Richard Stallman: Copyright vs. Community

RMS has historically viewed copyright as a bad thing[1], all the way from how it has developed historically to how it is applied uniformly to different kinds of works (practical works like software being copyrighted is of particular concern). Now, you might say that "the GPL uses copyright, which clearly means that RMS and the FSF are pro-copyright". They're not. Copyleft is a hack of the copyright system[2], specifically designed such that as copyright becomes stronger so does the amount of freedom provided by copyleft. This is explicitly the purpose. If it were not legal to stop users from modifying software, then the GPL would not need to exist (nor could it). RMS has stated[3] that his views on an ideal copyright system is: 1. Authors retain copyright, not publishers. This matches the original copyright law that was created in England under Queen Mary in The Statute of Anne (1710)[4]. 2. The scope of works covered would be reduced. Most importantly, practical works would not be covered under copyright. 3. The length of time that copyright applies to a work would be massively reduced. Works are being created today that children born today will never see in the public domain. The solution is to reduce the length of time that copyright applies to 10 years (or possibly 5, which some authors appear to prefer). 4. The breadth of restrictions would be reduced. Most notably, distribution of a work would no longer require permission from the owner. The argument for this change req

Actually I doubt that you can avoid abusing current copyright laws. Also because there is no such "right" in nature. If you wish monopoly call it for what it is and have laws in accordance. Such "right" shouldn't exist in the first place or at least in the current form. Copy process is the way people learn and progress. Copy process is essential for spreading knowledge and development. When you learn you copy. When you sing you copy. When you speak you copy. When you teach you copy. When you think you copy. People copy their parents. You are the mixed copy of your parents plus mixed copy of other things and factors. When you show to others what you did you copy too. I give you a concrete example. I was dancing Argentinian tango in a charity event and wanted to show record of it to other people. I've got copyright claim on YouTube. I was not even demonstrating music - I was demonstrating Dancing! The music played in the background was created somewhere in 1930-1940. The music played at the event was not even original composition. It was a cover done by local artist. And it was played live during the event with improvisations. Unfortunately I couldn't show this event to anyone else because I've got copyright claim on YouTube channel. I couldn't even share the record with my friends as private link. I couldn't even show the video to my partner for goodness sake. If this is not idiocy resulting from so called "copyright" then what is? Unlimited copy process is crucial to arts esp

It’s interesting to see so many supposedly ‘hackers’ take the state of Intellectual “Property” laws that are from a different era (and are “purchased” by old incumbents too by the way) as gospel and object to strategies to deal with them for the long term. Schmidt is very pragmatic simply predicting something like that is inevitable and probably the right strategy is to build your AI thing and bet/try that something like that would happen. [VIDEO]