Anti-copyright
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (November 2007) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
 |
This article or section seems to contain embedded lists that may require cleanup. To meet Wikipedia's style guidelines, please help improve this article by: removing items which are not notable, encyclopedic, or helpful from the list(s); incorporating appropriate items into the main body of the article; and discussing this issue on the talk page. |
 |
The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.(January 2008) |
Anti-copyright refers to the complete or partial opposition to the copyright laws. Critics of copyright include infoanarchists, anticopyright, and copyfight groups.[citation needed]
"Anti-copyright" is also a phrase without legal meaning which may be placed in anti-copyright statements that are added to works in order to encourage wider distribution.
Contents |
[edit] Arguments against copyright
|
|
This section does not cite any references or sources. (June 2008) Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
The classic argument for personal copyright is to grant developers temporary monopolies over their works to encourage further development by giving the developer a source of income. The arguments against copyright find their motivations rooted in everything from the spiritual to the economic.
The primal anticopyright view argues that nature itself - a vast and ever changing expanse of copyright-less, ownerless, chaos, creation, destruction, and reinvention in which humans are inextricable - fundamentally contradicts any attempt by humankind to take ownership of, or to render static, some portion of it. This nature-based argument for anticopyright is akin philosophically to similar arguments that oppose any man-made artifices (property, governments and municipalities, money) whose function it is to remove some portion of the "creative commons" (land, air, water, ideas, genetic information) from the public, and to hold it hostage from them, asking the public to pay some manner of ransom, or duty, to access it. Chief Seattle gave voice to the primal anticopyright view when he said in a speech in 1854: "How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?" [1]
An economic anticopyright view argues that income to a developer should be generated by other means, for several reasons:
- Making the developer dependent on a system that requires enforcement by force directly ties them to large corporate entities which are able to carry out this enforcement, but may at the same time limit creative output to that which is compatible with corporate ideology.
- Royalties are based on profit-margin, but when one intends for their data to be non-profit (that is, if the only reason to publish is to share information), it becomes financially unsound to attempt to claim royalties on something you never sold, since the royalties of your product might have royalties from whatever works used.
- Copyright was intended as, and until recently has been used mostly for, a regulation on commercial and for-profit use of creative works. While technically most copyright laws applied to individuals making copies, it was only the advent of the personal computer that made it possible for individuals to copy significant amounts of information. Some argue that this new ability calls for a fundamental change to, or the abolition of copyright.
- Enforcement mechanisms such as digital rights management endanger existing consumer rights like fair use, and can be used to further tie creators to the corporate entities that control this technology since even a use which may be legally considered fair use may be hampered or rendered impossible by the technological restrictions. "Trusted computing" platforms may refuse to play, display or execute content that is not properly "certified" by central authorities.
- Little known creators depend on distribution to become popular—for them, copyright limits their potential outreach, and donations may be a better option. Well-known creators can always ask for money from their fans upfront (Street Performer Protocol).
- Article 8 of the Berne Convention may have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and may force an overseas audience to learn the language that the medium in the question is published in, and can cause a foreign company to act against its overseas audience. International copyright law is regarded as controversial by the video game, anime, and manga communities in the United States and Europe, such as Fan translation, Scanlation, and Fansub.
- Historically, copyright originated only in the last few centuries. Creativity flourished well before copyright existed.
- The European Renaissance saw a burgeoning of intellectual talent, the like of which has not been seen since. It occurred before the existence of copyrights, and was spurred by artists copying each other's techniques and works without legal restriction. The argument that copyright law protects and encourages development is seen by many as hype intended to provide moral justification for laws which in fact are there to protect the incomes and wealth of copyright holders, many of whom are not the original developers anyway. The ease and convenience of being able to obtain and preserve many intellectual works across the Internet, it is argued, will lead to greater development if copyright law is abolished. Whilst it may not be possible for popular artists and their agents to make as much money in this scenario, it is likely that popular artists will still be able to make a living by means of advertising and product promotion, as they do at present such as touring and charging for admission to a live performance or perhaps by busking , if that is the only option open to them.
- Information that is accessible and free of charge promotes a more knowledgeable society that will create with more proficiency. Human enrichment will far outweigh monetary losses.
- While some are in favor of limited copyright terms, copyrights in many countries last for periods longer than a human lifetime and can even be renewed after that. Even if a limited copyright period still offered a beneficial result, long copyright terms hold for longer than necessary.
- Many argue that copyright is inherently contrary to the ideals of free speech and expression which are valued highly by free societies.
- Some companies abuse copyright privileges by suing or threatening to sue those who clearly are within their rights under fair use, but who cannot afford to defend themselves in court.
- Information is not conducive to the same treatment as real property, due to its status as a nonrival good.
- Frequently, content creators do not hold their own copyrights, instead relinquishing them to publishers, producers, and the like, through contractual arrangements.
- Social anarchists believe ideas and knowledge should not be owned or controlled, but rather should be distributed freely throughout society for anyone's use (as long as the original creator of these ideas/contributions is properly acknowledged for his efforts). Libertarian socialists have customarily not prosecuted one another for copyright "violations" and usually do not provide royalties when translating or republishing each others works.
- Copyrights are selfish; they place the good of the one (the creator) over the good of the many (the audience). Instead of allowing a work to be improved and redistributed by those who may be more qualified than the original author, works are restricted in the name of monetary profit. For example, a commercially sold encyclopedia's content cannot be updated or redistributed by the readers, while Wikipedia's content can be shared with and updated by all people.
- Copyrights reduce the incentive for developers to continue working, since they can receive an income by collecting license fees or royalties for popular older works instead of developing new ones. Besides limiting innovation, this may also be seen as unjust by workers in other fields, who must keep working if they wish to keep making a living.
- It is possible for creators to earn income, independent of copyright, by incorporating advertising into their works.
- Without the copyright, a work's author may not be able to raise as much money for his original work, however, by incorporating others work (either with improvements or without), the increased value of resulting work can be potentially greater, than losses.
[edit] Analogy to protectionism
"Intellectual protectionism" is a derogatory term for the expansion of copyright, patent, and similar laws. It is often used as an ironic synonym, as it shares initials with "intellectual property", especially by proponents of free culture, who seek to relax restrictions on distribution of digital works.
Calling these intellectual property laws ‘protectionism’ is an analogy derived from economic protectionism, a practice or policy whereby a country imposes levies or restrictions on imported goods in order to favor domestic markets. The basis for this comparison stems from the argument that:
- The exclusive rights granted by copyright and patent law constitute a government-granted monopoly.
- This monopoly is granted in order to incentivize the production of such works and discoveries, purportedly for the public's benefit.
- There are also public costs in many forms: the making of derivative works is forbidden for the interim;
- The perpetuation and expansion of such exclusive rights is not cost-effective; it benefits a few (esp. large organizations in the content industry) at the expense of the public, and the public domain.
[edit] Anti-copyright notices
Under the Berne Convention works are protected even if no copyright statement is attached to them, therefore for an author to waive copyright legally requires some statement to that effect. Most "anti-copyright" statements encourage wide distribution, but seldom provide sophisticated open content licenses or even a simple dedication to the public domain.
A formal waiver of copyright might state:
- The author of this work hereby waives all claim of copyright (economic and moral) in this work and immediately places it in the public domain; it may be used, distorted or destroyed in any manner whatsoever without further attribution or notice to the creator.
A less formal anti-copyright notice, as often found in esoteric magazines and books might read:
- Anti-Copyright! Reprint freely, in any manner desired, even without naming the source.
The latter is less precise and is open to various interpretations, as the term "anti-copyright" lacks an accepted legal meaning. For example, if only free distribution is allowed, both derivative works and lack of attribution would not be allowed, making the material ineligible for collaborative writing projects like Wikipedia.
[edit] Criticism of anti-copyright
- "without copyright authors might profit less from their work and create less of it."
This has been shown to largely be untrue by the advent of open source software.
[edit] See also
- FairShare
- Fair dealing
- Free culture
- Piratbyrån
- Piratpartiet
- Copyright commandeering
- List of countries' copyright length
- Copyleft
- Antitrust
[edit] External links
- Anti-Copyright Resources
- The Droplift Project
- An article about an activist
- Abandoning Copyright: A Blessing for Artists, Art, and Society - opinion by Professor Jost Smiers
- QuestionCopyright.org
- Sharing is Caring - Pro Piracy Commercial
- BioLicense: openfree license from a philosophical premise: humans are an information entity.
- Key Arguments Against Copyright
