---
layout: post
title: "So why exactly copyright is unethical"
date: 2019-04-03 14:14:14
categories: misc
---

If you ever discussed this topic with me, you probably know my stance on
copyright. But i don't think i've ever presented arguments against it in a more
structured way. So here is an attempt to do so.

<cut/>

I'll discuss a few different lines of reasoning:

- possibility of irl punishments
- conflict with property and privacy rights
- sharing is good

So first line of reasoning isn't exactly against copyright, but rather against
its usage in current system (in, i believe, most countries) where sufficient
"copyright infringement" can get you into jail. Well, the point should be quite
obvious: if you're using copyright, you're endorsing oppression mechanisms
against people who did not do any physical harm (and unlike, e.g. malicious
crackers, or frauds, their intent wasn't to harm anyone in any way, at worst it
was to get some profit (though most likely in otherwise deprived way), in many
cases just to share). It may even seem that "subverting copyright via copyright
means" (i.e. free software and open culture licenses) might be a bad idea, but i
don't have an ultimate answer to that.

Here's an analogy: if laws dictate stealing a bottle of milk warrants death and
you disagree with that, you shouldn't call authorities when somebody did that to
you. Even if you agree that stealing is wrong, it doesn't mean you should
support measures against it.

The second line of reasoning is, perhaps surprisingly to some, about property
(and also privacy) rights. To put it most blunt: the so called "intellectual
property" is infringement of regular property rights. I don't even know what to
comment on here, it should be evident that forbidding to use your computers or
even books in way you like is infringing on your property rights. Actually
enforcing copyright laws also infringes on your privacy.

I don't think anyone can seriously argue about that and the more likely response
would be that these are "justified inconveniences" or something along those
lines. While it may sound reasonable, the problem here is that either we have to
agree that laws are arbitrary (and then so is copyright), or that "intellectual
property" is somehow more valuable (to whom?) than regular property. And i
believe any convincing argument would then warrant a lot of changes in typical
beliefs of copyright supporters.

Finally, there is an argument that doesn't go from negative effects of
copyright, but rather is about positive effects of sharing freely instead. Well,
how should i put it? It seems so obvious that when you have unlimited access to
all previous work by humanity, you will have easier times building upon it. And
when anybody can join your efforts, it can boost your productivity so much
more.

But that's not all: perhaps the most important thing is that sharing is just a
nice thing to do. It does not make non-sharing automatically *unethical* as
advertised in the title, but it's always better to do *more ethical* thing,
right?

***

I know i'm probably bad at making arguments of such sort, but even if this will
not convince anyone, i hope it can at least give readers my perspective.
