PDA

View Full Version : Copyright critics rationalise theft?



bunburya
June 3rd, 2010, 05:59 PM
I was doing a bit of research for an essay I am thinking of writing and came across this quite ridiculous article from the Wall Street Journal about "copyright critics" (as if all the opponents of the current legal framework for the protection of copyright were one monolithic entity). It's from a year ago but I found it so silly and sesnationalist I thought I'd share it with you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124199933659205011.html

Starting off it's not terrible, just praising the works of authors and the like. It really gets silly around here though:



But copyright, the rampart of the mythical city, is besieged by a widespread movement antagonistic to authorial right and the legitimacy of intellectual property. So-called public interest groups serve the new information super powers, the Standard Oils of our age, whose interests would be advanced if they did not have to bother with permissions and payments for what they call "content." The Creative Commons organization, for example, is richly financed by Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Mozilla, Sun, the Hewlett Foundation, and others of type.


You heard it here first, Creative Commons is just a lobby group for all those big nasty corporations who of course hate intellectual property (like Microsoft)...

More intellectual laziness and a repeat of the old piracy strawman here:


The opponents of copyright are no more disinterested than its defenders, although they do a good job of pretending, and their theories have become the window dressing for the piracy of software, music, movies -- and soon the written word. They may claim that they are not against copyright per se. But if, as they repeatedly assert, copyright is an unjustifiable tax, a monopoly, and a bar to creativity, why wouldn't they or anyone else be against it, as in fact they are?

And so on.

Anyway, just thought I'd share that with you, it annoys me how people can distort the debate so much, though I suppose this is par for the course for WSJ.

dv3500ea
June 3rd, 2010, 07:52 PM
You should have a look at this book: free culture (http://www.free-culture.cc/) (under a creative commons licence of course)

saulgoode
June 3rd, 2010, 08:31 PM
Addressing one of the statements in the article:


But if, as they repeatedly assert, copyright is an unjustifiable tax, a monopoly, and a bar to creativity, why wouldn't they or anyone else be against it, as in fact they are?


The assertion is not that copyright is an unjustifiable tax, but that it is a tax that must be justified (as should be ALL taxes). Does societal benefit justify not just the existence of the tax, but the level of taxation?

Asserting something is a monopoly does not mean it is necessarily unwarranted. Most societies benefit from having government-granted monopolies for electricity, water, natural gas, sewage treatment, and waste management. The important thing to mind is that the behavior of the companies granted these exclusive monopolies is regulated to a much greater degree than would be free market competitors. Those who would be granted exclusive copyright monopolies likewise need to have their behavior submitted to regulation (e.g., no EULA terms which contravene copyright law).

The goal of copyright is not to induce creativity, it is to induce the sharing of creativity -- in a manner beneficial to the public. Societal benefit is diminished if the public is not free to share the creativity for excessively long terms of copyright; and nullified altogether if the creativity is locked behind rule-of-doubt certificates and DMCA-like prohibitions against access.

JDShu
June 3rd, 2010, 08:35 PM
Anyway, just thought I'd share that with you, it annoys me how people can distort the debate so much, though I suppose this is par for the course for WSJ.

Yep.

handy
June 4th, 2010, 01:15 AM
He obviously thinks a lot of "Standard Oil". They are known to have made a fortune out of selling oil/fuel to the Germans in the 2nd world war. (Yeh, I know Godwins law & all that :()