From InfoAnarchy
Jump to: navigation, search

Isn't copyright also in existance for basic control, not just for financial gain? -- rack

What did you mean by control? I would say - No copyright is primarily about revenue and extending profits by creating a monopoly.
The best way to remove copyright is to just forget it exists and act as if it is not a good law. The next best thing is to talk and write about the end of copyright. It is not likely to be discussed on tv or the radio, or movies or music, so infoAnarchists should bring the topic up to help our cause.
Of course it will be a fight but the laws will change as society changes. For example, this is what happened with women rights, black rights, gay rights, etc. If gays, women and blacks just went along in agreement with the laws, conditions, behaviour that was expected of them, we would still be in the dark ages. - ABliss

Well what I mean is that copyright allows one to protect the spirit of a work from use by other people. While there are still legal ways to artistically interpret a copyrighted item, being able to disallow other people from using one's work allows one to more directly control it's creative direction. ->

I am not sure what you mean by spirit. Is that like god, or evil? A term used to describe whatever the speaker feels like. Isn't spirit another theological term that doesn't convey any meaning? What exactly are you refering to? How and why is this important? Good art is good no matter why it was created. - ABliss

I don't consider copyright to be about money, I consider it to be about power. Women's (etc) rights were allowed because they aren't a direct threat to power. The power to vote doesn't necessarily bring direct threat to an existing structure. ->

I disagree. I realize in this discussion and article no one has clearly separated copyright's original constitutional intent and what it has morphed into. Certainly the virtual indefinite copyright terms of today have morphed copyright law protecting PROPERTY of expressions, though originally it was quite different. To quote the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, "[The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." In other words, the limited monopoly enabled artists to continue their "genius" (their word) by allowing them time to collect on existing expressions. Given the original copyright term of 14 years before a work would pass into public domain, copyright could never have practically defended expressions as property. This aspect rests on the British precedent of copyright law.
Do note Jefferson wanted nothing to do with copyrights, citing no dichotomy of an idea and its expression, and thus, like memes, no one can claim ownership of thoughts. Interestingly, modern copyright DOES rest on the assumption an idea/expression dichotomy, which muddles things quite a bit.
So going back to why I disagree, regardless whether copyright does (like today) or does not (like times past) represent property, its mechanism always meant revenue. Does enabling artists further to their endeavors as originally intended constitute an instance of tyranny or an elegant solution in a free market economy? Of course, the indefinite monopolies of today represent a tyranny whose fuel is power and product is money, a vicious cycle. bonesnotblobs

I'm going to be really callous for a moment, just to put across a point (one which I don't believe in). I'll use the woman's vote as an example. Women were given the vote, but that doesn't obsolete the voting power of men. That doesn't even directly put a woman in the big chair. The protesting which lead up to the woman's vote was fierce enough to require appeasing, but wasn't as directly threatening as copyright removal would be. ->

Copyright is the foundation by which muse-less powers maintain control over the existance and distribution of certain materials. It is the wrench in the gears of a free market which allows the balance to be tipped towards a certain side over the otherwise anarchic competition. ->

Without direct control with copyright allowing otherwise worthless items to be assigned a value (thanks to manufactured scarcity), an ordered and well-funded system would need to turn to more illicit activities like manufacturing marketplace trends or peddling narcotics for their power-stability. ->

Bleh, but I'm not disagreeing with copyright = money, I'm just saying copyright = power = money. -- rack

I think I mostly agree with you. But when I made the comparison to women's rights it was more about the social norms changing in response to laws, not about the rights that were then afforded them. Remember that the removal of copyright would benefit everyone, while only a few would be worse off. This is the case with all good political reform. It is the social changes of womens rights I was referring to and so to with copyright. Can you imagine the social changes if we all had instant access to any and all intellectual property and no-one had a legal right to claim ownership of ideas and information. No doubt with the changes in laws for women, blacks and gays, eventually the reform would of changed the way people think and interact with those people. And so to with copyright, so spread the good word and eventually our governments may be occupied by infoAnarchists. - ABliss

Copyright and Protection of Arts


<<The countries of the Union, being equally animated by the desire to protect, in as effective and uniform a manner as possible, the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works, Recognizing the importance

of the work of the Revision Conference held at Stockholm in 1967, Have resolved to revise the Act adopted by the Stockholm Conference, whilemaintaining without change Articles 1 to 20 and 22 to 26 of that Act. Consequently, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, having presented their full powers, recognized as in good and due form, have agreed as follows: >>

If your going to actually protect a work, wouldn't it be best to have as many copies of it as possible? If you take away copyright, works would be protected better, because more copies would be stored in

geographically diverse places. So if, lets say this weekend, nuclear strikes hit london, paris, los angelos and sydney, all the content existing in those cities would be wiped out, like the data that solely existed in the WTC.

The internet is, a storage place for content. Ugly copyright is a limit to the internet's growth and should be forsaken now, so a great prosperity of intellectual property exists for all individuals. Copyright is one important cog in the capitalist cancer, which this socialist eco-anarchist seeks to have abolished. - ABliss

The idea of copyright is not to protect works from extinction, the idea of copyright is to protect works from commercial exploitation by those unauthorized to distribute the works. -- Amw

I'm not interested in the rights of an author to protect their work. I am interested in promoting the arts to as many people as possible. Copyright is a form of censorship which is a bad thing. - ABliss