Liberty

Liberty is a very important and difficult concept. Throughout our intellectual history, the idea of liberty has been approached from every angle. Most famously, the Declaration of Independence says that all men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But what is liberty? In the Aristotelian tradition of virtue ethics, liberty is first and foremost the ability and opportunity to seek happiness by cultivating the virtues within oneself. In other words: liberty is the pursuit of happiness. The phrase John Locke used, was "life, liberty and property". Why the writers of the Declaration chose their phrasing over Locke's, I don't know.

So liberty is the ability to do what you want. But liberty is not random. If liberty truly has a goal and purpose - to pursue happiness, beatitude and the Good - then it has to limit just as much as it allows. Exactly what this "good" is, philosophers cannot agree on. Plato and later Aristotle referred to this as "the Form of the Good". In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the good ultimately refers to God himself. In contemporary thought, it is important to stress that the freedom of one individual should not interfer with the freedom of another.

Licence and Copyright

Licence is the opposite of liberty. This might be difficult to grasp at first, because if you have a licence, you are granted the freedom to do a particular thing. But therein lies the problem: a licence implies that the thing is illegal or not tolerated. Had it been legal, there would be no need for a licence in the first place. A licence takes away liberty, only to give it back conditionally. A fishing licence implies that you are not allowed to fish. A building permit implies that you are not allowed to build.

Copyright, therefore, is contrary to liberty. I don't know if that is a controversial claim to make. But copyright limits what the individual can do. You make something with your own hands, then someone comes along and says: "No, you cannot make that. I place a limit on what you can do." Copyright is an attempt at limiting the liberty of the individual in creating, making and doing what he wants.

Some claim that intellectual property (IP) is truly property. Copyright can then be justified as it is the State's job to secure the rights to "life, liberty, and property." It is true that you own everything you create and make, and that the State should protect your right to keep those things. Things like physical manuscripts, canvases, woodwork. But the story itself, the idea itself exceeds the physical and belongs in another realm. You can own the physical manifestations of particular thoughts, but the thought itself is un-own-able. If I decide to make my own Star Wars movie or write my own Star Wars book, I have not physically taken anything from Disney.

Of course, no one is stopping me from making my own Star Wars movie. Copyright stops my ability to make money off it, to distribute it and show it in public. But this is effectively the same as saying that I can think whatever I want, as long as I don't say it out loud. Both are essentially limits on free speech. And can limiting speech in this way be said to serve mankind's pursuit of the Good?

A Practical Approach

Perhaps philosophical arguments and the appeal to the high spirit of man do not work. Copyright is security; it secures that the author alone can earn a living off of his own work. That much is true. Originally, copyrights and patents were a form of social contract, managed by the State. The State limits the freedom of individuals in copying and using the author's material, for a little while. In return, the author is secured his wages, and is encouraged to produce more, write more, make more. A balanced and agreeable trade-off, making all of society richer.

This is why copyrights extending beyond the lifetime of the author is the pinnacle of meaninglessness. Once dead, he cannot do more. The whole reason for copyright is gone. When corporations manage copyrights, this turns into hypocrisy: how can Marvel and Disney enjoy the fruit and wages of another man's labour, and simultaneously strike down others trying to do the same?

Does copyright limit creativity, or does it promote it? It is hard to say. When you don't get to use familiar stories, you have to get creative. Everyone has to constantly re-invent the wheel. But we know for a fact that the holders of copyrights become lazy and un-creative themselves. Many do not like what Disney have done to the Star Wars brand. But no one else is allowed to tell their own Star Wars story, created in their own image. Instead of having multiple different Star Wars visions competing in the free and open market, Disney have a monopoly on Star Wars. And this is my whole point: copyright is an enforced monopoly on what was supposed to be the most free and unlimited of all - thoughts, ideas. And that is a problem.

In most jurisdictions, copyright lasts for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. According to one interpretation of the data, the copyright on Mickey Mouse is set to expire in the middle of this decade. So I wouldn't be surprised if Disney and other corporations start pushing for expending the copyright to lifetime of the author plus 90 years, or plus 120 years. You read it here first!

Ideally, we should abolish copyright altogether. But at the very least, we should return to how copyright worked at first: for 30 years after initial publication. You alone get to make money of your IP for 30 years. After that, it is a free for all.

Unleash the creative spirit of man!