Found a great post on lewrockwell by SEKIII about his view on the fallacy of copyrights. These ideas can be expanded to the current digital media debate with the RIAA. A novel take on copyright licenses that allows free use of someones work in the public domain, is called copyleft. This basically gives each person possessing a copy of the work the same freedoms as the author, including:

1. the freedom to use the work,
2. the freedom to study the work,
3. the freedom to copy and share the work with others,
4. the freedom to modify the work, and the freedom to distribute modified and therefore derivative works.

We practice this method on our site which is detailed in the footer at the bottom of every webpage.
_______

This originally appeared in The Voluntaryist, July 1986.

Samuel Edward Konkin III (1947–2004) was the author of the New Libertarian Manifesto and a proponent of free-market anarchism.

Having done every step of production in the publishing industry, both for myself and others, I have one irrefutable empirical conclusion about the economic effect of copyrights on prices and wages: nada. Zero. Nihil. So negligible you’d need a Geiger counter to measure it.

Before I move on to exactly what copyrights do have an impact on, one may be interested as to why the praxeological negligibility of this tariff. The answer is found in the peculiar nature of publishing. There are big publishers and small publishers and very, very few in between. For the Big Boys, royalties are a fraction of one percent of multi-million press runs. They lose more money from bureaucratic interstices and round-off error. The small publishers are largely counter-economic and usually survive on donated material or break-in writing; let the new writers worry about copyrighting and reselling.

Furthermore, there are a very few cases of legal action in the magazine world because of this disparity. The little ‘zines have no hope beating a rip-off and shrug it off after a perfunctory threat; the Biggies rattle their corporate-lawyer sabres and nearly anyone above ground quietly bows.

Book publishing is a small part of total publishing and there are some middle-range publishers who do worry about the total cost picture in marginal publishing cases. But now there are two kinds of writers: Big Names and everyone else. Everyone else is seldom reprinted; copyrights have nothing to do with first printings (economically). Big Names rake it in – but they also make a lot from ever-higher bids for their next contract. And the lowered risk of not selling out a reprint of a Big Name who has already sold out a print run more than compensates paying the writer the extra fee.

So Big Name writers would loose something substantial if the copyright privilege ceased enforcement. But Big Name writers are an even smaller percentage of writers than Big Name Actors are of actors. If they all vanished tomorrow, no one would notice (except their friends, one hopes). Still, one may reasonably wonder if the star system’s incentive can be done away without the whole pyramid collapsing. If any economic argument remains for copyrights, it’s incentive.

Crap. As Don Marquis put in the words of Archy the Cockroach, “Creative expression is the need of my soul.” And Archy banged his head on typewriter key after typewriter key all night long to turn out his columns – which Marquis cashed in. Writing as a medium of expression will continue as long as someone has a burning need to express. And if all they have to express is a need for second payments and associated residuals, we’re all better off for not reading it.

But, alas, the instant elimination of copyrights would have negligible effect on the star system. While it would cut into the lifelong gravy train of stellar scribes, it would have no effect on their biggest source of income: the contract for their next book (or script, play or even magazine article or short story). That is where the money is.

“You’re only as good as your last piece” – but you collect for that on your next sale. Market decisions are made on anticipated sales. Sounds like straight von Mises, right? (Another great writer who profited little from copyrighting – but others are currently raking it in from Ludwig’s privileged corpse – er, corpus.)

The point of all this vulgar praxeology is not just to clear the way for the moral question. The market (praise be) is telling us something. After all, both market human action and morality arise from the same Natural Law.

In fact, let us clear out some more deadwood and red herrings before we face the Great Moral Issue. First, if you abolish copyrights, would great authors starve? Nope. In fact, the market might open a trifle for new blood. Would writers write if they did not get paid? Who says they wouldn’t? There is no link between payment for writing and copyrights. Royalties roll in (or, much more often, trickle in) long after the next work is sold and the one after is in progress.

Is not a producer entitled to the fruit of his labor? Sure, that’s why writers are paid. But if I make a copy of a shoe or a table or a fireplace log (with my little copied axe) does the cobbler or wood worker or woodchopper collect a royalty?

A. J. Galambos, bless his anarchoheart, attempted to take copyrights and patents to their logical conclusion. Every time we break a stick, Ug The First should collect a royalty. Ideas are property, he says; madness and chaos result.

Property is a concept extracted from nature by conceptual man to designate the distribution of scarce goods – the entire material world – among avaricious, competing egos. If I have an idea, you may have the same idea and it takes nothing from me. Use yours as you will and I do the same.

Ideas, to use the ‘au courant’ language of computer programmers, are the programs; property is the data. Or, to use another current cliché, ideas are the maps and cartography, and property is the territory. The difference compares well to the differences between sex and talking about sex.

Would not ideas be repressed without the incentive (provided by copyrights)? ‘Au contraire’ the biggest problem with ideas is the delivery system. How do we get them to those marketeers who can distribute them? (Ed. note: most readers probably know the answer to this in 1996, this was written in 1986)

My ideas are pieces of what passes for my soul (or, if you prefer, ego). Therefore, every time someone adopts one of them, a little piece of me has infected them. And for this I get paid, too! On top of all that, I should be paid and paid and paid as they get staler and staler?

If copyrights are such a drag, why and how did they evolve? Not by the market process. Like all privileges (emphasis added), they were grants of the king. The idea did not – could not – arise until Gutenberg’s printing press and it coincided with the rise of royal divinity, and soon after, the onslaught of mercantilism.

So who benefits from this privilege? There is an economic impact I failed to mention earlier. It is, in Bastiat’s phrasing, the unseen. Copyright is a Big publisher’s method, under cover of protecting artists, of restraint of trade. Yes, we’re talking monopoly.

For when the Corporation tosses its bone to the struggling writer, and an occasional steak to the pampered tenth of a percent, it receives an enforceable legal monopoly on the editing, typesetting, printing, packaging, marketing (including advertising) and sometimes even local distribution of that book or magazine. (In magazines, it also has an exclusivity in layout vs other articles and illustrations and published advertisements.) How’s that for vertical integration and restraint of trade?

And so the system perpetuates, give or take a few counter-economic outlaws and some enterprising Taiwanese with good smuggling connections.

Because copyrights permeate all mass media, Copyright is the Rip-off That Dare Not Mention Its Name. The rot corrupting our entire communications market is so entrenched it will survive nothing short of abolition of the State and its enforcement of Copyright. Because the losers, small-name writers and all readers, lose so little each, we are content – it seems – to be nickel-and-dime plundered. Why worry about mosquito bites when we have the vampire gouges of income taxes and automobile tariffs?

Now for the central moral question: what first woke me up to the problem that was the innocent viewer scenario. Consider the following careful contractual construction.

Author Big and Publisher Bigger have contracts not to reveal a word of what’s in some publication. Everyone on the staff, every person in the step of production is contracted not to reveal a word. All the distributors are covered and the advertising quotes only a minimal amount of words. Every reader is like Death Records in Phantom of the Paradise, under contract, too; that is every reader who purchases the book or ‘zine and thus interacts with someone who is under contract – interacts in a voluntary trade and voluntary agreement.

No, I am not worried about the simultaneous creator; although an obvious victim, he or she is rare, given sufficient complexity in the work under questions. (However, some recent copyright decisions and the fact that the Dolly Parton case even got as far as a serious trial – means the corruption is spreading.)

One day you and I walk into a room – invited but without even mention of a contract – and the publication lies open on a table. Photons leap from the pages to our eyes and our hapless brain processes the information. Utterly innocent, having committed no volitional act, we are copyright violators. We have unintentionally embarked on a life of piracy.

And God or the Market help us if we now try to act on the ideas now in our mind or to reveal this unintended guilty secret in any way. The State shall strike us – save only if Author Big and Publisher Bigger decide in their tyrannous mercy that we are too small and not worth the trouble.

For if we use the ideas or repeat or reprint them, even as part of our own larger creation – bang! There goes the monopoly. And so each and every innocent viewer must be suppressed. By the Market? Hardly. The entire contractual agreement falls like a house of cards when the innocent gets his or her forbidden view. No, copyright has nothing to do with creativity, incentive, just desserts, fruits of labor or any other element of the moral, free market.

It is a creature of the State, the Vampire’s little bat. And, as far as I’m concerned, the word should be copywrong.

Click the thumbnail to view full-size image, then right-click and chose “Save [Image] As…”

Red & Black: Click to view full

Gold & Black: Click to view full

These images and their creator are anti-copyright, but please attribute/linkback if you dig ‘em.

Host Francesca Rheannon talks with David Bollier about his latest book, VIRAL SPIRAL. It’s about how the Internet is building a new digital republic. And Cory Doctorow tells us about his science fiction novel, MAKERS. It imagines the birth pangs of a new remix culture.

I found the interviewees’ use of the term “market” to be a bit misapplied from a market-anarchist perspective, but since they are neither anarchists nor market-anarchists, that’s to be expected. They seemed to use it in the sense of any transaction involving money; when, of course, market-anarchists typically use the term to include all forms of voluntary interaction and transaction — whether money is involved or not — and exclude any non-voluntary forms, such as state-granted monopoly privilege (e.g., copyright itself, discussed but not conceptually dismissed in the interviews).

If, however, you can understand that the “market,” as referred to in the recording, means all monetary transaction (state-supported and not), then there is much to be gained from listening. The interviewees make fantastic points about non-monetary motivation, the emergence of a new free-culture, Creative Commons licensing, the IP monopoly, ignoring unenforceable state mandates, the downfall of dinosaur media companies with the rise of filesharing and instant worldwide distribution online, and more.

The idea of the commons is an ancient one. Peasants of medieval Europe seldom owned their own land. Legally, it was held by the nobles, the king or the Church. But they did have the right to use certain lands in common to grow crops, cut wood, or graze livestock. As capitalism took over from feudalism, the commons began to be privatized. First, land and forests were enclosed. As commodity relations spread, more natural resources, like water, followed suit. In our own era privatization has gobbled up a huge new arena of the commons as intellectual property, from the patenting of traditional plant varieties and the copywrighting of traditional folk tales to the human genome and biodiversity itself. [...]

I also dislike the conflation of intellectual “property” with physical property that occurs in the interviews. They speak to the idea that IP law is certainly overbearing and weighted in favor of state-tied industries and corporations, but they don’t dismiss the idea of IP altogether. Personally, I’d like to see the two subjects discussed as separate concepts, but unfortunately the prevailing view does not lend itself to this dichotomy.

In this vein, the interviewer makes reference to copyright as having been created to protect the rights of the artist, when in fact it was (and is) a monopoly system designed to protect the interests of publishers — artists be damned. This is touched on slightly, but Doctorow puts forward a watered-down version of his usual argument, referring instead to the intent of the US Constitution.

Despite these quibbles, I quite enjoyed the interviews, and they serve to reenforce the notion that the Internet is indeed a bastion of freedom and alternative interaction previously unimaginable. Long may it live!

A fantastic cartoon in kid-friendly style from QuestionCopyright.org.

The first official release of Copying Is Not Theft is now ready, with a new sound track arranged by Nik Phelps and sung by Connie Champagne.

Download the high-res version at archive.org.

Question Copyright’s first Minute Meme is a response to messages that have tried to convince people that copying information is the same as stealing property, when it’s an entirely different (and generally positive) thing. Until the air is cleared on that point, it’s hard to have any kind of useful conversation about copying, sharing, copyright, or licensing.

The purpose of these Minute Memes is to give educators and commentators more tools to help clear the air. Copying is not Theft conveys its simple idea with a catchy tune, clever lyrics, and delightful animation by Nina Paley. Many thanks to Nik Phelps and Connie Champagne for a terrific sound track. We also thank the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts for supporting this meme and others with a generous grant. Copying Is Not Theft is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license.

See the Minute Memes home page for more about the project. See the Copying Is Not Theft home page for more about this meme and for other arrangements, remixes, and mashups, based on the draft Nina released last December.

States, and their minions, have historically been expert communicators. Propaganda from any era is a testament to just how much time, energy, and money they’ve invested to insure that the population stays on-message. Within the last 60 years, with the revelation of projects like Operation Mockingbird and Bush II’s fake newscasts, it has certainly become even harder to separate truth from propaganda.

Take the Obama campaign. Their branding was done by firms specializing in commercial product markets. He was sold (and bought) as a product.

My post discusses this somewhat, in the context of bringing to bear whatever communication strategies we have at our disposal to create and support our own system and network.

From the original article:

As human beings, we are inherently somewhat stupid – or perfect, depending on your viewpoint. Our evolution has endowed us with the susceptibility to be suckered by cuteness and beauty; in fact,

“Studies show attractive students get more attention and higher evaluations from their teachers, good-looking patients get more personalized care from their doctors, and handsome criminals receive lighter sentences than less attractive convicts.” …

…This concept carries over into every realm of perception; which obviously includes web, print, and interface design…

“Though trust is more a psychological issue, it is nonetheless very important for the relationship between users and the software they use. This is especially true on the Web. A high quality visual design builds up trust in an application while a dull, and even more a flawed, visual design reduces trust…”

I believe it is imperative that we take pride in our communications with both likeminded folks, and with the population at large. There are resources out there to learn the elements of effective communication and design. In fact, I just posted one that I wrote…

I hope to continue learning and sharing in this area, and I appreciate any feedback on your experiences with the design and function of JustLive. I’ll be on a constant improvement kick with it.

If you care about your message, you should care about how it’s presented.

Revolutionary Design: 5 Simple Tips for Matching Your Motif to Your Message

Today’s world is undeniably visual. From the constant barrage of television, to food packages, to the website you’re reading right now – all are designed to draw your attention. Our environment is saturated with imagery; there’s almost nowhere in the U.S. where one couldn’t find some sort of manmade imagery, and there are many places where that imagery is all that can be seen.

With such optical overload, we learn fairly early to filter on the fly; blocking out the uninteresting or unimportant in favor of the eye-catching or relevant. This is the rub: what is relevant to you or I might not make it past the visual spam-filter of the next person.

Think about it, if you’re extremely interested in the mating habits of the Greater Duckfooted Spindlefish, then you will likely stop and look over any information you encounter regarding that subject, regardless of how it’s presented. This is because there’s not a lot of information about this very specific subject, which makes each piece more relevant.

Politics, government, and the like, are not at all rare. They may be some of the most covered and discussed items on the Internet, or anywhere else…

Read the rest of this article at Ambivert Creative »

To sum it up… kill your tv!

Source kl3z