

The Copyright Monopoly Stands In Direct Opposition To Property Rights - axk
http://falkvinge.net/2012/12/22/the-copyright-monopoly-stands-in-direct-opposition-to-property-rights

======
jval
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.

~~~
wwwtyro
I find your definition of property lacking. I find it lacking because it
implies that there's some series of ones and zeros that I cannot inscribe onto
my plastic disc.

Emphasis on the word my.

If I own something, then I have the right to alter it as I please, so long as
doing so does not damage the property of another. Your definition of property
does not let me do this, and so conflicts with property rights in general. I
am forced to reject it.

Your reliance on society (by which you seem to mean government) to define
property rights defies reason. Can society declare that my person belongs to
someone else? I reject such notions.

~~~
mchusma
So would you reject private parties agreeing to selling you an item with
restrictions? For example, if I make a painting, and only agree to sell it to
you if you agree not to do anything to it, how would you handle this? Would
you say it is illegal for me to add such a restriction? Would you say any such
clauses would be rejected (even if we both had agreed to them)? Any such
restrictions would reduce property rights, it seems, because I am no longer
allowed to privately agree to terms with other parties regarding the exchange
of my property.

I am not a fan of copyright law as it stands by any means, but this article
(and comment) seem to go to far.

~~~
Falkvinge
The notion of "selling with restrictions" is a contradiction in terms. If the
property is transferred to a new owner, then there can neither legally nor
morally be any restrictions placed by the previous owner on how the new owner
may use the property.

There are ways to shift custody of objects that would honor such restrictions
that you speak of - but they are not a sale, nor are they exchange of
property.

Cheers, Rick

------
rayiner
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
> 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
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
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?

------
monochromatic
I stand in direct opposition to alarmist article titles.

------
Tycho
What about privacy rights?

------
joe_the_user
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".

