Why Copyright Is Evil

Copyright is dying – that is obvious to everyone. What isn’t obvious to everyone, especially in the music industry, is what a glorious and just outcome this is.

International copyright only came into being in 1891 – very recent considering the long history of music and the arts. And it was publishers – not artists – who convinced governments to foist the system on us. Prior to that, during monarchical times “copyright” was permission granted to writers by the king to print what was politically correct. It was government that introduced the entire concept of “idea ownership” – the basis of copyrights and patents – precisely so it could crush the ideas it didn’t like. Copyright has rotten origins.

What is Scarcity?

We must first understand what property is, since copyright is based on the notion that ideas are property.

Property begins with one’s ownership of one’s body, and extends to all the resources one acquires through

  1. Trade (i.e. buying, selling, gift-getting)
  2. Manual labor (i.e. creation)
  3. Homesteading (aka “squatting” on a resource no one had yet claimed)

This can mean simply the clothes on your back, or a small ranch house in the suburbs on a quarter acre or, like Bill Gates, a 40% share in a $70 billion company. They’re all property.

The one thing all physical property has in common is scarcity. Dirt, houses, livestock animals, software companies – they’re all made up of physical matter that is in limited supply. How limited is relative – obviously a pound of dirt is much less scarce than a huge software company. That’s why their market prices are so different. But there’s a reason that, for example, air and light are free: they are not scarce at all and require no human labor to produce.

Scarcity is not some esoteric concept – its at the core of most economic theories. Economists and law philosophers write about it and its role in prices, competition, entrepreneurship and a host of other areas. Scarcity is a basic reality of existence in human society.

So Why is it Evil?

Now consider ideas and artistic works. A CD recording of a performance is obviously a scarce physical commodity – it takes resource and labor to record and manufacture. But that’s not why CDs used to cost $20+ back in the 1990s. They cost that much because of the copyrighted sounds – that is, ideas – imprinted on the discs. This is also why most CDs these days cost around $10 – because copyright is in the latter stages of decay, due to competition from other media. The cost of a CD is falling back toward the actual cost (plus markup) of the scarce, plastic piece of physical property that it is.

But the law these days still says that the CD contents – the ideas imprinted on it – are copyrighted. This essentially means that the CD is not wholly your property, like a pound of dirt, or a painting, or a company is if you own these things. Copyright puts you the CD owner in a bizarre circumstance where the original publisher retains some ownership of your CD even after you’ve paid your $10-20 for it.

But the musical ideas on the CD are not scarce. If I share the ideas with my friends by playing them the CD, the original owner hasn’t lost his own copy of them. I haven’t “stolen” anything from him. Like air and water molecules, the sound waves that make up a musical performance are in such great supply that no one is made poorer if they are replicated ad infinitum.

Therefore, musical ideas in their raw form of pure sound – fail the test of true property. They therefore cannot be “owned”, and sharing them or even re-selling copies of them in different media cannot be considered theft or fraud. It may still be illegal to do so, but that only makes copyright one of the thousands of illegitimate sausage laws that clog the statutes and unjustly limit our liberty. And as we’ve seen in the last 15 years, the only way to sustain copyright enforcement in an era of disruptive technology is to erect a large and oppressive government apparatus.

This is why the institution of copyright is evil – it thwarts true law (property and ownership), and requires jackboot tactics to enforce.

So What’s a Musician To Do?

So if modern copyright is only 121 years old, how on earth did Bach, Beethoven & Brahms survive and thrive without it?

Its easy to understand – just look around you now.

The music industry today is going back to the future – like Beethoven artists are now surviving by hustling the old fashioned way: boot-strapping public performances and touring. Or, like Bach, they’re subsidizing their song-writing passion by taking side-jobs at the local church or school. Of course, they’re also getting creative and using today’s amazing technology to implement the business models like Connect-With-Fans+Reason-To-Buy.

Can musicians sit back and collect royalties and a share of the huge monopoly profits of yesteryear? Nope. But those were the days of the golden handcuffs and the chosen few. The only artists who whine and complain now about those “good old” days are either

  1. Old artists who came up in the old days and are wistful of the time when they only had to record an album every three years to earn 5 times what they earn now, or
  2. Young artists who are too lazy to boot-strap things themselves and wish success was handed to them

But as Seth Godin has proved, these days you have to choose yourself to make your own success.

  • FreeRad

    Question is .. what’s a songwriter to do? How are they to to be remunerated without copyright? All the artists that I write for all balk at the idea of paying me for my hours of writing (which I would gladly accept). You assume that every artist/musician writes their own material. They don’t. In the 30 years that I’ve been in the business, I’ve never been able to sit back and wait 3 years after writing for an album. Never, not with 3 kids and a mortgage to pay off. In fact, I worked 60 hour weeks and in most years earned less than I would’ve earned stocking shelves at the local grocery store. Of course, there were the occasional hits and spike years … but that just went back into the family (piano lessons for the kids, the rare vacation, etc) and the songwriting business. I’ve always known that it was for the shear love of music and just being “in the process of creating” that was to be my payoff … What’s your plan to keep quality writers writing sans copyright?

    • bensommer

      Hey FreeRad – the answer isn’t easy. As you can see from my article, I view the copyright regime and legal framework as ethically illegitimate. If you buy into that with me, then you can ask yourself: how did musicians sustain careers before copyright? They really didn’t make much from “composing” – remember that line from the movie Amadeus, when Wolfgang’s father admonished him to take students because “composition doesn’t pay”? That’s just the way it was – the idea of composing, publishing and waiting for the royalty checks is based on an illegitimate privilege, is coming to an end due to technology, and so…
      What to do? We are all still figuring it out in detail, but performing or teaching are the tried/true avenue for musicians. There are others, and some rely on a sustained copyright regime (e.g. commercial licensing) – but those are the two obvious ones.
      Thanks so much for reading!

      • Andre

        intriguing answer, Ben. May I add that….maybe the time of the “unique songwriter” is over???? Maybe it’s just not that special to those spending money in music today (younger people going to see DJs, or consuming music as singles, like people did from 1950-1970 or so). Underlying this whole debate is the sense that one should simply make the money that they, or someone else made in a given industry, forever and ever. Or — at least till THEY are gone. Life just doesn’t work that way — ask Kodak, the Telegraph people, the guy with a beeper store in 1995, or the fax machine dealer..etc

        • bensommer

          And I say….amen to that brotha!

  • Great-grandpa Jim

    I totally disagree with you and your (so-called) logic. Any and every creator of novel created works should have the ability to protect their rights to and potential income from the commercial use by others of their creation. A copyright for the songwriter is like a patent for an inventor. The creators of such should be entitled to earn compensation for the commercial use thereof just like the owner of property is entitled to compensation for the use of their property.

    Sincerely……..Jim Schoke, Songwriter, retired electronics-nuclear physicist and entrepreneur

    • bensommer

      Thanks Jim – no comment on this article would be complete without an insult to kick it off!

      If you’ve got a problem with any specific assertion or premise in my argument, please fire away. Otherwise there is no argument here.

  • Andre

    Very interesting stuff. Get ready for endless attacks, as you well know. The only flaw I see is that you;re only referring to a TINY percent of music a couple hundred years ago — and missing out on a huge support for your argument ! Remember that millions of musicians in Africa, India, Europe, The Americas, Australia and every island everywhere was CREATING, WRITING and PERFORMING MUSIC for millenia….and not getting rich on it!!! Certainly there are some who wrote incredible melodies and perhaps the “hits” of their tribe, village, county or region..yet were never made “rich” from that! Imagine that!! So, again — that supports your point perfectly, I think you’d round out the Bach/Mozart argument if you reminded people of this other stuff too.

    • Andre

      …and I wrote that quickly..of course ESPECIALLY in Asia and the Middle East, plus Romania, Russia, Iceland, you name it!! People have been making music…for the sake of making music, for millenia, and will continue to do so. The ILLUSION of big money for writing songs, has came and went, and we’re better for it.

      • bensommer

        Excellent point thanks for offering it. I’m publishing a follow-up and will note the west-centric/1st world nature of copyright