"Culture Pirates", copyright, and all that

.
The invention of Kindle and Sony Reader (and similar devices at other places, e.g. IPad and Borders) has brought up the whole issue of what "copyright" does for us.

In "Misinterpreting Copyright, Richard Stallman describes a convincing point of view.  He sees copyright as a piece of social contract: someone gets to market something that he or she "creates" for a limited period, in order that more authors will be encouraged to creative enterprise.  This is supported by language in the US Constitution, which says  that Congress should "promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."  In other words, he says, the point of copyright is not so much to support some "natural right" that an author has, by virtue of being a creator, to enjoy the material benefits of controlling his creation, but rather that the people grant the author this privilege for a limited period of time in order to encourage creative endeavors.  Otherwise, he argues, why would we limit the period of time?  We don't limit the period of time one gets to live in one's home, he says, drawing a sharp contrast between owning one's residence, and owning the copyright to a work.

I'm obviously not an expert, but this view seems reasonable to me.  Most modern creativity takes place in a social context in which the individual receives benefits in living in society far in excess of the taxes he or she pays.  Thus the society at large partakes in the authorship of all creative works.  (Particular authors can be expected to dispute this, since they could easily fall into the illusion of being individuals who are so autonomous and so independent that they owe little or nothing to society.  They do expect society to defend their claims to authorship, though.)

For those of us whose creativity is limited, perhaps it is difficult to see how much particular authors cherish this illusion of being sole creators of their works.  Nor would I like to be in their shoes, since it is always better to share credit for any endeavor.  For instance, I write my music in a program whose name I am afraid of mentioning for fear that they will claim authorship of my music.  While I do not mind sharing the credit, I do resent the possibility that these co-creators with me of any works I might create will be able to exploit them commercially.

Stallman, and numerous other individuals have invented and sharpened the concept of "Free Software", saying that it is "free as in Free Speech, not as in Free Beer."  This means that you have it as an absence of significant restrictions, rather than as not being asked to pay for it.  A book, for instance, if it is still under copyright, is not Free as in speech, because you can't alter it, add to it, even write a sequel to it without permission.  (I could be wrong, but this is my understanding.)  Shakespeare, in contrast, can be obtained as a photocopy from someone (so, Free as in Beer), and you can modify it, and sell it, if anyone is willing to pay for your Improved Shakespeare, so Free as in Speech, too.

For Stallman, who naturally focuses on Free Software, the unrestricted nature of the software is more important than that you might have to pay for it.  He points out that since it isn't restricted, there will invariably be multiple ways of obtaining it --getting it from a friend, for instance, which is legal, since there is no restriction on redistribution.  So the Free as in Speech aspect of free software makes the not Free as in Beer aspect less painful.  It took me a while to get my mind around the distinction, but I think I finally have.  A software distributor could charge for software to cover costs, or raise money for whatever purpose, but the premium is charged essentially for the convenience.  Once you buy it, there is no restriction on what you do with it, except for the simple one imposed by a movement called CopyLeft: a freedom clause equivalent to the one accompanying the original free software has to be imposed on any improvements you make and distribute.  In other words, anyone who improves free software with a CopyLeft restriction on it must distribute it as CopyLeft software.  The CopyLeft agreement has to be inherited by any successors to CopyLeft software.

In contrast, DVDs, Kindle books, etc etc are even more restricted than conventional books and magazines.  Conventional books and magazines can be recirculated at will.  Not so a Kindle book.  You have to get it off the satellite every time you read it, but you cannot give it to a friend.

The article referred to in the title is about a professor who is studying the present concept of Copyright, he believes, in the Industrial Revolution (though Stallman goes a little further back to the 18th century), and seems to be in favor of a revision of the concept of copyright, though he may not be as radical in his ideas as is Stallman.  Stallman's view is that the privilege of exclusive marketing is a brief and limited concession, and not an inalienable right.

But the ideas are subtle, and I encourage everyone to read both articles.