Talk:Criticism of copyright

anti-DRM != Anticopyright

I have removed Defective by design from the list of groups mentioned as being "anti-copyright", as their is no evidence that this group is opposed to copyright per se, just the use of DRM as their homepage at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/about shows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.255.69 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Old discussion

I don't understand this article - isn't it possible to be anti-copyright without being an anarchist? To be honest, I'm struggling to understand what the article is trying to be about. If it's about anarchists views of copyright, it should probably be called Anarchists' views of copyright (although I doubt there is a consensus amongst anarchists on the matter). Can somebody enlighten me? --Camembert

Karl replied thus on my talk page:

re anti-copyright: It is an actual "copyright" statement. It is required because in may places items are copyright unless specifically stated otherwise. It would be a bit more popular than "some" anarchists. With most things anarchist, it is very difficult to tell how popular. My feeling is that it may be 75% or more popular in the small fanzine area of anarchism of 15 years ago. I do not know how popular it is today. Karl

Ah, I see - so you would find an "Anti-copyright" statement at the bottom of an article or something, kind of like a copyleft statement? Would it make sense to begin the article with something like "An anti-copyright statement is one which explicitly gives up any rights the owner may have under normal copyright laws"? That might make the subject of the article a bit clearer, I think (if it's accurate, that is). --Camembert

yes - typically such a statement is found in the masthead of a magazine, refering to its entire contents. It can also be attached to individual articles. It is like a copyleft statement. Ok, moving first bit of response to article.

---

Hi Camaebert- I was going to go to bed but thought I'd quickly reply- as I see it, anti copyright is an explicit political statement of opposition to the concept of 'copyright', as opposed to say, wikipedia, which is non copyright- perhaps a subtle distinction, but I would agree that one need not necessarily be an anarchist to support the idea of anti-copyright. In a way it's a statement about the ownership or freedom of ideas...

I used to put out fanzines/pamphlets and what have you years ago that displayed the 'anti-copyright' symbol ( a copyright 'C' in a circle with a cross through it), but being a capitalist running dog these days I do actually consider my work 'copyright' (such as my self published books or indeed the original essays from which many of my wiki artcles on organic gardening, permaculture, etc, are drawn) nowadays for reasons I won't go into now... Urg,clear as mud no doubt but I must get some kip- work tommorrow, yippee!!! quercus robur

---

I wrote this without reading the above:

This is one anarchist view of intellectual property. It's written in encyclopedic style, at least, but it is inaccurate in a couple of ways:

• I've already corrected the reference to Property is Theft as Proudhon's "slogan".
• It is certainly not true that this represents everyone who calls him/herself an anarchist: especially not anarcho-capitalists, who hold the right of property above pretty much anything else, I think.

The article should be incorporated into libertarian socialism (or anarchist communism or anarcho-communism, wherever it ends up). However, it could get lengthy, so it's own article would also be good. This view of intellectual property is really a "communist" one, in its true sense; however, many anarchist communist and communist works are still copyrighted, so there is some controversy and possible hypocrisy to write about. --Sam

There are strong free market libertarian and anarcho-capitalist arguments against copyright. Narrow statements, such as yours, that imply anyone supportive of free market capitalism must be a socialist are pretty short-sighted. Yes, anarcho-capitalists and free market libertarians pretty much universally agree on the importance of property rights -- but they don't all believe that thoughts, codified and distributed, necessarily remain the property of the person who recorded them in a durable form. In fact, "intellectual property" is a misnomer created to promote a particular mindset with regard to copyright and patent law -- which isn't even related to property law out here in the real world. Perhaps more importantly, copyright often actively interferes with actual property rights, as in the case of purchasing a CD and storing copyrighted data on it -- where some third party holding copyright to that data can employ force of law to prevent you from selling or giving away your CD. -- Apotheon (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

SchNEWS[1] is @nti-copyright. It says it is "information for action! Copy and distribute!" -- Sam

---

Thanks very much to all for the above - I'm off to bed myself shortly, and won't be around tomorrow, but I'll stick my head in here Wednesday to see what's happening and if I can maybe improve things a little. I'm anti-copyright myself in theory - I was involved on the periphery of the Droplift Project and a lot of my musical work would not be very well received by the RIAA (unfortuantely, I have to eat, and so until the revolution, theory is not always equivalent to practice). However, I wasn't sure if this had an article's worth of material in it - too similar to copyleft, maybe; or else why not incorporate it into copyright. I'm still not sure about this now.

I'm still a bit troubled by this article (though it's better than it was) - it isn't really clear to me whether anti-copyright ought to be treated as a concept ("anti-copyright is the belief that all copyright laws should be scrapped") or as a kind of anti-license ("an anti-copyright statement is one which gives up all rights to a work under copyright laws"). That's more of a question of which angle the subject is approchaed from than anything else. I suppose one might try to come at from both angles at once. Anyway, I'm probably not making much sense - I'll go away, mull it over, and hopefully return with a clearer vision of what might be done here. --Camembert

I would think both - but in any case now that I have started this mess, I'm going to go away for a while and see what develops or disappears! Karl

But arnt copyrights socialism? In the sense they use law to control trade? I mean, just because something is supported by wealthy people doesn't mean it can't be extreme socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.211 (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Declaring non-copyright

The normal legal way to declare a work to be completely free of copyright—belonging to everyone, to do with as they please—is to declare it to be in the public domain. This is mentioned in the article.

If something is not clear from the article, find a reliable source that makes it clear, and by all means integrate the info into the article (with citation, of course). :)
—überRegenbogen (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The value of entertainment

I read through the bullet points under "Anti-copyright movement" listing arguments against copyright and I didn't find any arguments along a line of thought that I've had (any suggestions on how to word this better, and does anyone else think this way?):

In the case of entertainment works, the existance of a work may not raise one's quality of life. Instead, it may only raise the bar of quality of life. For example, if someone makes a movie and I watch it, I may be no better off than if that movie wasn't made (I'll just find something else to do). On the other hand, if someone makes the movie but I can't afford it, I'm worse off because my friends who watched it are talking about it and I'm left out. So the work shouldn't be copyrightable or else its mere existance will make people who can't afford it worse off. Rather, people who have seen it should be able to share it with their friends freely.

This seems pretty easy to me. I think this line of reasoning is flawed. By your definition, anything to which you do not have access, lowers your quality of life. You choose an arbitrary focus on monetary issues (cost), but why? What if there is something you simply cant grasp? What if your friends are discussing string theory and you dont have the background in theoretical physics and math to comprehend it? Or something you physically cannot reach? Your friends traveled to Kuala Lampur and saw something and you are unable to make that journey. I would put forth that you tie access to cost because that fits your political agenda (whether you realize it or not). Reality is that any concept of "equality" is artificial. So a theoretical "utopian" society (utopian in the sense that those who dream of this would consider it utopia) can create an artificial leveling of access, but can it change the fact that someone may be physically stronger, or more attractive, than you? In other words, under some vision of Utopian Socialism, do you really have any better chance with Scarlett Johanssen? No, you dont. So why is that different, at its core, than the fact that maybe you cant afford to see a movie today? It isnt. Its just that its very attractive and left-wing PC to attack monetary systems and acknowledging that they are really just the Darwinian outcome of an advanced species continued attempts to survive and thrive, would nullify an entire branch of philosophy that remains popular.

But even within the (narrow) scope of your base assumptions, that someone being denied access to what they cannot afford is a "wrong", I would argue that in short time there would simply be no works for you to share. The creation of a movie requires tremendous work and effort by numerous people. If there is no possibility that laboring on a movie, or a book, or music, would help the artist to survive, at some point, they would need to devote their time to ensuring survival. So you and your friends would have no movie to discuss and instead could devote that time to the labor camp. I mean seriously... I find many folks who are anti-copyright really just dont want to have to pay for what they dont see as a physical object. This may be a rude awakening for the deep thinkers who are truly trying to chart a course for a greater state of man in the future, but many of your supporters simply dont want to pay for music, or literature, or film because they feel there is a chance they wont have to (compared to a material object which is universally accepted - if grudgingly - as having some agreed upon value).

So I think it is ironic that one effect of the anti-copyright movement is a further devaluing of creative works which, indirectly, inflates the value of material objects (this *must* be the exact opposite of what an anti-copyright type would want) I would like to hear more thought from folks around how they expect artists to be fairly compensated under a system where their works can not be in any way protected. For a hint, the ideas need to be a bit more realistic than a "universal art tax" or "the good will of man" Many artists and thinkers who have pushed hardest for the erradication of all forms of copyright are already wealthy and comfortable and now treat societal change on a grand scale as a hobby. Either that, or like Stallman, they are radical ideologues who feel they can pass judgement on what quality of life someone should be allowed. So for a Bob Dylan, sure, its easy to be anti-copyright. For Stallman, it seems clear to him that is ok for ONE man (him) to determine what quality of life a programmer should be ALLOWED to have (the arrogance of that is mind-boggling - imagine if he were putting forth a right-wing viewpoint with that same degree of arrogance? he'd have been decried as a "fascist lunatic" long ago rather than hailed as a hero)

But there seems to be something particularly monstrous about telling someone who writes decent poetry and would like to do that all the time rather than work for Walmart, that they should be ashamed that they feel their poetry should have any monetary value and, instead, should be just happy to contribute to the "good of man". Especially when that message is coming from multi-millionaire artists with a guilt complex, college professors living fat off of $50k/year USD tuitions and someone like Stallman.

The idea that something is devalued by eliminating the viability of a business model based on legally enforced artificial scarcity to the point that one can't make a living at creating it is a common fallacy -- but it's a fallacy (specifically of a false dilemma) nonetheless. -- Apotheon (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember that wikipedia has a policy of No original research. Wikipedia isn't the right place to describe new ideas, but to describe (neutrally) the main arguments that others use. — Matt Crypto 09:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Marked pov

No attempt has even been made to balance this article with counter arguments. It is propoganda. I have serious doubts about whether this article should exist in its present form. Something like opinions on the value of copyright would be better. If it is just about a "movement" it should stick to history, and leave the pros and cons to a more broadranging article. Oliver Chettle 03:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only way I could possibly make this NPOV is by stubbing it. Computerjoe 11:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Add this to criticism- the no-copyright parties developed after torrenting became popular, so as a way of justification, not retaliation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.153.162 (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at this

It seems that the first use of "anti-copyright" described above is entirely the same as placing a work in the public domain. By relinquishing all rights to a work, the creator cannot enforce any right over its subsequent use (as would be the case under copyleft schemes. The second use of the term is just an opinion and a political statement, and thus eliminates anti-copyright from holding a place in the section describing the facts and details of copyright and related schemes. An anarchist can believe anything he wants, but this won't get any laws overturned. (Speaking of which, is anyone aware of an anarchist refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the law of gravitation?) User:Kradak

• The word law has different meanings, see Law (disambiguation). Objecting to one meaning of a word does in no way require objecting to another meaning of the same word.

Situationists

Isn't the article most incomplete without mentioning Debord and the SI? And waht about the history? Can somebody volunteer a candidate for the first use of an explicit anti-copyright notice? Debord put 'All texts published in Potlatch can be reproduced, adapted or quoted without any mention of the source in Potlach, which was published 1954-1957. --Pjacobi 18:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Stop Curps From Vandalising This Article

Curps is keep inserting POV into this article and refuse to discuss. Amnesity 09:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the return of the old anti-Alkivar troll, creating armies of sockpuppets, targeting Warez and related articles. He was active a few months ago and now has returned, same old story. A new twist is involvement in Wikitruth. Also vandalizing some math articles for no good reason. -- Curps 09:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

busking?!?

"it is likely that popular artists will still be able to make a living by means of advertising and product promotion, as they do at present or perhaps by busking, if that is the only option open to them." what on earth were u thinking whenever [whoever] wrote that? i think britney spears (or popular artist X) would still do stadium tours and concerts if there were no copyright, rather than sitting on a street corner with a guitar and a cap for the loose change of passers by.

The only difference being that Britney would no longer have to bother paying the authors of the songs she uses for their work. Yeah, that'd be great :P. But I agree with you, this article really does suck right now. It's so full of unreferenced personal opinion and unbacked bias that I think I just became a convinced supporter of copyright from reading it. Fortunately, I'm sure I'll get over it soon enough. I'm certain there are good arguments for abolishing copyright. I'm equally certain they are not in this article, or at least not presented in a convincing way.Chaleur (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cost of enforcing copyright

How much money does the government (e.g. courts, police) spend on investigating cases of alleged copyright infringement and prosecuting them?

Copyleft and creative commons is not anti copyright

I am concerned about the introduction to this article that states that creative commons and copyleft are forms of anti-copyright, this is not the case.

Creative commons for example relays very much on copyright law to achieve it’s aims, as do many copyleft schemes (GNU, etc.). These schemes form legally binding contracts (Creative Commons licenses have been upheld in court see: http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6052292.html ). Copyleft could not exist without copyright and whilst it’s objectives are often misinterpreted to be in conflict with copyright (freedom of information vs the protection of operation is debate within, not outside copyright) they, these licenses, all assert ownership of some degree (CC the moral right of the authour) and are singing from the same hymn sheet no matter how out of tune they may sound.

To be truly anti-copyright the scheme, in my opinion, would have to address (or fail to address as the case may be) the rights of ownership with regard to IPR. --DeepVeinInsomnia 09:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. GPL and the many licenses it inspired are meaningless without copyright. They don't belong in an "Anti-copyright" article, nor does the EFF, or CC. --AC 06:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, these are NOT the same things. 64.148.241.133 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they are completely anti-copyright, but I think it's a safe assertion from reading their websites they don't agree on the state of copyright today. I changed the intro to reflect this. Masterhomer File:Yin yang.png 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

proposal to somehow rename this article?

The word "anti-copyright" sounds very POV to me, because anti is a very negative word, so it implies that anti-copyright movements or ideologies or people are negative or wrong. I can't think of a better title at the moment, but how about arguments against copyright or freedom from copyright or I don't know...--Sonjaaa 08:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

An Anti-copyright article should exist under that name, but only to describe the history, rationale and actions of those persons and groups who oppose all copyright on general principles. It should not describe groups or persons who do not oppose all copyright -- maybe 90% of the current text doesn't belong here.

As for to where what's salvageable of said 90% should go, neither of those titles suggested are satisfactory, because they're based on the same black&white fallacy ("they're either for it or against it") that colors the present article. --AC 06:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be called, "Oooh, that darned RIAA!!" Seriously, the article is in no way an encyclopedic entry defining or identifying a key concept. It is a thinly-disguised attempt at proselytizing the notion of removing intellectual property ownership. Look at the opening paragraph of the arguments in favor of anti-copyright: "The classic argument for personal copyright is to grant developers temporary monopolies over their works to encourage further development by giving the developer a source of income. Those against copyright suggest that income to a developer should be generated by other means, for several reasons..." That is a rather sophomoric staw-man attack. The entire thing is shot through with fallacy after fallacy. -Blutwulf

Eveolution in general or 'get with the program'

This article should in somehow mention evolution in everything as an example. I mean, do companies that produce cassette tapes have a right to use legal action against the cd? What about movie theaters that go empty, do they take legal action against the dvd or free shows? Or do bike creators get mad at people that develop motorcycles? What about newspapers and newsgroups/sites, 'snail-mail' and e-mail, glass bottles and soda cans, ... People should lay down arms when it regards to new things that work. In this case, humanity no longer wants to pay ridiculous prices for something they can hear on the radio for free anyway. Hasn't it always been so that new things are invented and old systems dissapear?

What about the hypocrisy of copyright, take the very first song ever to hit number 1 from 0 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart (Your not alone - Michael Jackson) which, after 12 years of fighting in the court, has turned out to be plagiarism. Song turned out to be made by two Belgian brothers instead. Ok sorry I'm rambling on about other things, but seriously, what is copyright then? Being the first one to 'license' something and gain big profits so no one dares to question you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakuun (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't read the above in details:

Anti-Copyrightists are usually people who are affected negatively by it, these people are usually also anti-capitalistic, anti-WTO, and anti-globalization. For reasons, you might want to check out the critisism of WTO. -GW2005

I wonder where you get those ideas. Please source your statements about such correlations as "these people are usually also anti-capitalistic". You might also want to mention what relevance that statement has to anything. -- Apotheon (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt they are against capitalism, since copyrights are more socialist, considering how they are designed to control trade with law.66.183.59.211 (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reduced output of work argument invalid

If one considers that an artist or author may at anytime choose to reduce their output for any arbitrary reason, the argument that without copyright, reduced output would follow as a consequence is moot. Artists may reduce output while there are strong copyright laws in existence because their work is being heavily traded and merchants are making profits or for any number of other reasons. Therefore the argument that copyright is needed to ensure more work is produced is not valid. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

criticism section

I've pared down the " Criticism of anti-copyright arguments" section. Before:

* Critics conjecture that in the absence of copyright authors and artists would be under-compensated for their work. As a direct result, they claim, many fewer new works would be created.
* Assertion that the ease of reproduction of intellectual works should not be taken as an excuse to legalize copyright infringement.
* Criticism of interference with fair use, such as may occur with DRM, should not be an excuse to discard copyright altogether.

After:

* without copyright authors might profit less from their work and create less of it.

This was soon reverted by Samuell, who comments "we need a better critisum section than what we have now".

The problem is that bullet items #2 & #3 weren't arguments or criticisms.

Item #2 is POV question-begging: "to legalize ... infringement" is a tautology, because the term "infringement" implies copyright violation, the very point in question. Translated without POV, item #2 might say "easy copying is not a reason to legalize copying" or more generally "easy X is not a reason to legalize X". Yet easy X isn't a reason to make X illegal either.

Item #3 translated without POV would be: "weaker fair use benefits are no reason to legalize (retaliatory?) copying." Which is logically equivalent to the trivial "higher taxes are no reason to abolish taxes". And "fair use" again begs the question because it presupposes copyright.

Item #1 needs no hedges like "Critics conjecture" or "As a direct result, they claim", since it's under the criticism section. As it stands #1 is more of an ancient no-attribution needed "pro-copyright" argument, rather than a criticism of the "anti-" camp. Such reasons probably belong more in a copyright article. --AC (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole of the new crit section was deleted by SasiSasi, who claims he "Removed unref material". Presumably SasiSasi believes only arguments of the form "Professor X argues that ... A & B, therefore C" are encyclopedic. I think the crit was general and unoriginal enough not to need or benefit from referencing. Arguments are not "facts", unless attributed; a common general argument seldom has any obvious canonical reference, indeed a generality with specific reference borders on provincialism, at worst another way of logrolling for some favorite author or partisan source.

The article now is peppered with general arguments lead by hedges like "commentators have pointed out that...", "some groups, such as Hipatia, advance anti-copyright arguments in the name of 'freedom of knowledge' and argue that...", "It is argued that...", "A long standing argument against patents is...", "Recently anti-copyright arguments have been advanced with regards to...", etc. Needless words -- we should sum up and order the various arguments without introductions, and reference only those that are original or peculiar.

Constructive suggestions what to do about this welcome. I've no interest in revert wars, and SasiSasi, by not discussing large deletions beforehand, seems uninterested in pursuing consensus. --AC (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention to cause offence. The article was tagged as unref. for a long time (without anybody doing anything about it) and I tried to improve it: by adding a long string of ref. arguments and removing the unref sections. The article still needs a lot of work, and anybody is free to extend it (as this is Wikipedia). I am interested in consensus, and in creating referenced content in Articles. As per Wikipedia policy all content needs to be referenced and verifiable. If you feel that the A&B example is common sense (hence requires no ref) please feel free to add it back in. I am not claiming ownership over this article. What I tried to do is to create the basis for an article that does not need clean-up tags. I have tried to summarise and group arguments (e.g. in the name of freedom of knowledge), as well as providing cross ref to organisations and scholars that have contributed to the issue (which I am sure readers find useful for the purpose of finding out more information on the subject). There are a wide variety of arguments and angles taken up by anti-copyright advocates, hence the intention was to create a structure that allows for each of the arguments to be explored separately. As I said everybody is free to extend the article. --SasiSasi (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anti-copyright/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the Good article criteria and has therefore failed. Issues include:

• Unformatted references. Format them according to WP:CITE/ES to include at least publisher and access date.
• Unreferenced information, including:
  • "Anti-copyright Groups and Scholars" section
  • "Creative Commons" section (except for the quote)
  • A number of paragraphs are unrefereced; several subsequent paragraphs have references, however; it is unclear whether these references also apply to previous paragraphs or not. Please indicate this by placing the same references in previous paragraphs, too.

Please renominate this article once these issues have been resolved. Gary King (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to have a look at the ref and the missing references.

Regarding: Anti-copyright Groups and Scholars. All scholars and groups mentioned have their own wikipedia article and anything said in the section comes from their article (which is linked). Also, many of the listed scholars and groups are mentioned later in the article (with ref). I wondered if it is really necessary to find a reference to copyright for every single scholar and group; its possible, but a bit of an overkill... is there any guidance as per Wikipedia policy on this? Ta --SasiSasi (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because another article says something is true, doesn't mean it is, because some articles are at a higher quality than others. An article should be independent in terms of verifiability from other articles so that a person doesn't have to check all the linked articles to ensure that these facts are true. If the groups are referenced later in the article, then I recommend using a Reference Name to duplicate the references to this unreferenced section. Gary King (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sence since all articles are changing over time.... I just get on with it then.--SasiSasi (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

All done--SasiSasi (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Renominated the article--SasiSasi (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible GA reviewer

I'm thinking about reviewing this article but I'd like to warn the contributors and talk page watchers that I will very likely fail it in its current form. As of the current revision, I do not see a considerable amount of evidence that "anti-copyright" is a widely used term or taxonomy of thought nor do I see evidence that the myriad copyright reform and patent reform organizations listed can be gathered under this category. Anti-copyright, as described by a few of the sources linked, does not (in my opinion and in the opinion of some reputable sources in the industry and academia) accurate describe the various phenomena and groups assembled in this article. As such, it appears that a good portion is original research or original research by synthesis. Other portions of the article (e.g. the anti-patent part) appear to grossly misrepresent the state of patent protests and litigation as well as mainstream and fringe views on the subject. My recommendation is that this article be withdrawn from GAN, stripped to verifiable claims from reliable sources and built anew with a very limited scope (reflecting the limited scope of the term "anti copyright"). If it is desired, I can review this article and provide some specific points of criticism, but it is almost assured that I will fail it. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's weird. Didn't even know it was nominated. Yes, it should certainly fail as-is. Cool Hand Luke 07:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

yes it would be helpful if the article was reviewed against the Good article criteria, rather than one editors view of the subject. In its previous form the article was almost entirely unreferenced and subject to edit wars, as everybody wanted to shape the article according to their view of what anti-copyright is. Regardless of whether the article will fail as GA or not, what it does attempt in the moment is to explain the arguments of various groups (in different countries) or causes that are associated with anti-copyright (referenced). In one area the article certainly falls short and that is in terms of pre-internet anti-copyright arguments. Regarding the patent, this is not an anti-patent artcile and merely aims to give an overview of the arguments used, anti-patent movement with regards to medicine really should have its own article.

Also, the anti-copyright lobby has for a long time and to some extent still is outside the mainstream, so by definition you don’t find many anti-copyright sources that are peer reviewed and approved by the great and good… but as far as I know this is not the sole criteria for reliable sources.

The GA criteria are: A good article is—

Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1] Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;[2] (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4] Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5] (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

--SasiSasi (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm aware of the GA criteria. And It doesn't "fall short". It conflates topics and groups who aren't "anti-copyright" into a label without a secondary source doing it. I'm also not saying that all sources need to be peer reviewed in academic publications, where did that come from? Don't assume I'm hostile just because I'm saying this article will fail. Just please take my suggestion to heart that this article should be re-written to include only "anti-copyright" ideas or groups (and not "patent reform", "copyright reform" or Web 2.0, etc.). Anti-patent is fine, so long as the groups and topics the article is writing about are anti-patent and not patent reform. Protonk (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"And it doesn't "fall short" - you suggested in your first response that you would review it within the GA process and it would fail - ?

" It conflates topics and groups who aren't "anti-copyright" into a label without a secondary source doing it." - One important point to note is that this article does not claim that all listed scholars or groups are anti-copyright, they are listed under anti-copyright arguments and only specific anti-copyright relevant arguments they may have made are included in the article. The original thought here was to move away from "he sais/she sais" (the way the article looked before). Previously all possible anti-copyright arguments were simply listed in point form, without any reference to who has made them in which context. There are a number of very different anti-copyright arguments, and any suggestions on a structure that captures this is welcome.

I believe this is in line with Wikipedia guidelines which state: "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research."

Inclusion of arguments: this is an article about anti-copyright, hence I assume that one reasonable criteria for inclusion of an argument is an anti-copyright argument, or if a group or argument is named as anti-copyright (e.g. creative commons has been named anti-copyright by secondary sources - see New York Times describing Creative Commons as "the Creative Commons anti-copyright project" [2], in response to which CC has outlined why they are not anti-copyright)... hence inclusion or exclusion in this case is not a simple matter of secondary sources. I think the main issue there is that "copyright" is a well defined term (i.e. see copyright article) and usually refers to the prevalent exclusive rights sort of license. When CC argues they are not anti-copyright they actually re-define "copyright" as any license that awards some rights (not necessarily exclusive rights). - in the intro it states "Anti-copyright refers to the complete or partial opposition to prevalent copyright laws" to define the scope of the article, but I will insert a definition of "copyright" to make this more clear.

"I'm also not saying that all sources need to be peer reviewed in academic publications, where did that come from?" from your claim in your first comment "in my opinion and in the opinion of some reputable sources in the industry and academia"... You appear to imply that the sources used in this article are not “reputable”. Wikipedia guidelines don’t define reputable, but state that sources need to be reliable, and Wikipedi acknowledges peer review as one definition of reliable sources. I think all sources are within the guidelines of Wikipedia [3]. There could be concerns regarding self published sources, however these sources have been used little and in most cases to quote the argument in a transparent way. Also, your opinion is not a reliable source.

"this article should be re-written to include only "anti-copyright" ideas or groups (and not "patent reform", "copyright reform" or Web 2.0, etc.). as said before "copyright" is a defined term that does not denote any type of license that gives the author some rights over their work. The Bern convention which is an internationally binding treaty on copyright states that the author "shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification." The fact that copyright denotes a particular type of license is also explicit in the automatic copyright protection.[4]. As this article points out in the article, some groups or arguments denoted as "anti-copyright" are not anti-copyright per se in that they do not necessarily oppose licenses granting authors some rights, but because "copyright" is a particular type of license these groups are anti-copyright. I will look at the language again to avoid any kind of confusion. Now I guess there needs to be a threshold, otherwise any argument that is in the slightest critical of copyright would be included. Looking at the article again I think it includes either arguments against the fundamental principles/assumption of copyright, or arguments that copyright is redundant or inappropriate with regards to new information technology and Web2.0, I will change the structure to reflect this, which should take away from the wishi washi feel the article at parts has.

Regarding Web2.0 I will see if some of the section can be moved to the Web2.0 article

"Anti-patent is fine, so long as the groups and topics the article is writing about are anti-patent and not patent reform." That is a tricky one, mainly because secondary sources have described campaigns against software patents [5] as well as pharmaceutical patents[6][7]. Patent (industrial property) and copyright two types of [intellectual property]], according to the WIPO[8]. Right now anti-patent redirects to anti-copyright, and since there is not that much material on the issue I am not sure how appropriate it is to create an anti-patent article. However, I will insert the ref on the relation of copyright and patent to make it more obvious why anti-patent is in this article. There might be a case to rename the article "Anti-intellectual property" to account for the fact that it covers both anti-copyright and anti-patent.--SasiSasi (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   See WP:OVERLINK. "The authors stops short of stating that copyright law has been made redundant by the rise of "the darknet""--the word you're looking for might be obsolete, but it's certainly not redundant. Magazine/Newspaper titles need to be italicized.

fixed the obsolete--SasiSasi (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

have ita the magazine name--SasiSasi (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "Anti-copyright arguments question the logic of [...] spirituality." Unreferenced in lead and body. Also, first paragraph of Web 2.0 really reads like OR.

started looking at the language and sources (one source was wrong) to get rid of the OR feel. still needs work.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

removed spirituality, was a thing from the old version of this article.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Anti Patent does not belong in this article, without more context and explanation--Can it be broken out and referenced separately?

moved into its own article.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Just fine.

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Wouldn't hurt to have more, but this is acceptable.

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Look at all the typos, grammar, and whatnot that I fixed while doing this review. Overall, the prose needs a good once-over and copyediting. References have apparently improved since last GA review, but as it stands now, they're good sources, but cited sparingly--sometimes it seems one reference is meant to cover multiple sentences. Fix the overlinks and add italics per WP:MOS#Italics. Strongly consider removing Anti-Patent to its own article--it's a different beast, and feels a bit like a WP:COATRACK in here. This is an important topic to cover well, and I encourage you to keep up the good work. Unfortunately, this is not yet GA class. Since you've been working on it actively, I'm placing it ON HOLD for one week for the editors to make corrections and improvements. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In need of copyediting - I am not the right person to do that, not sure how I get hold of a wikipedian with that particular skill?--SasiSasi (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow Up

• So, I can possibly do some copyediting on this. If you don't mind, I can go through and tag things that I see as needing expert interpretation, and I can try and fix simple problems myself.
• You still need to fix the linking per WP:OVERLINK--Copyright appears *five* times in the lead. Only the first should be wikilinked.

Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No progress has been made on this bullet. Are you still working on this article? Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Regretfully, failing due to lack of forward progress. Feel free to nominate again once the issues have been addressed. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, real life was taking over big time!! I will address the remaining points from the GA review this weekend, and then we can see about re-submission. Ta--SasiSasi (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon

Cartoon by Dylan Horrocks criticizing copyright.

Objective3000 removed the cartoon I inserted and gave as a reason: “A fat man surrounded by moneybags saying human rights are worth nothing is NOT illustrative. This is way out of line.”

Wikipedia doesn't make moral judgments on cartoons. The cartoon depicts a typical point of view of the copyright-opponents. It is a source of information on what the anti-copyright-movement is about. To give you an extreme example, this image is also included in an article, even so it is antisemitic. Just because an image is included in an article doesn't mean that Wikipedia favors its point of view. Please don't WP:MORALIZE. --Church of emacs (Talk) 15:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this image notable? Has it been referred to in a reliable source? Shreevatsa (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's by a notable cartoonist, and was displayed on the main page of a hyper-notable website for some time. It portrays the opinions of anti-copyright protestors, in an article about anti-copyright thought, and it is free. That's exactly what an image should be. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you define "for some time?" I think it was a couple days. This does not compare to a famous image on antisemitism from the 19th Century.Objective3000 (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it has been on the main page for one or two weeks. --Church of emacs (Talk) 17:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine why it would belong in an encyclopedia article unless the cartoon itself was important to the subject as a whole. I agree with its removal. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article is about the anti-copyright movement. You can't expect that it won't describe any concepts that object to the idea of copyright. It might be appropriate to include a section "Criticism" to make sure that WP:UNDUE is kept in mind. But this has nothing to do with the inclusion of this image. --Church of emacs (Talk) 19:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The image is free, and illustrates the subject of the section/article. Free images do not need to be "notable" in any way, only illustrative. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I can find nothing in the text about copyright holders hating children, hating human rights or anything "illustrated" by the cartoon. It was on the Pirate Bay site for a couple days. Before that there was a cartoon making fun of Tom Cruise.Objective3000 (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not really illustrative, and looks like undue weight. Cool Hand Luke 20:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

@Objective3000: The difference between a cartoon about Tom Cruise and this cartoon is that this cartoon fits into the article "Anti-copyright".

@Cool Hand Luke: Could you please elaborate why you believe this image is not illustrative in the context of the point of view of copyright opponents? And I can't really see the difference in terms of undue weight between citing the arguments of copyright opponents in the form of text and citing their arguments in a form of a cartoon. Both represent the POV of a group of people which is the subject of the article. What is the key difference between the image and - for example - a text that describes the image? --Church of emacs (Talk) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

An image mocking Tom Cruise, presented by a major organisation known to be an enemy of Tom Cruise, would fit right into Anti-Tom Cruise. And yes, Church of emacs took the words out of my mouth- we present arguments in writing, so why not present them visually as well? Especially when we have a free, published image created by a notable individual? J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no argument in the article that copyright-holders hate children and hate human rights. Again, I do not see how this cartoon is illustrative of the article. It is an offensive, ridiculous characature -- not an argument.Objective3000 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the author genuinely believes that copyright holders hate children and human rights. Does it really matter? It's embellishment. The main thrust of the image is the perceived ridiculousness of people trying to protect copyrights online, and that's what the image is included to show. I see no mention in the text of the topiary! Remove the image! J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If the author doesn't even believe what it portrays, it is absurd to include it.Objective3000 (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not presented as fact, it is presented as a caricature. The author may or may not believe the underlying political message, but it is clear that at least some on the anti-copyright side of the fence do, and see this as representative of their views. Illustrating their views on an article about their views is clearly appropriate. Could you please stop saying that this image is about hating children and human rights? It clearly isn't. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want me to stop saying the image is about hating children and human rights, then pick an image that is not about hating children and human rights. Why do you insist on adding an offensive cartoon about hating children and human rights?Objective3000 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't get out of NPOV by having an article like this one. "anti-copyright" should cover the movement associated with anti-copyright, it shouldn't have to repeat or amplify their claims. A cartoon like that one might be appropriate in a section or articles on "perceptions of copyright", but that would still be a stretch. And yes, a picture carries more weight than words, especially a political cartoon, which isn't designed to be a narrow and neutral summary of positions (rather, they are often designed to be the opposite). So I don't think it is fair to say "I can't really see the difference in terms of undue weight between citing the arguments of copyright opponents in the form of text and citing their arguments in a form of a cartoon." There is a world of difference. Protonk (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, how? We're able to illustrate arguments, and you're saying we shouldn't? J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What does the cartoon illustrate? This article isn't about the RIAA/MPAA; it mentions nothing about company executives being greedy, or whatever. The only tenuous connection I can imagine is that Pirate Bay vaguely supports both the positions in this article and in the cartoon. The cartoon does not illustrate any argument the article is about; it is not even an argument; the content of the cartoon is even entirely consistent with a pro-copyright, anti-(**AA/stiff copyright infringement laws) viewpoint. Without going into the question of whether the cartoon is appropriate anywhere at all, I'd say it is not relevant to this article. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can see the consensus is quite clearly against me here, so I'm happy for the cartoon to stay out of the article. Consider me out of the debate. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not saying that the cartoon is convincing or that it isn't, I'm not saying that the cartoon contains many good arguments or it doesn't, but it contains widespread beliefs in the anti-copyright movement. The cartoon is not only about RIAA or MPAA, the main theme is copyright and therefor it fits into this article --Church of emacs (Talk) 19:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You're missing his point (which is one I agree with). His point is not that it's a bad or unconvincing comic; it's simply not relevant. It plainly criticizes industry bad guys, but it doesn't really illustrate opposition to copyright in general. Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the anti-copyright movement sees its great enemy in the media industry. And thats understandable, as the media industry has most of the copyrights and defends their copyrights through DRM, copy protection, suing after copyright infringements and so on. They are the obvious and the big opponent of all who wish to destroy copyright. Of course, there might be a philosophical part of the anti-copyright movement that rejects copyright for theoretical reasons, but the main focus of practical actions has always been on the industry. Therefor, I agree that this comic might not cover _all_ parts of the anti-copyright movement, but it still covers a major part. I'm not suggesting to replace the text by the cartoon, so I think that there is nothing to worry, copyrights opponents who don't focus on the industry still may get enough attention in the article. --Church of emacs (Talk) 21:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, this comic doesn't cover any of the anti-copyright movement, because the defining characteristic of the movement is... being opposed to copyrights! It would be like adding an ordinary political cartoon making fun of George W. Bush to anti-Americanism. Yeah, a lot of people with anti-American sentiments didn't like Bush, but such a cartoon isn't really about their ideology. Cool Hand Luke 21:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How can we describe a political opinion or even a political movement without describing their arguments (and possibly counterarguments)? Do you think the article Animal rights should contain no arguments but only facts that don't relate to arguments (for example lists of campaigns, lists of supporters and organizations, etc.)? This is absurd. Of course, if we have an article about a political subject the arguments of both sides should be presented. If the article weight is undue, that is because there are not many counter-arguments but not because of this image. --Church of emacs (Talk) 19:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Animal rights should have a still from the south park episode depicting PETA members having sex with animals. The article isn't a discussion page. It isn't an editorial page. Unless the cartoon itself is a topic of discussion or is a significant viewpoint, we should be careful of using it. As I said above, political cartooning is the diametric opposite of encyclopedic summary. We aim to be neutral and factual, and they aim to be provocative and figurative. That doesn't make political cartoons bad, it just means that we have to be careful when we choose to integrate them into articles. Also, there is no equal time provision on wikipedia. NPOV doesn't mean repeating one sides arguments uncritically and then offering an opposing side the same space to present their arguments uncritically. That's a newsman's definition of neutrality and it sucks. We try to find and summarize sources which represent mainstream views on a subject in a neutral fashion--wherever possible, we attempt to pick neutral sources. It is a last ditch effort to source claims from an obviously partisan source, not a preferred state. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this cartoon expresses a “significant viewpoint″ of the anti-copyright movement (as opposed to the South Park episode).

“NPOV doesn't mean repeating one sides arguments uncritically and then offering an opposing side the same space to present their arguments uncritically.” – really? But if you object to the idea of citing arguments, then instead you have three options: (a) you make up new arguments (violates WP:OR), (b) you say which arguments make sense and which don't (violates WP:NPOV), (c) you do not include arguments in the article at all (which is non-preferable as a major part of the subject is not described). Those are the alternatives and therefor my interpretation of NPOV has always been: NPOV means (1) to describe only arguments that have a citation/can be attributed to someone, (2) not to judge arguments, (3) include arguments so that the whole article is balanced.
Summarizing is okay, but we must not judge arguments. --Church of emacs (Talk) 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's take an example. Let's say I have to write a biography of a politician, John Doe (random politician). I have three kinds of sources at my disposal (for simplicity): johndoesucks.com, johndoeisgreatomgomg.com and the New York Times. I may, if I want the article to be neutral, source half to the hatchet job and half to the hagiography or I may source the bulk to the New York Times. However, if I source half to a site which praises Doe uncritically and half to a site which reviles him, I have no good way of giving the reader a balanced and neutral summary--the article simply becomes a competing series of claims and counterclaims filled with "howevers" and caveats. This is how a good deal of news organizations do it, and it makes for bad prose and misleading articles. Good articles on wikipedia do not do this. Take a look at global warming, a featured article. We could source half to Greenpeace and half to the Global Climate Coalition, but the article would be a train wreck. Those sources have been minimalized in favor of neutral sources (mostly from peer reviewed publications). We don't include our judgment of the arguments or sources explicitly in the article but judgment of sources is unavoidable. Selection among sources is unavoidable. In most cases judgment and selection are preferable to indiscriminate portrayal of a particular viewpoint.

Either way, this cartoon isn't simply a source. It is an image, and one designed to persuade. What is the reason for including it in the article? To illustrate the arguments made, or to persuade the reader? Please take onboard the comments being made that point out the non-illustrative features of the cartoon. I don't think those have been answered fully. Protonk (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This reasoning is orthogonal to the reason I oppose the comic, but it's also a very good point. Much better to let neutral sources describe the arguments than construct the arguments ourselves from primary source examples of the argument. (And as I explain above, I don't think the comic actually presents an anti-Copyright message.) Cool Hand Luke 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your elaborate answer, Protonk. I do not fully agree, as TPB is part of the movement and therefor part of what the article is describing (unlike johndoesucks.com). However, I now see a valid argument against including the image. And while I still believe that the image should be included, I can understand that others asses the arguments against the image as more important. Therefor I accept the consensus that the image will not be included in this article (this view does not apply to the article The Pirate Bay) --Church of emacs (Talk) 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've commented clearly there, but I do agree that a far stronger argument for inclusion can be made on tpb's page than here. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic arguments section

I think the "Creative Commons" section is more related to culture/social arguments: a passing reference to unspecified possible alternatives to current business practices does not make an economic argument. The file sharing section in the economic arguments is relevant, and could (should?) evolve into a discourse on "public goods". Ratbertovich (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and have moved it to the cultural arguments section accordingly. Thanks, Shreevatsa (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-originality

This section is about ideas which cannot be copyrighted. The quote is not relevant to the article.Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Libertarians

This article needs a bit more consideration of the widespread libertarian opposition to copyright, at least so as not to give the impression that the anti-copyright movement is entirely socialistic. I added the non-scarcity argument, but it needs to more work (I don't have the time at the moment, unfortunately). Vox Imperatoris (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Libertarian philosophy supports intellectual property rights. Any political philosophy that opposes intellectual property rights, yet purports to be a "Libertarian" philosophy, is almost certainly a version of Anarchism: Libertarian Socialism, left-Libertarianism, etc. The confusion is the result of historical etymology of the word "Libertarian", which used to be used as a synonym of "Anarchist", until the Second World War. 219.89.249.161 (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Splitting article.

Most of the groups in this article can't be described as "anti-copyright", per se, only a very few. Many are in favor of copyleft of software (which is in favor of copyright, fundamentally, in that it uses copyright to keep source code free, while a system entirely without copyright could still limit the freedom to tinker, by allowing distribution of binaries without source), fundamental reforms of the time period of monopolies granted by copyright law (Lessig and others) while not abandoning them all together, reimposing the derivation of profit standard for infringement to exist, allowing creators to voluntarily modify the scope and the nature of the rights exerted (Creative Commons), reforming DRM by removing the use of the state's coercive power in preventing disablement of such, etc.

I would split this article into "anti-copyright" to deal with groups who are opposed to all copyright, as well as theoretical and practical arguments made by these individuals, and "copyright reform" to deal with groups that are against the copyright status quo but are not against copyright all together.

What do others think?Katana0182 (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the distinction should be made and a split should occur. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Austrian perspective

There seems to be a crucial misconception on the Austrian view on IP and copyright in this article. Rothbard as an example: Rothbard distinguishes between patents and copyrights. He argues against patents but for copyright. He states that patents are illegitimate because they are enforced by the state on an arbitrary basis, namely, that the first person to invent something gets the monopoly on it. If one invents something patented independently he is prohibited to earn the fruits of his work which is unjust. Copyrights are legitimate because they are a form of contract: If A produces a mousetrap and sells it with a (C) sign then it means that A sells the mousetrap with the permission of limited usage, that one cannot create replicas etc, which is fully legitimate as it is voluntary contract between buyer and seller. There is no single "Austrian" view on IP and copyrights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cognaq (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of links in the see also section

In an edit summary I was asked o explain my removal of two wiki links in the see also section, namely Anarcho-communism and Antitrust (redirects to Competition law). Too many links is not helpful and will damage navigability, my reasoning behind chopping out these two is:

• There are numerous forms of anarchism and communism (Category:Anarchism by form, Category:Communism), from my understanding most anarchists and communists are anti copyright, thus not a reason to link any one of them specifically. In addition, multiple other political, and non-political movements are anti copyright; listing them all simply isn't possible.

• As for Competition law, the article only mentions "copy" twice: Copyright misuse in a navbox, and List of countries' copyright length in the see also section. From the lead: "Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, are laws that promote or maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct.". This does not seems like a sufficient reason to link it from this article.

I hope this made my reasoning clearer. jonkerz♠ 02:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No reply in +2 weeks, re-removing links, jonkerz♠ 20:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual Monopoly

The entire Intellectual Monopoly section is a quote, and more importantly, a biased quote. This should be replaced with actual content, written from a neutral point of view.-Zyrath (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The claimed losses to the industry in the criticism section

In the section "Criticism", it is said:

"According to a study by the Institute for Policy Innovation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy think tank, piracy of Copyright material costs the U.S. economy $5.5 billion in annual earnings among U.S. workers, as well as $837 million in lost annual tax revenue and $20.5 billion in lost annual output to all US industries. Furthermore it estimates that piracy costs the U.S 141,030 jobs, two thirds of which are outside the film industry."

However, these studies may be dubious. See: A $13 billion fantasy: latest music piracy study overstates effect of P2P ("First and foremost, it appears to fall into the 'illicit downloads == lost sales' fallacy" ) Now, I know they are speaking of a different article by the IPI, but the approaches used in the one cited in the Wikipedia article are the same.

However, at this point, I'm not necessarily recommending removing the text, as it is a criticism raised. Shrewmania (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how 'nonpartisan' IPI is, but you are quoting an opinion piece by an editor of Ars Technica, whose WP article says writes in an opinionated style. Unfortunately, there exist a large number of poor sources in the WP articles on this subject.Objective3000 (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

While being opinionated doesn't necessarily mean blatant falsehoods, I can see how it's not as good as an NPOV. In any case, would you say that the IPI citation is reliable or unreliable itself? Personally, I believe it leans towards the latter. (but even if it's unreliable, see my comment above ("However, at this point...")). Shrewmania (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, by "there exist a large number of poor sources," do you mean to say that on both sides of the argument sources are poor, or just on the pro-IP or anti-IP side of the debate? Shrewmania (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am for removing the whole IPI paragraph, and not on the credibility basis (though IMHO any source which is founded by Dick Armey and claims to be non-partisan, is not really credible), but on the basis that IPI research claims losses from piracy, and might be relevant only in the article on piracy; inferring that losses from piracy have relation to anti-copyright, is an invalid WP:SYN, promoting point of view which is not in original source. Per my interpretation of WP:SYN, references really belong to anti-copyright page, when sources explicitly refer to anti-copyright (or usefulness/problems with copyright laws), anything else is invalid WP:SYN. And even if anti-copyright and piracy is the same thing (which I don't think is true), then such references still don't belong here, instead piracy and anti-copyright pages should be merged. Ipsign (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Gray Album

Couldn't it be said that the right to create mashups is an extension or subset of the right to quote? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Illegal file sharing" vs. "file sharing"

Demonstration in Sweden in support of (illegal) file sharing, 2006.

An IP editor has added the word "illegal" to the description of this image four times so far. Every time it has been removed, but we should resolve this before it turns into an edit war.

I (and apparently several other editors) prefer the version without "illegal". It doesn't really add any information; as far as I can tell, it's only there to take a stand against file sharing. The wording without "illegal" appears more neutral. Obviously, though, 74.108.115.191 (talk) really feels that the word "illegal" belongs there.

Here's what other pages using this image have as I'm writing this:

• Copyright infringement of software - "Demonstration in Sweden in support of file sharing, 2006."
• File sharing - "Demonstrators protesting The Pirate Bay raid, 2006."
• Intellectual property - "Demonstration in Sweden in support of file sharing, 2006."
• Legal aspects of file sharing - "Demonstration in Sweden in support of file sharing, 2006."
• Philosophy of copyright - "Anti-copyright demonstration in Stockholm, Sweden, 2006."
• Timeline of file sharing - "Pro-file sharing demonstration in Sweden after the police raid against The Pirate Bay, 2006."
• Warez - "Demonstration in Sweden in support of file sharing, 2006."

All of these look better and more neutral to me than the version with "illegal", but apparently someone thinks otherwise. What's the consensus here - should the image say "file sharing" or "illegal file sharing", or something else completely? Sideways713 (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Using "illegal" is too negative a connotation and implies that file sharing is illegal, which of course it is not. "File sharing is not illegal. It only becomes illegal when users are sharing content, such as music, that is protected by copyrights." Keri (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

First, the statement that an IP editor has added the word “illegal” four times is false. The word has been there for a long time. The IP editor reverted attempts to remove it. Second, the word is not a part of the article text, it is a part of an image caption. That image is specifically a demonstration in support of an illegal file sharing site. Note the pirate flag and the fact that the demonstration was in support of people that have been convicted of crimes. The protest was in support of “sharing content, such as music, that is protected by copyrights.” Now, if you object to the use of the word illegal in the Anti-Copyright article, and believe that the article is NOT about illegal file-sharing, then I suggest that you remove the image of people specifically supporting illegal actions and find a more appropriate image.74.108.115.191 (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)