On 06/02/2000, Jeremy G. Byrne <jeremy[_at_]iz.org> wrote:
>
> On 05/31/2000, Kevin Grierson <kgrierson[_at_]wilsav.com> wrote:
> >
> > I submit that the reason people use gnutella is not to publically
> > disobey an unjust law, but to violate the law anonymously for their
> > own private benefit.
>
> I submit that the reason people use gnutella (and will use freenet
> and its successors) is to obtain information which is unnecessarily
> unavailable to them otherwise. Copyright prevents access to
> information and restricts the movement, reuse and ongoing
> development of that information. By its nature, the internet
> thrives on access, on more information, more links, more knowledge;
> it treats censorship (economic or otherwise) like damage, and
> routes around it. This is driven by positive feedback -- in a
> sense, the process is inherent in the design of the net.
>
> > I also find your argument that copyright amounts to "appropriation from
> > the commons" unconvincing (and ironic, given that the "tragedy of the
> > commons" led to property rights in the first place).
>
> I might argue that property itself is theft from the commons --
> although we'll have to wait a couple of decades for nanotech to make
> that more obvious -- but I certainly have difficulty with the thesis
> that property rights arose as a solution to a failure of the commons.
> Is this a widely accepted interpretation?
>
> > The works that are being copied were not in the commons to start with
>
> All art comes from the commons, and feeds back into it in turn.
> (The artist recombines, remixes, selects, reflects on and
> reinterprets existing art in the light of personal experience,
> and new art is created. This is the nature of culture.)
>
> > they were placed there by their creators, who had the option
> > of not making them public, but chose to do so because of the
> > protections afforded by copyright.
>
> The purpose of art is to communicate. Artists do not take the
> option of not making their art public, and certainly they don't
> withhold their creativity because they fear their art might become
> part of the culture. Were they to do so (exclusively) they would
> not be artists.
Jeremy,
Your argument proves too much. If creative works are taken from the commons, then so is *everything*, since all materials, sources of enegy for production, etc. were originally part of the "commons." If the products created by using materials originally taken from the commons are free to be utilized by anyone, then the whole of personal property rights is meaningless. You seem to acknowledge this logical progression with your statement that "property itself is a theft from the commons."
I'm not trying to be insulting or fan any flames, but your central thesis -- that items, goods, whatever that originally derive from the commons belong to all mankind -- is the basis of Marxism (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). Such a system, in pure form at least, exists nowhere in the world today, because (IMO) it just doesn't work.
The basis of a capitalist society is that it provides monetary incentives to those who work more, or more skillfully, than their fellow man, because they get to keep a significant portion of the fruits of their labor, whether as the product itself or (much more commonly) the monetary equivalent. Although such a system is undoubtedly not without its own flaws, there is no question that capitalism has succeeded spectacularly in the last two centuries or so, by allowing the producers of property -- whether tangible or intangible -- to reap the benefits of their efforts. The copyright law is a logical extension of personal property law, meant to stimulate creative endeavor, and I believe that it has succeeded in that goal.
The purpose of art may indeed be to communicate, but without the financial incentive to create such works, such as that given by copyright, the people who create such works will have to spend enough time on other pursuits to put food on the table, unless they can find a rich patron or receive government support for their work. Art would still be produced, but it would either be restricted to those who can afford to see it, or limited to what the government deems acceptable or is willing to pay for.
Kevin Grierson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:39 GMT