copyright restrictions are coercive and immoral (Re: Piracy is wrong)

[Adam Back]

On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 03:10:07AM +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Suppose you know someone who has been working for years on a novel.
> But he lacks confidence in his work and he's never shown it to anyone.
> Finally you persuade him to let you look at a copy of his manuscript,
> but he makes you promise not to show any of it to anyone else.
> 
> [...]

I agree with the Anonymous posters analysis.

I would further elaborate with regard to current copyright related
laws:

- parties are free to enter into NDA or complex distribution and use
contracts surrounding exchange of content or information generally as
anonymous describes, and this is good and non-coercive

- but that private contract places no burden on other parties if that
agreement is broken and the content distributed anyway.  This is
exactly analogous to the trade secret scenario where once the trade
secret is out, it's tough luck for the previous trade secret owner --
clearly it's no longer a secret.

- where I find current copyright laws at odds with a coercion free
society is in placing restrictions on people who did not agree to any
NDA contract.  ie. There are laws which forbid copying or use of
information by people who never entered into any agreement with the
copyright holder, but obtained their copy from a third party.

- in a free society (one without a force monopoly central government)
I don't think copyright would exist -- voluntary agreements -- NDAs of
the form anonymous describes -- would be the only type of contract.

- the only form of generally sanctioned force would be in response to
violence initiated upon oneself.

- if the media cartels chose to hire their own thugs to threaten
violence to people who did not follow the cartels ideas about binding
people to default contracts they did not voluntarily enter into, that
would be quite analogous to the current situation where the media
cartels are lobbying government to increase the level of the threats
of violence, and make more onerous the terms of the non-voluntary
contracts.  

(Also in a free society individuals would be able to employ the
services of security firms protection services to defend themselves
from the media cartels thugs, as the media cartels would not have the
benefit of a force monopoly they have the lobbying power to bribe to
obtain enforcement subsidies).

Adam