| Part of a series on the |
| Grey market |
|---|
 |
| Types |
| Legal aspects |
| Political aspects |
| Related subjects |
Criticism of copyright, oranti-copyright sentiment, refers to perspectives that question or challenge aspects of currentcopyright laws or the concept of copyright itself. Critics often discuss philosophical, economical, or social rationales of such laws and the laws' implementations, the benefits of which they claim do not justify the policy's costs to society. They advocate for changing the current system, though different groups have different ideas of what that change should be. Some call for remission of the policies to a previous state—copyright once covered few categories of things and had shorter term limits—or they may seek to expand concepts likefair use that allow permissionless copying. Others seek theabolition of copyright itself.
Opposition to copyright is often a portion of platforms advocating for broader social reform. For example,Lawrence Lessig, afree-culture movement speaker, advocates for loosening copyright law as a means of making sharing information easier or addressing theorphan works issue[1] and theSwedish Pirate Party has advocated for limiting copyright to five year terms.[2]
Unlike physical property, copyright critics claim that works restricted by copyright are not scarce because copies can be made without destroying the original or depriving anyone else of ownership. As a policy choice, many states have established copyright systems, which create scarcity by punishing people who make unauthorized copies. Accordingly, critics frequently observe thatcopyright infringement is not the same as theft, because theft deprives someone of access to what has been taken.[3][4]
It is uncommon for copyright laws to be assessed based on empirical studies of their impacts. Critics argue that it is unclear whether copyright laws are economically beneficial for most authors.[5][6][7]
One of the founders ofPiratbyrån,Rasmus Fleischer, argues that copyright law simply seems unable to cope with the Internet, and hence is obsolete. He argues that the Internet, and particularlyWeb 2.0, have brought about the uncertain status of the very idea of "stealing" itself, and that instead business models need to adapt to the reality of theDarknet.[8] He argues that in an attempt to rein in Web 2.0, copyright law in the 21st century is increasingly concerned with criminalising entire technologies, leading to recent attacks on different kinds ofsearch engines, solely because they provide links to files which may be copyrighted. Fleischer points out that Google, while still largely uncontested, operates in a gray zone of copyright (e.g. the business model ofGoogle Books is to display millions of pages of copyrighted and uncopyrighted books as part of a business plan drawing its revenue from advertising).[8] In contrast, others have pointed out that Google Books blocks out large sections of those same books, and they say that does not harm the legitimate interests of rightsholders.[9]
Others have suggested that copyright law must be reformed as a matter ofnational security, proposing that Western countries make legal carveouts fortext and data mining so as to remain ahead in theAI arms race.[10]
Groups such asHipatia advance anti-copyright arguments in the name of "freedom of knowledge" and argue that knowledge should be "shared in solidarity". Such groups may perceive "freedom of knowledge" as a right, and/or as fundamental in realising theright to education, which is an internationally recognisedhuman right, as well as the right to afree culture and the right to free communication. They argue that current copyright law hinders the realisation of these rights in today's knowledge societies relying on new technological means of communication and see copyright law as preventing or slowing human progress.[11]
Lawrence Liang, founder of theAlternative Law Forum, argues that current copyright is based on a too narrow definition of "author", which is assumed to be clear and undisputed. Liang observes that the concept of "the author" is assumed to make universal sense across cultures and across time. Instead, Liang argues that the notion of the author as a unique and transcendent being, possessing originality of spirit, was constructed in Europe after theIndustrial Revolution, to distinguish the personality of the author from the expanding realm of mass-produced goods. Hence works created by "authors" were deemed original, and merges with the doctrine ofproperty prevalent at the time.[12]
Liang argues that the concept of "author" is tied to the notion of copyright and emerged to define a new social relationship—the way society perceives the ownership of knowledge. The concept of "author" thus naturalised a particular process of knowledge production where the emphasis on individual contribution and individual ownership takes precedence over the concept of "community knowledge".[12] Relying on the concept of the author, copyright is based on the assumption that without an intellectual property rights regime, authors would have no incentive to further create, and that artists cannot produce new works without an economic incentive. Liang challenges this logic, arguing that "many authors who have little hope of ever finding a market for their publications, and whose copyright is, as a result, virtually worthless, have in the past, and even in the present, continued to write."[12] Liang points out that people produce works purely for personal satisfaction, or even for respect and recognition from peers. Liang argues that the 19th Century saw the prolific authorship of literary works in the absence of meaningful copyright that benefited the author. In fact, Liang argues, copyright protection usually benefited the publisher, and rarely the author.[12]
The Center for the Study of Public Domain has raised concerns on how the protracted copyright terms in the United States have caused historical films and other cultural works to be destroyed due to disintegration before they can be digitized.[13] The center has described the copyright terms as "absurdly long" which hold little economic benefit to rights holders and prevents efforts to preserve historical artefacts.[13] Director Jennifer Jenkins has said that by the time artefacts enter the public domain in the United States after 95 years, many culturally significant works such as old films and sound recordings have already been lost as a consequence of the long copyright terms.[14]
The institution of copyright raises several ethical issues. Critics tend to believe these issues should be resolved in ways that do not favor copyright.
Critics of copyright argue that copyright has been abused to suppressfree speech,[15][16] as well as business competition,[17] academic research[18] and artistic expression.[19] As a consequence, copyright legislation such asDMCA has enabled copyright owners to "censor academic discussions and online criticism".[18]
Selmer Bringsjord argues that all forms of copying are morally permissible (without commercial use), because some forms of copying are permissible and there is not a logical distinction between various forms of copying.[20]
Edwin Hettinger argues that natural rights arguments for intellectual property are weak and the philosophical tradition justifying property can not guide us in thinking about intellectual property.[21][22] Shelly Warwick believes that copyright law as currently constituted does not appear to have a consistent ethical basis.[23]
Pirate Cinema and groups likeThe League of Noble Peers advocate for the abolition of copyright. A number of anti-copyright groups have emerged in the argument overpeer-to-peer file sharing,digital freedom, andfreedom of information; these include theAssociation des Audionautes[24][25] and theKopimism Church ofNew Zealand.[26][27]
In 2003,Eben Moglen, a professor of Law at Columbia University, published The dotCommunist Manifesto, which re-interpreted theCommunist Manifesto byKarl Marx in the light of the development of computer technology and the internet; much of the re-interpreted content discussed copyright law and privilege in Marxist terms.[28]
Recent developments related toBitTorrent and peer-to-peer file sharing have been termed by media commentators as "copyright wars", withThe Pirate Bay being referred to as "the most visible member of a burgeoning international anti-copyright—or pro-piracy—movement".[29][30] One well-publicised instance ofelectronic civil disobedience in the form of large scale intentionalcopyright infringement occurred on February 24, 2004, in an event calledGrey Tuesday. Activists intentionally violatedEMI's copyright ofThe White Album by distributing MP3 files of amashup album calledThe Grey Album, in an attempt to draw public attention to copyright reform issues and anti-copyright ideals. Reportedly over 400 sites participated including 170 that hosted the album with some protesters stating that The Grey Album illustrates a need for revisions incopyright law to allowsampling under fair use of copyrighted material, or proposing a system of fair compensation to allow for sampling.[31][32]
French groupAssociation des Audionautes is not anti-copyright per se,[citation needed] but proposes a reformed system for copyright enforcement and compensation. Aziz Ridouan, co-founder of the group, proposes for France to legalisepeer-to-peer file sharing and to compensate artists through a surcharge onInternet service provider fees (i.e. analternative compensation system).[citation needed] Wired magazine reported that major music companies have equated Ridouan's proposal with legitimising piracy.[24] In January 2008, seven Swedish members of parliament from theModerate Party (part of the governing coalition), authored a piece in a Swedish tabloid calling for the complete decriminalisation offile sharing; they wrote that "Decriminalising all non-commercial file sharing and forcing the market to adapt is not just the best solution. It's the only solution, unless we want an ever more extensive control of what citizens do on the Internet."[33]
In June 2015 aWIPO article, "Remix culture and Amateur Creativity: A Copyright Dilemma",[34] acknowledged the "age of remixing" and the need for a copyright reform while referring to recent law interpretations inLenz v. Universal Music Corp. and Canada'sCopyright Modernization Act.
Groups that argue for using existing copyright legal framework with special licences to achieve their goals, include thecopyleft movement[35] andCreative Commons.[36] Creative Commons is not anti-copyright per se, but argues for use of more flexible and open copyright licences within existing copyright law.[37] Creative Commons takes the position that there is an unmet demand for flexibility that allows the copyright owner to release work with only "some rights reserved" or even "no rights reserved". According to Creative Commons many people do not regard default copyright as helping them in gaining the exposure and widespread distribution they want. Creative Commons argue that theirlicences allow entrepreneurs and artists to employ innovative business models rather than all-out copyright to secure a return on their creative investment.[38]
Scholars and commentators in this field includeLawrence Liang,[39]Jorge Cortell,[40]Rasmus Fleischer,[41]Stephan Kinsella,Michele Boldrin,David K. Levine[42] andSiva Vaidhyanathan.
Traditionalanarchists, such asLeo Tolstoy, expressed their refusal to accept copyright.[43]
"We conclude that the snippet function does not give searchers access to effectively competing substitutes. Snippet view, at best and after a large commitment of manpower, produces discontinuous, tiny fragments, amounting in the aggregate to no more than 16% of a book. This does not threaten the rights holders with any significant harm to the value of their copyrights or diminish their harvest of copyright revenue," wrote the court.
...censorship-by-copyright could endanger other constitutional rights, first and foremost First Amendment rights and possibly due process rights.
in 2013 a district court ruled that copyright owners do not have the right to simply take down content before undertaking a legal analysis to determine whether the remixed work could fall under fair use, a concept in US copyright law which permits limited use of copyrighted material without the need to obtain the right holder's permission (US District Court, Stephanie Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., Universal Music Publishing Inc., and Universal Music Publishing Group, Case No. 5:07-cv-03783-JF, January 24, 2013).[...] Given the emergence of today's "remix" culture, and the legal uncertainty surrounding remixes and mash-ups, the time would appear to be ripe for policy makers to take a new look at copyright law.
