Re: copyright under stress

On Wed, 31 May 2000, David Hale <dhale[_at_]aggt.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 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.
>
> This is a really incredible post. Incredibly offensive, that is.
> If I create something, it is mine, not yours, and not the public's.
> I do not have to give you access to it; I can take it to my grave
> my secret. If I don't have copyright to back me up, I will either
> not give you access without a contract in which you explicitly
> promise me your first born if you reproduce it, or I will not
> create it in the first place if such a contract is found to be
> not enforceable.
>
> Copyright is not evil. It is simply a step (and money) saving
> device which allows me to distribute my works without having to
> go to the effort of drafting and having signed a contract limiting
> rights to redistribution. Naive Thoreu-esque visions of civil
> disobedience aside, those who violate the law with full knowledge
> (excluding good faith attempts to comply, or areas of judgement
> calls -- neither applicable when downloading the entirety of the
> latest Metallica album), are not honest.
>
> Look at the alternative. With no copyright, how does a performer
> create a revenue stream? Embedding endorsements in its material.
> Every Metallica song pauses in the middle to thank their sponsor,
> Pepsi. With a little thought, these devices can be woven into the
> threads of the work so tightly they can not be extracted. In the
> meantime, the unknown and naive author of the next great American
> novel has his book published by Random House -- but gets absolutely
> no money for it, because there is no law stopping the publishing
> company from reproducing it as much as it wants for free. Not that
> it matters, because Random House won't bother publishing it because
> as soon as it's digitized it's available anywhere for free. So the
> author of the next great American novel decides not to bother and
> spends his time day trading instead. THAT is a crime against
> civilization.
>
> The founding fathers were not insane when they gave Congress the
> authority to establish copyrights (and patents) to promote science
> and the useful arts. They do.

All of Mr. Hale's post is perfectly correct, and it is only those who seek a free ride from the creative who would argue otherwise. Not to reiterate fundamental copyright law, but "information" is not subject to copyright protection, while "expression" is, and without the latter there would be no "Great American Novels" and we would all be worse off.

Bill Lovell
<wsl[_at_]cerebalaw.com> Received on Tue Jun 06 2000 - 07:23:05 GMT