Talk:Copyright, Ethics and Theft

--Poor Richard (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Copyright is a theft of what? Someone else's property?

The categorical declaration that "Copyright Is Theft, Unauthorized Copying Is Not Theft" is like saying food is murder. Its better to assume that most principles and values are relative or conditional and to inquire into where we want to draw lines and strike balances to, for example, achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. Copyright law has been abused by elites but so has every other kind of law. Shall we say "law is theft" even if sometimes it is?

The downsides of copyright, patents, deeds, titles, and other monopolies have been known for centuries by supporters and opponents alike. Its always been a question of applying appropriate conditions, limitations, regulations, etc. so that the public good outweighs the harm.

In the case of copyright the issues are clear and well known. The balance of good vs harm turns largely on matters of duration, rights protected, and their relative strengths. The doctrine of fair use is intended to compensate for the fact that no creative work is entirely original. If it fails to achieve the proper balance it needs adjustment. Propaganda, demagoguery,, and hyperbole are not constructive. --Poor Richard (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Food is murder seems a really bad analogy. Copyright actively withholds knowledge from useful usage and criminalizes sharing, and its deleterious effect on human life, for example in the field of pharmaceuticals, is well documented; and this is why it was seen by its initiators as an exception to the rule, justified by the need to protect the initial innovative work of authors and inventors. Normalizing this exception is a huge step backwards, more extreme than the founders of copyright intended it.

--MIchel Bauwens (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)