1. Content
  2. Index
  3. Search
  4. RSS/Subscribe

Copyright's Stigma of Ideological Theft · Sunday May 18, 2008 by Crosbie Fitch

Lucas Gonze insightfully observes a strange absence from many musicians’ websites in his recent post musician blogs are mules.

“None of them link to other musician blogs.”

It’s one of those “Oh my god, you’re right!” revelations, such as one might get after someone says “None of the women at this party are wearing any makeup” and you realise that you must have unconsciously recognised it, but it’s only when it’s pointed out that the shock hits you as you realise how odd and spooky it is.

I suspect that a lot of the non-linking behaviour on musicians’ websites comes from the subtle cultural indoctrination we’ve been living with for a few centuries now (since the advent of copyright) that a musician who is influenced by others is a lesser musician (by exposing themselves to considerable risk of being less original).

Copyright effectively says that the only works worthy of the public’s attention and so deserving of their reward are works that are wholly original – any derivative work is a trespass upon the work of the ‘original’ creator and warrants their consent or veto, and first claim to any reward.

A musician who links to another is thus admitting exposure to that other musician (unless perhaps in a wholly different genre that they doubt they’d ever wish to explore in the future).

Perhaps when copyright is abolished, and its spurious stigma of ideological theft dissipates, all musicians can come out of their closets and embrace each other and their works as naturally inspirational or influential to a greater or lesser extent.

It’s the same with authors today who fear to reveal what books they’ve read or may have used as references, for fear of accusations of copyright infringement (or even actual litigation) – far better to pretend to be unread with any apparent similarity able to be dismissed as purely coincidental (even if one is then unable to give due credit to one’s influences).

Who Invented Klackers? · Thursday May 15, 2008 by Crosbie Fitch

Remember Klackers?

Others remember them too. See NostalgiaCentral.com and TimeWarpToys.com.

Who invented them though?

I don’t know if he was the first to invent them, but my father did invent them in 1949, and took out a patent (GB625695). Not that it gave him any benefit, nor the public. The public had to wait 20 years for the patent to expire so this toy could be manufactured without my father being able to hold it hostage – not that he would have done, of course. ;-)

A Balanced Approach to Copyright? · Saturday February 16, 2008 by Crosbie Fitch

The industry’s continuing attempts to control the public’s reproduction and use of published works in the digital age is something that will be laughed at by future generations – especially the idea that such inherently impossible control would be miraculously become possible if only it was ‘balanced’.

The logical fallacy of an appeal to moderation is just as silly when applied to another matter concerning human liberty: “Well, if only we took a more balanced approach to slavery, were a little kinder and made enslavement a little less harsh, perhaps the slaves wouldn’t keep running away or demanding their freedom?”

Just as we’ve now come to terms with the idea that a man of one colour has no intrinsic claim to suspend the liberty of a man of another colour (or even the same colour), so perhaps we should now come to terms with the idea that an artist has no instrinsic claim to suspend the liberty of any other artist (or any other member of their audience).

When you publish your art, you have no natural right to control what any other artist does with it.

In respect to the artist - NO PHOTOS · Tuesday February 12, 2008 by Crosbie Fitch

So, one day last week I wander into Beaver Creek Hats & Leathers at 36 East Broadway on the south side of Jackson Hole’s town square (WY 83001).

I see a couple of chairs, much like that in the following photo:

Juniper Rocker

Upon one of those chairs is a white card upon which is written “In respect to the artist – NO PHOTOS”.

Now what gets me is how on earth this can be a matter of respect to the artist. Under what colour sky does the person live who believes that photography of an artist’s publicly exhibited work (and no doubt dissemination thereof) can show disrespect to the artist?

Respect would be taking photos, blogging about how great the artist’s work was, and introducing an ever larger audience to the the artist. This no doubt helps establish the artist as the recognised author of their unique style and creates considerable demand for their work by those who appreciate it.

I asked a sales assistant in the shop why the sign was there and he suggested it was to reduce the likelihood of the work being copied, i.e. to maintain the exclusivity of this form of furniture to the artists who made it.

Bit of a cleft stick there really eh? And a double edged sword to boot. Want to help potential buyers discover this unique work, but at the same time need to avoid tipping off the competition to preserve its uniqueness. If only the state could grant them a monopoly they’d not have to take such measures. But then how could any artist be so selfish as to demand that no other crafstman be permitted to reproduce their style of furniture? Is the world not big enough? Can their furniture really be so easily reproduced? Is competition intrinsically unfair? Is facilitation of competition via inevitably promotional photography disrespectful to the artist?

The thing is, if I had no respect for the artist or was in league with a competitor with no scruples about imitation I’d take a fricking photo anyway – sign or no sign. So all the ‘no photos’ sign ends up doing is irritating people otherwise respectful of the artist who’d love to take a snap to show a friend who they’d know would simply love such a great piece of furniture. More specifically in my case, it also irritates copyright abolitionists who happen to be passing through.

The sign actually shows disrespect to the public, and casts the artist or their agent in a very poor light of anal retentive churlishness.

The funny thing is the artist aka John Bickner, Jr. exhibits his artwork worldwide, so he evidently wants it to be seen, but perhaps he wants fine control over which galleries get to exhibit it, and who precisely gets to see it. Thus uncontrolled photography and photos spreading across the Internet dilute this control and must be prohibited. Doesn’t make sense to me. I have deep linked to the photo above (I dare not copy it, for that would be disrespectful – and probably illegal). We can republish images via deep-links, but we can’t copy the images – it’s insane. And madder still, you get anal retentiveness from Kodak who even take pains to detect and thwart deep-linking to three more examples of the chairs in question.

Considering the rights of the matter (and not the privileges), the shop operates as a public gallery with the right to refuse admission or to eject anyone who doesn’t adhere to their conditions (being regardless of race, etc.). Now this means that anything that is available to the senses of the public visitor is available to be recorded by that visitor (and subsequently performed or reproduced at their leisure, whether privately or publicly) – unless of course, the visitor contracted otherwise prior to entry (entry does not constitute agreement). A shop can eject a visitor for taking photos (if they require this constraint), but they cannot claim ownership of those photos, nor obtain their destruction, unless the visitor took photos of material that was not made available to them (they broke a seal on a book, say). So, I was within my rights to take photos of the chairs (until requested to leave the shop) and publish them on this blog. The only disrespect shown would be to the author of the request against photos. It would not have been shown to the artist of the chair – even if they were the same person. In turn, the request against photos on the pretext of it being disrespectful to the artist shows disrespect to myself as a potential customer or member of the artist’s audience.

If you exhibit to the public, please, respect the public and don’t try to pretend that their photography is disrespectful to the artist. If you want them to abstain from promoting you and your work in order to preserve a niche market then that’s up to you, but be honest about it, e.g. write instead “We do not wish to expand production and already have sufficient custom, so please refrain from taking photos of our chairs to show to your friends as this is liable to increase demand to such an extent that competition results and the uniqueness and value of our product is reduced”. It still doesn’t make much sense though.

I could have walked out of the shop with a good feeling about the chairs and a lot of respect for the artists who made them, but the sign’s disrespect for me queered that pitch considerably.

kimberly said 5899 days ago :

I see your point. I also see the other side. I worked for a Children’s Art Museum. We had an exhibit of wooden sculptures.

One “patron” came in and took photographs, against the contract we had with the artist. We stopped her and she threw a fit, pretty in a 60+ year old woman.

She told us that the artwork was to expensive, (We had a price list for some items) and she was going to take pictures and have her son make some to sell at the area farmer’s market.

I wonder if the artist you saw had similar things happen.

Crosbie Fitch said 5898 days ago :

Kimberly, I can see that the ‘other side’ feels indignant that what was previously their exclusive talent or craft is now joined by a competitor. I can see that a craftsman would be upset that a potential customer claims their work is overpriced and expresses the intention to commission copies of their work. I can see that a few such craftsmen would be inclined to hinder competition by whatever means are available.

In general, I can see that many would find a monopoly in their own particular niche highly advantageous and therefore desirable, which is why, given the availability of patents and copyright, many artisans and merchants obtain and jealously guard them.

However, the issue is not that people find competition irritating and unwelcome, nor that monopolies against it are therefore an attractive solution.

The issue is: why do people feel they have a natural right to a monopoly – a right to constrain all members of the public in order to thwart potential competitors that may be among them?

Such a right cannot be natural since without enforcement by a powerful state no artist could ever expect to enforce the monopolies they might desire – even if they could denounce or deface imitation whenever they chanced upon it. And it seems clear that the public would not at all be inclined to reserve their custom to an original manufacturer rather than also consider inevitably cheaper competitors.

Incidentally, the public can be relied upon to demand to know the truth as to which is an original versus a replica, but they would not willingly surrender the liberty to choose between the two. And when it comes to natural rights, the public vastly outnumbers the solitary artist who’d covet a monopoly by which to subject them. Compare with The People vs RIAA.

For a free and fair market it has long been understood that no trader should be able to interfere with any other trader, operate a cartel, nor reserve trade in a particular good to themselves. Unfortunately, the misguided have instituted specific time-limited monopolies (patent: novel mechanisms; and copyright: original expression) as commercial incentives (at the expense of the public’s liberty), and the merchants who’ve enjoyed them have predictably consolidated and extended them.

In your case, Kimberly, I’d also observe that whatever contract an artist makes with a museum, it cannot bind non-signatories, i.e. members of the public who visit the museum. Either the artist permits exhibition of their sculptures to members of the public or he does not. Members of the public cannot violate a contract they have not agreed to (even if the museum erects signs everywhere saying otherwise). Even Copyright of sculpture cannot prohibit photography, especially when that sculpture is exhibited publicly, and irrespective of the exhibitor’s suspicions that photos are likely to be used for purposes of reproducing the sculpture.

I can well believe that Flat Creek Crossing have had similar things happen to them as have happened to your museum, and that this has inspired them to forbid photography (with whatever power enables them to enforce this – if any). However, although one may expect an artist to prefer a lack of competition, and the cachet of uniqueness this brings, I still cannot see how an artist expects members of the public to equate a denial of photography as a sign of respect to the artist. I can see why they’d want them to, but I don’t see how they can have any hope of this being considered equitable.

“If you truly respected me, you’d not take any photos of my work”

This is an immature exhortation, much like the kind that goes “If you truly loved me, you’d promise never to watch football again”.

Your Audience is Your Best Customer · Sunday January 27, 2008 by Crosbie Fitch

So, dear artist, being your best customer:

  1. Your audience is happy to pay you for your work
  2. So deal with it, don’t prosecute it
  3. Copies of your work cost nothing, so don’t try to charge for them – they are not ‘lost sales’
  4. Copies are your promiscuous promoters – don’t encumber them
  5. The bigger your audience the bigger their budget
  6. Give them a better bargain
  7. Art for money, money for art

I’m pleased to read Bob Blakley’s latest blog entry:
The New Studio

Welcome to the second age of enlightenment Bob, where artists cease their mercenary suspension of each others’ liberty via the unethical privileges of patent and copyright.

Samir Chopra said 5906 days ago :

Hear, hear. I’m always surprised by the number of ‘artists’ who, in any given discussion on digital distribution of art, chime in with the usual “but copying my work hurts me, denies me a living!”.

Paper vs Radio · Tuesday October 23, 2007 by Crosbie Fitch

Here’s a riddle.

What is the difference between:

  1. a service that lets you upload your entire music collection in order for it to be downloaded or streamed to you anywhere.
  2. a service that lets you upload the DETAILS of your entire music collection in order for it to be randomly streamed to you anywhere.

The former involves reproduction and distribution of copies.

The latter involves no reproduction or distribution, only performance, and constitutes ‘webcasted’ radio.

So, if you want to listen to the kind of music you like wherever you are and don’t need particularly high fidelity, then the notion of the copy disappears.

And yet the same digital bits are flying around?

It’s just some lunatic who’s shoehorned paper and radio metaphors into the digital domain that keeps the emperor’s tailors in the lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed.

Many Eyes Make All Secret Rocket Testing Stations Visible · Monday September 24, 2007 by Crosbie Fitch

The original task: Find accommodation near a particular postcode.

So I bring up Google Maps and bung it in. I have a scan around, and “Ooh look at the lovely countryside”.

“Hmmn. What a nice forest.”

Looks like someone’s carved themselves out a nice little hidey hole.

Clogs Bank

Probably some old hunting lodge or manor.

On closer inspection it looks a bit untidy to say the least.

What the heck is that big white fallout area?

And the square perimeter fence looks like they don’t want any visitors.

Maximum zoom.

What I thought was perhaps a private hunting lodge with landscaped gardens, or even a clay pigeon range, is beginning to look very fishy. And no, I don’t mean like a ‘private fishing lake’.

It’s on ‘Clogs Bank’, but Google doesn’t really turn much up for that, except that it’s so called because the Button Oak wives could hear the clogs of their miner husband as they returned from Kinlet pit, and they knew to put on the potatoes!

I have a look around for Kinlet and “Button Bridge Lane’, but apart from the old disused mine “Kinlet Pit” there aren’t many leads. “Charcoal burners used to live in tent-like shelters called booths or boothen, while they were burning. This was the origin of the surname Booton and Button Oak and Button Bridge”

At least I’ve now found that I’m dealing with the Wyre Forest. I check out various forest visitor centres, but there seems to be no mention of manors, hunting lodges, etc.

There is another secluded estate in the forest, so I think that may give me a lead. I find a planning document.

It’s highlighted as a point of interest here (if you zoom in and turn on hybrid).

I find out it’s Coppice Gate Holiday Park but this doesn’t turn up too much apart from a nearby walk.

I decide to use the Coppice Gate Holiday Park postcode of “DY12 3DP” to have a look at the Ordnance Survey map.

Ordnance Survey area

I notice that the area of interest is labelled ‘Birchen Vallets’. Google turns up nothing particularly remarkable apart from some botanical field trips.

I have a go with Postensplain.

Pay dirt!

Have a look at the first link for the Harlequins orienteering group’s report on that neck of the woods.

Suffers from a huge out of bounds area in the middle – A W.W.II rocket testing station the inner sanctum if which is still in use. Most of the out of bounds is a safety buffer zone.

I just knew that place looked a bit odd. That white area is precisely the kind of scorched earth effect a horizontally tested rocket engine would produce.

Furthermore, the three paddocks or enclosures look as if they’ve been deliberately reserved for a long term test. Ideas anyone? Why would you mow most of the range apart from three sections? The middle one of which look’s newer (or most severely stunted).

Finally, it looks like there might be a missile silo towards the top, with a tarmac side entrance. Quite a lot of tarmac everywhere suggests quite a few vehicles running around – or a few with heavy loads (once taking earth away for disposal elsewhere…).

So, if I can find a nuclear missile launch facility completely by accident, presumably the Soviets found them decades ago through intent scrutiny. I suppose this is why there’s no point keeping satellite imagery secret, the only people who don’t know where the silos are, are the civilians – and at this rate we’re not going to be very far behind. Perhaps all the silos will be relocated underneath public swimming pools a la Thunderbirds?

No doubt there’s a website devoted to the weird and wonderful things you can find via Google Maps, but I’ll leave that to you to find.

I’m just surprised at how quickly one can go from “curious bit of forest” to “rocket testing station” simply by using Google.

It’s also surprising how much time one can waste being distracted by supposedly hidden facilities in the middle of forests when one simply wants to find a B&B.

Crosbie Fitch said 6051 days ago :

Ok, couldn’t resist it.

Here’s some links to people who’ve been there, done that, written the book and published the website:



Oliver Haycock said 5886 days ago :

I live about a 5 minute walk from this base in Button Oak. About once a week there are massive explosions that shake the house coming from the base. They only test rocket fuel there apparently?

Surgical said 5017 days ago :

This is Roxel, rocket motor test facility. The fenceline is dotted with “Trespass is an offence under the official secrets act.”

If you hang around for a while, you can hear the rockets being fired on some days.

secret said 4886 days ago :

I heard somewhere that there is also a very large underground facility underneath the forest and signs of a possible entrance. I just wonder what goes on in there.I guess we will never know.

IPistemology · Wednesday August 29, 2007 by Crosbie Fitch

Intellectual property is accompanied by natural rights and unnatural privileges.

Different things happen in different jurisdictions (WIPO notwithstanding).

  • Some rights are protected, some aren’t.
  • Some privileges are granted, some aren’t.

Examples of rights: life, privacy, truth, liberty.
Examples of privileges (suspension of others’ rights): copyright, patent.

I’m an IP naturalist. How about you?

  • IP maximalists want as many rights and privileges as they can get, and ever more draconian enforcement.
  • IP conservatives think everything’s working just fine, but for a few tweaks here and there, and the need for better law schools.
  • IP reformists sense problems, but aren’t sure what they are or how to fix them.
  • IP nostalgists think things have gone too far, and want to remove the last few decades of revisions to IP law from the statute books.
  • IP fundamentalists worship Thomas Jefferson and are waiting for his resurrection.
  • IP constitutionalists believe all solutions lie in a better understanding of the intentions of the founding fathers.
  • IP nihilists believe that it’s all moot and don’t care what the law says, that the diffusion of information is as amenable to control as the tide to Canute. All legislation is either in conflict with reality, ineffective, or redundant.
  • IP pragmatists are simply using licences to achieve their preferred ideology.
  • IP naturalists argue from an ethical perspective that all rights should be protected and all privileges abolished.
  • IP communists find privileges abhorrent, and even consider rights secondary in favour of a communitarian social contract to oblige the sharing of art and knowledge, free of commercial consideration (although tolerating any commerce that survives).
  • IP anarchists do what the heck they want and will use technology to subvert or bypass undesirable constraints for the benefit of themselves and others.
  • IP extremists consider violation of IP rights and privileges equivalent to terrorism and want violators to be treated as terrorists.
  • IP authorialists believe all problems result from the author’s surrender of their privileges to their publishers, that if all privileges were returned to the authors and made inalienable as if rights, that no author could then authorise their sociopathic abuse.

Any more?

Scott Carpenter said 6070 days ago :

I’m probably leaning to IP pragmatism with naturalist sympathies.

Where do reformers fit in? I might advocate a copyright term of 14 years or less for artistic works, but that still leaves us with enforcement issues.

Crosbie Fitch said 6070 days ago :

As I suggested above, IP reformists aren’t sure about the problems or the solutions. They have half-baked ideas like reduced terms (in sympathy with IP nostalgists), but they’re fundamentally unable to justify them.

I commented on the folly of a prominent reformist, Pamela Samuelson, here:


Scott Carpenter said 6070 days ago :

Doh. I read through the list. Wrote the first part of my comment, thought about a “reformer” category, scanned the list and missed it.

I’m not totally against short term restrictions, but the methods of enforcement are unacceptable. I think people’s sense of fairness would see most people buying copies, but I suspect IP maximalists don’t want to rely on that.

Crosbie Fitch said 6070 days ago :

Feel free to create an unauthorised derivative in which the items are in alphabetical order. ;-)

And as for ‘short term restrictions’, sorry, but you might as well be arguing about the optimum thickness of the walls of a chocolate teapot.

I know there are people out there (possibly you included) who entertain such arguments, but I ain’t one of ‘em. ;-)

Scott Carpenter said 6069 days ago :

No, I was certain that you wouldn’t!

I’d prefer your way, but maybe I’m just not confident of how we’ll get there, and might look at drastically shorter terms as a step in that direction.

Crosbie Fitch said 6069 days ago :

Getting there will either be via collapse or cunning. It won’t be via compromise (shorter terms, more fair use, etc.).

Here’s something I came up with a while ago as a ‘reform’ that should appeal to maximalists even while it sows the seeds for abolition.

Good Copyright, Bad Copyright

Raining on CC & Buma/Stemra's parade · Friday August 24, 2007 by Crosbie Fitch

From Creative Commons’ weblog:
The Netherlands is the first country to bring such a collaboration between a music copyright organization and Creative Commons, a move applauded by Lawrence Lessig, the founder and chairman of Creative Commons International, as “the first step towards more freedom of choice in the field of exploiting music works in the digital world.”

“Freedom of choice”?

Gosh. How laudable.

“Ambassadeur, wiz zese Ferrero Rocher you are really spoiling us!”

Thanks to CC, musicians can now have a free choice in deciding whether to prosecute their fans or let them share their music without such persecution. And so, at last, collection societies can now more easily recognise that some of their members may be a bit limp in the hang ‘em and flog ‘em department.

You see how subtly the sly sinuation slips in? That the manumission of freedom is rightfully given to the copyright holder – not their suffering fans who remain, just as before, shackled not to share and imprisoned if they do – unless of course, the musician they so adore deigns to grant them clemency, if the criminals they catch have made no attempt to profit from their copying.

Remember kids, not all freedom is good. It’s great from the slave owner’s perspective that they get the freedom of choice to decide whether to capitally punish escaped slaves, just let them off with a less severe warning, or even to set them free to reduce overheads during times of drought.

So, why the heck should anyone rejoice that the choice to prosecute is no longer in the hands of the collection society, but the musician?

Sank you professeur Lessig, for letting ze kind musician have ze freedom of choice to prosecute us instead of zeir evil record label. You are really spoiling us.

Let’s rejoice when no-one has the freedom to, let alone freedom of choice to, prosecute fans for sharing a musician’s published works.

So, what, if anything, has actually changed?


Musicians can publish their music fully copyrighted and receive revenue via collection societies. Their fans share their music with impunity, but insignificant risk of jail terms.


Musicians can publish their music CC-NC and receive revenue via collection societies. Their fans share their music with impunity, but no risk of jail terms.

I don’t know who is most overjoyed by the news.

Here is my estimated breakdown of enjoyment:

  1. Creative Commons 60%
  2. Collection societies 30%
  3. Musicians 9%
  4. Those sharing the music and risking jail terms 1%
  5. Those who like the music 0%
  6. Those paying the collected fees 0%

As for economic impact, well, 0% really. Why on earth is it going to change?

  • Musicians who still believe in copyright, but don’t really want to sue their fans, will continue as before.
  • Musicians who wish their music to be promoted far and wide without let or hindrance will continue to do everything possible to escape the predations of record labels and collection societies.

Meanwhile, the board at Buma/Stemra has been persuaded that there are many musicians who continue to believe that bars and other commercial establishments should be prosecuted for promoting their work without paying for the privilege, even if they no longer think their fans should be.

Creative Commons continue to find mugs who still think copyright can be made to work if only it’s kind to kids, but cruel to commerce.

There is of course, no compromise. Either you believe in monopolies or you don’t.

The intermediate solution?

Nullification via licence, e.g. copyleft.

The inescapable conclusion?


A Better Allegory

Imagine in the movie Aliens, the adversary is actually publishers’ lucrative copyright legislation that infests human culture, admired by lone lawyers with dollars in their eyes who’d harness it for their own ends:

Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Hudson: Fuckin’ A…
Burke: Ho-ho-hold on, hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.
Ripley: They can BILL me.

I, naturally, identify with Ripley, and suggest that Burke can be ably played by Lessig, with every other draconian publisher and their lawyers, the aliens. Let us not forget the innocent families already wiped out, or cocooned and still awaiting digestion by predatory litigation.

Auditions for Hudson’s part are invited from members of this audience.

Rob Myers said 6082 days ago :

It’s “ambassador”, not “monsieur”. If I ever go to a diplomatic reception and they don’t serve Ferrero Rocher I will be so disappointed…

Crosbie Fitch said 6082 days ago :

Thanks Rob.

I have consequently decided to revise the article to use French honorifics respectively.


One day, advertisers will publish the scripts to their adverts so that we don’t have to guess or attempt recollection from human memory.

Counterfeit Copyright Conflation · Monday August 13, 2007 by Crosbie Fitch

Seth Finkelstein observes the mission creep in censorship when interests in censoring pornography are conflated with interests in censoring pro-terrorism sites.

It consequently becomes difficult to argue against censorship (or other human rights violations) without becoming seen as pro-terrorist.

The problem is, pornography is arguably ethical, concerned as it is with our natural desires and instincts to create life and the pleasures of the process. However, the promotion of terrorism is arguably unethical – there are very few arguments in support of it (supernatural beings or genocidal states tend to be involved).

This conflation also happens with copyright, when much is made about counterfeit digital works in order to conflate copyright infringement with fraud.

Let’s consider some examples:

  1. No-one is happy buying what they thought was an authentic DVD to find out it is not, although they may tolerate it if it was a dirt cheap import and is otherwise digitally identical.
  2. No-one is happy to buy a bootleg DVD to find out that it’s not a copy of an original DVD, but a low res MPEG version.
  3. No-one is happy to buy a low res MPEG movie if they find that it’s simply a blank CD-ROM with cheap inlay paper.

Notice that what makes people unhappy is being deceived about what they’re getting – the counterfeit. The fact that a copyright infringement occurs only makes publishers unhappy that their monopoly isn’t being respected.

This is why, in order to obtain popular support, all copyright infringement is conflated with counterfeiting. Because NO-ONE supports counterfeiting. And therefore no-one can be against incredibly draconian punishments against all counterfeiters (oh and this includes copyright infringers of course).

So, if anything the legislation is counterfeit. Citizens are being sold legislation on the grounds that it helps prosecute counterfeiters, and yet they later discover to their horror that it’s actually to prosecute them against copyright infringement.

If only there was a law against counterfeit legislation…



Recent Articles

Recent Comments



Natural Right

Legal Rights






Being Privy


Personal Data





Moral Rights







Freedom of Speech

Freedom vs Liberty

Official Secrets Act













US Constitution

'exclusive right'












No Rights






Amnesty International

Copyleft (Wikipedia)

Electronic Frontier

Free Culture F'n

Free Culture UK

Free S/w Foundation


Against Monopoly

One Small Voice



Question Copyright







Downhill Battle

Publishers vs Public


Rethinking Copyright


Against Monopoly

Ecstasy of Influence

Libertarian Case



Janet Hawtin

Nina Paley

Rob Myers

Scott Carpenter