I keep trying to understand the position of the “copyright abolitionists,” but so far, I’m still not convinced. Here are a few points I’m stuck on … and there are probably others as well. I think this is an extremely important issue, though, so I’ll continue to learn and think about it.

Freely Sharing Ideas

Thomas Jefferson is often quoted in the copyright debates, particularly this quote:

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

I understand this quote, but I don’t understand how some people use it as an attack on copyright. Copyright law already recognizes that ideas cannot be protected. What copyright protects is the fixed expression of an idea. So, my idea for a story about a couple trapped in a house and terrorized by strangers cannot be protected. The specific expression of that idea, on the other hand, can, whether it’s the film Funny Games or the film The Strangers.

Copyright is Unethical

I’m still struggling with this one. If this is supposed to mean “preventing people from sharing ideas is unethical,” then I agree. But what people mean when they say this, whether they realize it or not, is usually that “preventing people from freely distributing copies of a fixed expression of an idea is unethical” … which doesn’t make any sense to me.

Usually, this argument is closely linked to the argument that “the cost of reproduction is effectively zero.” In other words, since it doesn’t really cost anyone anything to copy a fixed expression, it’s therefore ethical to make those copies without paying anyone anything.

Both cases ignore what I see as a vital part of the equation: namely, the efforts of the creator in creating that fixed expression, his/her right to maintain control and ownership over his/her creations, and the ethical principle of trade. Specifically: this guy spent time doing X … time he didn’t spend doing other things to provide for his basic needs (food, shelter, etc.). Therefore, since I enjoy and/or benefit from X, if I want him to continue doing more things like X, I need to help him provide for his basic needs.

Put differently, I don’t see why people have a problem with the idea of paying some reasonable amount of money to the creators of things they enjoy. I don’t see what’s unethical about a law that requires this to happen.

Before the rebuttals begin, let me say that I understand and agree that current copyright law says more than that and is, in many ways, corrupt. I’m in favor of copyright reform. What I’m addressing is the idea that no sort of copyright should exist at all.

Other Business Models

I think other business models are definitely necessary, but not ones that rely on something other than the original creation to generate the income.

I often hear the argument that musicians can make money from concerts and merchandise. Well, that’s fine if the musician wants to tour and sell T-shirts. But primarily what the musician does is create music. The music itself should be the basis of whatever money is generated. If it’s not, then the musician is forced to become something other than a musician … which kinda defeats the point.

Still Thinking

At any rate, I’ve still got a lot of thinking and reading to do on all this. I don’t have answers, and I’m pretty sure I don’t even have all the right questions yet.

Any recommendations on authoritative books, articles, or studies are definitely welcome.