Interview with Richard Stallman Editorial Board pirateparty.ru

The editorial board of the pirateparty.ru website appealed to the world famous programmer and public figure, Richard Stallman (founder of the free software movement, the GNU project, the Free Software Foundation and the League for Programming Freedom) with a request to highlight a number of important issues for the development of high technologies and emerging issues in connection with the Russian audience with this social issues. We are very grateful to the founder of the Free Software Movement for the interview below.

(the interview is actually small, but it may seem that there is a lot of text, so I highlighted italics in italics)

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

RMS:I would support the Pirate Party of Sweden, if not for one serious mistake that gives proprietary software advantages over free software.

According to the program of this party, software copyright 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 will legally become available for integration into non-free programs .

I would agree with this if the opposite were also true - if the source code of the
proprietary programs were legally 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: a government agency is demanding the source code for proprietary software. Five years later, this government agency will unveil, transferring the source code to the public domain. I made these adjustments, but the Pirate Party of Sweden did not recognize them. However, if you form 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 usually called “ intellectual property ” in the modern world ?

RMS:To answer your question, you need to clarify the concept of "intellectual property", and why it should not be used. This term is propaganda ; it spreads bias and confusion whenever it is used. It is not even connected with any coherent and intelligible subject, because it lumps together various laws that have nothing in common with each other and which we should not have interpreted as a whole. Any statements regarding “intellectual property” are either confused or intentionally confuse 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 fields), and on trademark law (which has nothing to do
with copyright and patent law). Distinguishing between these areas
is the right approach. Since these laws regulate different areas, they generate various subjects for public discussion.

The World Intellectual Property Organization
then launched a campaign to bring all of these laws (and some others) together ,
as if they were one issue. This fundamental confusion leads
people to neglect the laws themselves and their function, trying to think about all of them.
how about the whole. This means purely abstract thinking, where real problems associated with specific laws cannot even be noticed. This abstraction leading to the side leads people to one of the widespread radical positions, such as “for intellectual property”
or “against intellectual property”. Neither one has any benefit.

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 let customers know what they are buying. The word "property" in the phrase "intellectual property"makes people mistakenly believe that various exclusive privileges exist only in the name of those who receive them. This erroneous thinking frame leads people to an incorrect assessment of legislation and enforcement.

In order to encourage a thoughtful consideration of copyright laws and the problems associated with it, as well as a thoughtful consideration of patent
laws, 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 on copyright, and an opinion on patent law, and an opinion on trademark law, but I do not confuse them, 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 goal of today's copyright system is to give certain companies unjust power over the society that they use to enrich themselves . Today, copyright gives a side effect to promoting literature and art, that is, the purpose for which it was set, but it does so at high costs, which we cover with our freedom as well as our money. The goal is still desired, but we must achieve it with a different system.

Thus, for ten years I have already advocated reforms, similar to those
proposed by the Pirate Party, with the exception of one point:I believe that all software and other practical use products should be free . In addition to this, I propose other methods of subsidizing cultural figures.

One method is to tax, something like a blank disc tax in most EU countries, but distribution is based on sublinear dependencies on the levels 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 (the Spanish group that I like), then this superstar will receive ten times more
La MusgaAna.

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

Question:Do you think that the widespread distribution of free software may be the result of the natural course of things, or does it still require a lot of activity by 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 enterprises install Windows, most schools teach Windows, most hardware manufacturers support Windows, most trading companies sell Windows computers, and they all say:“We don’t want to switch to another system until everyone else is moving.” Each such statement
is a response to pressure from the rest, but these “victims of pressure” generate all the pressure.

To overcome this social inertia, we need leadership.
Someone must say: "I am going to move to freedom now, while others will follow me." The governments of the regions of Spain and India have shown
leadership in promoting free software in public schools
. 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 in the technical field develop in the coming years?

RMS: I cannot predict the future, therefore I cannot give you an answer to this.

Question: As you know, one of the directions 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; Stay tuned for announcements.

01/20/2008
Translation from English. - Dmitry Kremnev.
Original in English. - here is the

source