Comments on: The Copyright Monopoly Is A Market Distortion, Not A Birthright

By: The Copyright Monopoly Is A Market Distortion, Not A Birthright | Wikisis

The Copyright Monopoly Is A Market Distortion, Not A Birthright | Wikisis — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:32:53 +0000

[...] Source: The Copyright Monopoly Is A Market Distortion, Not A Birthright [...]

By: Copyright is a government sanctioned monopoly, not a natural right. | lessbull.com

Mon, 24 Dec 2012 15:52:12 +0000

[...] Click here for the article. [...]

By: Dmurph003

Dmurph003 — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:18:00 +0000

My head hurts after wading through some of the logic employed here. The primary reason for the existence of copyright law is not for the benefit of the creator, but for the benefit of the investor. Let’s say John Q. Author wants to write a non-fiction book, but he does not have the money he would need to support himself during the six months he anticipates he will need to complete the project, nor does he have the money he would need to fund the project itself (mostly travel-related costs). As others have noted, he can choose to fund the project on his own, perhaps soliciting donations through Kickstarter. In that case, he will own the right to distribute his work in whatever manner he chooses. But if he funds the project by signing with a publisher, he has yielded the right to distribute his work in exchange for whatever advance money the publisher has offered. The only incentive for the publishing company to strike this deal is the profit it can make via the distribution of the completed work. If a for-profit company cannot make money via the distribution of a product, there is no reason for it to invest in the creation of that product. Copyright law attempts to maximize distributors’ ability to profit, which in turn maximizes their incentive to invest. And I don’t see how anybody can argue that an attempt to maximize the amount of investment capital available to artists, musicians, writers, etc. is a bad thing. The notion that copyright law creates a monopoly is laughable. Copyright law is really just an extension of contract law. When a concert venue signs a band to a contract, it agrees to pay the band X dollars in exchange for the right to profit off the distribution of its music for X hours. The venue makes its profit by selling tickets, the purchasers of which are able to listen to the band’s live performance during the window of time that the concert venue controls it. It would not make any sense, or money, if a ticket holder were allowed to bring along as many friends to the concert as he or she wished. Arguing that a company should not be allowed to purchase the exclusive right to copy and distribute creative content or that such a right should not be protected by the government once purchased, is like arguing that a concert venue should not be allowed to purchase the right to restrict access to a band for an allotted period of time. Or that a person who attempts to sneak into the concert without paying should not be prosecuted if caught. Because, in reality, a record company and a concert venue are both purchasing the right to restrict access to the content created by a band (recorded content in the record company’s case, live content in the concert venue’s case).

By: murxus

murxus — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:44:00 +0000

Property is no ‘natural right’ either.
It is a social contract – I obey your property, you mine – and we don’t need to guard it all day long and can do something useful instead.
Of course this only is a useful contract as long as both sides benefit from it.

By: shuibeng225

shuibeng225 — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:41:00 +0000

http://al.ly/qxA

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:41:00 +0000

I pirate on a regular basis, and I’m not going telling anyone they shouldn’t, but it makes me upset when people with reach infer that it’s morally acceptable. Steal all you want, but at least have the humanity to admit it’s wrong. People have a natural right to trade for their property and set their own price, whether it’s government-sanctioned or not. It’s not ours to steal just because they made an MP3.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:32:00 +0000

I pirate on a regular basis, and I’m not going telling anyone they shouldn’t, but it pisses me off when people with reach like Rick Falkvinge infer that it’s morally acceptable. Steal all you want, but at least have the humanity to admit it’s wrong. People have a NATURAL RIGHT to trade for their property and set their own price, whether it’s government-sanctioned or not. It’s not ours to steal just because they made an MP3.

By: Netizen Report: Surveillance Edition - Global Voices Advocacy

Netizen Report: Surveillance Edition - Global Voices Advocacy — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:36:52 +0000

[...] Party founder Rick Falkvinge posted this week on Torrent Freak about the development of the copyright monopoly and its role in capitalist [...]

By: Bob_Robert

Bob_Robert — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 21:07:00 +0000

One cannot win an emotional argument with facts.

One cannot win a factual argument with emotion.

The reasoning person says, “You’re not paying attention to the facts”, the emotional person says, “You obviously don’t care about people.”

Once that point is reached, there is nothing left but naked force. So each side (usually initiated by the emotional) gets to their legislators to wrestle over control of the violence of the state to overcome the other by the only means left.

By: Bob_Robert

Bob_Robert — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:56:00 +0000

So, posit a different hypothesis and present evidence.

I look forward to it.