Goodbye copyright
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- “I am reminded by Improbulus (via ORG) that David Lammy, Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property (UK), has launched an Intellectual Property Office initiative on the future direction of copyright,” posts Crosbie Fitch in Digital Productions.
Call © the future Developing a copyright agenda for the 21st century, Fitch says it begins, “The copyright system is of fundamental importance to the future health and prosperity of our creative industries and our economy”.
But, he says, “a century or two ago a similar initiative might just as well have begun ‘The trade in slaves and their exploitation is of fundamental importance to the future health and prosperity of our manufacturing industries and our economy’,” going on »»»
Both of these statements demonstrate a lack of imagination, bordering upon a self-interested refusal, to envision a future in which a healthy and prosperous industry can be achieved without suspending individual liberty.
Of course, it is not in dispute that the suspension of individual liberty can be lucrative to those privileged with its suspension, nor that such beneficiaries will be keen to retain it. However, this unethical exploitation is not something to look forward to in the future, but an embarrassment to consign to the history books.
As for the IPO’s request for comments on the future direction of copyright I’d suggest that it can be compared to that of Robert Mugabe’s direction of Zimbabwe. Presumably well intentioned, but all his directions lead Zimbabwe to its doom. Despite everyone else’s attempts to stop the runaway train of his ‘government’, it continues on, inexorably as if in a slow motion crash.
Until people start recognising that copyright is an unethical anachronism, a vestige of a bygone era in which individual liberty was considered secondary to industrial prosperity, then any direction will be the wrong direction.
Copyright has to be abolished. Asking for comments on the future direction of copyright is like asking the same for slavery (with any unenthusiastic comments to be ignored).
Just as with Zimbabwe, the sooner copyright runs out of steam and its crash is complete the better for everyone, when people can rediscover their culture free of its totalitarian yoke and resume the enjoyment of their freedom to share and build upon it.
Attempting to adjust the direction of copyright onto an apparently less damaging course, at best simply postpones its inevitable crash (abolition) and thus extends the duration of its current damage.
The plutocratic publishers (Ã la Mugabe) do not need my assistance in their lobbied direction of copyright toward abolition and they are doing an excellent job of making it sooner rather than later.
Unfortunately, until people see the damage that copyright does they will be unable to recognise that it should be abolished. Therefore, Cassandras such as I eventually realise, despite trying, that there’s nothing we can do or say to avert the disaster.
The train wreck that is copyright’s future has to happen.
Fitch is researching and developing revenue mechanisms and business models for producers of digital art and in the process, “has discovered that copyright is not only an ineffective anachronism, but is unethical and unconstitutional“.
Digital Productions – The Future of Copyright is a Train Wreck, January 28, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
We try to tell them, We try to tell them!
‘Fitch is researching and developing revenue mechanisms and business models for producers of digital art and in the process, âhas discovered that copyright is not only an ineffective anachronism, but is unethical and unconstitutionalâ.’
Eircom a couple days ago bended to the 4 labels command, on blogs such as this people were telling Eircoms customers to move ISP, I would too.
Now, they will lose customers, and revenue but some ISPs are ignorant.
Try telling that to the Australian Government =@
they say ‘we loose xx billion dollars due to piracy every year’ No, you loose money because you keep fighting them, and all these lawsuits, and investigations
but we try to tell them
January 31st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Well, that’s smart. Current copyright is “Unethical and unconstitutional”. Exactly my thinking. I work as an author for more than a decade. Writing for newspapers, magazines, agencys and more I never got payed twice. Although many of my articles were and will be reprinted. Therefore, I’m constantly forced to sign strange “contracts”, stating me, the author, is not the holder of the copyright, but the publisher. Of course I may refuse to sign such “contracts”. But only, if I don’t want to get new orders. So beware, if you reprint illegally one of my articles (of course, you won’t
). I wouldn’t sue you. My publisher would.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:55 pm
I wholeheartedly agree. The oppressive influence of copyright and so called intellectual property (how can you own knowledge really?) no longer has a place in a civilised and enlightened world. It serves only to empower the opulent who wish to restrain creativity. It would doubtless be a step toward utopia if copyright was abolished.
Good article.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:28 pm
intellectual property is a fallacy. Once you realize that, your mind opens to the possibilities. I for one am a 3d amateur artist and I release my art to the public for free I could care less what anybody does with it. I am not a corporation and I dont need to profit to keep a international multi-billion dollar company running. Open source technologies are constantly being innovated for free by individuals around the globe. Its here, its now. Get used to it.
F.L.O.S.S FTW
February 1st, 2009 at 8:17 am
At the previous Reader’s Write, it is “F.O.S.S.”, without the L.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
To the 3D artist: I really wish there were more people like you. I myself am an aspiring visual artist and, like yourself, I plan on releasing my work free of any draconian restrictions on what people (specifically consumers) can and can’t do with it. Unfortunately, the creative world is infested with people who have been corrupted by greed and desire for absolute control over how media is distributed. Just head over to conceptart.org. Everyone there is a total nazi when it comes to copyright protection—in fact, if you so much as mention software piracy on their forum, that in itself is grounds for a ban. The creative world would be much better off without vermin like them.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:27 pm
free/libre open source software? thats FLOSS cheers.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:31 pm
A law that is unconstitutional is nule and have no effect.
At home I am using the DMCA as toilet paper.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:32 pm
“Copyright has to be abolished.”
Copyright as it exists is like capitalism as it exists. Just as capitalism has failed so ha copyright laws. Both for the same reason. The capitalists and the copyright holders wholesale purchased the politicians and the judicial who in turned fixed and favored the capitalists and the copyright holders while turning against the people as a whole. Simplified, the laws have favored money over the vote.
Just as wall street type capitalists and bankers ruined the economy of the world and themselves in the process of getting too much of what they wanted (soft laws and no regulations) the same is happening to copyright holders (the grabbers, not the hapless creators). The copyright holders have also have gotten too much of what they wanted (no protection for the real creators and eternal copyright duration) and therein lies the seed of their destruction, as creators and customers turn away.
But the solution is not the elimination of capitalism or of copyright.
I have no doubt that some sort of capitalism will have to co exists with some sort of socialism just as some sort of moderate and limited copyrights are needed to coexist with the public domain.
As to copyright, a basic principle is that in order to promote the production of goods through the use of time and money people have saved, laws are required. No one will invest their money, for example, to make a movie if after the movie is made anyone can sell copies. That is, unless the move makers are financed with public or donated money (a real, if complicated, option). Also no one will invest their time to write a novel or a history book unless the work is protected by copyright. That is, unless the authors are financed with public or donated money (again, a real, if complicated, option).
The solutions are to fix broken economic, copyright, legal, political systems.
And the advanced economic countries should stop their imperial ways and stop teaching the less economically developed countries how to fix their systems (usually the advise is self serving) when their own systems are badly broken. And even of their systems are working perfectly, they should mind their own business.
In the end, each the people (not the politicians) of each country should decide how to run their economies and to have whatever copyright laws they want to have.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 am
The root of all evil? Fractional reserve banking and intellectual property laws. Anyone who disagrees is uninformed.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 am
Now we’re getting somewhere. Copyright was created same as patents, to protect corporations rights to hide any technology and papers they don’t want everyone else to know about or use.
Unlike patents, a person can’t create their own copy of copyrighted material and still use it. With advent of Internet any copyright is useless since the net is one big copy machine.
We are really lucky the corporations haven’t done this
http://www.geet.nl/nieuws/free-uk.htm
and this
peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Surge_Motor_Technology_by_Troy_Reed
to users who share copyrighted materials
I’ve had my ideas stolen by big 3 automakers and never received a penny. Not one of my ideas was produced or implemented. Actually I was told that if I try to make, create or show anyone I’d have my balls cut off or have an accident. I took it as them being serious once I was wiped off the road a few times. I still carry a camera or video everywhere I go. And this is no joke.
Anyone who’s ever worked for an automaker can attest to signing a contract that they won’t divulge or reproduce anything for 10 yrs and won’t go into a similar field for 5 yrs. Situations vary but they have the same idea.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Hook – you are so full of it , put on your silver paper hat , sit in the corner and stop embarassing yourself , Ive never read so much rubbish .
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
^^ hook is far from full of it. he runs a free wifi server and anonymiser in KW and it’s all on there
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
No, he’s not ‘full of it’ .
February 4th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
@hook
“Iâve had my ideas stolen by big 3 automakers and never received a penny.”
My father has the same experience in the early 70’s. But he never gived them the whole solution, only a part.
The innovation was the car catalysator.