get its line of digital [50:21] ebooks selling with a bang to techn [50:25] files by starting with a biography of [50:30] me so they sent an author to ask for my [50:34] cooperation and I said only if this book [50:37] is sold without the encryption and [50:40] people are free to share it and they can [50:42] read it without this non-free [50:45] software the publisher rejected that and [50:49] so the plan was torpedoed however a few [50:53] months later we found another publisher [50:55] who wanted to publish published the book [50:57] on paper and was happy to agree and also [51:00] published it on the text online under [51:04] the G free documentation license meaning [51:07] with the Four [51:10] Freedoms and uh they sold it for a few [51:13] years and then they stopped and now the [51:15] free software Foundation sells the [51:18] second edition revised by me so it's my [51:24] semi-autobiography it has my point of [51:26] view in contrast to Sam Williams's point [51:30] of [51:31] view I don't know if there's any other [51:35] semi-autobiography like [51:37] this so look at fsf.org if you want to [51:41] find [51:42] that anyway ebooks failed 10 years ago [51:46] people just didn't like them it would [51:49] have been nice to believe that people [51:53] rejected them because they valued their [51:55] freedom and were unwilling to give it up [51:58] but I realized that was not why it was [52:01] some practical convenience reason so I [52:04] said they will try again we have not [52:08] defeated them we've only driven them [52:11] off and they tried again with products [52:15] like the uh the Sony Shredder and the [52:20] Barnes & Noble schnook and the Amazon [52:24] swindle [52:27] that are all designed to take away [52:29] readers [52:31] Freedom the Swindle in particular [52:34] swindles readers of the traditional [52:36] freedoms that readers used to enjoy for [52:39] instance there's the freedom to acquire [52:41] a book anonymously paying cash [52:45] perhaps impossible with the Swindle [52:48] Amazon won't accept cash Amazon requires [52:51] the users to identify themselves so [52:54] Amazon maintains a giant list of of all [52:57] the books each user has [52:59] read the existence of such a list [53:02] threatens human rights we cannot [53:04] tolerate the existence of such a list [53:08] anywhere then there's the freedom to [53:11] give the book to someone else after you [53:13] read it or to lend it to various friends [53:18] after you read it or to sell it to a [53:22] used bookstore after you read it Amazon [53:26] about es these freedoms with digital [53:29] handcuffs together with enduser license [53:33] agreements that say that the user [53:35] doesn't really own the book at all and [53:37] never did the user only has a license to [53:40] read the book under Amazon's choice of [53:46] conditions so this shows that Amazon [53:50] does not respect private property [53:53] Amazon's idea of private property is [53:55] everything Bel belongs to us which is [53:58] not private [54:02] property [54:06] and then there's the freedom to keep the [54:09] book as long as you wish which Amazon [54:12] abolishes with a back door we know about [54:16] this back door by observation in 2009 [54:22] Amazon remotely erased thousands of [54:26] copies of a particular [54:28] book copies that until that day were [54:33] authorized they had been obtained by the [54:35] users directly from Amazon in the [54:37] approved Manner and then one day Amazon [54:41] deleted them all in an orwellian [54:45] Act and the book that was deleted was [54:49] 1984 by George [54:52] Orwell the book that gave us the phrase [54:55] big brother is watching you that pre [54:58] that presented a totalitarian state [55:01] whose crimes began with burning the [55:04] books it didn't like and got worse from [55:09] there there was a lot of criticism of [55:11] Amazon so Amazon said it would never do [55:15] this again unless ordered to by the [55:19] state which if you've read 1984 is not [55:23] very comforting [55:30] but when in what circumstances might [55:33] Amazon be ordered by the state to [55:36] remotely delete your [55:39] books several years ago I launched a [55:43] boycott of Harry Potter [55:46] products after the author got an [55:50] injunction in Canada ordering the people [55:52] who had bought her book not to read it [55:57] literally that's what the court said the [56:00] people who had bought the book were [56:02] ordered not to read the [56:06] book how did this happen what led up to [56:08] this [56:10] well she is desperate for every last [56:14] million she can get so she worked out a [56:18] a precisely designed marketing plan of [56:23] building up publicity and at a certain [56:25] moment books were supposed to be on sale [56:28] but there was an error and in One [56:32] Bookstore the books were put on sale [56:34] before the intended date people walked [56:37] into the bookstore they saw the books on [56:39] display and said I'll buy this one and [56:42] so they they bought it and went away and [56:44] then somebody noticed it was a mistake [56:47] and took the books off of sale but [56:50] people had already bought the book and [56:52] gone away and the people in the store [56:54] didn't know who they were [56:56] well this [56:58] riled Miss Rowling no [57:00] end and she got this order from the [57:03] court telling those people not to read [57:06] her [57:10] book I found that so disgusting that I [57:13] called on people not to to boycott these [57:17] books but I don't say that they that you [57:19] shouldn't read the Harry Potter books I [57:22] leave that to the author and the [57:23] publisher I only say you shouldn't buy [57:28] them and more generally you shouldn't [57:31] you shouldn't spend any money towards [57:33] Harry Potter stuff if you want to read [57:36] the books well borrow it from the [57:39] library or read someone else's copy [57:43] Etc could someone possibly get me some [57:47] water thank [57:49] you so here's a situation where they [57:53] where the court might order am on to [57:57] delete [57:59] books right they couldn't they couldn't [58:03] go and F to the houses of the people who [58:07] had bought those books and take the [58:08] books away from them because they didn't [58:10] know who those people were but with the [58:13] Swindle they would know and so in a [58:16] similar [58:18] situation the order would say remotely [58:22] delete those people's books because they [58:25] weren't supposed to to be able to have [58:27] these [58:28] books so there is a real [58:34] danger even if the state doesn't become [58:38] totalitarian in the 1984 style it might [58:42] order books remotely [58:44] deleted as a precaution never keep books [58:48] in anything that allows such a back door [58:52] and you should not identify yourself [58:54] when you get books either if you don't [58:56] want armed men coming to your house to [58:59] take the books away from [59:03] you you should all read 1984 but clearly [59:09] not in the [59:16] Swindle the official name of that [59:18] product is Kindle Kindle means to start [59:21] a [59:22] fire apparently a suggestion that the [59:25] realp of this product is virtual book [59:29] [Laughter] [59:41] burning [59:45] so in all different forms of media we [59:49] see these attempts to turn our [59:51] technology against us into our enemy [59:54] into our prison guard [59:57] so we have to reject digital handcuffs [60:00] unless we know how to break [60:02] them but this kind of individual push [60:06] back is not enough because companies [60:09] organize to fo these DRM schemes on us [60:13] it's not done by one company at a time [60:16] generally it's done by a conspiracy of [60:19] companies working together to restrict [60:21] The public's access to technology and [60:24] how do I know this [60:26] because these conspiracies are not [60:29] secret they know that our governments [60:32] are on their side against us and they [60:35] don't bother to hide the conspiracies [60:37] these conspiracies have websites where [60:40] they State what their policies are I [60:43] told you about aacs the video encryption [60:46] scheme well I looked at its website once [60:49] to someone told me about a certain point [60:52] in its rules it said that as of a [60:55] certain year [60:56] was either 2011 or 2013 I can't remember [61:00] which analog video outputs would be [61:06] forbidden so that shows how much power [61:09] they believe they have and maybe they [61:11] really [61:12] do now a conspiracy of companies to [61:15] restrict The public's access to [61:17] technology ought to be a grave crime [61:21] just like a conspiracy to fix prices [61:24] after all attack ing us in our freedom [61:27] is even worse than attacking our wallets [61:30] it should be punished more severely but [61:33] it's not a crime at all our government [61:35] is on their [61:38] side so we have to [61:41] unite and organize to push back so the [61:46] free software Foundation started the [61:48] defective by Design Campaign which you [61:51] can find at defective byd design.org [62:07] it's a campaign of protests against [62:11] DRM so please go to that site and sign [62:14] up to participate in our [62:19] protests we need to have lots of [62:22] participants we need to show these [62:24] companies but they will be hated for [62:27] attacking our [62:33] freedom so this is what non-democratic [62:36] governments are [62:39] encouraging around the world but what [62:42] would a democratic government do well it [62:44] would reduce copyright power so as to [62:47] return to the general public the [62:49] freedoms that are [62:54] vital specific specifically [62:57] what first of all there's a dimension of [63:00] time copyright lasts far too long we [63:03] need to shorten it I recommend that [63:06] copyright lasts for 10 years starting [63:09] with the date of publication of the [63:13] work why from the date of [63:16] publication because until the work is [63:19] published we don't have copies of it so [63:21] it doesn't really matter whether we [63:24] could copy those cop I if we don't have [63:27] them uh we might as well let the author [63:30] have 10 [63:31] years H have as long as it takes to [63:34] arrange P publication and then start the [63:37] clock for 10 years but why 10 years well [63:41] the usual publication cycle is only [63:44] three [63:45] years within three years most books are [63:48] out of [63:50] print so 10 years is more than three [63:54] times as long that's comfortably longer [63:58] very few books a t a tiny fraction of [64:01] books are still in print after 10 years [64:04] even successful books are not most of [64:06] them are not in print that long so it [64:10] should be [64:11] plenty but not everyone agrees with this [64:14] suggestion I once made these proposals [64:17] in a panel discussion with fiction [64:19] writers and an award-winning fantasy [64:23] writer at on the panel said 10 years [64:27] that's horrible nothing more than [64:30] five I was surprised too until that [64:34] moment I had been fooled by the [64:37] Publishers when the Publishers demand [64:39] increased power over us they always say [64:42] that they're doing it for the sake of [64:44] those artists but to make them sound [64:47] even more important they like to call [64:48] them creators makes them sound sort of [64:51] like [64:52] deities uh above us mere mortals unless [64:57] deserving of power over [64:59] us [65:01] but and and they typically bring out a [65:04] few stars to say yes give me more [65:08] power and we're supposed to think that [65:10] all artists think the same but actually [65:13] it's just the stars who feel that way [65:15] the other artists are being ground into [65:18] the Dust by the heels of those [65:21] Publishers but we don't know about them [65:23] and we don't hear from them except this [65:26] time I heard from [65:29] one you [65:30] see his book contract said that if the [65:33] publisher let the book go out of print [65:35] the rights would revert to him and he [65:37] would be able to do other things with [65:40] his book however he wished well his fans [65:44] were writing to him saying how can I get [65:46] a copy the publisher won't sell me [65:50] one it it appeared practically speaking [65:53] that his book was out of print but the [65:56] publisher refused to acknowledge that [65:58] the book was out of print and was using [66:00] the copyright on his own book against [66:04] him to stop him from Distributing copies [66:06] to his fans which he wanted to do so [66:09] they could read [66:11] it you [66:13] see artists generally start out wanting [66:17] people to appreciate their [66:19] work a few get tremendous amounts of [66:23] money like Miss Rowling and they're they [66:27] become corrupted by by this and their [66:29] main desire becomes to get as much money [66:31] as [66:32] possible but most artists never get [66:35] enough money to be corrupted by it and [66:37] they continue wishing for people to [66:39] appreciate their [66:42] work he wanted people to appreciate his [66:44] work he was glad it got published more [66:46] people saw the work that way but then he [66:49] wanted to be able to distribute it to [66:50] him he realized that more than 5 years [66:53] of copyright were unlikely to ever do [66:56] him any good but could easily do him [66:59] harm so he said nothing more than [67:02] five well I'm not saying it has to be 10 [67:07] years I recommend 10 years as a first [67:12] adjustment and why do I suggest 10 [67:14] instead of five I'm just trying to be [67:16] less [67:18] radical I'm not I'm trying to go as far [67:22] I'm not trying to go as far as possible [67:24] only as far as necessary I'm trying to [67:26] propose a smaller change from the [67:29] existing [67:35] situation but what about the dimension [67:38] of breadth which activity which uses of [67:42] a copyrighted work should be covered by [67:46] and restricted by copyright for this I [67:49] distinguish three broad categories of [67:52] works [67:54] first the there are the works that you [67:56] use to do practical [67:58] jobs second there are the works that [68:01] present what certain people [68:03] think and third there are artistic and [68:06] entertainment [68:12] works so these three kinds of Works [68:15] contribute to society in different ways [68:18] and I'm not trying to compare the [68:20] importance of one kind versus another [68:23] it's not a quantitative difference it's [68:24] a quality ative difference between the [68:27] contributions say of works that you use [68:29] to do jobs and works that you [68:35] appreciate so first let's consider the [68:38] works that you use to do practical jobs [68:40] we can call them functional works but [68:43] this doesn't mean that they have no [68:45] aesthetic characteristics it just means [68:47] that their Aesthetics is secondary [68:49] what's primary is do they do a job that [68:52] you want to do and do they do it well [68:55] this category includes programs [68:59] recipes educational Works reference [69:03] works text [69:05] fonts patterns for 3D printers to make [69:08] useful that is not just decorative [69:11] objects and other things as [69:14] well these Works must be [69:18] free and I mean the same for [69:22] freedoms why freedom is is having [69:25] control of your own life if you do a job [69:29] using a work you need to have control of [69:33] the work in order to have control of the [69:36] job and for the users to have control [69:39] over work they need the Four Freedoms [69:42] just as just as in software it's the [69:45] same for the other works that you use to [69:47] do practical [69:50] jobs so [69:57] so all these Works need to be [70:00] free but what about the second category [70:03] The Works that present certain people's [70:08] thoughts and their views or their what [70:11] they say they saw their [70:13] testimony well these Works don't need to [70:17] be free because you don't use them to do [70:20] a practical job you use them to see what [70:23] certain people thought to to publish a [70:26] modified version of one of these works [70:27] is to misrepresent somebody [70:30] else unless he gave you permission and [70:33] if he says that's accurate that [70:35] represents him accurately well okay then [70:37] your modified version is useful but then [70:40] you're getting permission so you don't [70:42] we don't need to reduce copyright power [70:44] for that so for these works there's no [70:49] reason why we should legalize publishing [70:52] a modified version without getting [70:54] permission [70:56] that means we also have no reason to [70:58] legalize commercial use without [71:02] permission so I [71:04] propose somewhat a a somewhat reduced [71:08] copyright system which would cover all [71:10] commercial use of these works and all [71:13] modified versions but there's one [71:16] activity which has to be legalized and [71:18] that's sharing sharing means [71:21] non-commercially redistributing exact [71:24] copies [71:27] that has to be legal so there's [71:29] commercial and non-commercial all [71:31] commercial use would be still covered by [71:33] copyright there's exact copies in [71:36] modified versions all modified versions [71:38] would be covered by copyright but [71:41] noncommercial redistribution of exact [71:44] copies sharing should be [71:48] legalized that must be legal for all [71:51] published [71:53] works and the reason is what makes [71:56] copyright intolerable today is the war [72:00] on [72:02] sharing sharing is good and with digital [72:05] technology sharing is easy so people [72:08] share but the Publishers don't want us [72:10] to share so how can they stop people [72:14] what could if something is good and easy [72:18] how could they stop people from doing it [72:21] only through nasty Draconian cruel [72:24] measures so they propos a series of one [72:27] nasty Draconian cruel measure after [72:30] another they started with digital [72:32] handcuffs turning our technology into [72:35] our enemy but then they started suing [72:38] teenagers for hundreds of thousands of [72:42] dollars and then they [72:47] started uh then they started punishing [72:50] people on the mere accusation of sharing [72:55] that is abolishing the basic principle [72:57] of Justice no punishment without a fair [73:00] trial in the UK they punish people for [73:03] being accused of [73:05] sharing and there's no [73:08] trial trials are [73:10] irrelevant proof at someone's guilty [73:13] Irrelevant this is a matter of [73:15] maintaining an unjust Empire's power [73:19] Justice is [73:23] irrelevant the US doesn't have a law [73:26] like this instead it has an unofficial [73:30] Arrangement between the major [73:33] isps and the major Publishers and when [73:37] the major Publishers complain enough [73:40] times to the ISP the ISP will informally [73:44] punish its own customers they've [73:47] promised to do that Obama arranged this [73:52] scheme showing what he thinks of [74:02] Americans and the US has imposed similar [74:05] unjust laws on other countries such as [74:08] Colombia although it's now being [74:10] reconsidered there in the Supreme [74:19] Court [74:21] anyway uh they didn't stop there in [74:24] Japan [74:25] downloading one copy of something [74:29] without authorization is punished by two [74:33] years [74:36] imprisonment and if that turns out not [74:38] to be enough I guess they'll start [74:40] sending drones to shoot rockets at [74:42] people who [74:47] share two of Obama's favorite [74:50] characteristics put together [75:06] so this is [75:09] intolerable and it's not just that the [75:12] they happen to have chosen nasty [75:14] unacceptable measures it's no [75:16] coincidence the reason these measures [75:19] are nasty is because they're trying to [75:21] do something [75:22] wrong we must legalize [75:26] sharing including sharing on the [75:28] internet including peer-to-peer [75:36] sharing but what about the third [75:38] category artistic and entertainment [75:40] works for these the issue of [75:43] modification was difficult because I see [75:45] valid arguments on both sides on the one [75:48] hand a work of art can have an Artistic [75:51] integrity and modifying it could destroy [75:54] that integrity [75:57] now of it's a fact that most authors [76:01] willingly allow Hollywood to butcher [76:04] their work in exchange for for enough [76:07] money but there are some who refuse and [76:10] I guess those authors have real Artistic [76:14] integrity but on the other hand [76:16] modifying an artistic work can be a [76:18] contribution to Art it doesn't [76:21] misrepresent someone if you say this is [76:24] my work of art art it's it's different [76:26] from that well it can be a contribution [76:29] to Art consider for instance the folk [76:31] process by which a series of artists can [76:34] transform a work and they can produce [76:36] something very rich but then if we want [76:39] to consider only named authors consider [76:44] Shakespeare some of Shakespeare's plays [76:47] used stories that were copied from other [76:51] works that were published a few decades [76:54] before of course the whole the work as a [76:56] whole was not a [76:58] copy uh it was it was modified it was [77:03] implemented differently you might say [77:04] but the story was copied and if today's [77:07] copyright law had been in effect then [77:09] that would have been forbidden and of [77:12] course those Works would never have been [77:16] written and so the copyright holders [77:20] would have said copyright's doing a good [77:23] job it's preventing shakes for making [77:25] these cheap ripoffs of my [77:30] work well if the works if Shakespeare [77:33] had never written those works we might [77:35] have had no reason to disbelieve that [77:37] claim but since those Works were written [77:40] we can say that they were significant [77:43] contributions to human [77:47] literature but eventually I realized [77:49] that although a modified version of an [77:52] artistic work can be a contribution to [77:54] art it's not a desperate hurry if [77:57] copyright only lasts 10 years you could [78:00] wait if [78:01] necessary for the work to go for the [78:04] previous work to go into the public [78:06] domain when it's copyright expires and [78:09] then you can publish a modified [78:13] version so that's what I propos for 10 [78:16] years this somewhat reduced copyright [78:19] system which covers all commercial use [78:21] and all modification but sharing is [78:24] legal and then the work goes into the [78:26] public domain and you can publish [78:27] modified [78:30] versions but there is another issue and [78:33] that is [78:35] remix remix means taking pieces of [78:38] various works and putting together in a [78:41] a work that's fundamentally different [78:44] from any of those it's not a modified [78:46] version of one of those works it's too [78:48] different it's a completely different [78:50] work well remix has to be legal because [78:55] if anything justifies copyright it's [78:58] encouraging the making of new works to [79:01] interpret copyright in a way that blocks [79:03] remix perverts it turns it against its [79:07] purpose that can only happen when [79:10] companies have taken control over this [79:13] system and perverted it to suit their [79:16] goals instead of the Public's goals so [79:19] let's go back to the Public's goals and [79:21] we've got a legalized remix we also need [79:25] to extend the US concept of fair use to [79:30] other countries except we have to we [79:32] should make it even stronger than it is [79:34] in the US fair use in the US is a [79:37] defense against accusations of copyright [79:41] infringement there are several factors [79:43] to be considered like how you're using [79:45] the work whether you've changed it and [79:48] and what you're doing with it and [79:50] whether you're making money and whether [79:53] it replaces the various factors that get [79:56] added up together to decide whether it [79:58] counts as fair [80:00] use [80:03] but that's a that's a very important [80:08] exception [80:10] but it needs to be changed from a [80:13] defense you can raise to an explicit [80:17] exception which will make it stronger [80:20] more something that people can count on [80:22] more [80:29] finally we must not [80:32] allow end user license agreements to [80:36] restrict people even more than copyright [80:39] restricts [80:41] them [80:43] because if copyright lets the reader [80:46] have some rights [80:49] remaining these contracts can take them [80:51] away and leave the readers with nothing [80:55] we've got to stop that so we need to [80:58] legalize [81:00] sharing the Publishers will say the sky [81:03] falling but of course they're [81:05] exaggerating the record companies will [81:07] say if you share you're stealing from [81:10] the [81:11] musicians this is the record [81:13] companies took everything from the [81:14] musicians leaving nothing we could take [81:16] if we wanted [81:19] to if when I buy a commercial CD with [81:24] which is my main way of getting [81:29] music I'm ashamed because I know I'm not [81:32] supporting the [81:34] musicians you see according to the [81:37] typical record contract a certain [81:39] fraction of the pric is for the [81:41] musicians but they never get it because [81:44] the production and publicity expenses [81:46] are treated as an advance to those [81:50] musicians and so this fraction of the [81:52] price that you pay goes to repay the [81:56] so-called Advance it almost never [82:00] happens that a record sells enough [82:02] copies to finish repaying the advance [82:05] and actually give some money to the [82:09] Musicians a record can go [82:12] platinum somebody showed wrote about a a [82:16] hypothetical scenario where but but that [82:18] he says is typical of the music industry [82:21] where a record goes platinum and it [82:23] still does doesn't sell enough copies to [82:26] actually start giving the musicians [82:33] anything so how do musicians make money [82:36] from their concerts they charge [82:37] admission they can sell Fan [82:41] Gear so what benefit do they get from [82:44] their record contracts mainly publicity [82:48] if the record contracts lead to more [82:51] appreciation of their music they can [82:52] have more concerts and charge more and [82:55] more people will come they can go to [82:57] bigger places that way they make some [83:00] money [83:02] but the uh hype industrial complex is [83:06] not the only way to give musicians [83:09] publicity there are other ways we can do [83:11] it like mailing your friend listen to [83:16] this so let's take the record company's [83:20] money out of this [83:25] now I'm not against having companies [83:27] that make records and sell them I mean I [83:30] buy them why do I buy CDs I won't get [83:35] music over the Internet because a you're [83:39] forced to identify yourself and I won't [83:42] identify myself to get copies of works [83:45] and [83:47] second they impose end user licenses [83:50] agreements so you have fewer rights than [83:53] you'd have if you got a CD so I only get [83:56] music on CDs and I would like to have [83:59] more record stores selling more [84:01] CDs so I'm not against record companies [84:04] for making and selling CDs but the major [84:07] record companies the ones that lobbied [84:10] for unjust laws and digital handcuffs [84:14] the ones that had their their tentacles [84:18] Sue teenagers for hundreds of thousands [84:20] of dollars what those companies deserve [84:23] is to to be [84:25] destroyed they deserve the corporate [84:28] death [84:30] penalty so let's give those companies [84:32] what they deserve let's do away with [84:40] them but there could be other record [84:42] companies and it might be nice if we [84:45] could change copyright laws so that they [84:47] would really have to pay the musicians [84:54] what about music sorry what about [84:57] movies you've heard astronomical sums [85:00] for the cost of making [85:03] movies could they still make movies with [85:05] this change well first of all a producer [85:09] told me that more than half of these [85:12] figures is actually publicity not making [85:15] the movie making the movies less than [85:17] half and that amount was exaggerated [85:20] already by clever accounting [85:23] tricks so so the real cost is much [85:27] less put that together with the fact [85:30] that a lot of use of movies is [85:31] commercial use and would still be [85:33] covered by the by the somewhat reduced [85:36] copyright system I'm proposing and I [85:39] think that they could still make [85:42] movies maybe they would have to do [85:45] without some of the super expensive [85:47] special effects for another five years [85:50] until they get to be [85:52] cheap uh [85:56] but what if they couldn't what if [85:59] Hollywood couldn't make movies would we [86:02] lose [86:03] anything Hollywood systematically makes [86:08] crap I didn't say usually although [86:11] that's true also I said systematically [86:13] there is a system at [86:14] work and the nature of that system is [86:17] that it almost always produces [86:20] crap now that doesn't mean they [86:22] shouldn't be allowed to make these [86:24] movies I'm against all forms of [86:27] censorship no matter how disgusting a [86:29] work might be censorship is more [86:32] disgusting but the question here is not [86:36] about censorship no one's proposing that [86:38] least of all me rather the question is [86:42] whether we should give up Freedom we [86:44] need to help them keep making crap I'm [86:48] not willing [86:53] to however [86:57] even though this somewhat reduced [87:00] copyright system would continue [87:02] supporting [87:03] artists in more or less the same [87:06] inadequate way as [87:09] now we might want to support them [87:14] better we must reject the idea of [87:18] compensating the rights holders because [87:21] the rights holders it's supposed to [87:23] you're supposed to think it's the artist [87:25] but really it's Publishers they're the [87:28] ones who get the money we why we [87:30] shouldn't give them anymore and [87:32] compensating well that presumes that [87:35] somebody has lost something and we have [87:38] to make and it's our fault so we have to [87:40] make it up to him well if you appreciate [87:44] a copy of a [87:46] work that's no loss to anybody else so [87:49] there's nothing to be compensated the [87:51] word compensation is inappropriate and [87:54] so is [87:56] remuneration remuneration is something [87:59] you give in re in return for doing work [88:03] if you hire some musicians to play at [88:05] your party and you agree to pay the [88:08] money for this well then you owe them [88:10] money you should pay them [88:14] but appreciating a song doesn't mean you [88:18] owe any money to anybody so [88:22] and it it doesn't mean that you have you [88:25] ought to pay somebody in that that you [88:28] that you are bound to pay somebody so [88:34] those terms compensation remuneration [88:36] must be rejected because those imply [88:39] that appreciating a work gives you a [88:42] debt of money that you have to pay but [88:46] it's good to support artists so I [88:49] propose two [88:51] systems two new additional ways we can [88:55] that Society can arrange to support [88:57] artists this is in addition to other [89:00] things that people will keep doing like [89:02] selling copies why not they can go on [89:05] selling copies I'm not proposing any [89:06] change in that or charging admission to [89:09] a concert I'm not proposing any change [89:12] in that but I'm suggesting two [89:15] additional ways we can support [89:18] artists one method uses public funds the [89:22] government would collect money [89:26] either just taking it out of the general [89:28] budget or using taxes on internet [89:31] connectivity or whatever might seem [89:34] appropriate to get some money to [89:36] distribute among [89:40] artists and it would distribute based on [89:43] the popularity of each artist which we [89:45] could measure through a scheme of [89:46] polling there various ways of doing [89:50] this but then how do once you have a a [89:53] pop popularity figure for each artist [89:57] how much money should that artist get [89:59] the obvious way is in linear proportion [90:02] to popularity so if you people look at [90:05] your Works twice as much you get twice [90:07] as much money this is a bad way to do it [90:11] because it's easy for a Star to be a lot [90:14] more popular than another capable fairly [90:17] popular artist a star could be a [90:20] thousand a star a could be a thousand [90:23] times as popular as good and appreciated [90:26] artist be and with linear proportion the [90:29] star would get a thousand times as much [90:31] money as be which means almost all the [90:34] money would go to the stars who don't [90:36] really need anymore so the scheme would [90:39] do little good for the Arts it would [90:41] just give more of our money to [90:44] Stars so I propose to take the cube root [90:48] of the popularity of each [90:52] artist and distri the money in [90:54] proportion to that well the cube root [90:57] looks like this the cube root of a th000 [91:00] is 10 so if a is a thousand times as [91:04] popular as B A would get 10 times as [91:07] much money as B not a thousand times [91:10] just 10 times so the effect of the cube [91:12] root is to transfer money from the stars [91:15] to the artists of medium [91:19] popularity it still each star would [91:22] still get more than a non-star star it [91:24] would remain the case that the more [91:26] popular you are the more you [91:28] get but it would taper off in such a way [91:32] that most of the money goes to the large [91:35] number of artists of medium popularity [91:40] and the small number of stars would get [91:44] in total only a small fraction of all [91:46] this [91:47] money so this change makes the system [91:51] efficient for supporting the Arts [91:55] because it directs most of the money at [91:57] the artists who really could use [92:04] help the other method I suggest involves [92:07] voluntary payments suppose each device [92:12] had a button you could push to send a [92:16] certain sum of money to the [92:22] artists of fairly small sum like in the [92:26] US maybe half a [92:29] dollar I'm not sure what a good amount [92:33] would be for Iceland but I figure each [92:35] country would fix this amount to try to [92:38] maximize the total amount people send in [92:42] any given period of time if it were too [92:45] little a lot of people might send it but [92:47] it would add up to to less if it were [92:50] too much not very many people would send [92:53] it but so there should be a certain [92:55] figure which maximizes the the am the [92:59] total amount people will send and you [93:02] push the button and you send it if you [93:03] feel like it if you don't want to you [93:05] don't nobody punishes you or twists your [93:09] arm but there might be publicity [93:15] suggesting that if you should do you [93:17] should send some money to some artist [93:19] because you'll feel good when you do and [93:23] it will feel good [93:25] of so if they pick the right amount of [93:28] money you might send this amount once a [93:32] week or even once a day and it wouldn't [93:35] add up to so much that you couldn't [93:37] afford [93:38] it of course there are some people who [93:40] couldn't afford it there are poor people [93:43] who couldn't afford to send even a [93:47] little and they won't and that's okay we [93:51] don't need to squeeze money out of Po [93:53] poor people to support the Arts there [93:55] are enough people who are not poor and [93:57] who will can afford to support the Arts [94:00] a little and will feel good when they [94:06] do [94:08] so these are my proposals for additional [94:12] ways to support artists and I should [94:14] point out that people that voluntary [94:17] payments are already working to support [94:21] artists a month ago [94:24] a bunch of well-known science fiction [94:26] writers released the humble ebook [94:30] bundle a collection of ebooks with no [94:34] DRM and no enduser license agreement and [94:38] they said pay whatever amount you wish [94:41] you didn't have to pay you could [94:43] download it and not pay anything but a [94:46] lot of people paid in fact they got a [94:49] million dollar in two weeks of voluntary [94:56] payments they said that this is a level [94:58] of income that corresponds to the New [95:01] York Times bestseller [95:04] list and it was entirely voluntary and [95:08] the more people are using the internet [95:10] the more it will [95:13] work the only problem with it is there's [95:15] no way to pay anonymously this an this [95:18] button has to send an anonymous payment [95:20] at least Anonymous as regards who's [95:23] paying it it doesn't have to be [95:24] anonymous for who's receiving it but it [95:26] has to be anonymous for who's paying [95:29] it there's no way to pay for the humble [95:32] ebook bundle anonymously I wrote to [95:35] Corey Dr o and said would you please [95:38] tell people how they can mail you money [95:41] orders and he said uh well the [95:44] volunteers who were taking care of this [95:47] don't have time to handle that it seems [95:51] to me that if they got in a million [95:53] dollars maybe they could pay the people [95:55] to to handle that part of things it [95:58] would only add up to a small fraction of [96:01] it [96:03] anyway I want them to [96:06] accept money orders because if I [96:10] download it I think I'll want to pay [96:12] them but I'll insist on paying [96:14] anonymously I can't do that over the [96:17] Internet so I don't do [96:22] e-commerce any anyway for more [96:24] information about free [96:29] software um you can see g.org there is [96:34] also fsf.org the free software [96:37] foundation's website where you can see [96:41] various resources and political [96:52] campaigns and you could also join the [96:54] free software [96:57] Foundation please do join we need your [97:01] support you can join through the website [97:04] if you do e-commerce you can also uh pay [97:08] me your dues in cash if you wish to join [97:11] that [97:12] way but we need your support that way we [97:16] also need the help of [97:19] volunteers now many people assume that [97:21] the help we need is programming [97:24] well we there are a lot of programming [97:26] tasks we'd like people to do but what we [97:28] need even more is [97:30] political activism and organizing you [97:34] don't need to know how to write code in [97:36] order to volunteer to help [97:38] us so if you want to [97:41] help let me [97:43] know or take a look at g.org [97:47] help for a list of various ways you can [97:50] help us so now it's time for for [97:59] questions and I feel like sitting down [98:02] uh I'm does this is this on yes it is I [98:06] am somewhat hard of hearing my [98:09] difficulty is recognizing [98:12] consonants so when you speak to me [98:15] please speak loud and slowly and [98:19] carefully pronounce each consonant so I [98:21] can tell what your question is and [98:24] please be brief please don't start with [98:27] apologies please don't start with praise [98:30] just go straight to the [98:32] point can you tell us about your [98:35] computer oh this computer this is a [98:39] lamote elong which I chose because even [98:43] the bias is [98:45] free now they're not making them anymore [98:48] but I'm hoping that by next year there [98:51] will be another model uh that we could [98:54] recommend now one problem is when they [98:56] sold these they were sold with a nonfree [99:00] gnu/linux drro so you had to replace [99:04] that I hope I can convince them to sell [99:07] a model with an entirely free system so [99:10] that the FSF can endorse it but you know [99:13] that depends on [99:16] them from the library here after I can't [99:19] understand a word okay sorry uh I work [99:23] after library at University and we of [99:26] course have money problems buying [99:29] licenses to use academic material do you [99:35] have solution for that the solution [99:38] is scholarly Publications must be [99:42] free now I used to think that they only [99:45] needed to be sharable but Michael Eisen [99:49] from the public library of science said [99:52] that [99:53] uh there are a lot of other things that [99:55] need to be done with scientific papers [99:58] other than just copy and redistribute [100:01] them for the sake of [100:02] science so he's the expert on this so he [100:07] convinced me and now I believe [100:09] scientific publication must be free now [100:13] I think that universities should adopt a [100:16] policy with no exceptions [100:20] allowed saying that any article that [100:23] their staff and faculty publish must [100:30] allow free [100:33] publication at most a year [100:37] later and this way uh this way they will [100:44] put an end to the strangle hold that the [100:46] academic Publishers [100:48] have but you might want to go further [100:51] and say in this [100:54] University it has to allow free [100:58] publication [101:00] immediately why let those Journal [101:03] Publishers keep any of their [101:07] power when they came to exist they were [101:10] necessary 50 years ago the only way to [101:13] disseminate scholarly writing was to [101:16] publish it on paper and those companies [101:19] did it and they didn't they did it the [101:22] only way anyone could possibly have done [101:24] it so there was nothing to criticize but [101:27] now the right way to distribute that [101:29] literature is to put it on the net and [101:32] the journal Publishers that continue to [101:36] restrict availability and restrict the [101:39] ReUse of the articles that are published [101:42] are [101:43] basically uh predatory [101:46] dinosaurs and we need to get rid of [101:50] them uh now the other people people [101:53] refer [101:55] to don't use the term free publication [101:58] they they talk about Open Access I think [102:01] that term is is misleading because it [102:05] focuses on the wrong thing it focuses on [102:09] access instead of what people are [102:10] allowed to do with the publication and [102:13] the result is that the most important [102:15] point that people should be allowed to [102:18] redistribute and do various things with [102:20] these articles gets forgotten [102:24] and tends to get [102:26] lost so I don't use the term Open Access [102:29] I use the term free [102:33] publication you mentioned that the only [102:35] ground for copyright under the US [102:38] Constitution was to promote progress [102:42] promote progress and promote artists [102:44] producing new work yeah could it not be [102:46] argued that by extending copyright you [102:51] push artists to create new Works instead [102:53] of rehashing old works or no and the [102:57] reason is that the kind of [102:59] rehashing that they uh would probably [103:03] have done doesn't infringe copyright I [103:06] mean if you're a professional you [103:09] know what which aspects you could reuse [103:13] and which at what level you'd have to [103:16] write it [103:17] aresh and you'll notice in fact that [103:21] lots of use of old stor goes on in [103:25] Hollywood uh copyright doesn't prevent [103:29] that it may mean that's that a is paying [103:32] B but it doesn't doesn't stop them from [103:34] doing [103:43] that system [104:05] there are the works that state someone's [104:07] point of [104:10] view judges would [104:15] decide yeah [104:18] right so what mean this is the so it [104:23] doesn't matter the reason for courts is [104:27] to make [104:29] distinctions it's a mistake to aim for [104:32] laws that have no distinctions and treat [104:36] everything [104:37] alike uh [104:39] because cases are different we don't we [104:42] don't it would not be Justice to treat [104:44] them alike it would not be a wise policy [104:46] to treat them [104:48] alike no you wouldn't it's not that hard [104:51] to make it it's pretty clear C what the [104:54] distinction [104:55] means no I think you're just being [104:59] unreasonably pessimistic in any [105:02] case in any [105:05] case it would be wrong to treat these [105:08] different categories the same way we've [105:11] got to treat each category in the way [105:14] that is appropriate for it to to set up [105:18] the goal of having laws that are totally [105:20] uniform it's a misguided goal it means a [105:24] badly written law a law that whose [105:26] policies are not right for the various [105:29] cases it has to deal with things in life [105:33] are different and we've got to recognize [105:35] that they're different to make [105:37] Simplicity be the highest priority means [105:41] we have to make bad [105:44] laws what about software it takes time [105:48] and money to make software so [105:51] what I mean people at companies have to [105:56] have some incentive to no they don't why [105:59] should we why should we give a company [106:02] an incentive to make proprietary [106:04] software proprietary software is a trap [106:08] that invites us to give up our freedom [106:10] it shouldn't exist at all so uh any [106:14] policy that enables a company to profit [106:17] by making proprietary software is a bad [106:20] policy we should make sure there is no [106:23] proprietary software can ask there is in [106:27] iel I think over 90% of the [106:31] population Facebook and other like [106:34] social media well okay these these [106:37] systems are not the same issue Facebook [106:41] is very bad Twitter is not so bad okay [106:46] Facebook the cop situation there is [106:49] because people are producing material [106:51] put on the SES [106:53] uh and uh what makes Facebook bad in [106:56] your opinion and many things make [106:58] Facebook bad but principally [107:00] surveillance look at stallman.com [107:23] tonight uh about corporations and [107:25] companies uh in the computer business [107:28] that you don't trust are there en that [107:30] you do well actually I'm Mo they're [107:32] mostly I wouldn't call them the computer [107:35] business mostly it's Publishers I'm [107:37] criticizing yeah but um I'm talking like [107:40] Google Facebook is well I didn't say [107:42] anything about Google today yeah I'm [107:46] asking if there are any of those any [107:49] corporations or companies in that [107:51] business that you trust well well I mean [107:54] trust a company is not the question the [107:57] question is what is the company doing [107:59] and is it bad so I'd rather look at the [108:03] specific things a given company does and [108:06] judge it as good or bad what what I'm [108:09] interested in is really uh you're you're [108:13] talking about like the circumstances of [108:15] the law and you're saying that I was [108:18] talking about copyright law yeah yeah [108:20] but you're saying that uh companies [108:22] started your lecture by talking about [108:24] how [108:25] companies [108:27] listen proprietary software [108:31] developers [108:33] typically because they are aware that [108:36] they have power over users typically [108:39] mistreat those users but that's because [108:42] of proprietary software you see [108:44] proprietary software is a scheme that [108:46] gives the company power over [108:49] people that's where it's bad so there [108:53] shouldn't be proprietary software and as [108:55] long as there is we should be wise [108:57] enough to refuse to have it yeah but is [109:00] there any company that you know of that [109:04] makes proprietary software but isn't [109:06] exploiting it I don't there's no way I [109:10] could tell right I presume there are [109:13] some but there's no way we can verify [109:16] that about proprietary [109:19] software so any so I'm sure sure there [109:23] are proprietary programs which don't [109:26] have malicious features they're still [109:29] bad because they're [109:32] proprietary are you picking people this [109:35] one had waited for a while so okay the [109:37] point is if you could either you pick [109:39] people or I pick people but we can't do [109:41] it [109:42] both you do [109:45] it um presidential elections your [109:49] thoughts and the fact I voted for Jill [109:51] Stein the GRE Party candidate because I [109:55] refuse to vote for either of the two [109:58] Republican candidates either Ramy or [110:04] Obama I wouldn't support those policies [110:09] when when Republicans started advocating [110:12] them and now the Democrats are [110:14] advocating them too I won't support them [110:16] either but Obama is comp compared with [110:21] Nixon Obama is right-wing even compared [110:25] with rean in some ways he was right he's [110:28] right-wing that's too much for me I've [110:30] I've got to vote for somebody who I can [110:33] who I won't be totally ashamed to have [110:36] voted for less of two evils who is it [110:39] nah if you do that it keeps getting more [110:42] and more [110:44] evil uh as as long as Democrats figure [110:48] that people will vote for these [110:50] right-wing policies that they don't [110:52] support just because the other choice [110:55] seems to be somebody even worse they'll [110:59] keep getting worse it's no accident that [111:02] the Democrats are getting more and more [111:04] right-wing that they're more right-wing [111:06] now than rep than Reagan and and uh King [111:12] George [111:13] one [111:20] uh um I [111:23] I mean I admire Wikileaks but I think [111:25] the term free information is [111:28] simplistic uh I don't think that [111:30] everybody's personal information should [111:33] get [111:34] published talking about like government [111:37] well right the point is but that means [111:39] that we should we should state it in a [111:42] more specific way because if you [111:44] Advocate free [111:46] information it sounds like you're saying [111:49] everybody's personal information should [111:51] get published and I don't believe our [111:53] personal information should even get [111:56] collected I don't have a mobile phone [111:59] because they're because of the tracking [112:01] that they do or like information that [112:04] affects the oh well that's different but [112:08] let's yeah I mean we need to uh reduce [112:12] government's [112:14] secrecy [112:17] uh but I'd rather not use the term free [112:21] information because that that that [112:23] suggests a facil analogy with free [112:26] software and these issues are not [112:29] similar and it's not only that the the [112:33] like the conclusions are not similar [112:34] it's that the the arguments are not [112:36] similar they just have nothing in common [112:38] they're totally different [112:43] issues what about software patents oh I [112:48] don't like to talk about patents in a in [112:51] a speech about copyright [112:53] because patents and copyright have [112:56] nothing to do with each other and [112:59] nothing in [113:01] common but many people think that they [113:04] do and the reason that people think so [113:08] is the misleading term quote [113:10] intellectual property [113:13] unquote you'll notice I didn't use that [113:15] term I never use that term I talk about [113:18] it with quotes but I never use the term [113:21] and the reason is [113:23] every time someone uses that term he's [113:27] talking about a dozen or so unrelated [113:30] laws that do totally different things [113:33] they work in different ways they have [113:36] nothing significant in [113:39] common so it's a mistake to generalize [113:42] about [113:44] them when people do gener wise about [113:47] them it leads other people to assume [113:50] that they must be similar they must be [113:53] some reason to group them [113:55] together it seems impla you know you [113:58] people would never guess that it's just [114:00] an act a mistake to to group them [114:03] together they assume there must be there [114:05] must be a good reason they must really [114:07] be [114:08] similar if you go to law school and you [114:11] study these different laws you'll see [114:13] how different they [114:14] are so lawyers know that these laws have [114:17] nothing in [114:19] common but most people don't [114:25] so to reject the idea that patents have [114:29] anything to do with copyrights I prefer [114:31] not to talk about patents and to talk [114:34] about [114:35] copyrights but Wired [114:38] Magazine published an article of mine [114:42] couple of weeks [114:43] ago uh [114:45] recommending how to protect software [114:47] from [114:48] patents you can find other articles in [114:51] gnu.org SL [114:53] philosophy about the harm done by [114:56] software patents or computational idea [115:00] patents as I prefer to call them because [115:03] that's that states more clearly what [115:05] they [115:09] are you mentioned the uh downloadable [115:11] book collection Could you um mention [115:13] that it's the humble ebook bundle that's [115:16] its official name [115:23] uh [115:24] yeah I would I I don't think I'm alone [115:27] in and I want to I would like to hear [115:30] the any u a a corporate any corporate [115:33] entity coming with objective and and [115:36] refined answers to your to your [115:38] arguments [115:39] against the the mod copyright [115:43] status um have have you ever shared I'm [115:46] not going to try to speak for the Enemy [115:48] No no no I'm I'm I'm not going to ask [115:50] you to but I'm H have you ever or would [115:54] you be interested in sharing a floor [115:56] with someone up there spokesman probably [115:59] not and the reason is their position is [116:03] getting is in the major media and it's [116:07] getting spread around and inculcated [116:09] into people all the [116:11] time to the point where people almost [116:14] everyone can recite it by heart you [116:18] don't need to have one of them in order [116:21] to make this a debate [116:23] what one of them would do if he's a [116:26] clever debater would be to bring up a [116:29] bunch of red [116:30] herrings mentioning details that I [116:33] wouldn't know about so I wouldn't be [116:35] able to refute them that day I'd have to [116:37] ask someone to look things up maybe a [116:40] week later I'd be able to explain why [116:43] they're either false or inv vowed [116:47] arguments but at the moment it would [116:50] just look like I didn't know what I was [116:52] talking talking about that's what clever [116:54] Debaters do when they're not really [116:56] interested in truth or justice but just [116:59] in winning there are such people and I [117:01] know that they can do [117:03] that so I'm not interested in having one [117:06] of them present in my [117:10] speeches isn't but isn't that about [117:13] raing throwing throwing up red headings [117:15] isn't that that's also true about theism [117:19] and that and those fine I mean have a [117:22] debate if you want but I don't want to [117:24] do [117:25] that the other thing is if that somebody [117:29] is famous he won't agree if he's not [117:33] famous then it would mean that my name [117:37] is bringing people to listen to him well [117:40] I don't want to do that that's helping [117:41] the [117:42] enemy I don't consider this uh this is [117:47] not like a sporting event This Is War [117:51] they started the war and we're fighting [117:54] to defend [117:56] ourselves fair [118:00] enough how do we go about encouraging [118:04] people to go into the development of [118:06] free software by that I mean how you how [118:09] can we ensure that a young person coming [118:12] out of a computer science course can [118:15] make a choice and say I want to go into [118:16] this business make it my career how do I [118:20] sustain uh as as we see crowdfunding is [118:24] working better and better there are free [118:27] software projects that have got funding [118:29] that [118:30] way uh but another thing is that [118:34] governments fund a lot of software [118:36] development and they could just as well [118:39] take the position that all software they [118:41] fund will be released as free software [118:44] unless there's some very special reason [118:47] why not to release it at all [118:52] and [118:53] uh you put there is already a [118:56] substantial free software [118:58] business and there's also a lot of [119:01] demand in some countries for people to [119:04] do things other than software [119:06] development but that are part of the [119:08] Computing field like uh the system [119:12] administrators uh there's a shortage of [119:14] gnu/linux system administrators in the [119:17] US and anybody who's good at that can [119:19] get a quite High Sal [119:26] of [119:31] all and we [119:34] have [119:37] butly how I'm [119:42] sad and secondly how what is the best [119:45] way to to convin government to start [119:52] I can't tell you that I mean I know [119:55] arguments in favor of it but how to [119:58] convince a given government that's a [120:00] different question why expect me to be [120:02] an expert on how to convince your [120:03] government I'm a [120:06] foreigner I don't live here and I don't [120:10] know how politics Works in [120:15] Iceland or that much about how it works [120:17] in any country except my own and of [120:22] course in the US it's hopeless to [120:24] convince any politicians to go against [120:28] the will of the corporate [120:35] Empire some computer games enforce end [120:38] user license agreements in order to [120:39] retain power over users in the purpose [120:41] of enforcing rules and preventing file [120:44] play but that doesn't work I'm told I'm [120:48] told that users find ways to cheat [120:49] anyway I know but uh these can be much [120:52] like disclaimers I'd like to know is [120:54] this uh your idea of quote unquote bad [120:57] it's bad yes it's always involves it [121:00] involves denying users [121:04] Freedom the freedom that they that the [121:07] users of software should always [121:10] have [121:11] and I'm not willing to give up that [121:14] freedom to use a game for anything [121:18] else so if they make these games [121:20] non-free [121:23] uh I urge you not to use [121:28] them maybe you could play with your [121:31] friends and then you could trust each [121:34] other not to [121:35] cheat well I'm talking more about uh [121:38] like [121:39] MMOs yeah well maybe instead of uh [121:42] playing with [121:43] strangers you would play with some [121:47] people you know and and you won't cheat [121:50] each other [121:56] um this 10 year rule uh what is uh if [121:59] for example I write a book about an [122:01] ongoing topic and at some point I [122:03] publish it but uh I still work on my [122:06] book and uh want to republish each [122:08] version would have a 10year copyright so [122:11] um uh after the 10 years someone else [122:14] can take my first book [122:16] andish it with uh his new yes things [122:20] okay yeah [122:24] you spoke a bit about wanting to have a [122:26] button to make a I can't hear you at all [122:29] sorry you spoke a bit about wanting to [122:31] have a button to make Anonymous payments [122:34] a button yeah yeah do you see any viable [122:38] solution for anonymous payments on the [122:42] internet depends what you mean by [122:45] viable technical methods to do this are [122:48] known it's this is not a technical [122:51] problem it's a a social organization [123:05] problem well steam is mostly [123:07] Distributing nonfree games so that's not [123:11] something that's [123:19] good well then the games that are free [123:22] are ethical and the games that are [123:24] non-free or not [123:27] ethical what about the [123:30] ads well I'm not against ads as [123:35] such however if a program is free the [123:38] users could decide to use a version [123:41] which didn't show the [123:43] ads but maybe they wouldn't okay I'm not [123:46] against ads as such uh today ads on the [123:51] inter internet generally associated with [123:53] surveillance I'm against the [123:56] surveillance that I fight [124:00] against uh if the purpose of the [124:03] surveillance is to because they want to [124:06] show me different ads well I have [124:08] nothing against showing me different ads [124:10] but I am against the [124:15] surveillance I think it's time to stop [124:19] because it's been over two hour [124:25] hours okay I'll take that one more [124:28] question wondering do we have any chance [124:31] of winning this war because uh I don't [124:34] know isn't the majority of the [124:36] population just who spoil to boycot I [124:39] don't know but as I see it if some of us [124:43] manage to free ourselves that's already [124:46] a victory even though it's not complete [124:48] Victory yes the goal is the liberation [124:51] of all of cyberspace but if we manage to [124:55] win some freedom for ourselves that's [124:57] worth doing [125:20] [Applause]