The opposition to copyright law per se is not strictly limited to anarchists. The term “infoanarchism” was coined in recent years (starting with a July 2000 TIME Magazine article about Ian Clarke called “The Infoanarchist”) to describe specific opposition to intellectual property, often including patents. The classic argument for intellectual property is that protection of author and creator’s rights encourages further creative work by giving the creator a source of income. Those against copyright suggest that income to a creator must be generated by ancilliary means, for different reasons:

The socialist anarchist perspective on anti-copyright is that 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 consider plagiarism and theft of other people’s ideas a good thing. They and others who do so would be looked at as dishonest and untrustworthy. What is more important to anarchists is the refusal to “own” ideas and knowledge as such things are, in their view, not capable of ownership, being part of the patrimony of our common heritage.

The loss of revenue and loss of value of copyrighted assets by individual and corporate vested interests caused by the advent of file sharing has led to legal action by representatives of copyright holders against consumers who violate copyright laws. Other vested interests, including the manufacturers of MP3 players and broadband internet suppliers, have benefited from the file sharing movement, and are likely to protect their business by encouraging the relaxation of copyright restrictions for the benefit of their customers, who vastly outnumber copyright holders.

The European Renaissance saw a burgeoning of creative talent, the like of which has not been seen since. It occurred before intellectual property had been invented, and was spurred by artists copying each other’s techniques and works without legal restriction. The argument that copyright law protects and encourages creativity 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 artists anyway.

The ease and convenience of being able to obtain and preserve many creative works across the internet it is argued will lead to greater creativity if copyright law is abolished. Whilst it may not be possible for popular artists and their agents to make so 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.

  anti-copyright_movement.txt · Ultima modifica: 15.11.2005 19:01 by
RSS: Modifiche Recenti Contenuti: Licenza Creative Commons Valid XHTML 1.0 Valid CSS Sito fatto con: DokuWiki Sito ospitato da: