Interview with Richard Stallman site pirateparty.ru

The editors of pirateparty.ru turned to the world- famous programmer and public figure Richard Stallman (the founder of the free software movement, the GNU project, the Free Software Foundation and the Program Freedom League) to highlight for the Russian audience a number of important issues of high-tech development arising from with this public problems. We are very grateful to the founder of the Free Software movement for the interview below.

(the interview is actually short, but it may seem like a lot of text, so I put it in italics on the main points)

Question: What do you think of the Pirate Party program regarding copyright and software?

RMS: I would support the Pirate Party of Sweden, if it were not for one serious mistake that gives the proprietary (proprietary) software an advantage over free software.
')
According to the program of this party, software copyrights could be kept for five years, and then the source code of the programs will go into the public domain. Thus, free software distributed under copyleft conditions will legally become available for integration into non-free software .

I would agree with this if the reverse would also be true - if the source code
proprietary programs would legally be available after five
years to include it in free programs . But this will not happen because, in this case, the source code of the proprietary programs will not be released at all.

Obviously, how can this error be corrected: the state body will demand the source code of non-free programs. In five years, this government agency will publish, transfer the source code to the public domain. I made these adjustments, but the Pirate Party of Sweden did not recognize them. However, if you are forming the Russian Party of Pirates, you could change this moment.

Question: How do you assess the role and nature of copyright and, in general, what
is it customary to call intellectual property in the modern world?

RMS: To answer the question you asked, you need to clarify the concept of "intellectual property", and why it should not be used. The term is propaganda , it spreads bias and confusion, whenever it is used. It is not even connected with any coherent and intelligible subject matter, because it lumps together various laws that have nothing in common with each other and which we should not treat as one. Any statements regarding “intellectual property” are either confusing or intentionally confusing others .

In the 70s of the last century, we used to talk about copyright, as well as about
patent law (in practice in completely different areas), and on trademark law (which has nothing to do
copyright and patent law). Distinguishing between these areas
It is the right approach. Since these laws regulate different areas, they generate various subjects for public discussion.

Then the World Intellectual Property Organization
launched a campaign to bring together all these laws (and some others),
as if they were one question. This fundamental confusion prompts
people neglect the laws themselves and their function, trying to think about all of them
how about the whole. This means purely abstract thinking, where the real problems associated with specific laws cannot even be seen. This distracting abstraction leads people to one of the most widely accepted radical positions, such as “for intellectual property”
or "against intellectual property." Neither has any good.

Then, there is a biased interpretation. Nominally, all these laws intended to bring public benefit - in different ways, of course. For example, copyright and patents imply artificial incentives for certain activities, which we hope will be useful, and trademarks will let buyers know what they are buying. The word "property" in the phrase "intellectual property" makes people mistakenly believe that various exceptional privileges exist only in the name of those who receive them. This mistaken frame of thought leads people to misjudgment of law and law enforcement.

In order to encourage thoughtful consideration of copyright laws and related issues, as well as thoughtful consideration of patent
legislation, I rejected the term "intellectual property." I never make statements using this term, I only explain why this term is harmful (as it is now). I have an opinion about copyright, and an opinion about patent law, and an opinion about trademark law, but I do not mix them up, calling them "intellectual property." I advise you to do the same.

Since the first part of the question is only about copyright, I can answer this part. The main purpose of today's copyright system is to give certain companies an unfair power over the society they use to enrich themselves . Today, copyright has the side effect of promoting literature and art, that is, the purpose for which it was set, but it does so with high costs, which we cover with our freedom as well as our money. The goal is still desirable, but we must achieve it with a different system.

Thus, over the course of ten years, I have been advocating reforms, like those
which offers the Pirate Party, with the exception of one item: I believe that all software and other products of practical use should be free . In addition to this, I propose other methods of subsidizing cultural figures.

One method is tax, something like a tax on blank discs in most EU countries, but distribution is based on sublinear dependencies on the level of popularity of a creative person or group. Suppose, for example, that an artist’s income is calculated from the cube root of his popularity. Then, if this superstar is a thousand times more popular than La MusgaAna (Spanish group I like), then this superstar will get ten times more
La MusgaAna.

My other suggestion is to create a system of easy and convenient anonymous voluntary payments. If you could press a button on your music player: “send one dollar to a group”, I am sure you could do this from time to time, perhaps more than once a week. This is much more than most people spend on music now! Even with today's inconvenient payment systems, fans volunteered millions of dollars to the Radiohead group for their new album, while the album was redistributed from the BitTorrent network. Thus, we see that the voluntary system is adequate even to make talent rich.

Question: Do you think that the wide distribution of free software can result from the natural course of things, or does it require a lot of activity from public figures, communities of programmers, politicians? If the latter, in which direction would it be desirable to act?

RMS: The biggest obstacle to the widespread use of free software today is social inertia . Most people install Windows, most businesses install Windows, most schools teach Windows, most hardware manufacturers support Windows, most trading firms sell Windows computers, and they all say, “We don’t want to switch to another system until everyone don't go over. " Every such statement
as a response to pressure from the rest, but these “pressure victims” generate all pressure.

To overcome this social inertia, we need guidance.
Someone should say: "I am going to move on to freedom now, while others will follow me." The governments of the regions of Spain and India showed
leadership in promoting free software in public schools
security. There was a certain amount of work, but there were no real difficulties. Every part of the world must do this.

Question: In what direction, in your opinion, will free software develop in the technical field in the coming years?

RMS: I can not predict the future, so I can not give you the answer to this.

Question: As you know, one of the areas of your activity is civic activism. As part of this activity, you have visited many countries. Russia saw Mr. Gates. Is your visit possible?

RMS: I am going to visit Moscow in early March; follow the announcements of speeches.

01.20.2008
Translation from English - Dmitry Kremnyov.
Original in English - here

a source