Visit ArabTopics.com

Why shouldn’t copyright monopoly law apply on the Internet?

gavel-resting-on-a-laptop-computer-1280x720-istockphoto

Copyright Monopoly: Every so often, you hear copyright industry lobbyists ask “why copyright law shouldn’t apply on the Internet”, suggesting that the Internet is a lawless land with regard to people sharing what they like. They have a point, but not the point they think: Our laws have checks and balances that prevent enforcement against sharing culture and knowledge in the offline world, and there’s no reason why these check-and-balance laws shouldn’t apply online too.

Every so often, you will hear people from the copyright industry pull the cliché, “why shouldn’t copyright law apply on the Internet!?”, with the understanding that laws apply everywhere in society, and so obviously copyright law should apply on the Internet too.

This question is misleading and false. If the offline laws applied fully online, which they don’t, then copyright law could not be enforced at all against ordinary file sharers — and that would be a good thing.

In the offline world, there are many laws that provide checks and balances against each other. It’s important that these checks and balances carry over to the digital world, and today, they don’t — the checks and balances haven’t been carried over at all.

For example, you’re technically not allowed to send a copy of some creative work under copyright monopoly in the mail — but nobody is allowed to open your mail to check if you did. You’re not allowed to play a song to your friend in a phonecall (yes, really), but nobody is allowed to listen in to your phonecall to determine if you do.

In this way, the copyright industry executives have a point; the offline laws regarding copyright don’t fully apply online. If they did, no file sharing would ever be punished, ever, because privacy is considered more important than noncommercial copyright infringement in the offline law book.

In our transition to digital, very important liberties have been lost — such as the important right to send a private letter.

Our children can still send an analog letter the way our parents did, but they don’t have nearly the same rights when performing the equivalent action in their digital environment — and there’s really no reason for that other than copyright industry lobbying. (I predict that’s going to be regarded as one of the greatest failures of our generation: our failure to carry the civil liberties of our parents over to our children.)

Let’s take a look at the analog letter. It has a couple of properties we associate with proper law and order: it is untracked, it is anonymous (or can be, that’s entirely up to the sender), the carrying courier has immunity from liability, and it is never opened in transit (except in the case of prior individual suspicion of a serious crime — note the words prior, individual, and serious).

This letter can even contain a copy of something: sheet music, a poem, something that makes sending the letter a copyright infringement. It would not matter, and precisely that is the point — the rights above would still apply: the letter would still be untracked, anonymous, unopened, carried without liability. It would still reach its recipient unopened and untracked.

This is what we call Analog Equivalent Rights — the idea that a civil liberty that existed in the analog world should also exist in the digital world, in its equivalent action, completely regardless of whether that means somebody needs to make money in a different way, or not at all. It isn’t rocket science. It should not even be controversial to say that our children should have at least the same amount of civil liberties in their environment as our parents had in theirs.

In other words, privacy law completely trumps copyright law offline, as far as private noncommercial copies are concerned, and there’s no reason it should not do so online as well. The laws should apply online exactly as they do offline.

So the next time you hear this argument, respond with a “yes, all the laws should apply on the Internet. Especially the laws that say we can send an anonymous package to somebody with a copied film or cassette, without the letter being opened in transit, the courier being responsible for carrying the package, or the letter being traced to its sender — even if it is a copyright infringement. That’s what the laws look like outside of the Internet, and there’s absolutely no reason they shouldn’t apply on the Internet as well!”.

They will typically respond something like, “But then we can’t make money!”, or possibly with some nonsense like “then the artists won’t create”. It doesn’t matter.

At that point it’s just a matter of driving the point home; “A business exists for the purpose of making money within existing laws. If you can’t do so, you don’t get to dismantle civil liberties just because you don’t know how to run a business.”

(This is a post from Falkvinge on Liberty, obtained via RSS at this feed.)

Source: 
Rick Falkvinge

Dear friends of this aggregator

  • Yes, I intentionally removed Newsbud from the aggregator on Mar 22.
  • Newsbud did not block the aggregator, although their editor blocked me on twitter after a comment I made to her
  • As far as I know, the only site that blocks this aggregator is Global Research. I have no idea why!!
  • Please stop recommending Newsbud and Global Research to be added to the aggregator.

Support this site

News Sources

Source Items
Grayzone Project 11
Pass Blue 55
Dilyana Gaytandzhieva 14
John Pilger 409
The Real News 367
Scrutinised Minds 27
Need To Know News 1678
FEE 3229
Marine Le Pen 230
Francois Asselineau 25
Opassande 53
HAX on 5July 220
Henrik Alexandersson 540
Mohamed Omar 241
Professors Blog 10
Arg Blatte Talar 37
Angry Foreigner 17
Fritte Fritzson 11
Teologiska rummet 32
Filosofiska rummet 70
Vetenskapsradion Historia 116
Snedtänkt (Kalle Lind) 177
Les Crises 1869
Richard Falk 115
Ian Sinclair 79
SpinWatch 50
Counter Currents 6295
Kafila 355
Gail Malone 33
Transnational Foundation 221
Rick Falkvinge 93
The Duran 6541
Vanessa Beeley 93
Nina Kouprianova 9
MintPress 4803
Paul Craig Roberts 1149
News Junkie Post 44
Nomi Prins 24
Kurt Nimmo 191
Strategic Culture 3453
Sir Ken Robinson 16
Stephan Kinsella 66
Liberty Blitzkrieg 794
Sami Bedouin 61
Consortium News 2149
21 Century Wire 2906
Burning Blogger 279
Stephen Gowans 67
David D. Friedman 128
Anarchist Standard 16
The BRICS Post 1464
Tom Dispatch 409
Levant Report 17
The Saker 3423
The Barnes Review 470
John Friend 364
Psyche Truth 146
Jonathan Cook 135
New Eastern Outlook 3101
School Sucks Project 1735
Giza Death Star 1562
Andrew Gavin Marshall 15
Red Ice Radio 567
GMWatch 1799
Robert Faurisson 148
Espionage History Archive 34
Jay's Analysis 739
Le 4ème singe 87
Jacob Cohen 197
Agora Vox 10725
Cercle Des Volontaires 417
Panamza 1638
Fairewinds 103
Project Censored 720
Spy Culture 367
Conspiracy Archive 66
Crystal Clark 11
Timothy Kelly 488
PINAC 1482
The Conscious Resistance 546
Independent Science News 66
The Anti Media 5566
Positive News 820
Brandon Martinez 30
Steven Chovanec 61
Lionel 259
The Mind renewed 210
Natural Society 2461
Yanis Varoufakis 813
Tragedy & Hope 122
Dr. Tim Ball 63
Web of Debt 125
Porkins Policy Review 347
Conspiracy Watch 174
Eva Bartlett 563
Libyan War Truth 280
DeadLine Live 1905
Kevin Ryan 61
BSNEWS 1964
Aaron Franz 186
Traces of Reality 166
Revelations Radio News 121
Dr. Bruce Levine 111
Peter B Collins 1334
Faux Capitalism 205
Dissident Voice 9539
Climate Audit 220
Donna Laframboise 355
Judith Curry 1051
Geneva Business Insider 40
Media Monarchy 1991
Syria Report 70
Human Rights Investigation 90
Intifada (Voice of Palestine) 1685
Down With Tyranny 10102
Laura Wells Solutions 27
Video Rebel's Blog 411
Revisionist Review 485
Aletho News 17820
ضد العولمة 27
Penny for your thoughts 2653
Northerntruthseeker 2039
كساريات 37
Color Revolutions and Geopolitics 27
Stop Nato 4615
AntiWar.com Blog 2687
AntiWar.com Original Content 6105
Corbett Report 2085
Stop Imperialism 491
Land Destroyer 1105
Webster Tarpley Website 938

Compiled Feeds

Public Lists

Title Visibility
Funny Public