A Libertarian Primer on the Copyright Wars

On Jan. 18, the world was audience to the one of the most visible online activism yet in Internet history. Taking part in the 24-hour protest were thousands of websites and millions of Internet users going head-to-head with Hollywood to oppose a pair of anti-piracy bills — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) — currently making its way through Congress.

Leading the charge were Wikipedia, Google, Craigslist and several other Internet heavyweights which blacked out their websites or otherwise called attention to the anti-piracy bills. More important than just calling attention to these bills, the many websites mobilized users to directly contact legislators’ offices.

Just how effective were the protests? According to the Los Angeles Times, 162 million people directly experienced Wikipedia’s blackout. Additionally, 8 million users looked up their representatives in Congress. Reports suggest that the online activism led to an avalanche of real-world activism as thousands took to calling their representatives’ offices.

Jesus and Software Piracy

Most people are familiar with the Bible story of the time that Jesus fed 5000 people with only five loaves of bread and two fish. It is one of his best-known miracle stories. But has anyone stopped to think about what he was really doing?

When Jesus fed the 5000 with five loaves of bread and two fish, he was pirating food. Some baker worked to make that bread and some fisherman worked to catch those fish. If Jesus hadn't copied the food over and over again then the people would have had to buy more bread from the baker and more fish from the fishermen.

If you can endlessly copy bread and fish without cost then the fish and bread industries might suffer. Jesus could buy one loaf and one fish and have plenty of food for himself and even give it away to his friends. Then no one needs to buy fish or bread anymore.

I fail to see how Jesus' actions are any different from modern-day “software piracy.” One person buys a song and copies it endlessly for free and gives it away to other people.

The argument today is that it is wrong to copy music and videos without paying the people that produced them. It seems to me that Jesus made a very clear statement about this and he doesn't seem to feel that making and sharing copies of products is immoral.

I wonder if the RIAA has ever thought about that.

Intellectual Property and Copyright Lawsuits Silence Small Venue

The owner of Luke's Lounge, a small bar and long-time music venue in downtown Dixon, was informed late last year that he could not have live music in his bar unless he payed exorbitant licensing fees to the ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers). Here is part of a local article on the matter:

The bar no longer hosts live performances because of the cost of license fees that The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) demands for live performances.  It’s a fee that Luke’s Lounge owner Nate Luke said he is no longer willing to pay.

ASCAP is an organization that represents 400,000 or more U.S. composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers of every kind of music, according to its web site.

ASCAP said it protects its members through licensing and collecting royalties for public performances of their work. Known among musicians as “the collection society,” ASCAP also said it makes giving and obtaining permission to perform music “simple for both creators and users of music.”

Risk of IP lawsuits are a major concern for unlicensed music venues. I believe that IP and copyright laws need to be changed to make it less risky for smaller music venues so that the form of legal extortion can be stopped. This is literally a "pay to play" situation.  Read the whole story here.

Just Sue the Bastards

Everyone knows the newspaper industry is in financial trouble. Low readership has put many newspapers out of business and the big guys like the New York Times and Washington Post are dying to change business models and turn a profit. Should we go all digital? Should we charge for digital copies like The Times Online has started (which has actually killed their online presence)?

But why change business models when you can just sue your way back into the black? In a new strategy, borrowed heavily from the music and movie industry, Steve Gibson of Righthaven has been buying copyrights to news chains and suing bloggers for "stealing" content. According to Gibson,

"We believe it’s the best solution out there,” Gibson says. “Media companies’ assets are very much their copyrights. These companies need to understand and appreciate that those assets have value more than merely the present advertising revenues.”

Now I know that the libertarian discussion of intellectual property rages on still today, but if there is one thing we can agree upon it is that posting stories on your blog from newspapers should not fall under copyright law.