From the article: "(Some people would argue that even property as such is a governmentally-sanctioned private monopoly, in order to downplay the fact that the copyright monopoly stands in opposition to property rights, but that would not be what we mean by "property" and "monopoly" as concepts. If I own an umbrella, I control that umbrella. If I have a monopoly on umbrellas, I get to control everybody else's umbrella too, and get to call on the government to have that enforced.)"
I believe the above was meant to addresses your specific form of criticism.
I believe my right to exist stems from my "inalienable property right" to my own body. I can move it left and right and up and down. If someone were to try to take that away from me, I'd be pretty upset and I'd do more than write my representative.
Whereas, the basic idea of copyright is to encourage sharing of ideas - it doesn't actually have a basis as an inalienable or "moral right." In order to encourage sharing ideas, societies have been allowing the encroachment of imaginary property rights (a euphemism for the independent traditions of copyright, patents, and trademaks) on tangible and even inalienable property rights (making it uncomfortable to say the least). The Internet, however, has shaken even that basic premise: the Internet is full of creativity (not just copyright infringement). Only a fool would "buy" water in the rain.
We should not be allowing, condoning, or financially supporting, any unneeded encroachment on tangible rights, so IMHO we should dismantle copyright as we know it. What's more: copying itself has social value that should not simply be dismissed.
This whole conflict is about preserving the front-loaded pricing (CDs and DVDs that can sit on a store shelf) that the biggest music and movie publishers only became accustomed to this century, after the phonograph. (OK, the printing press was around a little longer before that, but scribes couldn't help read the book they were copying...) As awkward as it is for these biggest "creators" (distributors) to return to a gratuity system (beg? never!), this change only affects the biggest publishers and employers, not creators generally.
The moral argument for copyright is an illusion: it's a confusion of the right to privacy with the right to have monopoly control over distribution. I support the former but not the latter.
For independant artists and creators, the Internet is the best opportunity ever to realize their vision, to distribute it directly, and to capitalize on it directly... But the tip only comes after the meal.
I believe the long-term implications of this conflict were explored further by Cory Doctorow in the following:
Comments
From the article: "(Some people would argue that even property as such is a governmentally-sanctioned private monopoly, in order to downplay the fact that the copyright monopoly stands in opposition to property rights, but that would not be what we mean by "property" and "monopoly" as concepts. If I own an umbrella, I control that umbrella. If I have a monopoly on umbrellas, I get to control everybody else's umbrella too, and get to call on the government to have that enforced.)"
I believe the above was meant to addresses your specific form of criticism.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
"imaginary property" != "real property"
importanceof("real property") > importanceof("imaginary property")
I believe my right to exist stems from my "inalienable property right" to my own body. I can move it left and right and up and down. If someone were to try to take that away from me, I'd be pretty upset and I'd do more than write my representative.
Whereas, the basic idea of copyright is to encourage sharing of ideas - it doesn't actually have a basis as an inalienable or "moral right." In order to encourage sharing ideas, societies have been allowing the encroachment of imaginary property rights (a euphemism for the independent traditions of copyright, patents, and trademaks) on tangible and even inalienable property rights (making it uncomfortable to say the least). The Internet, however, has shaken even that basic premise: the Internet is full of creativity (not just copyright infringement). Only a fool would "buy" water in the rain.
We should not be allowing, condoning, or financially supporting, any unneeded encroachment on tangible rights, so IMHO we should dismantle copyright as we know it. What's more: copying itself has social value that should not simply be dismissed.
This whole conflict is about preserving the front-loaded pricing (CDs and DVDs that can sit on a store shelf) that the biggest music and movie publishers only became accustomed to this century, after the phonograph. (OK, the printing press was around a little longer before that, but scribes couldn't help read the book they were copying...) As awkward as it is for these biggest "creators" (distributors) to return to a gratuity system (beg? never!), this change only affects the biggest publishers and employers, not creators generally.
The moral argument for copyright is an illusion: it's a confusion of the right to privacy with the right to have monopoly control over distribution. I support the former but not the latter.
For independant artists and creators, the Internet is the best opportunity ever to realize their vision, to distribute it directly, and to capitalize on it directly... But the tip only comes after the meal.
I believe the long-term implications of this conflict were explored further by Cory Doctorow in the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI
Do you also disagree with him?