Talk:Anti-copyright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not entirely understand the copyright law. If you use pictures that you have downloaded from the website for commercial activities, will that fall under the copyright law? What should you do to obtain the copyright then?


Contents

[edit] Old discussion

I don't understand this article - isn't it possible to be anti-copyright without being an anarchist? To be honest, I'm struggling to understand what the article is trying to be about. If it's about anarchists views of copyright, it should probably be called Anarchists' views of copyright (although I doubt there is a consensus amongst anarchists on the matter). Can somebody enlighten me? --Camembert

Karl replied thus on my talk page:

re anti-copyright: It is an actual "copyright" statement. It is required because in may places items are copyright unless specifically stated otherwise. It would be a bit more popular than "some" anarchists. With most things anarchist, it is very difficult to tell how popular. My feeling is that it may be 75% or more popular in the small fanzine area of anarchism of 15 years ago. I do not know how popular it is today. Karl
Ah, I see - so you would find an "Anti-copyright" statement at the bottom of an article or something, kind of like a copyleft statement? Would it make sense to begin the article with something like "An anti-copyright statement is one which explicitly gives up any rights the owner may have under normal copyright laws"? That might make the subject of the article a bit clearer, I think (if it's accurate, that is). --Camembert
yes - typically such a statement is found in the masthead of a magazine, refering to its entire contents. It can also be attached to individual articles. It is like a copyleft statement. Ok, moving first bit of response to article.

Hi Camaebert- I was going to go to bed but thought I'd quickly reply- as I see it, anti copyright is an explicit political statement of opposition to the concept of 'copyright', as opposed to say, wikipedia, which is non copyright- perhaps a subtle distinction, but I would agree that one need not necessarily be an anarchist to support the idea of anti-copyright. In a way it's a statement about the ownership or freedom of ideas...

I used to put out fanzines/pamphlets and what have you years ago that displayed the 'anti-copyright' symbol ( a copyright 'C' in a circle with a cross through it), but being a capitalist running dog these days I do actually consider my work 'copyright' (such as my self published books or indeed the original essays from which many of my wiki artcles on organic gardening, permaculture, etc, are drawn) nowadays for reasons I won't go into now... Urg,clear as mud no doubt but I must get some kip- work tommorrow, yippee!!! quercus robur

I wrote this without reading the above:

This is one anarchist view of intellectual property. It's written in encyclopedic style, at least, but it is inaccurate in a couple of ways:

  • I've already corrected the reference to Property is Theft as Proudhon's "slogan".
  • It is certainly not true that this represents everyone who calls him/herself an anarchist: especially not anarcho-capitalists, who hold the right of property above pretty much anything else, I think.

The article should be incorporated into libertarian socialism (or anarchist communism or anarcho-communism, wherever it ends up). However, it could get lengthy, so it's own article would also be good. This view of intellectual property is really a "communist" one, in its true sense; however, many anarchist communist and communist works are still copyrighted, so there is some controversy and possible hypocrisy to write about. --Sam

SchNEWS[1] is @nti-copyright. It says it is "information for action! Copy and distribute!" -- Sam

Thanks very much to all for the above - I'm off to bed myself shortly, and won't be around tomorrow, but I'll stick my head in here Wednesday to see what's happening and if I can maybe improve things a little. I'm anti-copyright myself in theory - I was involved on the periphery of the Droplift Project and a lot of my musical work would not be very well received by the RIAA (unfortuantely, I have to eat, and so until the revolution, theory is not always equivalent to practice). However, I wasn't sure if this had an article's worth of material in it - too similar to copyleft, maybe; or else why not incorporate it into copyright. I'm still not sure about this now.

I'm still a bit troubled by this article (though it's better than it was) - it isn't really clear to me whether anti-copyright ought to be treated as a concept ("anti-copyright is the belief that all copyright laws should be scrapped") or as a kind of anti-license ("an anti-copyright statement is one which gives up all rights to a work under copyright laws"). That's more of a question of which angle the subject is approchaed from than anything else. I suppose one might try to come at from both angles at once. Anyway, I'm probably not making much sense - I'll go away, mull it over, and hopefully return with a clearer vision of what might be done here. --Camembert

I would think both - but in any case now that I have started this mess, I'm going to go away for a while and see what develops or disappears! Karl

[edit] Declaring non-copyright

The normal legal way to declare a work to be completely free of copyright—belonging to everyone, to do with as they please—is to declare it to be in the public domain. This is mentioned in the article.

If something is not clear from the article, find a reliable source that makes it clear, and by all means integrate the info into the article (with citation, of course). :)
—überRegenbogen (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The value of entertainment

I read through the bullet points under "Anti-copyright movement" listing arguments against copyright and I didn't find any arguments along a line of thought that I've had (any suggestions on how to word this better, and does anyone else think this way?):

In the case of entertainment works, the existance of a work may not raise one's quality of life. Instead, it may only raise the bar of quality of life. For example, if someone makes a movie and I watch it, I may be no better off than if that movie wasn't made (I'll just find something else to do). On the other hand, if someone makes the movie but I can't afford it, I'm worse off because my friends who watched it are talking about it and I'm left out. So the work shouldn't be copyrightable or else its mere existance will make people who can't afford it worse off. Rather, people who have seen it should be able to share it with their friends freely.

This seems pretty easy to me. I think this line of reasoning is flawed. By your definition, anything to which you do not have access, lowers your quality of life. You choose an arbitrary focus on monetary issues (cost), but why? What if there is something you simply cant grasp? What if your friends are discussing string theory and you dont have the background in theoretical physics and math to comprehend it? Or something you physically cannot reach? Your friends traveled to Kuala Lampur and saw something and you are unable to make that journey. I would put forth that you tie access to cost because that fits your political agenda (whether you realize it or not). Reality is that any concept of "equality" is artificial. So a theoretical "utopian" society (utopian in the sense that those who dream of this would consider it utopia) can create an artificial leveling of access, but can it change the fact that someone may be physically stronger, or more attractive, than you? In other words, under some vision of Utopian Socialism, do you really have any better chance with Scarlett Johanssen? No, you dont. So why is that different, at its core, than the fact that maybe you cant afford to see a movie today? It isnt. Its just that its very attractive and left-wing PC to attack monetary systems and acknowledging that they are really just the Darwinian outcome of an advanced species continued attempts to survive and thrive, would nullify an entire branch of philosophy that remains popular.
But even within the (narrow) scope of your base assumptions, that someone being denied access to what they cannot afford is a "wrong", I would argue that in short time there would simply be no works for you to share. The creation of a movie requires tremendous work and effort by numerous people. If there is no possibility that laboring on a movie, or a book, or music, would help the artist to survive, at some point, they would need to devote their time to ensuring survival. So you and your friends would have no movie to discuss and instead could devote that time to the labor camp. I mean seriously... I find many folks who are anti-copyright really just dont want to have to pay for what they dont see as a physical object. This may be a rude awakening for the deep thinkers who are truly trying to chart a course for a greater state of man in the future, but many of your supporters simply dont want to pay for music, or literature, or film because they feel there is a chance they wont have to (compared to a material object which is universally accepted - if grudgingly - as having some agreed upon value).
So I think it is ironic that one effect of the anti-copyright movement is a further devaluing of creative works which, indirectly, inflates the value of material objects (this *must* be the exact opposite of what an anti-copyright type would want) I would like to hear more thought from folks around how they expect artists to be fairly compensated under a system where their works can not be in any way protected. For a hint, the ideas need to be a bit more realistic than a "universal art tax" or "the good will of man" Many artists and thinkers who have pushed hardest for the erradication of all forms of copyright are already wealthy and comfortable and now treat societal change on a grand scale as a hobby. Either that, or like Stallman, they are radical ideologues who feel they can pass judgement on what quality of life someone should be allowed. So for a Bob Dylan, sure, its easy to be anti-copyright. For Stallman, it seems clear to him that is ok for ONE man (him) to determine what quality of life a programmer should be ALLOWED to have (the arrogance of that is mind-boggling - imagine if he were putting forth a right-wing viewpoint with that same degree of arrogance? he'd have been decried as a "fascist lunatic" long ago rather than hailed as a hero)
But there seems to be something particularly monstrous about telling someone who writes decent poetry and would like to do that all the time rather than work for Walmart, that they should be ashamed that they feel their poetry should have any monetary value and, instead, should be just happy to contribute to the "good of man". Especially when that message is coming from multi-millionaire artists with a guilt complex, college professors living fat off of $50k/year USD tuitions and someone like Stallman.
Remember that wikipedia has a policy of No original research. Wikipedia isn't the right place to describe new ideas, but to describe (neutrally) the main arguments that others use. — Matt Crypto 09:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marked pov

No attempt has even been made to balance this article with counter arguments. It is propoganda. I have serious doubts about whether this article should exist in its present form. Something like opinions on the value of copyright would be better. If it is just about a "movement" it should stick to history, and leave the pros and cons to a more broadranging article. Oliver Chettle 03:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only way I could possibly make this NPOV is by stubbing it. Computerjoe 11:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'll take a stab at this

It seems that the first use of "anti-copyright" described above is entirely the same as placing a work in the public domain. By relinquishing all rights to a work, the creator cannot enforce any right over its subsequent use (as would be the case under copyleft schemes. The second use of the term is just an opinion and a political statement, and thus eliminates anti-copyright from holding a place in the section describing the facts and details of copyright and related schemes. An anarchist can believe anything he wants, but this won't get any laws overturned. (Speaking of which, is anyone aware of an anarchist refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the law of gravitation?) User:Kradak

  • The word law has different meanings, see Law (disambiguation). Objecting to one meaning of a word does in no way require objecting to another meaning of the same word.

[edit] Situationists

Isn't the article most incomplete without mentioning Debord and the SI? And waht about the history? Can somebody volunteer a candidate for the first use of an explicit anti-copyright notice? Debord put 'All texts published in Potlatch can be reproduced, adapted or quoted without any mention of the source in Potlach, which was published 1954-1957. --Pjacobi 18:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Curps From Vandalising This Article

Curps is keep inserting POV into this article and refuse to discuss. Amnesity 09:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the return of the old anti-Alkivar troll, creating armies of sockpuppets, targeting Warez and related articles. He was active a few months ago and now has returned, same old story. A new twist is involvement in Wikitruth. Also vandalizing some math articles for no good reason. -- Curps 09:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] busking?!?

"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 or perhaps by busking, if that is the only option open to them." what on earth were u thinking whenever [whoever] wrote that? i think britney spears (or popular artist X) would still do stadium tours and concerts if there were no copyright, rather than sitting on a street corner with a guitar and a cap for the loose change of passers by.

[edit] Cost of enforcing copyright

How much money does the government (e.g. courts, police) spend on investigating cases of alleged copyright infringement and prosecuting them?


[edit] Copyleft and creative commons is not anti copyright

I am concerned about the introduction to this article that states that creative commons and copyleft are forms of anti-copyright, this is not the case.

Creative commons for example relays very much on copyright law to achieve it’s aims, as do many copyleft schemes (GNU, etc.). These schemes form legally binding contracts (Creative Commons licenses have been upheld in court see: http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6052292.html ). Copyleft could not exist without copyright and whilst it’s objectives are often misinterpreted to be in conflict with copyright (freedom of information vs the protection of operation is debate within, not outside copyright) they, these licenses, all assert ownership of some degree (CC the moral right of the authour) and are singing from the same hymn sheet no matter how out of tune they may sound.

To be truly anti-copyright the scheme, in my opinion, would have to address (or fail to address as the case may be) the rights of ownership with regard to IPR. --DeepVeinInsomnia 09:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. GPL and the many licenses it inspired are meaningless without copyright. They don't belong in an "Anti-copyright" article, nor does the EFF, or CC. --AC 06:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, these are NOT the same things. 64.148.241.133 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they are completely anti-copyright, but I think it's a safe assertion from reading their websites they don't agree on the state of copyright today. I changed the intro to reflect this. Masterhomer Image:Yin yang.png 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposal to somehow rename this article?

The word "anti-copyright" sounds very POV to me, because anti is a very negative word, so it implies that anti-copyright movements or ideologies or people are negative or wrong. I can't think of a better title at the moment, but how about arguments against copyright or freedom from copyright or I don't know...--Sonjaaa 08:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

An Anti-copyright article should exist under that name, but only to describe the history, rationale and actions of those persons and groups who oppose all copyright on general principles. It should not describe groups or persons who do not oppose all copyright -- maybe 90% of the current text doesn't belong here.
As for to where what's salvageable of said 90% should go, neither of those titles suggested are satisfactory, because they're based on the same black&white fallacy ("they're either for it or against it") that colors the present article. --AC 06:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be called, "Oooh, that darned RIAA!!" Seriously, the article is in no way an encyclopedic entry defining or identifying a key concept. It is a thinly-disguised attempt at proselytizing the notion of removing intellectual property ownership. Look at the opening paragraph of the arguments in favor of anti-copyright: "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. Those against copyright suggest that income to a developer should be generated by other means, for several reasons..." That is a rather sophomoric staw-man attack. The entire thing is shot through with fallacy after fallacy. -Blutwulf

[edit] Eveolution in general or 'get with the program'

This article should in somehow mention evolution in everything as an example. I mean, do companies that produce cassette tapes have a right to use legal action against the cd? What about movie theaters that go empty, do they take legal action against the dvd or free shows? Or do bike creators get mad at people that develop motorcycles? What about newspapers and newsgroups/sites, 'snail-mail' and e-mail, glass bottles and soda cans, ... People should lay down arms when it regards to new things that work. In this case, humanity no longer wants to pay ridiculous prices for something they can hear on the radio for free anyway. Hasn't it always been so that new things are invented and old systems dissapear?

What about the hypocrisy of copyright, take the very first song ever to hit number 1 from 0 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart (Your not alone - Michael Jackson) which, after 12 years of fighting in the court, has turned out to be plagiarism. Song turned out to be made by two Belgian brothers instead. Ok sorry I'm rambling on about other things, but seriously, what is copyright then? Being the first one to 'license' something and gain big profits so no one dares to question you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakuun (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Didn't read the above in details:

Anti-Copyrightists are usually people who are affected negatively by it, these people are usually also anti-capitalistic, anti-WTO, and anti-globalization. For reasons, you might want to check out the critisism of WTO. -GW2005

[edit] Reduced output of work argument invalid

If one considers that an artist or author may at anytime choose to reduce their output for any arbitrary reason, the argument that without copyright, reduced output would follow as a consequence is moot. Artists may reduce output while there are strong copyright laws in existence because their work is being heavily traded and merchants are making profits or for any number of other reasons. Therefore the argument that copyright is needed to ensure more work is produced is not valid. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] criticism section

I've pared down the " Criticism of anti-copyright arguments" section. Before:

* Critics conjecture that in the absence of copyright authors and artists would be under-compensated for their work. As a direct result, they claim, many fewer new works would be created.
* Assertion that the ease of reproduction of intellectual works should not be taken as an excuse to legalize copyright infringement.
* Criticism of interference with fair use, such as may occur with DRM, should not be an excuse to discard copyright altogether.

After:

* without copyright authors might profit less from their work and create less of it.

This was soon reverted by Samuell, who comments "we need a better critisum section than what we have now".

The problem is that bullet items #2 & #3 weren't arguments or criticisms.

Item #2 is POV question-begging: "to legalize ... infringement" is a tautology, because the term "infringement" implies copyright violation, the very point in question. Translated without POV, item #2 might say "easy copying is not a reason to legalize copying" or more generally "easy X is not a reason to legalize X". Yet easy X isn't a reason to make X illegal either.

Item #3 translated without POV would be: "weaker fair use benefits are no reason to legalize (retaliatory?) copying." Which is logically equivalent to the trivial "higher taxes are no reason to abolish taxes". And "fair use" again begs the question because it presupposes copyright.

Item #1 needs no hedges like "Critics conjecture" or "As a direct result, they claim", since it's under the criticism section. As it stands #1 is more of an ancient no-attribution needed "pro-copyright" argument, rather than a criticism of the "anti-" camp. Such reasons probably belong more in a copyright article. --AC (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)