3 ms·

I don't understand what a "copyright monopoly" is, even though the term keeps getting repeated in the article. Do people just assume monopolies are such a Bad T

I don't understand what a "copyright monopoly" is, even though the term keeps getting repeated in the article. Do people just assume monopolies are such a Bad Thing(tm) that the idea of a creator(1) having exclusive control of their own work if they so choose must be a Bad Thing(tm) as well? (1) Of software, music, photography, art, etc.

arnoooooo 15y ago
You seem to understand what it is, since you give a definition in the second part of your question ? I'm not under the impression that he is criticizing the "copyright monopoly" itself, but rather the consequences of trying to enforce it against all odds.
- smashing 15y ago
  I am under the impression that Rick Falkvinge regards any enforcement of copyrights as a monopoly. He seems to regard companies as intrinsically opposing individual freedoms with regards to copyright. It seems to be an odd article to be linked from a "news" site seemingly geared towards people collaborating to startup companies. Maybe this is just the political leanings of the YCombinator angel investors and the hopeful applicants.
  - bediger 15y ago
    But a copyright, even a traditional, pre-Berne convention US copyright is exactly and precisely a monopoly. A copyright is a state-granted monopoly privilege of reproduction. That's the definition of "copyright" used by everyone from lawyers to economists, not just Falkvinge. Falkvinge is a bit blunter about the consequences of strictly enforcing the rather long-lived and widely-cast privilege we in the US now grant than the economists and lawyers are.
bediger 15y ago
Exclusive control of your own work is one thing. Using that exclusive control for the detriment of everyone else is entirely another. That's what the article is talking about. First, let me say up front that I don't believe in "Intellectual Property". Things get independently invented far too often for the mere invention of an idea to be raised to some holy status. There is no moral basis for "Intellectual Property". "IP" has no "P", either. without an intrusive, all-monitoring system, nobody can tell if I've copied or not. Suppose I, as a pirate, see another ship with a better system of rigging the sails in the port of Cherbourg. I sail off to the Caribbean and re-rig the first sloop I take with this new system, as I can sail a point closer to windward with it. Can the "IP" "owner" back in Cherbourg tell that I have "stolen" his precious "IP"? No. "IP" is NOT PROPERTY in any sense other than by definition. So, control your own work, control your own property, and accept that anyone who sees it, can copy it. Do a better job of manufacturing or supporting your "IP" and all imitators will be just that, imitators. Down with Intellectual Monopoly! The consequences are bad for everyone!
- smashing 15y ago
  You are describing patents not copyrights. A technique for implementing a sailboat ship rigging system can be patented but not copyrighted.
  - bediger 15y ago
    The whole "Intellectual Property" concept mixes patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and non-compete agreements. I grant that you're technically correct, but you're practically wrong: the US court system is breaking down the idea/implementation barrier in copyright, and the legal and administrative frameworks to enforce "IP" as copyright is exactly that necessary to enforce "IP" as patents.

arnoooooo 15y ago

You seem to understand what it is, since you give a definition in the second part of your question ? I'm not under the impression that he is criticizing the "copyright monopoly" itself, but rather the consequences of trying to enforce it against all odds.

smashing 15y ago
I am under the impression that Rick Falkvinge regards any enforcement of copyrights as a monopoly. He seems to regard companies as intrinsically opposing individual freedoms with regards to copyright. It seems to be an odd article to be linked from a "news" site seemingly geared towards people collaborating to startup companies. Maybe this is just the political leanings of the YCombinator angel investors and the hopeful applicants.
- bediger 15y ago
  But a copyright, even a traditional, pre-Berne convention US copyright is exactly and precisely a monopoly. A copyright is a state-granted monopoly privilege of reproduction. That's the definition of "copyright" used by everyone from lawyers to economists, not just Falkvinge. Falkvinge is a bit blunter about the consequences of strictly enforcing the rather long-lived and widely-cast privilege we in the US now grant than the economists and lawyers are.

bediger 15y ago

Exclusive control of your own work is one thing. Using that exclusive control for the detriment of everyone else is entirely another. That's what the article is talking about. First, let me say up front that I don't believe in "Intellectual Property". Things get independently invented far too often for the mere invention of an idea to be raised to some holy status. There is no moral basis for "Intellectual Property". "IP" has no "P", either. without an intrusive, all-monitoring system, nobody can tell if I've copied or not. Suppose I, as a pirate, see another ship with a better system of rigging the sails in the port of Cherbourg. I sail off to the Caribbean and re-rig the first sloop I take with this new system, as I can sail a point closer to windward with it. Can the "IP" "owner" back in Cherbourg tell that I have "stolen" his precious "IP"? No. "IP" is NOT PROPERTY in any sense other than by definition. So, control your own work, control your own property, and accept that anyone who sees it, can copy it. Do a better job of manufacturing or supporting your "IP" and all imitators will be just that, imitators. Down with Intellectual Monopoly! The consequences are bad for everyone!

smashing 15y ago
You are describing patents not copyrights. A technique for implementing a sailboat ship rigging system can be patented but not copyrighted.
- bediger 15y ago
  The whole "Intellectual Property" concept mixes patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and non-compete agreements. I grant that you're technically correct, but you're practically wrong: the US court system is breaking down the idea/implementation barrier in copyright, and the legal and administrative frameworks to enforce "IP" as copyright is exactly that necessary to enforce "IP" as patents.