copyright on a whole minute

This is an old question, reaching back to the 18th century, when copyright applied only to writing. A writer takes resources available to all – language, symbols, ideas, etc. – and mixes them with his labor to produce a new work. The question was whether investing that labor in the work gave the writer a natural right to control over it. One court case said yes, and overruled the term limit on copyright. …

John Degen writes, “I think intellectual property is an economic model based on a constant request for respect”. Elsewhere he writes, “My personal opinion . . . boils down to this . . . respect the text.” I have seen this elsewhere. Usually this argument treats respect and payment as interchangeable, conflating a thing’s worth with what is paid for it¹. But taken seriously, I see a more fundamental conflict about authority. . . .

Copyright is not the first instance of government implementing draconian prohibition and disproportionate penalties to shield established industries from innovation. In centuries past, people have been searched, tortured, and killed over clothing manufacture and imports outside guild monopolies. . . .

The Canadian government has indicated that it intends to push ahead and change copyright law – without consulting with ordinary Canadians who will be affected in their everyday lives. But the issues remain unclear to many citizens and journalists. I have put together the faircopy site to help explain what this is about, how it affects all Canadians, and what we can do about it. This is intended to put together a clear overview, augmenting existing efforts like the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group.

Canada faces a copyright disaster. Next week, Canada’s Industry Minister is set to introduce a revision of the Copyright Act. A similar revision in the United States produced the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which has hobbled innovation and produced lawsuits against ordinary people while failing in its aim to stop piracy. The government has not consulted with Canadians, but by all accounts the Canadian law has been written in close consultation with American interests. Over the past few days thousands of determined Canadians have joined the Fair Copyright for Canada group on Facebook to work to stop this law. There isn’t much time. Canadians who want Canadian culture and innovation to maintain vibrant and independent should join us by writing to their newspapers and members of Parliament (scroll down for contact information) immediately to stop this disaster from becoming law. …

There is a contradiction in how we talk about the ownership of ideas. On the one hand, we speak of property rights over owned ideas (as with copyright and patents); on the other, we talk about shared works – such as free and open source software – having “owners” – by which we mean people who take responsibility for them. Thus, ownership has two distinct meanings: one rooted in rights, the other in responsibility. For physical property, the two are frequently allied; but in the case of creativity and intellectual works, property rights are often the enemy of responsibility. …

When ideas are property, the ideas we have are different than when they are not. If we look for peer production to produce the same familiar novels, music, and films that arise from proprietary production, we are bound to be disappointed. Worse, we will be blind to the different qualities of works produced in the commons, and to the engagement, the community, and the self-development that take place there. …

Often people belittle those they disagree with as stupid or irrational. The music and film industries, for example, in their fight to keep music and movies off the Internet, are said to be blind to the wealth the technology offers them. I don’t agree. The entertainment conglomerates are certainly scoundrels. But I think their behavior is perfectly rational.

What is a creative or intellectual work? The assumption that the exercise of human creativity and thought produces discreet objects – works – lies at the heart of the concept of intellectual property. Indeed, this is what copyright and other IP laws do: they define parcels of ideas¹, then assign rights over those ideas to people. The commons, by contrast, treats intellectual and cultural works as shared entities. …

The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.”

He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. . . . “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity. I don’t have to pay you.”

“I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed whin you bought this conapt.”

— Philip K. Dick, Ubik

I attended a discussion entitled When is there too much copyright? at the Vancouver Public Library tonight. The room was quite full – there were probably about 80 people in attendance. The copyfighters were by far the majority: I only recall one person arguing for strong copyright from the floor; much of the discussion was criticism aimed at the lone proponent on the three-person panel. …

Many people who believe current copyright laws are too strong have suggested that sharing benefits publishers. A number of artists agree, but publishers remain unconvinced. They continue to push for draconian legislation and digital rights management which interfere with our ability to use the content we pay for. Ken Camp argues that this will ultimately fail: content is not king, “content is a commodity . . . we are the value.” His argument is very similar to Steven Weber’s insight in The Success of Open Source. . . .

Canada considers changing its copyright laws to prevent the free distribution of music on the Internet. Some claim that such copying is an attack on the artist; others are the middle men who fear for their incomes in a golden age of art. We have more to fear from draconian laws than from a society that joyfully immerses itself in its culture. If we enforce our copyrights too sternly, we will not only take the joy from music and film and the entertainments which make humanity unique, we will also attack the thoughts, commentary, and debate which are the lifeblood of a democratic society. . . .

Copyright laws create a limited monopoly.  As copyrighted works (e.g. software) play such an important role in our economy, dramatic changes to these laws present serious economic risks.  We should take care to make such changes only where the benefits are clear.  Several of the proposed changes to copyright law, notably restrictions on reverse engineering and on devices that can be used to break copy protection, carry with them greater risks than benefits. . . .