From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262890AbTEBNXM (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2003 09:23:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262894AbTEBNXL (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2003 09:23:11 -0400 Received: from relay01.valueweb.net ([216.219.253.235]:18119 "EHLO relay01.valueweb.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262890AbTEBNXJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2003 09:23:09 -0400 Message-ID: <3EB273FF.8010901@coyotegulch.com> Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 09:34:55 -0400 From: Scott Robert Ladd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030430 Debian/1.3-5 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Copyrights: An Author's Call to Arms Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Let's move beyond beating dead horses, and try to figure out which "live" horse we should be feeding and riding. In my mind, intellectual property rights are the most important issues facing emerging technology and human progress; Linux is part of that progress. This discussion *is* very pertinent to Linux, and hiding our heads in the sand or arguing over minutiae is counterproductive. I am a writer, as in both physical books and more ephemeral, digital works, including both prose and code. From my perspective, copyright establishes ownership of an expression of ideas; it establishes my right to control who prints my books for profit, such that I receive due compensation. Copyright does *not* establish ownership of content and concepts; having written copyrighted prose about QuickSort does *not* make me owner of the algorithm. Once my writings enter people's brains, I have (and desire) no control over them. If Joe reads my book, and then talks about it to Sally, he isn't violating my copyright; Sally is welcome and free to use what she has learned from me, via Joe, in her own code. I don't think you'll find my beliefs much different from those of most authors and creators; surely Vincent van Gogh would not claim control of the ideas spawned in the minds of those who viewed his paintings. The value in the written word is not in the subject, but in the presentation. And that presentation is what copyright *should* protect. Copyright grants me, the author, control over who can publish my material, and how. No one can legally take one of my books or articles and post it online without my permission -- but that does *not* establish any "property" right on my part in terms of the underlying concepts. When books were paper and copying was difficult, copyright worked well as a way of guaranteeing that an author was paid for their work. While the sharing of ideas is a potent impetus to writing, to ignore the profit motive is to suggest that writers don't care about eating. The expression of an idea has value; if I write a particularly effective description of an algorithm, I should be paid by those who benefit from my work. With physical books, the relationship between work and value was clearly established; if I wrote something valuable, people bought lots of books, and I was able to feed my family from publisher royalties. The digital age breaks that relationship, leaving authors in a difficult position. Publish a book electronically, and there is no way to compell people to pay the author for their work. Someone who would never consider stealing a book from a store is likely to copy a digital work, because doing so is easy and risk-free. It's like breaking speed limits -- almost everyone does it because they can get away with it. Now put yourself in the position of an author. Unless you write purely for the spirit, it becomes very difficult to justify the effort of creating something for which you will not be compensated. It is bogus to claim that people will buy physical copies if they enjoy free digital versions; for most people, an MP3 is "good enough"; for most people, having a digital copy of a book is as good as having a paper one. In the end, the best an author can do is rely upon the "good" nature of people to pay for the value they've received. So we have a conundrum: authors need to eat, but people tend not to pay for things unless compelled to do so. Copyright is, for digital documents, invalid for the purpose of profit; my only reason for copyrighting my online publications is to prevent others from copying and claiming authorship of my efforts. Trying to force old models into new realities will fail; enroute to that failure, politicians will distort valid concepts (copyright) into draconian forms (DMCA). Corporations, by virtue of their legal nature as "entities", have perverted the process to the detriment of both creators and consumers. The Mickey Mouse protection acts do not extend copyright for the benefit of human creators -- such laws exist to benefit artificial business entities that have become more valid than their constituent human components. A new model is required. And I believe the free software community should lead the way -- but only if it works *WITH* authors, musicians, coders, and writers to establish concepts for linking the creation of material to compensation (i.e., survival). Society can not progress by going backward (the corporate solution), nor by ignoring the needs of creators (those who deny economic value for expressions of ideas.) In theory, "free software" is not bound by corporate cultures and regressive thinking. *This* community, represented by Linux developers, should be taking the reins and deciding which horse we ride and where it takes us. I'm open to considered dialog. -- Scott Robert Ladd Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com) Professional programming for science and engineering; Interesting and unusual bits of very free code.