The Classic Liberal Blog

I'll be the first to admit that I can be a bit long-winded at times ... This post was written for Michigan Blogger, but it ended up so long (whether that's good or bad), I decided to cross-post it here too.

If you find it too long, or even if you find the topic a bit obscure, please scroll down and read the last 2 sections:

The Moral Case Against IP

A Christian Perspective

Both address a fundamental perspective regarding our individual relationships with government.  A perspective I feel, has been all but forgotten in America today.

--------------------------------------------------

Seriously ... Who out there hasn't created a mixed-tape (back in the day), a copy of a CD for a friend, or perhaps given another person a copy of a software program?  Just what I thought ... 99.9% of us are outlaws!

What about this?  Have you ever sold a used record, book or CD at a garage sale, on eBay, or via some other means?  I ask, because according to current copyright laws, selling any of these items is illegal too.

What If Scenario:

It's a good thing the people who discovered fire and invented the wheel didn't have copyright laws to "protect" them.  Can you imagine watching your neighbors stay warm and eat cooked food, as your family froze and choked-down raw meat?

What if the inventor of the wheel didn't know how to run a business, thus only produced half of the demand (in poor quality to boot)?  What if the person who discovered fire, made a business decision to limit supply?  People would become the virtual slaves of these 2 copyright holders, because nobody could light a fire or use a wheel (legally), without paying them first!

If times were anything like today, people wouldn't think twice about the copyright laws either!  Instead they'd want government to "do something about it," demanding increased regulations and price controls over these 2 monopoly industries.

Of course, due to the limited supply of fire and wheels, a "black market" would soon sprout.  As you sat in comfort near your warm fire, you'd see your neighbor freezing, and "pirate" one of your lit logs to help him stay warm.

In the meantime, your neighbor down the street, who owns a cart with wheels (which you don't), is able to get to and from the market faster, carrying twice as many goods for sale, putting you on the verge of going broke, resulting in the loss of your ability to keep buying fire.  So, being that the wheel is easy to duplicate, you "pirate" yourself some wheels to keep pace with your competition.

The next thing you know ... Newspapers start running stories about "dangerous pirated wheels," throwing out numbers "illustrating" how many people have been killed!  Then a fire burns down a local family's hut (who hasn't purchased the right to make fire), erupts another round of "panic," and soon people who use fire and wheels safely everyday, become "concerned" about these dastardly, "pirated" products.

Reacting (as they always do), our Overlords in Washington give lots of speeches, hold "focus groups," and write legislation in the name of "justice" ... Resulting in 31,748 pages of new rules and regulations, higher prices for everyone, and congested courts (filled with newly created criminals) to boot!

Morality:

Reviewing the above scenario ... Am I alone in seeing the hypocrisy of denying people the right to freely make and share fire and wheels as they see fit?  Or do you believe that each wheel, and every fire started, morally belonged (intellectual property) to the inventors only?

Fire had existed all along as part of God's creation.  In other words, learning to start a fire was inevitable.  How could the act of starting a fire then, "belong" to only one person or corporation?  The wheel was hardly a miracle in engineering either.  It had always existed in the form of rocks, logs and such.  So once again, it was only a matter of time before someone put them to use as wheels.

The inventor of the wheel was obviously the first to market, but there's a lot of advantages that go along with being first.  Not only is the inventor able to sell his wheels before anyone else, but he has the advantage of producing wheels longer, thus the ability to offer higher quality wheels and/or lower prices than could any new start-up.

Same goes for the person who discovered fire.  As his competitors were busy learning how he started his fires, he'd have already moved on to offering simpler, more efficient versions.

Maybe I'm simply off my rocker though, and they both deserved monopoly-protections over their respective markets.  But if so, then I must ask ... Would the 2 government-protected companies work to improve both the quality and price of their products?

Maybe.  But with total control over their markets, it really wouldn't make sense to do so, would it?

Property:

Being the mass-consumer of music that I am, let's take a look at CDs using our hometown favorite Kid Rock as our example (who openly endorses file sharing, in spite of recording company wishes).

When I went to the store to make the purchase, I gave them money in exchange for the CD.  That was the entire deal. No lease/non-distribution agreement was entered into, just a simple, mutually-beneficial exchange.

As I walked out of the store, I felt confident as the owner of this CD in my hand.  It was my property.  In making a legal purchase like this, don't you feel the same?  Afterall, property rights are the basis of a free and peaceful society.  If we abandoned property rights in favor of collective-ownership, only conflict could result.

I may want to take the CD up-north with me one day, while you wish to keep it at home.  Our disagreement then turns into a fight, because there's no clear owner with authority over the property.  When we respect property rights however, it becomes clear I'm it's owner, and have sole authority in deciding whether it travels with me or stays home with you.

Common sense, right?  Yes, but what we're talking about in this case is a tangle asset.  Can the same rules really be applied to an abstract thought or expression?

My owning the CD doesn't infringe your right to have a copy of your own.  You are still free to do so.  Ownership only gives me authority over my particular copy.  But if I have an idea (instead of the tangible CD), how can the same ownership rules apply?

Absent copyright laws, I'm still free to use my idea any way I choose.  I can share it, produce copies for sale, broadcast it, put it on the inner-tubes ... I'm free to do with my idea whatever I please, because being an idea (intangible), there's no way you can take it away from me.

IP Today:

Under the current copyright regime, a few sentences in tiny, unreadable print inside the cover, declares authority over my right to use my (legally purchased) property freely as I see fit.  So this then begs the question, because not having authority to exercise over said property ... Do I actually own the CD?  Or not?

Many well-meaning people say I own the CD, but not the right to use it freely.  Okay, fine.  But if this is correct, then one cannot honestly own the CD!  Think of it this way ... Free speech is like virginity.  You either have it, or you don't.  Same thing applies to (legally purchased) property too.  Either you own it, or you don't.

Which is it?

When I purchased the CD, I'm confident I didn't take any ideas psychically out of Kid Rock's brain.  Can anyone argue honestly that I did?  What if I burned a copy of my/the CD for a friend?  Did either my friend or myself, really steal an original idea from his mind?  I'll be the first to admit that I know little about physics and mental telepathy ... so maybe someone can explain the science of where I'm getting this all wrong.

The Moral Case Against IP:

Of course it would be perfectly acceptable, if Kid Rock and I entered an agreement in which we were both aware and in agreement.  If said contract limited my rights of use, obviously I must abide by the contract, or face just retribution.  When I bought the CD however, a contract was neither offered, nor signed.

Instead of mutual agreement, we have a corporate-government cabal called "copyright."  An agreement consumers are forced into, whether we like it or not!  Benito Mussolini (a man who would know), called this corporate-government alliance, fascism.  But hey, what does Mussolini know about fascism?  It's our Overlords in Washington who perfected it!

Wait, hold the phone ... Does this mean our Big Business-Washington cabal has violated Mussonlini's just monopoly on fascism? I digress ...

If I burn a few copies of my CD to give to family and friends, am I really a criminal who stole another's property?  Or is the real criminal here, the corporate-government copyright regime itself?

Take file-sharing for example.  The corporate-government monopoly has erected Internet survellience, demanded private records from ISPs, threatened and prosecuted children, and even went so far as to build "rat out your neighbor" call centers.

They proclaim "File-sharing is theft!" And according to current law, technically they're correct.  But who are they to decide what is moral or not?  Has morality been reduced to the dominion of a corporate-government cabal?

If I may quote a Dead White Guy here, helping to make a point:

... rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. - Thomas Jefferson

Law, in and of itself, cannot, nor does, determine morality.  In fact, government by it's very nature is evil, so how can we have faith in it's morality at all?  Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't it "democracy" that brought the world Hitler?

If we believe in the right to property, then we must believe in it completely.  What is ours is so absolutely.  If Kid Rock wants to sell me a CD with copies of his songs, once purchased, those copies rightfully belong to me, to do with as I please.  If he decided to broadcast these songs over the radio or inner-tubes as well, then we morally have the right to do with them as we please - record, share, mix, reproduce, whatever ...

Nobody forced him to sell me his songs, nor did anyone force him to make them available to the public.  He chose both actions of his own free will.

An artist, inventor, etc. is just as free to keep their creations to themselves too!  Nobody will enact force to make him do so.

In Closing - A Christian Perspective:

People who love rules, regulations and the directing of other people's lives, need to take a hard look in the mirror first, asking themselves this question:

Am I willing to use violent force against people who do not agree with my favored rules?

This question applies to everyone, everywhere,  - citizen, artist, inventor, et. al. - in ALL situations, because this is the nature of government (and law) - violent force!

To quote another Dead White Guy who understood this deeply:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. - George Washington

Disagree?  Think both me and Washington are crazy?

Okay, then try publicly ignoring (even the most minor) government ordinance, then ignore the court that fines you, then resist the officers who come to steal the property on which they've laid claim.  If the officers have guns (and they will), try exercising your natural right to protect your property.  You know, the one our Founder's made sure to included in our Constitution, in case the government attempted to infringe this natural right.

Make no mistake about it either!  The 2nd Amendment (as is the whole Bill of Rights) is notification of our right, against the government  They held no fantasies otherwise.

Still don't agree that government is nothing but violence?  Fine.  Then tell me, why did they carry weapons to your house in the first place?  To force you to submit.  Right?

Christians then, should stop supporting, voting and campaigning for anyone who does not recognize this fact with the clarity of Washington.  Certainly a Christian shouldn't ever enter into "covenant" with violence and force.  This threat of violence, must strictly be reserved for genuine wrongdoers.  Never to control behavior of the innocent.

Acts 13:19-20 (King James Version):

And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot.  And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.

Hmmm ... can you believe it?  God's people actually survived without a government for 450 years! I'll leave it here for now.  The rest of the Bibilical case against the State will wait for another time.

Entering a mutually agreed upon contract which determines the rights of use of said property is perfectly acceptable.  What is not however, is the corporate-government cabal known as "copyright" today.

In reality, copyright laws are nothing but a corporate-government cabal, designed to make you accept arbitrary, one-way contracts of which you may not agree.  Even when the copyright is claimed to be for your personal protection ... It's still nothing more than an agreement with government to use violent force on your behalf.

Additional Info:

Kid Rock: I think Illegal File-Sharers ‘Should Steal Everything’:

Atlantic Records had even apparently asked Rock a few years ago to “stand up for illegal downloading” because “people are stealing from us and stealing from you.”

“Wait a second, you’ve been stealing from the artists for years,” he countered. “Now you want me to stand up for you?”

... the real issue here is that music artists have long been hijacked by DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES ... even more insulting is that, as Rock points out, the companies are lining up to prevent consumers from obtaining music without some sort of hurdles, be they legal (DCMA), technological (DRM), or interoperability (iTunes). The Internet is supposed to level the playing field for artists and everyone else and so its nice to see that another big named artist gets it right.

“I was telling kids – download it illegally, I don’t care,” he says. “I want you to hear my music so I can play live.”