7 ms·

Why I Will Not Sign the Public Domain Manifesto

16 points by apgwoz 17y ago

protomyth 17y ago
My basic problem is reconciling "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." with "General Principle 2 repeats the common error that copyright should balance the public interest with 'protecting and rewarding the author'. This error interferes with proper judgment of any copyright policy question, since that should be based on the public interest."
- ggchappell 17y ago
  I don't think there is a problem there. Look at the first statement you quoted. It explains why (to promote ...) and then it explains what is to be done (securing for limited times ...). Protecting and rewarding authors may be a result of the "securing" part, but it is not listed as a motivation for it.
- dasht 17y ago
  A reasonable question. They are reconciled by narrowly observing that the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" describes a specific public interest. You can also narrowly observe that there is no specific enumeration of what comprises an "exclusive Right". Stallman also (used to?) advocate for "media taxes" and to paraphrase that idea and draw it to its conclusion for the contemporary environment: This would be something like a tax on IP traffic, an enforceable right of verifiable authentication, and a disbursing of those tax revenues to popular Authors and Inventors based on some formula settled by Congress. Such would be radically different from what we have. It would not preclude the freedom to share. It would be consistent with the Constitutional mandate if it genuinely encouraged Authors and Inventors to publish. It would be especially attentive to the purpose ("To promote...") of the regulatory power ("limited Times ... exclusive Right"). Beyond the narrow readings, you can look at (for example) the correspondence between Jefferson and Hamilton and its historic legislative and jurisprudence context. Exclusivity of publication was only grudgingly added to the powers of Congress. It was added in part because of a historic pattern of several of the Colonies to establish a state-run monopoly on printing. It was added in part because of a then more current familiarity with the early economics of print and the role of patronage in inventing. The early US copyright and patent laws make far less sense, given how they were argued for, in the current technological climate. Substitutes - even radical substitutes like a "media tax" - would seem to better fit the goals the founders were trying to achieve (if we can judge that by their own writings).
  - protomyth 17y ago
    I guess where I get into the problem is the wording specifically mentions "exclusive right", but none of the wording says "public interest". Progress is good for the public, but it isn't a 1-to-1 correspondence with "public interest". Also, it mentions this exclusive right as the solution, not a suggestion of one possible solution.
    - inerte 17y ago
      Because everything done by a government should be for the public interest, even if one person or a small group is directly benefited. I'm not a US Constitution specialist, heck, I am from Brazil. But that's usually how things are: You don't exactly need to keep saying "_this_ is for the public interest", because _everything_ should be.
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      I think you've got it backwards. The government wouldn't have the right to just create monopolies for no reason. This allows them to set up such monopolies as long as they serve a specific purpose. So not "you need to promote progress, so set up monopolies" but "you can set up monopolies, but only to promote progress". That's why it specifically mentions "exclusive rights" because that's the contentious bit.
      - protomyth 17y ago
        The creation of a temporary monopoly allows the person who produced the work time to make a living off it, thus encouraging other people to do the same. The monopoly isn't for "no reason", it has a very specific purpose.
- gjm11 17y ago
  Stallman's written on that before; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html . His position (which, for what it's worth, seems correct to me) is that I.8 of the US constitution says that the purpose of copyright is simply "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", and sees "protecting and rewarding the author" as a means to that end, not as something to be balanced against it. (Note also that the Constitution doesn't say that there must or should be copyright; only that Congress is permitted, for the specific purpose mentioned, to establish copyright.) If it turned out that copyright actually works against "the progress of science and useful arts", a believer in "balancing" might think it should stay anyway, to protect and reward authors. Stallman would not, and the US Constitution does seem to be on his side. (I am not claiming, and I don't know whether Stallman would, that copyright laws that can be shown to impede the progress of science and useful arts would actually be unconstitutional.)
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    I am not claiming, and I don't know whether Stallman would, that copyright laws that can be shown to impede the progress of science and useful arts would actually be unconstitutional This is my issue with that entire point. I don't see how current is hampering arts and science, really. Which is a problem because people can turn around and say so; which works to invalidate the argument. It's a key point because it's what we need to consider when revising copyright law properly; but for dismantling the current law it doesn't seem, currently, a strong argument.
    - jacobolus 17y ago
      > I don't see how current [copyright law?] is hampering arts and science, really. Seriously? As one example, people who go to prestigious universities with big libraries can get access to all of the scientific output in the world, while others, especially in places without good public libraries, can't get access to that material. If copyright was a more reasonable term, all of that material older than some date could be digitized and widely distributed. This couldn't but help science. As another, a large portion of the current amateur cultural output (youtube videos, covers of songs, &c.) is currently illegal. But this illegality is out-of-sync with common understandings of the legitimacy of various uses. It's absurd to justify people's grandchildren (or unrelated people or corporations who bought the rights sometime) collecting royalties for the creative output of 70 years ago with the argument that the original creation wouldn't have happened without such "incentive". * * * As for constitutionality, this is a matter which properly belongs to the legislature IMO, not the courts. I just wish our legislators were a bit less beholden to Disney & friends.
Semiapies 17y ago
This is why divide and conquer can work.
muhfuhkuh 17y ago
All of this hoopla over a damned cartoon mouse.
maxharris 17y ago
I don't care about what Stallman thinks, and neither should you. If you're here, it's probably because you are (or want to) running a startup, and you're doing it to make money. In most instances, Stallman's philosophy is fundamentally against that, or at least indifferent to it. If you pursue his ideas seriously and consistently, you will fail in business. Do you really want that? If your answer is yes, why are you reading hn?
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  I agree. Although I care deeply about this issue and agree with some of his views, Stallman seems to me like a classic case of someone who who makes the perfect into the enemy of th good. Every time I read his output I am beset by the urge to respond by blatantly plagiarizing him.
  - maxharris 17y ago
    I don't think that Stallman's ideals are good (let alone perfect!)
    - anigbrowl 17y ago
      Oh, I didn't put that very well. I meant that I thought the public domain manifesto, while far from perfect, is a good idea. RMS appeared to me to be criticizing it too harshly because it didn't meet his standard of perfection. However, I prefer not to comment on him as an individual. For one thing, his accomplishments significantly exceed mine, and for another, I see many similar personality traits in myself.
- kiba 17y ago
  In most instances, Stallman's philosophy is fundamentally against that, or at least indifferent to it. If you pursue his ideas seriously and consistently, you will fail in business. Any software license that discriminate against business users is against the free software philosophy. That being said, an anti-copyright business model has not worked against me so far in the two years I been operating a open content website. The economic knowledge that I accumulated over years, has convinced me that a "public domain", not a "free software" approach to software and media is one of the most dangerous ideas that a capitalist would hold. I welcome the day when someone finally took that idea and implement it ruthlessly in its full glory. It would be the most beautiful chaos that I would ever witness in my lifetime. It would be creative destruction at its finest. It is to destroy a fundamental belief that is pervasive in the heart and minds of the masses and showing people that what they thought was their security, was their downfall. Thousand of engineers, artists, and all kind of entrepreneurs thrown into the street left to fend for themselves overnight. I guess the threat isn't credible, because it come from the rambling mouth of a high schooler who probably want free musics. Oh well.
tjic 17y ago
Ah crap. I wish this was titled "another inane rant by RMS" - I could have saved myself clicking on it and reading more of Stallman's quibbling little can't-see-the-forest-for-trees micropscopic-focus my-way-or-the-highway intractability. There's a reason that Linux seized the forefront of the free software / open source movement - it's that Linus, for all his flaws, is still 1,000 x better with people than RMS. RMS epitomized many of the worst parts of nerd-personality-damage. A big breakthrough in my life was realizing that getting people to 95% agree with me ... and then making a ton of progress - is infinitely preferable to endlessly arguing over that last 5% and getting stuck without any progress. What have RMS or the FSF accomplished in the last 10 years? Precious little. The movement has left them behind, and they're still at the starting line arguing about how many periods there are in an ellipses.
- kiba 17y ago
  Well, what do you think is the purpose of the "free software" or "open source" movement? Is it to hack open source software, or is it more "idealogical"? Perhaps what FSF want to accomplish is actually different than what you want to accomplish?
  - crpatino 17y ago
    FSF is all about ideology. More or less it says that, since digital information can be duplicated at negligible cost, it should be freely distributed with little or no restriction. I don't think it is appropriate. We are already undervalued enough for people to get the fruit of our work for free, no strings attached. My personal take is that open source licenses should make distribution of anything but source code illegal. Want binaries? You pay for them and get a regular commercial license. Don't want to pay me for that? Hire a fellow programmer to build my code for you and I am ok with that (as long as you do not distribute the binaries).
- access_denied 17y ago
  Three periods is better in terms of the visual signal. But two are enough to make the signal clear. I guess it's a question of where you want to stopp counting.

16 points by apgwoz 17y ago

My basic problem is reconciling "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." with "General Principle 2 repeats the common error that copyright should balance the public interest with 'protecting and rewarding the author'. This error interferes with proper judgment of any copyright policy question, since that should be based on the public interest."

ggchappell 17y ago
I don't think there is a problem there. Look at the first statement you quoted. It explains why (to promote ...) and then it explains what is to be done (securing for limited times ...). Protecting and rewarding authors may be a result of the "securing" part, but it is not listed as a motivation for it.
dasht 17y ago
A reasonable question. They are reconciled by narrowly observing that the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" describes a specific public interest. You can also narrowly observe that there is no specific enumeration of what comprises an "exclusive Right". Stallman also (used to?) advocate for "media taxes" and to paraphrase that idea and draw it to its conclusion for the contemporary environment: This would be something like a tax on IP traffic, an enforceable right of verifiable authentication, and a disbursing of those tax revenues to popular Authors and Inventors based on some formula settled by Congress. Such would be radically different from what we have. It would not preclude the freedom to share. It would be consistent with the Constitutional mandate if it genuinely encouraged Authors and Inventors to publish. It would be especially attentive to the purpose ("To promote...") of the regulatory power ("limited Times ... exclusive Right"). Beyond the narrow readings, you can look at (for example) the correspondence between Jefferson and Hamilton and its historic legislative and jurisprudence context. Exclusivity of publication was only grudgingly added to the powers of Congress. It was added in part because of a historic pattern of several of the Colonies to establish a state-run monopoly on printing. It was added in part because of a then more current familiarity with the early economics of print and the role of patronage in inventing. The early US copyright and patent laws make far less sense, given how they were argued for, in the current technological climate. Substitutes - even radical substitutes like a "media tax" - would seem to better fit the goals the founders were trying to achieve (if we can judge that by their own writings).
- protomyth 17y ago
  I guess where I get into the problem is the wording specifically mentions "exclusive right", but none of the wording says "public interest". Progress is good for the public, but it isn't a 1-to-1 correspondence with "public interest". Also, it mentions this exclusive right as the solution, not a suggestion of one possible solution.
  - inerte 17y ago
    Because everything done by a government should be for the public interest, even if one person or a small group is directly benefited. I'm not a US Constitution specialist, heck, I am from Brazil. But that's usually how things are: You don't exactly need to keep saying "_this_ is for the public interest", because _everything_ should be.
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    I think you've got it backwards. The government wouldn't have the right to just create monopolies for no reason. This allows them to set up such monopolies as long as they serve a specific purpose. So not "you need to promote progress, so set up monopolies" but "you can set up monopolies, but only to promote progress". That's why it specifically mentions "exclusive rights" because that's the contentious bit.
    - protomyth 17y ago
      The creation of a temporary monopoly allows the person who produced the work time to make a living off it, thus encouraging other people to do the same. The monopoly isn't for "no reason", it has a very specific purpose.
gjm11 17y ago
Stallman's written on that before; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html . His position (which, for what it's worth, seems correct to me) is that I.8 of the US constitution says that the purpose of copyright is simply "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", and sees "protecting and rewarding the author" as a means to that end, not as something to be balanced against it. (Note also that the Constitution doesn't say that there must or should be copyright; only that Congress is permitted, for the specific purpose mentioned, to establish copyright.) If it turned out that copyright actually works against "the progress of science and useful arts", a believer in "balancing" might think it should stay anyway, to protect and reward authors. Stallman would not, and the US Constitution does seem to be on his side. (I am not claiming, and I don't know whether Stallman would, that copyright laws that can be shown to impede the progress of science and useful arts would actually be unconstitutional.)
- ErrantX 17y ago
  I am not claiming, and I don't know whether Stallman would, that copyright laws that can be shown to impede the progress of science and useful arts would actually be unconstitutional This is my issue with that entire point. I don't see how current is hampering arts and science, really. Which is a problem because people can turn around and say so; which works to invalidate the argument. It's a key point because it's what we need to consider when revising copyright law properly; but for dismantling the current law it doesn't seem, currently, a strong argument.
  - jacobolus 17y ago
    > I don't see how current [copyright law?] is hampering arts and science, really. Seriously? As one example, people who go to prestigious universities with big libraries can get access to all of the scientific output in the world, while others, especially in places without good public libraries, can't get access to that material. If copyright was a more reasonable term, all of that material older than some date could be digitized and widely distributed. This couldn't but help science. As another, a large portion of the current amateur cultural output (youtube videos, covers of songs, &c.) is currently illegal. But this illegality is out-of-sync with common understandings of the legitimacy of various uses. It's absurd to justify people's grandchildren (or unrelated people or corporations who bought the rights sometime) collecting royalties for the creative output of 70 years ago with the argument that the original creation wouldn't have happened without such "incentive". * * * As for constitutionality, this is a matter which properly belongs to the legislature IMO, not the courts. I just wish our legislators were a bit less beholden to Disney & friends.

Semiapies 17y ago

This is why divide and conquer can work.

muhfuhkuh 17y ago

All of this hoopla over a damned cartoon mouse.

maxharris 17y ago

I don't care about what Stallman thinks, and neither should you. If you're here, it's probably because you are (or want to) running a startup, and you're doing it to make money. In most instances, Stallman's philosophy is fundamentally against that, or at least indifferent to it. If you pursue his ideas seriously and consistently, you will fail in business. Do you really want that? If your answer is yes, why are you reading hn?

anigbrowl 17y ago
I agree. Although I care deeply about this issue and agree with some of his views, Stallman seems to me like a classic case of someone who who makes the perfect into the enemy of th good. Every time I read his output I am beset by the urge to respond by blatantly plagiarizing him.
- maxharris 17y ago
  I don't think that Stallman's ideals are good (let alone perfect!)
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    Oh, I didn't put that very well. I meant that I thought the public domain manifesto, while far from perfect, is a good idea. RMS appeared to me to be criticizing it too harshly because it didn't meet his standard of perfection. However, I prefer not to comment on him as an individual. For one thing, his accomplishments significantly exceed mine, and for another, I see many similar personality traits in myself.
kiba 17y ago
In most instances, Stallman's philosophy is fundamentally against that, or at least indifferent to it. If you pursue his ideas seriously and consistently, you will fail in business. Any software license that discriminate against business users is against the free software philosophy. That being said, an anti-copyright business model has not worked against me so far in the two years I been operating a open content website. The economic knowledge that I accumulated over years, has convinced me that a "public domain", not a "free software" approach to software and media is one of the most dangerous ideas that a capitalist would hold. I welcome the day when someone finally took that idea and implement it ruthlessly in its full glory. It would be the most beautiful chaos that I would ever witness in my lifetime. It would be creative destruction at its finest. It is to destroy a fundamental belief that is pervasive in the heart and minds of the masses and showing people that what they thought was their security, was their downfall. Thousand of engineers, artists, and all kind of entrepreneurs thrown into the street left to fend for themselves overnight. I guess the threat isn't credible, because it come from the rambling mouth of a high schooler who probably want free musics. Oh well.

tjic 17y ago

Ah crap. I wish this was titled "another inane rant by RMS" - I could have saved myself clicking on it and reading more of Stallman's quibbling little can't-see-the-forest-for-trees micropscopic-focus my-way-or-the-highway intractability. There's a reason that Linux seized the forefront of the free software / open source movement - it's that Linus, for all his flaws, is still 1,000 x better with people than RMS. RMS epitomized many of the worst parts of nerd-personality-damage. A big breakthrough in my life was realizing that getting people to 95% agree with me ... and then making a ton of progress - is infinitely preferable to endlessly arguing over that last 5% and getting stuck without any progress. What have RMS or the FSF accomplished in the last 10 years? Precious little. The movement has left them behind, and they're still at the starting line arguing about how many periods there are in an ellipses.

kiba 17y ago
Well, what do you think is the purpose of the "free software" or "open source" movement? Is it to hack open source software, or is it more "idealogical"? Perhaps what FSF want to accomplish is actually different than what you want to accomplish?
- crpatino 17y ago
  FSF is all about ideology. More or less it says that, since digital information can be duplicated at negligible cost, it should be freely distributed with little or no restriction. I don't think it is appropriate. We are already undervalued enough for people to get the fruit of our work for free, no strings attached. My personal take is that open source licenses should make distribution of anything but source code illegal. Want binaries? You pay for them and get a regular commercial license. Don't want to pay me for that? Hire a fellow programmer to build my code for you and I am ok with that (as long as you do not distribute the binaries).
access_denied 17y ago
Three periods is better in terms of the visual signal. But two are enough to make the signal clear. I guess it's a question of where you want to stopp counting.