Principles
From Pirate Wiki
To publish something is to make it public. In order to control something that has been published, then, it is necessary to control the public. We don't think people have an intrinsic moral right to do this.
Contents |
Copyright Can Not be Justified on the Basis of Giving Artists What They Deserve
Many authors, artists, composers, and so forth, undoubtedly produce good work, however it would be backwards to see copyright as a mechanism for rewarding people as they deserve for doing good work, as it would be backwards to see tax as a mechanism for rewarding the good work of public servants. Rather, copyright is an incentive for producing such works in the first place. The law does not aim to compensate the good work of the members of the Lions or Rotary Clubs, or to ensure that buskers receive the reward they deserve for their work, or in general to ensure anyone receives the reward they deserve for any work they personally decide to do. In general, the law only aims to ensure people receive compensation where it has been agreed upon. Copyright itself is such an agreement. In deciding what is appropriate for copyright, as in deciding what is appropriate for tax, we should consider how much it will advance the public good, and how much we, the public, are willing to sacrifice to this end.
Copyright Can Not be Justified on the Basis of Real Property Rights
Intellectual works are not property in the traditional sense, and copyright can not be justified by appeal to traditional property rights. Traditionally, when property is sold, the seller transfers all associated property rights to the buyer. Any such rights that pertain to the sold property then become the buyer's rights. If we are to apply traditional property rights to the likes of books and CDs, copyright does not follow. Copyright law creates an exclusive right to copy, and treats this as a property, however using this as a justification for copyright law would be circular.
Traditionally, when possession of property is transferred with no intent of later reclaiming possession, ownership is considered to have been transferred. While claiming ownership of items is legitimate where there is possible intent to later reclaim possession, attempting to control items is not considered legitimate if there is no intent to later reclaim possession. Using the term 'in the public domain' to refer to works not covered by copyright implies that works covered by copyright are in the possession of the copyright holder, however published works exist in their copies, in the possession of others, if we are to consider works to have spacial location at all. Intellectual works are 'the author's work' in the sense that the author created them, as public improvements carried out by members of the Lions and Rotary clubs are their work, however property rights do not follow from this.
Copying is Not Theft
What makes theft wrong is that the victim of theft no longer has possession of the item thieved. When unendorsed copying occurs, the copyright holder is no less in possession of the work or copies of it than they held previously. As to loss of potential income, many acts that are not classified as theft, both entirely moral (such as writing a better work) and immoral (such as defamation), may cause loss of potential income, so causing loss of potential income per se is not necessarily either theft or immoral, and in any case, income is only expected in the first place because of copyright law, so using loss of income as a justification for copyright law is circular.
Copying Per Se is Not Equivalent to Counterfeiting, Forgery, Plagiarism, etc.
Counterfeiting, impersonation, forgery, plagiarism, cheating in tests and essay questions, and trademark infringement all involve misrepresentation in one way or another, which is to say they all essentially involve lying. If a copy is not falsely presented as something it is not, such as an unendorsed copy being presented as an endorsed copy, and the copier does not falsely present themselves as the author, then copying in general involves no such misrepresentation.
Copyright Law Restricts People's Liberty
Although people would not have been able to use a work had it not been published, it does not follow that controlling the use of a published work does not restrict people's liberty. This is illustrated with the following analogy:
- If a group of explorers were trapped in a collapsed cave, and someone were to dig an escape tunnel, then posts an armed guard on it, then the explorers' situation would have changed, at least in a conceptual sense. Previously they were trapped by accident, whereas now they are intentionally imprisoned. Further, if half the explorers, who have the most money, are able to buy their freedom, then the situation of the remaining explorers would change to their detriment in a very practical sense. They would now have half as many allies and considerably less collective wealth with which they might secure escape, making escape by any other route less likely.
Further still, works are not always used purely for intrinsic utility. Sometimes the intrinsic properties of a work are entirely incidental to the need to use it. A documentary maker, for example, may wish to chronicle a place and time in a society. In order to do this, they have a need to use any work that occupies this place and time. Any intrinsic value of the work, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to the need to use it. If the documentary maker is not permitted to do this, then they must redact reality, which they would not have had to do had the work not been published. There might also be accidental use, and requiring people to ensure this does not happen or face prosecution imposes a burden. Also, there might be a need to refer to a particular work (for example computer software that uses a particular file format) simply because this particular work is referred to by others, not because it specifically has any notable merit.
There are a variety of ways, then, in which publishing a work and then limiting people's liberty to use it may, in fact, in a very practical sense, allow people less liberty than they would have had if the work had not been published.
