Tagged: Sharing is Liberty Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • R 7:50 am on September 12, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Sharing is Liberty   

    Copyright is the limited time, limited suspension of the people’s right to copy 

    You exchanged it for money.
    When you sell me an apple, that apple becomes my property. Once you’ve sold the apple to me it is mine.
    I don’t care how much effort you spent growing that apple, You give up your right to control this apple because it is no longer yours. You exchanged it for money.

    Now this apple of mine I will share it if I want to. I will even COPY my apple (i.e. throw it in the replicator from Star Trek) then share the copies to starving children. It becomes none of your business what I do with my own apple. This is how property rights work in physical objects.

    Information cannot be property. COPIES can be property.
    What about property rights in copies of information? If I modified the code in your copy of a game (as opposed to doing it to my copy) without permission, would that be okay? I am exercising control over your property without your permission (a right which is reserved ONLY for the property owner). We know that this is not ok, because not only is it trespass, it is also a form of vandalism and a breach of privacy and is not to be tolerated.

    Now contrast with this scenario: Say if I purchased a copy from you… what if, I take this copy, I go to my computer and make modifications to it. Would that still be trespass or vandalism? Not at all! Because me modifying my copy affects only my copy. Your copy is unaffected. Even if I upgraded my copy to version 1.1, YOURS IS STILL AT VERSION 1.0! That is why no conflict occurs over the use of property, each exercises control over their own copy. This is how property works.

    Property rights is absolute morality. We all know Don’t steal. Don’t hit. Don’t trespass property. Don’t exercise control of what isn’t yours. And so it is even with copies of information. Don’t veto my use of my copy if you’ve exchanged that right for money. Just like the apple, I will share my copy if I want to because that’s MY PROPERTY. The amount of time & money you spent developing it is rather irrelevant because you exchanged the right to control THIS COPY for a sum of money. Can we prevent our customers from making further copies of the pictures we’ve sold to them? Why should I have the right to veto what others can and cannot do with their own property?

    Enter Copyright
    Now as a society we can agree to give up certain rights to our own property in order to promote the progress of learning, hence why copyright was invented [see Statute of Anne & post].

    Copyright is the limited time, limited suspension of the PEOPLE’S RIGHT to COPY.
    With copyright, that right we all have, the right to exercise full control over our own property is TAKEN AWAY and given over to the copyright holders for their commercial exploitation thereof. (hence Copyright ‘Holders’. they HOLD your right to copy.)

    Copyright is merely the ability to use the State’s branch of coercion to veto what your own customers can and cannot do with their own property. Falkvinge calls it a ‘monopoly’ because mechanically it is one. It is a monopoly on the Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V function for one particular piece of information. (history reveals copyright as coercive monopoly read your history books.) Even the US Supreme Court calls it that.

    US Congress: “The granting of such exclusive rights [copyrights] under the proper terms and conditions, cofers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly.

  • R 7:05 am on September 11, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Sharing is Liberty   

    What rights does copyright grant to the holder? 

    “Copyright grants its holder certain rights.”

    What rights does copyright grant to the holder?

    “The right to produce copies or reproductions?

    No, the holder already can do that. He does not need the government to tell him that he can.

    “The right to make adaptations and derivative works.”

    No, again the holder already can do that.

    “The right to perform or display the work publicly?”

    Again, this isn’t a right being granted to the holder, he is permitted to perform the work as he sees fit.
    None of these rights are granted to the holder by copyright law; they exist independently. What copyright law does is take away the rights of everyone else to do these things

  • R 4:38 am on August 30, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Sharing is Liberty   

    If I’ve paid you to write me an article, I expect to be able to share it. 

    If I’ve paid you to write me an article, I expect to be able to share it.

    If I’ve paid you to draw me a picture, I expect to be able to share it.

    If I’ve paid you to make me a game, I expect to be able to share it.

    If I’ve paid you to make me a film, I expect to be able to share it.

    If I’ve paid you to code me some software, I expect to be able to share it.


    Why is this so difficult to understand?

    • Aaeru 4:48 am on August 30, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      So long as there are 1) People who want things created…
      So long as there are 2) People who are willing to create (for a modest fee)…
      Then 3) The free market will work to bring these two groups of people together (through entrepreneurship and innovation).

  • R 6:50 am on August 22, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Sharing is Liberty   

    Free Culture 

    “A free culture is one in which everyone is free to share and build upon any work they see, hear or receive – all mankind’s published art and knowledge – that which by natural right already belongs to the public, the people.”

    –Digital Productions: The Flower of Free Culture

  • R 7:02 pm on August 19, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Sharing is Liberty   

    IIPSJ: What if social justice was a song with a copyright? 

    What if social justice was a pill that was patented and could save the lives of millions of people, but it never reached those people because they are poor?

    What if social justice was a song with a copyright, but the people who created the song couldn’t sing it without paying someone else?

    What if social justice was a trademark, but it was used on products to pollute urban communities and oppress the poor?

    As our world becomes ever more dependent upon technological and scientific developments, we will be forced to engage issues of access. In addition, we will be charged with giving inventors, artists, and entrepreneurs the tools to exploit the economic value of their creative works and inventions.

    This is the work of IIPSJ.

    Institute for IP and Social Justice

    (note: “…but the people who created the song couldn’t sing it” <— i think they meant the people as in 'the people'. Not the authors. Otherwise they would be able to sing it.)

  • R 8:49 am on July 29, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Sharing is Liberty   


    Copying is a right

  • R 3:38 pm on July 27, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Sharing is Liberty   

    Jérémie Zimmerman: By sharing, you’d be better cultured. 

    Jérémie: I think this is why the copyright wars are so essential, because with peer-to-peer technologies, since Napster in 1999, people just understood. They got it. By sharing files between individuals…
    Julian: You’d be a criminal.
    Jérémie: No! You’d be better cultured.
    Julian: You’d be a criminal. (smirk)
    Jérémie: No that’s (just) their story telling!
    Andy: The history of the human race, the history of culture is the history of copying thoughts, modify and processing them further on.
    Julian: Ever since the 1950s we’ve had industrial culture. Our culture has sort of become, industrial products.
    Jérémie: Everybody who used Napster back in 99 became music fans, and then went to concerts and then became prescriptors telling everybody, “Oh you should listen to those people you should go to that concert and so on (and so on).”
    Jérémie: And when it is about sharing of culture it is exactly the same as when it is about the sharing of knowledge. We have examples of where, decentralized services and the sharing between individuals, makes things better.
    Jérémie: (And then) an industry comes and says, “Oh this is stealing and this is killing everybody, killing Nazis, killing Hollywood, killing cinema, killing kittens, and everything. Some conservative members of the European Parliament today they now Understands this. Understands that when individuals share things, they share files without a profit, shouldn’t be enforced, shouldn’t go to jail, shouldn’t be punished.

    • Jérémie Zimmerman – La Quadrature du Net
    • Julian Assange
    • Andy Müller-Maguhn

    The Julian Assange Show: Cypherpunks, Part 2 (E8, p.2)

  • R 1:15 am on July 16, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Sharing is Liberty   

    Karl Fogel: How can you have ‘libre’ without ‘gratis’? 

    “I do not understand how you can have ‘libre’ freedom without ‘free as in beer’ freedom. While the latter does not necessarily imply the former, the former always implies the latter. If everyone can share X freely with others, than the cost will always be driven down to zero (hence X will have both freedoms); if people cannot so share, then X is, by definition, not “libre” free.”

    • Karl Fogel


  • R 1:07 am on July 16, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Sharing is Liberty   

    John Donne Quote 

    “All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated…”

    • John Donne
  • R 3:07 pm on July 15, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Sharing is Liberty   

    “Intellectual Property” law is not an Inherent Natural Law 

    “Intellectual Property” law is not an inherent natural law, it is a “product” of human design, it wasn’t here “before the beginning of time” like property was and we just had to articulate it and write it down as a law. Unlike real physical property law, it was designed by a few people and then forced upon the rest of us.

    The fact is that property exist even among animals, they can’t articulate (they can’t talk) they certainly can’t understand it, but try to take something away from a dog… he will defend it because it is his property. The same was true for us. Before we evolved into homo sapiens, our ancestors started to live in groups (the predecessor of society) and they couldn’t speak, they couldn’t articulate their “thoughts”, but they already had the concept of property because that was the only way to achieve a peaceful coexistence. If something was scarce and rivalrous, it was a designated an owner and it was shared only under the “blessings” of this owner and that it can be exchanged for other property and they did this even though they didn’t understand any of the concepts behind their actions.

    We consider theft a crime, not because of the “ten commandments”, not because the “people who wrote the law” said it shall be like this, but because it was a law long before we could articulate such a thing as law much less write it down on paper. This is why we tolerate and (most of us) accept the confiscation of unlawfully obtained property because it doesn’t disrupt the peace it actually makes the peace more stable.

    This is why the majority of the internet does not accept “Intellectual Property” (even though they say they do), this is why there are so many “thieves” out there downloading music, movies, books, software. These people are doing it because they “know” it does not disrupt the peace, they “know” it is something we can do without injuring another individual, and if we injure nobody then we are not disrupting the spontaneous order and consequently we are not disrupting the peace.

    When a large majority of the population doesn’t care for some “law” and/or they care about it only because of severe punishments, it is not law at all, it is just some bad and counterproductive command from the “authorities” forced on us in order to serve the interests of some groups at the expense of other groups. Real laws are those respected by the large majority even without the threat of punishment from the government – only a small minority (the criminals) need to be forced to respect a real law, that is why we call it law, because the large majority “know” it emerged in order to save the peace, not designed in order to serve somebodies interest.

    • rob8urcakes 9:16 am on September 5, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Awfully well put Aaeru, even to the extent that I’m certain all politicians Worldwide currently bribed by “the industry” to pass more unjust, antisocial laws would understand why what they’re doing is so wrong on so many different levels.

      This outright corruption by the entertainment cartel MUST now cease because we, the people, require the freedom to share without penalty and without restriction.

      The “industry” must now adapt to modern needs and demands or die and be replaced with those who understand the new economic and technological reality of today.

  • R 7:07 am on July 13, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Sharing is Liberty   

    I don’t expect people to write for me for free. 

    “Readers don’t expect you to work for free, they expect to be free to share and build upon the work you have given or sold to them, just as people expect to be free to share and build upon Shakespeare’s work.

    I expect to be free to share and build upon Stephan Kinsella’s blog posts. I’d also expect to be free to share and build upon any articles I might pay him to write for me. I certainly don’t expect him to write for me for free. No doubt if enough of us club together, we could share in commissioning Stephan to write something erudite for us, e.g. “Intellectual Work in a Free Market”? Naturally, we’d expect to be free to print and share or sell copies of this ad infinitum, whether hardback or e-book – without having to pay Stephan a penny.

    This is the difference between paying someone to write and enjoying one’s natural right to copy a book one has purchased – a natural right annulled by Queen Anne in 1709. In 1708 people were free to make copies of an author’s published works. In 1710 they weren’t.

    Abolishing copyright means restoring our cultural liberty and a free market in intellectual work. It doesn’t mean writers cannot be paid to write.”

    • Crosbie Fitch


  • R 12:15 am on July 10, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Sharing is Liberty   

    Cory Doctorow: The unfettered access to human knowledge improves us and makes us better. 

    If you could reproduce hot lunches at will with no incremental cost, no one would characterize that as a disaster, except perhaps the delicatessen industry. But today, where human knowledge can be reproduced at no incremental cost, our first response is to see to it how we can make that stop?? Human knowledge has through history been the prime factor that drives the human condition, our ability to enjoy our lives. The unfettered access to human knowledge improves us and makes us better.

    • Cory Doctorow


  • R 11:34 pm on July 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Sharing is Liberty   

    Crosbie Fitch: Copyright is Theft – Infringement is Liberty 

    In 1709 Queen Anne annulled this natural right of individuals to make & sell copies of their possessions (relating to literary/graphic/printed works). The privilege of ‘copyright’ was thus created (annulling the people’s right to copy, for some arbitrary period, e.g. 14 years from publication).

    To disobey this privilege of copyright is an infringement. It violates no right of the individual. On the contrary, it is a liberty and right that the individual is born with, but prohibited by law.

    So, applying ‘steal’ or ‘theft’ to copyright infringement is to attempt to elevate the assertion of a natural liberty contrary to privilege into a crime. Similarly, when people claim copyright is a right (as if a natural or human right, as opposed to a legislatively granted quasi-right) this is to pretend a right is being violated, rather than a privilege being infringed.

    By derogating from a person’s liberty to utilise their own property in certain ways (in private or in public), it is actually copyright that constitutes theft, not its infringement.

    • Crosbie Fitch


  • R 11:30 pm on July 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Sharing is Liberty   

    Crosbie Fitch: Questioning Copyright 

    >>Will we ever learn to respect copyright?>>
    Mankind’s cultural liberty is primordial.

    Our liberty, our natural right, our power and need to copy has never left us.

    Our right to copy may have been annulled by Queen Anne, but youngsters are finding out every day that they innately possess the ability and instinctive need to share and build upon their own culture.

    We will never learn not to copy, because to learn is to copy, and we will never stop learning.

    Copyright is a historical accident, a legislative error made in a less principled era.

    It is time to rectify that error, not the people.

    • Crosbie Fitch


  • R 11:28 pm on July 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Sharing is Liberty   

    Crosbie Fitch: people have a natural power and right to share and build upon the cultural and technological works they have. 

    “Our rights imbued in us by nature” means that a right isn’t something we individually or collectively say we have, or decide we should have.

    To discover our rights we must examine our own nature, we must determine what power nature has given us individually, and how it is balanced among all individuals in equilibrium (harmony).

    A natural right is an individual’s natural power in equilibrium. A right is not the power of a strong man to crush a weak girl, but the equal power of all individuals to protect their lives, their bodies from harm, their dwellings from intruders, etc. Thus, a strong man may have more physical power in his body than a weak girl, but the strong man has the same right to protect his body as a weak girl has.

    Powers given to people by the state, or by the crown as with Queen Anne in 1709, do not occur in mankind by nature. Whilst we have the natural power and right to prevent burglars stealing or making copies of our possessions, we are naturally unable to prevent our audience of a thousand singing the songs we sing to them, re-telling the stories we tell them, or making further copies of the pictures we sell to them. Indeed, people have a natural power and right to share and build upon the cultural and technological works they have. It is this right to copy, that we all have by nature, that was annulled by Queen Anne in 1709 to leave it, by exclusion, in the hands of a few – holders of our right to copy – copyright holders.

    • Crosbie Fitch


  • R 10:55 pm on July 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Sharing is Liberty   

    Crosbie Fitch: There is nothing a priori WRONG with infringing copyright 

    “There is nothing a priori WRONG with infringing copyright.
    Copyright is a privilege that means the holder can sue the infringer IF THEY WANT TO. If the holder has no issue with an infringement of their privilege then they simply do nothing, e.g. if they really like what someone has done with their published work. This is why copyright infringement is not wrong, not even illegal.”

    “Unfortunately, the copyright cartel has hyped up infringement so much (they now class it as a ‘cybercrime’) that everyone now assumes that all copyright infringement is WRONG – a violation of a poor starving artist’s human right.”

    • Crosbie Fitch


Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc