[pp.int.general] Purpose of copyright

[Rick Falkvinge (Piratpartiet)]

Welcome to the list, RMS, and what a strong first post!

I urge everybody to consider and understand Stallman's words here. They
are crucial to understanding the ongoing perversion of copyright.

In saying "copyright is a balance between publisher and consumer", which
is a popular expression in the debate, the copyright lobby has already
won. In establishing the publishers as a legitimate interest, the
publishers make sure that they will never lose out; they will always
have a say in copyright legislation, as it exists FOR THEM.

But this is not the case.

Copyright does not exist to strike a balance between publishers and
consumers. Copyright does not exist to strike a balance between two
groups at all. There is only ONE legitimate interest in copyright
legislation: the public and its access to culture.

If one can talk about a "balance" in copyright, it is about the balance
of where the monopoly no longer incentivizes new works to counter its
deterring effect on the positive spread of culture throughout society.
One can also talk about the balance between protecting an old
incentivization mechanism and its conflict with civil liberties, as I
often do. But publishers as a group, like authors as a group, performers
as a group, artists as a group, etc., are not and must not be considered
a legitimate interest in copyright legislation.

It is true that they would like to be. This is normal. I would like to
win a million dollars on the lottery tomorrow. Everybody would. I would
also like to be able to make a living playing Jarre's laser harp in jazz
bars. This wish of mine does not make it society's duty to legislate in
that direction. Society's laws should reflect what is good for the
public, which is my whole point.

In establishing themselves as a legitimate interest in copyright
legislation, the copyright lobby perverts the legislation process
irreparably. We cannot and should not play that game. While our outward
facing rhetoric may talk about proper balancing, we must understand this
internally.

The purpose of copyright is very clearly worded in the US Constitution:
It is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. This is
the best example I have of a clearly laid-out purpose.

I'd also like to point out that the original purpose of copyright, as
enacted by Queen Mary in May, 1577, was to exert violent political
repression against religions dissidents. It was the very opposite of
freedom of speech. I have written more about this on my English blog
here:
http://english.rickfalkvinge.se/2008/05/03/copyrights-shameful-origins-part-1-of-2/ 
The translation from Swedish is a little spotty, but the content is
there. Karl Fogel has also held speeches and written on this subject.

Moreover, while I'm posting to the list, I must ask what the purpose of
the manifesto currently driven by Carlos is. I know that there was
originally a manifesto intended as a common platform for the European
Parliament election; its purpose was first and foremost to gain press
around running for parliament as a common movement. Faced with a lack of
progress on this list, we created such a document at the Uppsala
conference, a conference which Spain declined sending delegates to. The
Uppsala Declaration fulfilled all the stated goals, including getting
the desired press.

So what is the purpose of the ongoing work, particularly as I see a lack
of interest and buy-in (not the least including a lack of interest from
my own organization, pp.se, the reasons for which I just explained)?

Cheers,
Rick



Richard M. Stallman wrote:
> http://int.piratenpartei.de/Pirate_Manifesto_parties_at_a_glance,
> for Denmark, says
>
>     The official aim of the copyright system has always been to find a
>     balance between the interests of publishers and consumers,
>
> Traditional statements of the purpose of copyright have not generally
> mentioned the interests of _publishers_ as a goal.  It is rather the
> _authors_ whose interests they cite.
>
> People do often say that the goal is a balance between the interests
> of authors and those of readers.  But I think that this idea of
> "balance" elevates the authors too much: they do not deserve to be
> given the same importance as the readers.  For more explanation, see
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html.
>
> I argue that copyright primarly exists to serve the interests
> of the readers.
>
> To refer to the readers as "consumers" adopts a rather narrowly
> economic viewpoint on copyright.  If we think that it is not solely an
> economic issue, we might do well to avoid the term "consumers".
>
> Moreover, the fact that using a work of authorship does not consume it
> is a crucial basic point for our arguments.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>