We are not free because we are not individuals. We are a society, a collective organism. We are drops of water in an ocean. Your actions affect my life as well my actions affect yours. Individualism and freedom are just misconceptions. Consumers benefit from creators as well creators benefit from consumers. One cannot exist without the other. We are a relationship, we are an interaction. We depend on each others. Alone we are nothing.

Thank you for your comment, collective consciousness. Yeah, I remember where such collective consciousness usually leads to - cozy work places with “Arbeit macht frei” slogan at the entrance. You don’t even see to what extent your post proves my point.

What degree of self-loathing should a person possess to say “we are not individuals” and “alone we are nothing”!

From Canadian Copyright: A Citizen’s Guide:

“”“A s the Supreme Court declared in Théberge v. Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain (2002), “Excessive control by holders of copyrights and other forms of intellectual property may unduly limit the ability of the public domain to incorporate and embellish creative innovation in the long-term interests of society as a whole, or create practical obstacles to proper utilization.” The court also noted, “Once an authorized copy of a work is sold to a member of the public, it is generally for the purchaser, not the author, to determine what happens to it.”“”< /p>

The notion that you propose of copyright as a natural right is utterly inconsistent with the Canadian tradition, or the tradition in most of the Western world. Copyright—unlike actual property rights—is a utilitarian proposition, precisely because there are no natural rights to “own” ideas (or “expressions” ).

Your proposal of a simple individualist versus collectivist approach is overly simplistic. Copyright can often be at odds with one’s actual property rights (see: first sale doctrine).

It’s not at all inherently collectivist to promote the public interest. No one is proposing collective ownership of a single scarce good. What people are concerned about, however, is government granted monopolies that restrict an individual’s freedom and right to control their own property.

On what basis do you believe that a creator has a right to control an idea? (And, did you come up with that argument yourself?)

Copyright is a government granted exclusive but limited monopoly which is intended to benefit society by giving an incentive to creators. That is the basis for arguments about balance.

If the government granted monopoly is unbridled or to the detriment of citizens, then we ought not to allow the government to grant such a monopoly in a democratic society. If, on the other hand, creators need the assistance of government in order to make enough money to continue to create, then copyright is one potentially useful mechanism for that.

I tend to err on the side of free market, but you seem to prefer the government granted monopoly approach.

You’ve driven more towards the fundamental difference of opinion, yes, but you dodged the question (or haven’t dug that far yet) of why there are any natural rights in the first place.

Are ideas property?

Actually, I did cite Theberge case in my previous article, Copyright and the Great Socialist Degradation.

That the attempt to find the balance between the rights of creators and of users is wholly within the Canadian tradition, does nothing to address the notion that this tradition is inconsistent with common sense and morality.

As I stated, it is only moral that everyone should be entitled to the results of their creative labour, and no one should have the right to determine conditions upon which such results must be delivered to others. Otherwise, the creator is a slave to the majority.

Ideas are not property - for one simple reason: to distinguish wannabes from those who take the extra step and express their ideas.

In a free society, copyright is NOT a government granted monopoly, just as human life is not a government granted license. Copyright becomes a government grant only in unfree societies, socialist societies being one of the better examples.

I used to be a supporter of the idea of balance of interests until I dug up much deeper into the philosophy of why copyright laws exist in the first place (again, read my article on the Great Socialist Degradation). Now the idea of balance does not make any sense to me. It is the same as finding a balance of interests between killers and their victims.

There is no such entity as society. Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals with their separate interests, values, abilities and needs.

When you purchase a material object in which a copyright work is embodied, you are buying two things - the material object WITHOUT any right to use the work embodied therein; AND a limited license to use the work. No one is forcing you to buy the object on these conditions. You have no entitlement to use the work other than through the obtaining the object and using the work on terms prescribed by the license.

Creators do NOT need assistance of government in order to make enough money to continue to create. I abhor the idea of using money that the government extorts from people of achievement to fund artists that are unable to find the funding through voluntary means. If an artist cannot sell his works or find a voluntary art patron, the artist has no right to claim any funding from the government on the basis that his creativity is socially important, simply because the society has already stated that it is not prepared to support the artist.

Copyright is not a means to support artists. Copyright is recognition that one is free to dispose of the results of one’s own work - nothing more and nothing less.