Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Critique of Copyright
For a future without Ownership

Copyright: Extending the Systems Ownership

As the most valuable commodities on the market changed from tangible goods to intangible ideas, it made sense that capitalism and the state would adapt to extend the structures of control they had established over the rest of the economy to apply to the new market.

Copyright is this extension of those structures.

Most of us are familiar with the basic idea of copyright. If "you" have an idea, "you" can get a copyright so "someone else" doesn't "steal" it. But, as with the limited conception most people have of the institution of private property that ignores the real mechanisms and functions of that institution, similarly this understanding of copyright does not work in describing what copyright really does and who it benefits.

To start with, on the most basic level, copyright is based on a bad philosophical foundation. To say that ideas can be "owned" is strange indeed, for a number of reasons. First, all ideas are not the work of a single person, or even group of people. They are indebted to past ideas and inspirations from the outside world on a level that cannot be ignored. Second, to stake control of your ideas to prevent others from using them denies the world any work that might be derivative of yours, no matter how brilliant and inspired it is in its own right.

The word, "private", comes from a Latin root that means "to deprive". Copyright is an excellent example of this inherent aspect of private property, the basis of the wealth of the few on the denial of that wealth to the many. The value of ideas in a copyright market descends from the fact that the rest of the world can't use "yours".

Most people accept these problems of copyright because they assume that without it things would be even worse. People could take other's writing, art, inventions, etc and use them to make money for themselves while leaving the creative ones responsible with nothing.

The inherent result of hierarchical systems is to bring out the most authoritarian tendencies within the human species. When society is organized along the lines of giving some people control over the lives of others, it is only natural (and, indeed, reasonable) for people to react with ruthless attempts to grab power however they can. If you don't stake your claim to such power, someone else will, and you will end up on the bottom of an authoritarian and hierarchical system.

Looked at this way, fascism is simply a rational conclusion to come to when examining the function of the state. This is not excusing fascism; rather, it is refusing to excuse the institution of government as a whole for its responsibility in raising its offspring in an abusive environment certain to produce such brutality.

When it comes down to it, humanity does not require authoritarian rule because it is "basically evil", as the proponents of "human nature" arguments would have us believe. It looks that way sometimes because we are raised in a society that forces us to fight to be king just so we won't end up as slave. Even in such an unhealthy environment, people can relate to each other and organize with each other along lines that don't involve power over each other. (see examples in the section about moving beyond authoritarianism in our economic and political organization)

Capitalism, being itself an authoritarian and hierarchical system of organizing economics, bases itself on the same rule-or-be-ruled ideology. My father, a pacifist liberal, gets so angry watching the news and hearing about the latest corporation that polluted the environment or arranged larger severance packages for its executive officers while its employees got downsized and had their pension plans canceled. He talks about the stupidity of their greed. But unless you are going to oppose capitalism, and indeed all authoritarian structures, you have to also accept these actions because they are inherent to their functioning.

"Greed" is not the irrational force it is made out to be. It is, indeed, the only rational response to a way of organizing economics that demands people to use it just to not end up working as a janitor, out competed by those who could harness its power.

As the extension of private property economics to ideas, copyright is dominated by the same ruthless world view. The real reason most people feel the need to copyright their ideas is because they are afraid of other people profiting from them. Again, rule-or-be-ruled. If our entire economic and political structure wasn't organized along these lines, there wouldn't be any need for ownership of our ideas. They could be shared freely for the benefit of all involved.