[pp.int.general] free software video streaming

[Maxime Rouquet]

On 02/18/2013 04:32 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> More generally, works meant for users to do practical
> jobs with should be free.
> 
> However, they are not software.  They are speeches.
> They state my opinions.
> 
> I don't think works of opinion have to be free.  Do you?

To complete the above declaration, before somebody goes crazy : the
"free" in "free software" means that anybody can share, study, modify,
and share modification of the software, without needing to pay for it.

It is important for works with a practical aspect, like software. The
same level of freedom shall be applied to all public and practical data
(cartography, relief, climate, public transport maps and hours, etc.).

Yes, we want to soften the copyright on other works too (songs, movies,
painting, photos of paintings, etc.) ; but not all the time with the
same freedom. We want people to be able to share the song freely, to
make remixes if they want, but not to monetise the copy and/or the
remixes without the agreement of the initial author.

If we put the speech of Richard Stallman on Youtube, Google will make
money out of it, with advertisement. If Richard does not want Google to
make profit from the video of his speech, it is more or less the same as
if an artist was coming to the Pirate Party, agreed to share his song
with a torrent and on the Pirate Party ad-less website, but was asking
politely but firmly that we do not put it on Megaupload where Kim Dotcom
would make money out of it without asking or giving anything back to the
author.

I do not say this is what Richard has in mind, but I think it could be a
better way to help you understand the problem.

What would you tell to an artist that would share his song, but would
refuse to have an intermediary like Megaupload or Youtube making money
and popularising his platform with it ? Wouldn't you respect his will ?

Regards,

m