7 ms·

The Copyright Monopoly Stands In Direct Opposition To Property Rights

42 points by axk 14y ago

Tycho 14y ago
What about privacy rights?
monochromatic 14y ago
I stand in direct opposition to alarmist article titles.
jval 14y ago
This article is completely wrong. I have read a few articles (I think there was one on TorrentFreak) on this point in the last few days that seem to completely misunderstand what property is and how intellectual and real property rights are related. Firstly, 'property' is not a clearly defined concept. It has a series of features, which may not be present in all types of property. For instance, I might own real property which my local authorities put conditions on, forbidding me from building anything above three stories, or requiring a building permit before commencing works. Nobody would suggest that this is not my property though. So what is property? Property at its core involves society granting one or more 'property rights' in respect of an object. Those property rights are all monopolies over certain things, such as a monopoly over possession, a monopoly over any profits etc etc. Each one of these rights can be individually cut off and assigned to a third party, or temporarily licensed to someone. Which brings us to intellectual property, or more specifically in this instance, copyright. Copyright too is a grant of a series of monopolies rather than a single monopoly. The right to reproduce, the right to create derivative works etc are what is termed 'the exclusive rights' of copyright owners. What this article is describing is the exercise of those rights. Yes, when you purchase a DVD, you are not purchasing the underlying property. If you were, then you would be getting the film company's rights (which they may have spent hundreds of millions of dollars creating) for the very low price of $19.99 (or whatever you happened to pay for the DVD). Because they are granting you a licence, you get a limited licence for a fee. If you don't like it, contact them directly and arrange terms of a different licence for a different fee. They have the power to do this because they own the property, not you. You might think you own the property but if you think harder about it, you own the physical DVD with its copy of the film, not the right to make unlimited copies of the film itself (which would amount to you owning the film, which is ridiculous). The problem with Hollywood has nothing to do with some sort of fundamental flaw in the nature of copyright itself that we have failed to spot - it has to do with the failings of Hollywood to build a distribution model for the digital age that uses an online intermediary as a means of protecting property rights rather than suing individuals in a bid to make an example of people. It has to do with the fact that as Larry Lessig said, in the modern era, code is law - the software we create to protect things is more important than the laws we use to do so. The fact that it took so long for Netflix and Spotify to build businesses is proof of the fact that the code here hasn't kept pace with the law - if it had, we wouldn't have this problem. If the RIAA spent half their lobbying budget funding innovative new startups, they would have saved themselves a ton of money and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
- unavoidable 14y ago
  This is indeed the 'correct' (or at least more correct) interpretation of what 'property' means in the digital context. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder whether Hollywood and BigContent is trying to have it both ways. A big part of the problem is that BigContent tried very hard in the 90s and early 2000s to get it into the consumer's mind that intellectual property is analogous to physical or personal property. Remember those ads, like "Don't copy that floppy", or "You wouldn't download a car"? They deliberately (for obvious reasons) tried to make the same analogy. And now, here they are, finally after more than a decade spent kicking and screaming and suing everyone in sight, are trying to adapt to the business models consumers have been waiting for - and now they come back and claim that "oh, we didn't really mean that this is like personal property at all - we're just giving you a limited license and we can take it away at any time!" There's a certain degree of cognitive dissonance at work here, and if I was an "average" consumer I'd probably be a little bid confused and a little bit unhappy about the severely limited rights I've been given after all I've been hearing and what I've been used to. The eBook industry is a good example - the oligopoly of publishers has managed to set the prices for eBooks at virtually the same prices as physical books, and in some cases even more expensive than physical books. Yet, the rights I have with my eBook are far less than with a physical book (recall the Kindle issues and the woman who had her access revoked). Is this BigContent's new business model? Charge more for less rights? If so, I think the outrage is understandable (if not legally or philosophically well formed).
- Falkvinge 14y ago
  > What this article is describing is the exercise of those rights. Yes, when you purchase a DVD, you are not purchasing the underlying property. This statement is utterly and completely false. You can examine the consumer protection laws in pretty much any first-world country to see that sale-of-goods laws and first sale doctrine both apply without mercy. As your argument is based on the quoted premise, which is sadly factually incorrect, I read the rest of your objection to the article as logically failing. When you buy something over-the-counter, it does become your property, in all its aspects. Any restrictions to your property rights over the object you bought are just that; restrictions of your property rights. The copyright monopoly is one such restriction of your property rights.
rayiner 14y ago
There are various problems with the article, but the most glaring is the implicit assumption that copyright rights are somehow less fundamental than other kinds of property rights. They are not. Both exist because of the law, and neither exist without the law.
- wwwtyro 14y ago
  > Both exist because of the law, and neither exist without the law. I could not disagree more. Rights exist even in the absence of respect for them. I affirm my right to life, and I would do so even if every person in the world wanted to kill me. Rights are inalienable.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Leaving aside religion, rights exist only because society recognizes them and is willing to use its collective force to enforce them. In the absence of society, humans have no more of a "right to life" or a "right to property" than the chicken that ended up on my plate for dinner has these things.
    - vy8vWJlco 14y ago
      We would all act to defend ourselves physically; we would not all act to "defend" copyright. People infringe copyright all the time, and others simply reject what they cannot copy easily. There was enough disagreement to dislodge the right to own people from the right to own property. Is there enough agreement to keep copyright?
- bo1024 14y ago
  I think that copyright rights are less fundamental than physical property rights. The right to own/control a physical, tangible item is very intuitive to me. The right to control how other people use or share a piece of information is fuzzier, a step further removed. That's just me, but I find it reasonable to suppose that many others have a similar view.
  - 14y ago
joe_the_user 14y ago
Not the strongest argument but I'm sympathetic to the direction here. I think the line of argument would clearer if writer were to argue that rights to physical property have evolved out of traditional practices in English Common Law while right to intellectual property are the result of distinct "monopoly grants" that have happened at one time or another - and that specifically "intellectual property" would better be referred to as "intellectual monopoly" to indicate this distinction. Another useful argument is that physical objects generally have the inherent property that only a certain number of people can enjoy them - at least at one time. The "objects" of "intellectual property" don't have that quality and the owner and the state together instead must act to artificially impose that property on the "objects".

42 points by axk 14y ago

Tycho 14y ago

What about privacy rights?

monochromatic 14y ago

I stand in direct opposition to alarmist article titles.

jval 14y ago

This article is completely wrong. I have read a few articles (I think there was one on TorrentFreak) on this point in the last few days that seem to completely misunderstand what property is and how intellectual and real property rights are related. Firstly, 'property' is not a clearly defined concept. It has a series of features, which may not be present in all types of property. For instance, I might own real property which my local authorities put conditions on, forbidding me from building anything above three stories, or requiring a building permit before commencing works. Nobody would suggest that this is not my property though. So what is property? Property at its core involves society granting one or more 'property rights' in respect of an object. Those property rights are all monopolies over certain things, such as a monopoly over possession, a monopoly over any profits etc etc. Each one of these rights can be individually cut off and assigned to a third party, or temporarily licensed to someone. Which brings us to intellectual property, or more specifically in this instance, copyright. Copyright too is a grant of a series of monopolies rather than a single monopoly. The right to reproduce, the right to create derivative works etc are what is termed 'the exclusive rights' of copyright owners. What this article is describing is the exercise of those rights. Yes, when you purchase a DVD, you are not purchasing the underlying property. If you were, then you would be getting the film company's rights (which they may have spent hundreds of millions of dollars creating) for the very low price of $19.99 (or whatever you happened to pay for the DVD). Because they are granting you a licence, you get a limited licence for a fee. If you don't like it, contact them directly and arrange terms of a different licence for a different fee. They have the power to do this because they own the property, not you. You might think you own the property but if you think harder about it, you own the physical DVD with its copy of the film, not the right to make unlimited copies of the film itself (which would amount to you owning the film, which is ridiculous). The problem with Hollywood has nothing to do with some sort of fundamental flaw in the nature of copyright itself that we have failed to spot - it has to do with the failings of Hollywood to build a distribution model for the digital age that uses an online intermediary as a means of protecting property rights rather than suing individuals in a bid to make an example of people. It has to do with the fact that as Larry Lessig said, in the modern era, code is law - the software we create to protect things is more important than the laws we use to do so. The fact that it took so long for Netflix and Spotify to build businesses is proof of the fact that the code here hasn't kept pace with the law - if it had, we wouldn't have this problem. If the RIAA spent half their lobbying budget funding innovative new startups, they would have saved themselves a ton of money and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

unavoidable 14y ago
This is indeed the 'correct' (or at least more correct) interpretation of what 'property' means in the digital context. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder whether Hollywood and BigContent is trying to have it both ways. A big part of the problem is that BigContent tried very hard in the 90s and early 2000s to get it into the consumer's mind that intellectual property is analogous to physical or personal property. Remember those ads, like "Don't copy that floppy", or "You wouldn't download a car"? They deliberately (for obvious reasons) tried to make the same analogy. And now, here they are, finally after more than a decade spent kicking and screaming and suing everyone in sight, are trying to adapt to the business models consumers have been waiting for - and now they come back and claim that "oh, we didn't really mean that this is like personal property at all - we're just giving you a limited license and we can take it away at any time!" There's a certain degree of cognitive dissonance at work here, and if I was an "average" consumer I'd probably be a little bid confused and a little bit unhappy about the severely limited rights I've been given after all I've been hearing and what I've been used to. The eBook industry is a good example - the oligopoly of publishers has managed to set the prices for eBooks at virtually the same prices as physical books, and in some cases even more expensive than physical books. Yet, the rights I have with my eBook are far less than with a physical book (recall the Kindle issues and the woman who had her access revoked). Is this BigContent's new business model? Charge more for less rights? If so, I think the outrage is understandable (if not legally or philosophically well formed).
Falkvinge 14y ago
> What this article is describing is the exercise of those rights. Yes, when you purchase a DVD, you are not purchasing the underlying property. This statement is utterly and completely false. You can examine the consumer protection laws in pretty much any first-world country to see that sale-of-goods laws and first sale doctrine both apply without mercy. As your argument is based on the quoted premise, which is sadly factually incorrect, I read the rest of your objection to the article as logically failing. When you buy something over-the-counter, it does become your property, in all its aspects. Any restrictions to your property rights over the object you bought are just that; restrictions of your property rights. The copyright monopoly is one such restriction of your property rights.

rayiner 14y ago

There are various problems with the article, but the most glaring is the implicit assumption that copyright rights are somehow less fundamental than other kinds of property rights. They are not. Both exist because of the law, and neither exist without the law.

wwwtyro 14y ago
> Both exist because of the law, and neither exist without the law. I could not disagree more. Rights exist even in the absence of respect for them. I affirm my right to life, and I would do so even if every person in the world wanted to kill me. Rights are inalienable.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Leaving aside religion, rights exist only because society recognizes them and is willing to use its collective force to enforce them. In the absence of society, humans have no more of a "right to life" or a "right to property" than the chicken that ended up on my plate for dinner has these things.
  - vy8vWJlco 14y ago
    We would all act to defend ourselves physically; we would not all act to "defend" copyright. People infringe copyright all the time, and others simply reject what they cannot copy easily. There was enough disagreement to dislodge the right to own people from the right to own property. Is there enough agreement to keep copyright?
bo1024 14y ago
I think that copyright rights are less fundamental than physical property rights. The right to own/control a physical, tangible item is very intuitive to me. The right to control how other people use or share a piece of information is fuzzier, a step further removed. That's just me, but I find it reasonable to suppose that many others have a similar view.
- 14y ago

joe_the_user 14y ago

Not the strongest argument but I'm sympathetic to the direction here. I think the line of argument would clearer if writer were to argue that rights to physical property have evolved out of traditional practices in English Common Law while right to intellectual property are the result of distinct "monopoly grants" that have happened at one time or another - and that specifically "intellectual property" would better be referred to as "intellectual monopoly" to indicate this distinction. Another useful argument is that physical objects generally have the inherent property that only a certain number of people can enjoy them - at least at one time. The "objects" of "intellectual property" don't have that quality and the owner and the state together instead must act to artificially impose that property on the "objects".