Copyright abolition (was Re: [fc-uk-discuss] DT Articles onre cording copyright extension)

[Crosbie Fitch]

> From: MJ Ray
> Aren't moral rights and copyright pretty much distinct? For example,
> I believe you can assign your copyright, but not your moral rights,
> but maybe I'm mistaken.  Is it possible to abolish one without the
> other?

Copyright is not a right. It is an economic incentive.

You can abolish an economic incentive without trampling on any rights.

However, it's not so much about removing the incentive as pointing out that
it is disintegrating without any deliberate removal in any case. The
important thing is to remove the abilty for coporations to use the severe
infringement penalties against ordinary citizens.

> I think so and it then becomes mere questions about what are
> moral rights and how long they last (N years? lifetime? lifetime+N?).

Truth lasts forever. Just because an artist is dead shouldn't mean it's open
season for anyone to claim authorship of their works. Death does not delimit
truth.

However, freedom and privacy can be argued to be enjoyed only by living
individuals. 

> Without copyright, reverse engineering might be more widely
> practised and could be more generally useful. It would be
> trading one sort of freedom for another. Which would be more
> useful? I don't know.

I've yet to see a good case against reverse engineering, except from the IP
maximalism camp, i.e. that if one should be able to control one's IP even
after it's been published (it's reproduction, etc.) , one should also be
able to control attempts to reproduce it by understanding how it was
produced. This is just reinforcement of the monopoly incentive.

If you don't want anyone to inspect your works then don't publish them.

> Crosbie Fitch point b from a few emails back needs slight
> modification: no author has a right to payment for *past*
> work.

Such a modification isn't necessary.

No author has a right to payment for present or future work either. 

Author's aren't special people. NO-ONE has a right to payment for work.

People have a right to have their bargains to exchange work for money to be
upheld.
People have a right for their unpublished work not to be published against
their will.
People have a right to choose whether or not to publish their work (assuming
by doing so would not conflict with others' rights).

Even copyright does not give a publisher the right to payment. It merely
gives them the monopoly over the publication of their work and derivatives.
It's still up to the publisher to figure out the bargaining aspect, i.e. an
amount of money that an economically optimum number of people will consider
equitable to a copy of a book. Copyright does not force people to buy the
book - however much work went into it.

> If you do the work without a clear idea of how you'll make
> money from it (being paid for the work, or as an advertisment of
> what you can do so that you get paid for future work, or even as
> donationware or ransomware), that's your business problem.

Indeed.

> I think reciprocality (such as attribute works if you want to
> be attributed) is a moral topic and not necessarily non-free.

Ok, it's a moral issue, but I'd still argue that a culture with compulsory
reciprocity is not as free as a culture without it (other things being
equal).