Re: copyright under stress

On 05/30/2000, Jeremy G. Byrne <jeremy[_at_]iz.org> wrote:
>
> On 27/05/2000, Kevin Grierson" <kgrierson[_at_]wilsav.com> wrote:
> >
> > Gnutella and Napster are giving us all the opportunity to steal,
> > and I guess we're finding out now how few honest men there really
> > are in our society today.
>
> The above comment is so gratuitously offensive, I feel compelled to
> respond in kind. (Forgive the indulgence!)
>
> Copyright's exploitation of entirely artificial scarcity is nothing
> less than economic censorship. Worse, the application of copyright
> amounts to appropriation from the commons -- theft from the public
> -- and those who uphold it and defend it are participating in a
> crime against civilisation (albeit one which will shortly become
> impossible to sustain). Copyright has no redeeming features, except
> perhaps its vulnerability to technological solutions.
>
> Of course, that's only the way I see it.

Although Jeremy's position is extreme, I find myself leaning toward that extreme. Presently finding myself at the mercy of an incompetent publisher, who owns the copyright to my book, I find it increasingly difficult to find where copyright law encourages the creation or exchange of ideas. The explosion of the Internet reveals just how extensive was the control of the media over expression. I am in academia and I submit that the traditional hierarchies of institutions, research, and publication supported the media monopolies. This is a natural process, in my opinion, as discussed by elite theorists such as Michels and Mills -- those who reach the top join to close the doors to others. The key here is that copyright law provides the power and authority to close the doors. The Internet opened a big door that 'they' will do their best to shut. Ran Pyle Legal Studies UCF

Ransford Pyle
<pyle[_at_]mail.ucf.edu> Received on Wed May 31 2000 - 12:06:28 GMT