Hacker News Reader

Comment by YokoZar | Hacker News Reader

Recognize that copyrights clash with basic property rights. Why can't I use my computer or printer however I wish, even if that means copying existing content?

The reason is a fundamental tradeoff -- we've accepted a bargain to deny ourselves some fundamental property rights temporarily under the theory that, in the long run, we'll get more innovation and content and further the "progress of science and useful arts", as the US constitution puts it.

If we're not making that progress, then it no longer becomes a tradeoff, and the laws are simply breaking property rights for no reason.

So, yes, if you care at all about property rights there's a very good reason to believe in limiting copyrights.

View on HN

> Recognize that copyrights clash with basic property rights.

Like all property rights, copyright is a socially constructed privilege to exclude others from certain actions, and, like all property rights, every copyright interest limits everyone else's freedom, including the freedom to derive utility from their property.

This is a very real tradeoff with copyright, but it is exactly the same kind of tradeoff that exists with all property rights, not something special to copyright vs. other property rights.

What, specifically, are the "basic property rights" that copyrights clash with?

I ask because the general statement of "use my ... however I wish" is obviously way too broad; I can't use my computer to commit fraud, or my printer to print dollars. More generally, I would say the distilled basic property right is to use my property in a way that does not violate anyone else's rights or break any laws.

The most basic property right is the right to exclude others from the use of your property, and in that sense, if we accept that "intellectual property" is property, then it seems to apply there too.

I don't think I'm the only one in this thread who saw rayiner's comment and felt instinctive disgust followed by grudging admiration -- the idea there is really messing with my while framework for thinking about copyrights.

When you commit fraud or print fake dollars, you're interfering with other people's property rights in fairly clear ways. It's an obvious harm. When you sing Happy Birthday to your grandmother, or make a mix tape for your girlfriend, you're creating value through the use of your property. Property rights are especially relevant when you're not affecting others in any way in your own privacy, but copyrights can even interfere with that.

It's not just property rights that copyrights interfere with, of course, there are also other basic fundamental rights being diminished. Freedom of speech is an obvious example.

This isn't an argument against all copyright. It's merely pointing out that there's a tradeoff, and every now and again we should ask "is it worth it?"

"I don't think I'm the only one in this thread who saw rayiner [...]"

Uhm, no. Like many of rayiners "arguments" it's authoritative rhetorical bullshit. He frames the question, makes some assertions that aren't backed up and leaves the burden of proof on the reader. If you look closely you'll find he's not even taking much of a position on the subject. So even if you manages to disapprove what he's claiming you'll end up in a discussion you can't win since he's the one making up the rules as you go along. Actually this is quite similar to how copyright keeps getting extended.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com