[SFD-discuss] Flickr and other tags - bayimg.com

[Cristóbal Palmer]

On 9/19/07, Georg Sluyterman <georg at thecrew.dk> wrote:
>
> I know. Sadly it has become an accepted word in the public..
>
> From Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M.
> Stallman, page 194:
>
> " Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as "piracy." In this way,
> they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking
> sships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them. If
>  you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and
> murder, you might prefer not to use the word "piracy" to describe it.
> Neutral terms such as "prohibited copying" or "unauthorized copying" are
> available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a
> positive term such as "sharing information with your neighbor." "
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf

I guess my derail isn't done. While I understand and sympathize with
Stallman's sentiment, his assertion about the limited meaning of
"piracy" is baseless and fanciful.

I'm going to assert fair use in copying briefly from the online
version of the OED (Oxford English Dictionary, one of the most
respected English language lexigraphic publications), which sadly is
not freely available to the general public.

<!-- quoting -->

piracy, n.

[...]

  2. The unauthorized reproduction or use of an invention or work of
another, as a book, recording, computer software, intellectual
property, etc., esp. as constituting an infringement of patent or
copyright [...]

[1654 J. MENNES Recreation for Ingenious Head-peeces clxxvi, All the
wealth, Of wit and learning, not by stealth, Or Piracy, but purchase
got. 1700 E. WARD Journey to Hell II. vii. 14 Piracy, Piracy, they
cry'd aloud, What made you print my Copy, Sir, says one, You're a meer
Knave, 'tis very basely done.

[...]

<!-- end quote -->

As you can see from the quotes above (and the OED has many more which
I did not quote), the usage of "piracy" to refer to the
misappropriation of writings dates back to the 17th century and is
well-established. It's hardly a new definition.

If polling of the US public is any indicator, people are intelligent
enough to understand that copying != piracy in all contexts, and
increasingly they understand that openness and freedom to copy
liberally actually benefit the economy, including the creators/funders
of the material being copied. CentOS isn't killing RHEL. Ubuntu is
hardly killing Canonical.

Trying to stamp out the use of the word "piracy" in the context of
digital works is, I would argue, counter-productive. I'll tell a brief
story and then argue my point.

The weekend before the Fall semester each year UNC has a big
celebration called Fallfest that shows off all the campus student
groups. There's free food, music, marching band, etc. etc. The group I
co-founded last Spring, COSI (Carolina Open Source Initiative) had a
table at Fallfest this year.

We had a lot of people walk up to the table. We gave out a lot of
copies (200, to be precise) of TheOpenCD. We gave out a lot of copies
of a Fedora liveCD.

During the evening a girl walked up, saw our sign, and then asked me
something roughly like, "Hey, what peer-to-peer networks are good on
campus? Like, what's the most popular for getting mp3s?"

My response was, "I personally recommend Sneakernet." I'm not kidding.
I told her to meet up with her friends and trade CDs in person.

I basically have two points here:

(1) If I'm to be a copyfighter, I must fight from an unassailable
position. That is, my arguments for liberalization of copyright and
actions to encourage it have to be clearly and unambiguously within
the law. I have to do this because I am the leader of a recognized
organization that is trying to effect change in policy, and for me to
violate policy is to act in bad faith.

(2) We as an Open Source community have become, in the minds of too
many people, synonymous with piracy, or at least wanton disregard for
the state of copyright law. That Is Bad (TM), especially since I don't
believe that such an aggressively anti-copyright attitude is actually
pervasive in the community. We must clearly and unambiguously
repudiate illegal copying. That doesn't mean we can't simultaneously
be good copyfighters. That doesn't mean some of us shouldn't carry out
acts of civil disobedience.

Just to make sure I'm being clear, I believe US copyright law is in
some ways horribly broken and skewed heavily in favor of large
corporations that can abuse individuals with the law. I believe we
should change the law. I do NOT believe that we should do away with
copyright entirely. Law should exist to protect the public good, and
there is a legitimate argument to be made that laws governing the
copying and distribution of text, images, software and other works are
a good thing. After all, the GPL is a legal document, so if you don't
buy into copyright law, how exactly do you plan to enforce the GPL?

To sum up: for those of us acting within major institutions to try to
effect change, we have to make strong moral, economic, and legal
arguments for the liberalization of copyright while still staying
unambiguously within the existing, broken law. We must condemn pirates
and piracy of digital works if we're to be taken seriously when we
talk about making good law, and we should get serious about helping to
make good law.

Sorry for the long rant. I'm sure you agree with me on most of the
above, and I hope I'm not coming across as preachy. Also, I'm not
claiming anyone here has expressed disdain for copyright. Just trying
to explain my position and thinking. :)

Cheers,
-- 
Cristóbal M. Palmer
celebrating 15 years of sunsite/metalab/ibiblio:
http://tinyurl.com/2o8hj4