Anti-copyright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-copyright refers to the opposition to copyright laws. Critics of copyright include infoanarchists, anticopyright, copyfight and copyleft groups, and organizations such as Creative Commons and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"Anti-copyright" is also a phrase without legal meaning which may be placed in anti-copyright statements that are added to works in order to encourage wider distribution.

1 Arguments against copyright
2 Anti-copyright notices
3 See also
4 External links

[edit] Arguments against copyright

The classic argument for personal copyright is to grant developers property rights to encourage further development work by giving the developer a source of income. Those against copyright suggest that income to a developer must be generated by ancillary means, for different reasons:

Making the developer dependent on a system that requires enforcement directly ties them to large corporate entities which are able to carry out this enforcement, but may at the same time limit creative output to that which is compatible with corporate/capitalist ideology.
Copyright was intended as, and until recently has been used mostly for, a regulation on commercial and for-profit use of creative works. While technically most copyright laws applied to individuals making copies, it was only the advent of the personal computer that made it possible for individuals to copy significant amounts of information. Many argue that this new ability calls for a fundamental change to, or the abolition of copyright.
Enforcement mechanisms such as digital rights management endanger existing consumer rights like fair use, and can be used to further tie creators to the corporate entities that control this technology since even a use which may be legally considered fair use may be hampered or rendered impossible by the technological restrictions. "Trusted computing" platforms may refuse to play, display or execute content that is not properly "certified" by central authorities.
Little known creators depend on distribution to become popular -- for them, copyright limits their potential outreach, and donations may be a better option. Well known creators can always ask for money from their fans upfront (Street Performer Protocol).
Article 8 of the Berne Convention may have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and may force an overseas audience to learn the language that the medium in the question is published in, and can cause a foreign company to act against its overseas audience. International copyright law is regarded as controversial by the video game, anime, and manga communities in the United States and Europe, such as Fan translation, Scanlation, and Fansub.
Historically, copyright originated only in the last few centuries. Creativity flourished well before copyright existed.
The European Renaissance saw a burgeoning of intellectual talent, the like of which has not been seen since. It occurred before the existence of copyrights, and was spurred by artists copying each other's techniques and works without legal restriction. The argument that copyright law protects and encourages development is seen by many as hype intended to provide moral justification for laws which in fact are there to protect the incomes and wealth of copyright holders, many of whom are not the original developers anyway. The ease and convenience of being able to obtain and preserve many intellectual works across the Internet, it is argued, will lead to greater development if copyright law is abolished. Whilst it may not be possible for popular artists and their agents to make as much money in this scenario, it is likely that popular artists will still be able to make a living by means of advertising and product promotion, as they do at present or perhaps by busking, if that is the only option open to them.
While some are in favor of limited copyright terms, copyrights in many countries last for periods longer than a human lifetime. Even if a limited copyright period still offered a beneficial result, these long copyright terms hold content back far longer than necessary.
Many argue that copyright is inherently contrary to the ideals of free speech and expression which are valued highly by free societies.
Some companies abuse copyright privileges by suing or threatening to sue those who clearly are within their rights under fair use, but who cannot afford to defend themselves in court.
Information is not conducive to the same treatment as real property, due to its status as a nonrival good.
Frequently, content creators do not hold their own copyrights, instead relinquishing them to publishers, producers, and the like, through contractual arrangements.
An economy operating under intellectual property rules is not Pareto efficient, and hence said to be less prosperous than an unrestricted economy, if it is presumed that copyright is a hindrance rather than a help to innovation.
Socialist anarchists believe ideas and knowledge should not be owned or controlled. This is perhaps best summed up in Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's slogan Property is theft!. These anarchists do not believe in the concepts of plagiarism, copyright or "theft" of other people's ideas. Libertarian socialists have customarily not prosecuted one another for copyright "violations" and usually do not provide royalties when translating or republishing each others works.
Copyrights are selfish; they place the good of the one (the creator) over the good of the many (the audience). Instead of allowing a work to be improved and redistributed by those who may be more qualified than the original author, works are restricted in the name of monetary profit. For example, a commercially sold Encyclopedia's content cannot be updated or redistributed by the readers, while Wikipedia's content can be shared with and updated by all people.

[edit] Anti-copyright notices

Statements for waiving copyright are legally required because, under the Berne Convention in international copyright law, works are protected even if no copyright statement is attached to them. However, "anti-copyright" statements typically do not take the form of either sophisticated open content licenses or a simple dedication to the public domain; instead, they may just encourage wide distribution. It is possible to denounce all claims to copyright in a work including moral rights in a written disclaimer.

A formal copyright waiver may state the following:

The author of this work hereby waives all claim of copyright (economic and moral) in this work and immediately places it in the public domain; it may be used, distorted or destroyed in any manner whatsoever without further attribution or notice to the creator.

However a casual anti-copyright notice, as often found in socialist anarchist magazines and books, may simply read:

Anti-Copyright! Reprint freely, in any manner desired, even without naming the source.

The latter is less accurate and needs to be interpreted individually as the term "anti-copyright" has no accepted legal meaning. For example, if just free distribution is encouraged, modification or lack of attribution is still illegal, making the material ineligible for collaborative writing projects like Wikipedia. In such a case anti-copyright is not a true denial of copyright, but just a reduction of the protection it affords copyright holders.