(Constitution)
Natural Intellectual Property Unnaturally Privileged · 6 days ago by Crosbie Fitch
Potentially having high market value, an intellectual work must be regarded as property in its own right. Among other things, this is because its value, whether utilitarian or aesthetic, can be appropriated by theft (irrespective of the possibility that any number of copies may remain with its possessor).
Despite crazy definitions to the contrary, thieves do not have uppermost in their minds the concept or intent of denying a legitimate owner the use of their property, but rather the concept and intent of seizing valuable/saleable property without payment (where the effort of theft is expected to be lower than the amount expected to be recovered through possession/use/benefit/exchange of the stolen property).
One cannot simply have a statutory penalty for violation of someone’s privacy right. One must also consider the market value of the intellectual property so appropriated, and ideally the cost of its return/repossession.
The fundamental flaw in most people’s notions of IP is not primarily that creation confers ownership (this tends to be coincident even with a first-comer idea), but that one should continue to own one’s IP even after one has parted with it (sale or gift). But for this, the legitimate owner of a book cannot be stealing its author’s property by making copies of their purchased book, unless one sustains the idea that the author owns all copies of their book even after they’ve sold them.
So it’s quite possible to accept intellectual property as arising out of natural law, e.g. you write a book, you have absolute ownership and control over that book (even without the state’s support, an individual can expect to protect it). Similarly with copies: you make a copy, you have absolute ownership and control over that copy. However, the author has no natural right to control what people do with the copies they purchase, e.g. making further copies or derivatives. Privileging the author to the contrary (for the publisher’s benefit) is the unnatural misstep, the state’s attachment of strings that nature did not.
Copyright is unnatural. All state granted monopolies are unnatural, patent included.
However, despite the unnatural privileges granted to its creators, intellectual property is nevertheless natural. The effective monopoly over access to one’s private domain and control over the material and intellectual properties within it is also natural, and thus to be protected by the state.
Comment [2]
(C’tngcy Mkt)
The Market for Digital Art · 14 days ago by Crosbie Fitch
A digital artist creates works of digital art. They do not create copies.
People have got a heck of a lot of copyright deprogramming to go through if they persist in thinking of the creative process as an artist creating ‘the first copy’ and then ‘making and selling copies’.
The ‘copy’ as a first class concept in our digital domain is disintegrating before our eyes and yet people stubbornly persist in thinking of digital art in terms of copies.
We are rapidly moving toward a digital production process that produces digital art in only three phases:
- Non-existent
- Created (private/unpublished)
- Published
There is no ‘copy’. There are no ‘copies’ to exchange or purchase. There is no market for ‘copies’.
Except as a fundamental operation to computer scientists, even the term ‘copy’ will soon lose its original meaning and deteriorate into an archaic term for ‘private sharing’.
For example:
“Do you have a copy of the artwork?” will become an old fogey’s way of saying “Are you privy to the artwork?”,
and “Then would you please give me a copy?” will become an old fogey’s way of saying “Then would you please make me privy?”.
For published art the word ‘copy’ disappears even from old fogeys’ vocabularies, e.g. we’ll just hear them saying “What was the name of that piece? Who’s the artist?”. However, I suspect even those queries will be ever more rarely spoken given pervasive access to metadata for all media, e.g. “Who sang the second song I heard in the coffee bar yesterday morning?” will be a thought easily answered on one’s PDA (and the singer consequently micropatronised).
So, if you want to understand the future market for digital art then you have to stop trying to understand it in terms of a market for copies. There will be no market for copies. The market for copies has ended.
The future market for digital art will involve exchanges between the artist and those who value their art (nothing to do with copies). Exchanges will occur between the three key phases I outlined above, i.e. payment to create art where it did not exist before, payment to become privy to art to which one is as yet not privy, and payment to publish private/unpublished art.
There is no copy.
This article is based on my comments at Against Monopoly Thanks to ‘Kid’ for prompting them.
Comment [2]
(Constitution)
Natural Law Protects Natural Rights · 75 days ago by Crosbie Fitch
William Patry recently asked me in a comment on his blog:
Given the socially created nature of law, how can we speak of what is natural? By what criteria do you observe what the natural order of society is, and is it the same for all cultures and all legal systems?
I don’t think he (or perhaps his superiors) liked my reply for it was soon deleted (along with his and my preceding comments).
Primarily, natural law emerges from the natural power and inclination of the individual:
- to survive
- to secure (oneself, one’s family, home, and possessions)
- to collaborate or trade (honourable exchange of labour or possessions)
- to explore and express – freely
The natural law as enforced by a civilised society is then simply a matter of the society asserting egalitarian fairness over its members, i.e. giving everyone an equal, natural right to life, privacy, truth, and liberty.
Natural law is the same for all human beings, since we are all of the same nature.
Different cultures may well promote alternative views as to nature (discriminating according to gender, race, religion, bloodline, etc.), but then I would concede that egalitarianism is an unnatural human inclination when arbitrary power is so enjoyed by those who have it. We should conclude that egalitarianism and recognition of natural rights are marks of a civilised society.
One can also call natural rights human rights, and there is some degree to which a worldwide human rights movement is exerting pressure for all societies, cultures and legal systems to enshrine these and demonstrate themselves as truly enlightened civilisations.
So, getting back to the inegalitarian privilege of copyright that elevates the commercial interest of publishers above the liberty of the public to free cultural exchange, by suspending their liberty to produce copies or derivatives for ‘limited’ times…
If I sent a poem in a letter to someone in the new world, whether 50 or 300 years ago, I had no natural hope of controlling who they showed it to, whether they copied it, sold it, performed it, or improved it. Indeed, I’d have no expectation of any control unless they’d agreed to be subject to some constraint. Without such agreement, I implicitly and naturally surrendered control and ownership over the letter and the poem it contained. However, what I could expect, even separated by an ocean, is that as a soon to be civilised society, fellow honourable citizens would have zealously pursued the truth in all things including the authorship of the poem. Word spreads. And this is as it should be – not with a default law against unauthorised dissemination.
Since some great statesman had the bright idea of controlling the press by granting a privilege of exclusive reproduction (cunningly harnessing self-interested press owners to fund the control the state so desired), we now have copyright. An unnatural privilege given a veneer of dignity by grievously extending it beyond the press to a quasi-right that all men should enjoy the indefinitely limited suspension of all others’ liberty to communicate or incorporate their published artistic expression – on the more palatable pretext that, due to their high commercial value, such monopolies would encourage publishers to promote the arts (rather than prosecute the citizenry).
And today, if I sent a poem in a letter to someone in the US, they are supposedly to be prosecuted should they reproduce or perform it without my authorisation. However, I’m still likely to find that since poetry in private correspondence holds no appeal for publishers, it is unlikely to enjoy their eager enforcement of copyright’s protection – I certainly couldn’t afford to do this myself. I also still have no legal redress against the real crime of plagiarism – even after 300 years of feverish legislation concerning artistic expression.
Anyway, we are now faced with a cultural mess where much of the citizenry has been brainwashed into believing that they have a natural right to prevent anyone copying or incorporating their published work against their wishes. Unfortunately Creative Commons perpetuates this myth even as it at the same time provides a standard means by which people can assert otherwise (or only somewhat, if they still think they deserve some illusion of control over their peers – you can copy, but not if you profit).
The key thing about natural law is not that it has some kind of aesthetic superiority or represents a primordial diktat, but that it reflects the nature of the people – rather than the aspirations of social engineers who feel wise enough (reassuredly so by their lobbyists) to make social contracts on the people’s behalf. It is unnatural for a mere poet to have such power that he may reach out across the ocean and punish all and any scribes impudent enough to copy his great work. When all people have photocopiers, all people naturally copy with impunity. This is neither unfair nor harmful. When we have a global communications infrastructure dedicated to the task of efficiently exchanging human expression, this both reveals the diffusive nature of information and the nature of mankind in needing to share it. Those who persist in believing that reproduction of published works must be controlled to secure a mythical authorial right are fighting a losing battle for a cause greatly distorted from its 300 year old origins.
Comment [2]
(Constitution)
IP Theft is a Crime Despite a Consequent Abundance of Copies · 78 days ago by Crosbie Fitch
Having read Jon Healey’s blog Bit Player (ht: W.Patry) and an opinion piece he links to, File ‘sharing’ or ‘stealing’?, I’m dismayed to discover this facile meme still spreading that just because IP theft results in an unlimited supply of cheap copies (including to the original artist) it should be discounted, and not even classed as theft.
Only just recently, I pointed out on Michael Geist’s blog that just because something of extreme value may be reproduced very cheaply doesn’t mean it’s ok to steal it – or even ok to steal a copy of it (e.g. a spy stealing photos of missile designs).
Digital copies may indeed be near free as makes no difference, and become effectively unlimited in supply, but this doesn’t sanction theft of the work or copies thereof.
If you want to make copies and give them away then you should still pony up the money and pay for a legitimate source copy (if the producer is willing to sell it to you).
Even the free software movement stands by the right of shopkeepers to prosecute thieves, and deny browsers permission to remove the shrinkwrap to make a quick copy before returning the CD back in its packaging to the shelves. ‘Free as in speech – not as in beer’.
Sharing is about restoring everyone’s natural right to exchange and build upon our own culture – albeit produced, purchased, or otherwise legitimately obtained.
Cultural freedom is not some state of anarchy in which artists’ work is ‘stolen’ by the people on the facile pretext that the artist ‘still has a copy’. This betrays a continuation of the delusion created by copyright that the value is in the copy. It isn’t in the copy, but in the art and its publication. The natural right of publication remains extremely precious – especially in this digital age.
Cultural freedom is about restoring the public’s natural rights to its own property, the art voluntarily sold or given to it – all published works, unencumbered by mercantile privilege.
Making a copy of a work you have purchased may be copyright infringement, but it is not intellectual property theft. Taking or making a copy of a work in someone else’s private possession without their permission is IP theft – even if the work has already been published and is readily available elsewhere.
Abolishing copyright restores everyone’s intellectual property rights, it doesn’t signify any less respect for intellectual property rights – if anything, a greater respect ensues.
As a violation of the natural right to privacy, IP theft should remain, as ever, a crime.
(Constitution)
Artistic Freedom · 83 days ago by Crosbie Fitch
We are all artists. To be human is to be an artist.
Just as all men are born equal and free, so are all men born artists, and none of us, even as a reward to progress the arts, should be given the privilege of suspending the liberty of all other artists – nor even one.
By all means revere ourselves as artists and all of our art, our culture, but what art we artists produce from our private space to sell or freely publish in mankind’s cultural commonwealth belongs to all – to use, perform, reproduce, and build upon as any of us please.
Such liberty threatens no truth of authorship, no privacy of property (whether material or intellectual), and least of all life, which only becomes the more enriched.
Abolish slavery(DONE)- Abolish copyright (To do)
- Abolish patent (To do)
Copyright and patent are the remaining suspensions of artistic freedom that must be undone before we can consider ourselves truly emancipated from the shackles of commerce in our liberty.
(Miscellany)
A Balanced Approach to Copyright? · 86 days ago by Crosbie Fitch
The industry’s continuing attempts to control the public’s reproduction and use of published works in the digital age is something that will be laughed at by future generations – especially the idea that such inherently impossible control would be miraculously become possible if only it was ‘balanced’.
The logical fallacy of an appeal to moderation is just as silly when applied to another matter concerning human liberty: “Well, if only we took a more balanced approach to slavery, were a little kinder and made enslavement a little less harsh, perhaps the slaves wouldn’t keep running away or demanding their freedom?”
Just as we’ve now come to terms with the idea that a man of one colour has no intrinsic claim to suspend the liberty of a man of another colour (or even the same colour), so perhaps we should now come to terms with the idea that an artist has no instrinsic claim to suspend the liberty of any other artist (or any other member of their audience).
When you publish your art, you have no natural right to control what any other artist does with it.
(Miscellany)
In respect to the artist - NO PHOTOS · 90 days ago by Crosbie Fitch
So, one day last week I wander into Beaver Creek Hats & Leathers at 36 East Broadway on the south side of Jackson Hole’s town square (WY 83001).
I see a couple of chairs, much like that in the following photo:
 |
Upon one of those chairs is a white card upon which is written “In respect to the artist – NO PHOTOS”.
Now what gets me is how on earth this can be a matter of respect to the artist. Under what colour sky does the person live who believes that photography of an artist’s publicly exhibited work (and no doubt dissemination thereof) can show disrespect to the artist?
Respect would be taking photos, blogging about how great the artist’s work was, and introducing an ever larger audience to the the artist. This no doubt helps establish the artist as the recognised author of their unique style and creates considerable demand for their work by those who appreciate it.
I asked a sales assistant in the shop why the sign was there and he suggested it was to reduce the likelihood of the work being copied, i.e. to maintain the exclusivity of this form of furniture to the artists who made it.
Bit of a cleft stick there really eh? And a double edged sword to boot. Want to help potential buyers discover this unique work, but at the same time need to avoid tipping off the competition to preserve its uniqueness. If only the state could grant them a monopoly they’d not have to take such measures. But then how could any artist be so selfish as to demand that no other crafstman be permitted to reproduce their style of furniture? Is the world not big enough? Can their furniture really be so easily reproduced? Is competition intrinsically unfair? Is facilitation of competition via inevitably promotional photography disrespectful to the artist?
The thing is, if I had no respect for the artist or was in league with a competitor with no scruples about imitation I’d take a fricking photo anyway – sign or no sign. So all the ‘no photos’ sign ends up doing is irritating people otherwise respectful of the artist who’d love to take a snap to show a friend who they’d know would simply love such a great piece of furniture. More specifically in my case, it also irritates copyright abolitionists who happen to be passing through.
The sign actually shows disrespect to the public, and casts the artist or their agent in a very poor light of anal retentive churlishness.
The funny thing is the artist aka John Bickner, Jr. exhibits his artwork worldwide, so he evidently wants it to be seen, but perhaps he wants fine control over which galleries get to exhibit it, and who precisely gets to see it. Thus uncontrolled photography and photos spreading across the Internet dilute this control and must be prohibited. Doesn’t make sense to me. I have deep linked to the photo above (I dare not copy it, for that would be disrespectful – and probably illegal). We can republish images via deep-links, but we can’t copy the images – it’s insane. And madder still, you get anal retentiveness from Kodak who even take pains to detect and thwart deep-linking to three more examples of the chairs in question.
Considering the rights of the matter (and not the privileges), the shop operates as a public gallery with the right to refuse admission or to eject anyone who doesn’t adhere to their conditions (being regardless of race, etc.). Now this means that anything that is available to the senses of the public visitor is available to be recorded by that visitor (and subsequently performed or reproduced at their leisure, whether privately or publicly) – unless of course, the visitor contracted otherwise prior to entry (entry does not constitute agreement). A shop can eject a visitor for taking photos (if they require this constraint), but they cannot claim ownership of those photos, nor obtain their destruction, unless the visitor took photos of material that was not made available to them (they broke a seal on a book, say). So, I was within my rights to take photos of the chairs (until requested to leave the shop) and publish them on this blog. The only disrespect shown would be to the author of the request against photos. It would not have been shown to the artist of the chair – even if they were the same person. In turn, the request against photos on the pretext of it being disrespectful to the artist shows disrespect to myself as a potential customer or member of the artist’s audience.
If you exhibit to the public, please, respect the public and don’t try to pretend that their photography is disrespectful to the artist. If you want them to abstain from promoting you and your work in order to preserve a niche market then that’s up to you, but be honest about it, e.g. write instead “We do not wish to expand production and already have sufficient custom, so please refrain from taking photos of our chairs to show to your friends as this is liable to increase demand to such an extent that competition results and the uniqueness and value of our product is reduced”. It still doesn’t make much sense though.
I could have walked out of the shop with a good feeling about the chairs and a lot of respect for the artists who made them, but the sign’s disrespect for me queered that pitch considerably.
Comment [2]
(Miscellany)
Your Audience is Your Best Customer · 106 days ago by Crosbie Fitch
So, dear artist, being your best customer:
- Your audience is happy to pay you for your work
- So deal with it, don’t prosecute it
- Copies of your work cost nothing, so don’t try to charge for them – they are not ‘lost sales’
- Copies are your promiscuous promoters – don’t encumber them
- The bigger your audience the bigger their budget
- Give them a better bargain
- Art for money, money for art
I’m pleased to read Bob Blakley’s latest blog entry:
The New Studio
Welcome to the second age of enlightenment Bob, where artists cease their mercenary suspension of each others’ liberty via the unethical privileges of patent and copyright.
Comment [1]
(C’tngcy Mkt)
1p2U - Mediawiki · 111 days ago by Crosbie Fitch
To make things a little more transparent I think I’ll have a go at using Mediawiki as the CMS for 1p2U.com. Apologies for my design, but it may encourage others to produce far superior Mediawiki skins.
This means everything will be written as a plug-in to Mediawiki.
The first thing to do is to hook Mediawiki’s authentication mechanism into the Contingency Market.
This could be hairy.
(C’tngcy Mkt)
A Sketch of 1p2U.com · 111 days ago by Crosbie Fitch
I’ve just posted a rough sketch of how I envisage a 1p2U.com website would work out.
See Sketching 1p2U.com.
No doubt I’ll find a better way of documenting things. Mediawiki perhaps?
Comment [1]