<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
<title>E-books must increase our freedom, not decrease it
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>E-books must increase our freedom, not decrease it</h2>
<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard

<div class="announcement">
<p>Also consider reading <a href="/philosophy/ebooks.html">
E-Books: Freedom Or Copyright</a>.</p>

<blockquote class="note">
<p><a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list about the dangers of eBooks</a>.</p>

<p><em>This essay was originally published by The Guardian, <cite>The Guardian</cite>, on 17 April 2012,
as “<a
Should Help Us Share, Not Constrain Us</a>”, with some surprise editing.  This
version incorporates parts of that editing while restoring parts of the original

<div class="announcement">
<p>Also consider reading <a href="/philosophy/ebooks.html">
E-Books: Freedom Or Copyright</a>.</p>
<hr />

<p>I love The Jehovah Contract, and I'd like everyone else to love it
too. I have lent it out at least six times over the years. Printed
books let us do that.</p>

<p>I couldn't do that with most commercial e-books. It's “not allowed”.
And if I tried to disobey, the software in e-readers has malicious
features called Digital Restrictions Management (DRM, for short) to restrict reading,
so it simply won't work. The e-books are encrypted so that only
proprietary software with malicious functionality can display them.</p>

<p>Many other habits that we readers are accustomed to are “not
allowed” for e-books. With the Amazon “Kindle” (for which <a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">“Swindle”</a>
is a more fitting name), to take one example,
users can't buy a book anonymously with cash. “Kindle” books are
typically available from Amazon only, and Amazon makes users identify
themselves. Thus, Amazon knows exactly which books each user has
read. In a country such as the UK, where you can be <a
href="http://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-mar-jun.html#07_April_2012_%28Wrong_book%29">prosecuted for
possessing a forbidden book</a>, this is more than hypothetically

<p>Furthermore, you can't sell the e-book after you read it (if Amazon has its way,
the used book stores where I have passed many an afternoon will be
history). You can't give it to a friend either, because according to
Amazon you never really owned it. Amazon requires users to sign an
End-User License Agreement (“EULA”) which says so.</p>

<p>You can't even be sure it will still be in your machine tomorrow.
People reading 1984 in the “Kindle” had an Orwellian experience: their
e-books vanished right before their eyes, as Amazon used a malicious
software feature called a “back door” to remotely delete them
(virtual book-burning; is that what “Kindle” means?). But don't worry;
Amazon promised never to do this again, except by order of the state.</p>

<p>With software, either the users control the program (making such software <a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">Libre or Free</a>)
or the program controls its users (non-Libre). Amazon's e-book
policies imitate the distribution policies of non-Libre software, but
that's not the only relationship between the two. The
<a href="/philosophy/proprietary/proprietary.html">malicious
software features</a> described above are imposed on users via software
that's not Libre. If a Libre program had malicious features like
those, some users skilled at programming would remove them, then
provide the corrected version to all the other users. Users can't
change non-Libre software, which makes it <a
href="http://www.bostonreview.net/forum/protecting-internet-without-wrecking-it/root-problem-software-controlled-its-developer"> an ideal
instrument for exercising power over the public</a>.</p>

<p>Any one of these encroachments on our freedom is reason aplenty to say
no. If these policies were limited to Amazon, we'd bypass them, but
the other e-book dealers' policies are roughly similar.</p>

<p>What worries me most is the prospect of losing the option of printed
books. The Guardian has announced “digital-only reads”: in other
words, books available only at the price of freedom. I will not read
any book at that price. Five years from now, will unauthorized copies
be the only ethically acceptable copies for most books?</p>

<p>It doesn't have to be that way. With anonymous payment on the
Internet, paying for downloads of non-DRM non-EULA e-books would
respect our freedom. Physical stores could sell such e-books for
cash, like digital music on CDs—still available even though the
music industry is aggressively pushing DRM-restrictive services such
as Spotify. Physical CD stores face the burden of an expensive
inventory, but physical e-book stores could write copies onto your USB
memory stick, the only inventory being memory sticks to sell if you

<p>The reason publishers give for their restrictive e-books practices is to stop
people from sharing copies. They say this is for the sake of the
authors; but even if it did serve the authors' interests (which for
quite famous authors it may), it could not justify DRM, EULAs or the Digital
Economy Act which persecutes readers for sharing.
In practice, the copyright system does a bad job of supporting authors
aside from the most popular ones. Other authors' principal interest is to be better
known, so sharing their work benefits them as well as readers. Why not switch to a
system that does the job better and is compatible with sharing?</p>

<p>A tax on memories and Internet connectivity, along the general lines
of what most EU countries do, could do the job well if three points
are got right. The money should be collected by the state and
distributed according to law, not given to a private collecting
society; it should be divided among all authors, and we mustn’t let
companies take any of it from them; and the distribution of money
should be based on a sliding scale, not in linear proportion to
popularity. I suggest using the cube root of each author's
popularity: if A is eight times as popular as B, A gets twice B's
amount (not eight times B's amount). This would support many fairly
popular writers adequately instead of making a few stars richer.</p>

<p>Another system is to give each e-reader a button to send some small
sum (perhaps 25 pence in the UK) to the author.</p>

<p>Sharing is good, and with digital technology, sharing is easy. (I
mean non-commercial redistribution of exact copies.) So sharing ought
to be legal, and preventing sharing is no excuse to make e-books into
handcuffs for readers. If e-books mean that readers' freedom must
either increase or decrease, we must demand the increase.</p>

<blockquote class="announcement"><p>
<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
about the dangers of eBooks</a>.

</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
<div class="unprintable">

<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>

<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
        replace it with the translation of these two:

        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
        to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">

        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
        our web pages, see <a
        README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
of this article.</p>

<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
     document was modified, or published.
     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->

<p>Copyright © 2012, 2015, 2016 Richard Stallman</p>

<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>

<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->

<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2016/10/05 15:58:21 $
<!-- timestamp end -->