Fair use

A)    About copyright

1. This is an example of a copyright notice:

“Copyright © 2010 by Bill Shakespeare:

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher, at the address below…” [1]

2. This is an excerpt from William Shakespeare’s Othello:

“To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep

No more; and by a sleep, to say we end

the heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks

that Flesh is heir to?…” [2]

3. This is a possible copyright notice related to William Shakespeare’s Othello:

“Copyright © 1564-1616 by William Shakespeare…”

4. Imagine that the works of William Shakespeare, or of any creator, older or modern, were copyrighted, to the extent that you needed special permission from one publisher, or organization, or another, to reproduce some of that creator’s work.  If the creator was still alive then you would have to find his address, and come to direct or indirect contact with him, in order to ask for permission. But if the creator had died then you would have to have some special skills to communicate with the dead, or simply publish his work, and do whatever you want with it, as long as you could never be sued by a deceased person.

5. This is a fantastic story about a writer obsessed with copyright:

“Once upon a time there was a writer. He was very talented, and he wrote many excellent works, which may have deserved a place in world history. However that writer was very strict about copyright. He was so secretive about his own work that he never allowed anyone to reproduce or even mention any part of his work. Finally, when he died, he took his work to the grave. Nobody has ever read or even heard anything about his work ever since…”

6. On one hand, it is the egoism and possessiveness which can make a person secretive and obsessive about his own ideas: “Should I publish my thoughts, or someone may steal these thoughts of mine?” “Is copyright sufficient, or someone could infringe my copyright without me ever noticing it?”

7. “Ah! What the heck? I will publish it anyway…”

B)    Is copyright necessary?

8. Someone might argue that it certainly is, because it protects the spiritual property of the copyright owner. Leaving aside for a moment the term ‘spiritual,’ and replacing it by ‘material,’ the same is true for any kind of property. As a poem we have written, so a house we have bought is ours by any right. No one can take the house from us, or even trespassing it without a warrant. However a warrant can be issued as easily as copyright- or any right- can be violated. All you need is a corrupt or blackmailed judge- and you can always find such a judge in society.

9. Thus, on the other hand, you have some institution (like mafia) or a company, which either takes control of everything by force- which can be ‘legal force,’ or possesses things and people by acquiring the copyright. While usually the money the original creator takes is far less than the money the company earns, finally the property, either mental or material, is transferred from the individual to the thugs who rule society (under the cover of an anonymous company for example). 

10. This is similar to the problem of drug trafficking. About a century ago, in the USA and during the Prohibition, the mob took control over the trafficking of liquor, legally backed by corrupt politicians, judges, and policemen. Nowadays the same people control drug dealing. If drugs were set free, all these people would be left out of work, and crime would be immensely reduced (since anyone could use drugs on its own will). The dogma that letting drugs (like cigarettes or alcohol) free will destroy society is false, and it is based either on interest or on ignorance. It just makes drug addicts marginalized, and drug lords rich. (Not to mention that addiction is much more a social aspect than a biological or psychological one- for example in societies where people celebrate together drinking wine, nobody gets addicted to wine.)

11. Thus, to return to copyright, if we had a society who treated spiritual property- or any kind of property or product- as free, then there would not be any violation of copyright, thus no related crime committed. The violation of any human right, or the abuse of any kind of product, is based on deprivation, and such deprivation or exclusive ownership of goods is imposed by a ruthless and greedy elite onto an ignorant or fearful crowd- including writers or artists. Thus copyright should not even be considered legal in a truly democratic and independent society.

C)    About fair use

12. This is a definition of fair use:

“Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder.” [3]

13. However the problem about fair use has to do with the level of emancipation of a society. On one hand, each individual should be brave and strong enough to prevent the few predators stealing the individual’s property. Right now this is impossible, mostly because people are accustomed to take orders and be manipulated by others- fair use presupposes a very strong sense of liberty.

14. On the other hand, apart from the sense of freedom, one should also know what freedom is all about. Not only one should learn to respect other people’s ideas- no matter how crazy or different than one’s own such ideas might be-, but also one should have one’s own ideas- an aspect which is largely based on the system of education-. This way anyone will be able to criticize and build upon the ideas of others, thus also improving anyone’s own ideas, as well as the spiritual level of the whole society.

D)    This is a saying of mine:

15. “While, on one hand, copyright is the product of conservatism and oppressiveness, on the other hand, copyleft is the result of lack of interest or judgment. A truly emancipated society demands creativity and criticism.”

[1]: [https://www.thebookdesigner.com/2010/01/copyright-page-samples-you-can-copy-and-paste-into-your-book/]

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be,_or_not_to_be]

[3]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use]

9/17/2018

Image: [https://arielkatz.org/south-africas-proposed-copyright-fair-use-right-should-be-a-model-for-the-world/]