Some of you may be wondering if, when and how I'm licensing my writings on this blog. Other than flat out copyrighting, one of the ways that is becoming increasingly popular with weblogs is the 'Creative Commons License.'
My professional opinion as a writer, is that the entire notion of 'copyrighting' or licensing-backed by 'the law' to be not just logically flawed, but violent (and anti-human for Roids).
First, one must explain how the copyright holder (CRH) owns the photons radiating through the monitor (or book) and captured by my eyes. Next, one must explain how the CRH now owns the biochemical matter inside the various portions of my brain that store, analyze and compute the photons. Then, one must explain how the CRH owns some or all the positive monetary ramifications I gain because of what I read.
A few questions: Why doesn't the CRH also get the negative ramifications? If the CRH gets to enforce his responsibility and ownership onto me, does it not follow that he has to endure all fiscal responsibility as well?
Indeed, writing can be a tough profession, just like any other job. Having job security is certainly a nice thing to have, that is why unions and guilds are popular among certain professions. However, this is anti-competitive and anti-economic growth. If you are going to condemn a company for using anti-competitive actions, such as the clichéd example of Microsoft, then to be consistent you cannot yourself practice such behavior. Similarly, granting an agency or department monopolistic powers (like the Department of Transportation or NASA) yet having an act called the Sherman Anti-Trust act, is inconsistent (as is the whole State, see below).
Additionally, monopolies can only exist through force or the threat of force (ex: the State has a monopoly on itself and must squash rebellions or else it ceases to exist). So, proponents of any sort of 'law' or 'copyright' should be labeled properly as statists and more accurately: well-intentioned boobs (I'll give them all the benefit of the doubt).
And now to the State. This collective of individuals must use aggression, it is its Modus Operandi (MO). In order to carry out this 'law' (as that is what a 'copyright' is), force or the threat force is used to subdue 3rd party groups and individuals. That is uncivilized and is flawed as an argumentum ad baculum (Appeal to Force) and argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal to Authority). In fact, those two flaws alone are all the justification needed for an individual to ignore the State, its actions (MO) cannot be supported logically.
Economically, monopolies operate inefficiently and only hinder economic growth and prosperity. In order to explain this thoroughly I would need use graphs, lines and many definitions/acronyms. So to cheat, click on these links to read more on this reasoning.
And no, this post will not be the last time I will discuss this matter. This topic can fill bookshelves and libraries -- whole professions could live off the wages of those involved in crediting and licensing written works. Oh wait, there are.
Posted by Tim at April 3, 2003 01:22 AM | TrackBack