Why copyright is censorship

No, I'm still not convinced. I also don't understand how anyone else could be convinced by his argument to conclude that "copyright is censorship". Afterall, the logical conclusion of "copyright is censorship" is that all copyright should be abolished, all creative works (music, books, software) should be immediately and freely copyable by anyone (filesharing) and reprinting by any publisher. So, if a megacorp wants to steal your work, repackage it and sell it in stores, so sorry - you have no recourse. If Microsoft saw your software application, they could bundle it with every copy of their operating system, and not pay you a dime. If a movie producer liked your music, he could put it in his Hollywood blockbuster and not pay you a dime. If a street vendor gets a copy of your software, burns a thousand CDs, and sells it for $1 each - you have no recourse. I think most people would see those things as wrong. But, your "copyright is censorship" statement says, "no, it's not wrong. Street vendors and megacorps should be allowed to do all of that with your work, and have no fear of legal action".

I will agree with the statement that Intellectual Property laws have gotten out of hand, but I support shorter terms, not abolishment (which is the only logical conclusion of "copyright is censorship").

Getting to the specifics of his argument, he states:

"(1) Creativity and innovation always builds on the past". Sort of true. What's actually true is that creativity generally builds on elements of past creativity. The way he states it hints at the idea that there are no stories, music, or software you can possibly create which isn't already prohibited by someone else's copyright - which is obviously false. Obviously, here in the real-world, someone could come up with something that is different from any past version that copyright would not / could not be enforced. For example, you could write a story about vampires, and no one could come after you for copyright (unless, of course, you're blatantly using some popular characters - like Anne Rice's vampires). I think many of the statements he makes are very fuzzy - leading listeners to conclude something that isn't actually true.

Second, he says that copyrights are being extended to protect Mickey Mouse. Actually, Mickey Mouse is protected under trademark, not copyright. This means shortening copyright has no effect on whether or not you can use Mickey Mouse in your own product. So, all this talk about Disney fighting to lengthen copyrights to "protect Mickey" is only true in the sense that they are protecting the old videos of Mickey Mouse (which, I'm sure make next to no profit for the Disney company), and have nothing to do with keeping the character "Mickey Mouse" from the public domain. From Wikipedia:
"It is sometimes erroneously stated that the Mickey Mouse character is protected only by copyright. In fact, the character, like all major Disney characters, is protected as a trademark, which lasts in perpetuity as long as it continues to be used commercially by its owner. Whether or not a particular Disney cartoon goes into the public domain, the characters themselves will remain protected as trademarks from unauthorized use."

In the end, the only sensible position is *fair copyright* and *fair IP laws*. Not the overreaction that copyright = censorship.

Afterall, the logical conclusion of "copyright is censorship" is that all copyright should be abolished,

No it isn't. A logical conclusion would be that either copyright should be abolished or that some cases of censorship shouldn't be abolished. The second sounds like an unappealing bullet to bites but if you define "censorship" as something like "bans on saying certain things" it already includes libel and so is hardly controversial.
So saying "Copyright is censorship" doesn't make you copyright abolitionist. It just means that it's a restriction on free speech and therefore needs a damn good reason to make it valid

Afterall, the logical conclusion of "copyright is censorship" is that all copyright should be abolished, all creative works (music, books, software) should be immediately and freely copyable by anyone (filesharing) and reprinting by any publisher.

You wrote an awful lot attacking a straw man. Lessig doesn't argue that in general, and not in this presentation either (as far as I could tell -- I clicked through the slides with the sound off).

The actual logical conclusion to "copyright is censorship" is that we need to limit copyright -- as a necessary evil -- proportional to its benefits. It does have benefits, as you point out, but if, 70 years after your death, you're still worried about megacorp taking your work and reselling it you are apparently some form of undead.

I agree that Lessig's presentation would be more effective if he painted a less one-sided picture -- that always pisses me off with these kinds of things.

But still, I agree that there's significant cost to creative work in the extreme extension that copyright has now. I'm not sure what an ideal duration should be -- 40 years, maybe? But 70 years beyond the death of the creator is ridiculous.

BTW, Mickey Mouse is protected BOTH by copyright and trademark; they protect different things. A "trademark" is how you indicate the *source* of your product. If people aren't going to be confused and think you're the Disney Corporation, you're fine as far as trademark is concerned.

Mind you, Disney in particular has been leveraging trademark law in ways that are not at all clearly legal and unrelated to the reason for trademark law (it's supposed to be for consumer-protection, so you can tell who made the product you're buying...), using a massive legal team to bully people into settlements. But that's a case where I think trademark law likewise needs to be cleaned up and corrected to prevent those kinds of abuses.

Far from being an "amazing use of presentation software" - this is a good example of why presentation software generally tends to produce bad results. I frankly couldn't bear to go through the whole thing, but my guess is that the entire "presentation" could have been put on one page, and would have been more intelligible and less annoying to consume.

Anyone who thinks this is a "good presentation" should read this: http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/powerpoint

Rob W:

Afterall, the logical conclusion of "copyright is censorship" is that all copyright should be abolished, all creative works (music, books, software) should be immediately and freely copyable by anyone (filesharing) and reprinting by any publisher.

You wrote an awful lot attacking a straw man. Lessig doesn't argue that in general, and not in this presentation either (as far as I could tell -- I clicked through the slides with the sound off).

No, you're misunderstanding me. Lessig never argues that copyright is censorship. Rather, Wilkin's extrapolates Lessig's ideas and claims that "copyright is censorship". As far as I could tell, Lessig wasn't making that statement.

The actual logical conclusion to "copyright is censorship" is that we need to limit copyright -- as a necessary evil -- proportional to its benefits.

What you're arguing is that one possible logical conclusion of "copyright is censorship" is that we need to limit copyright. Simply saying "copyright is censorship" is not nuanced, it doesn't suggest that there are counter-balancing forces, and it does lead everyone towards a much more extreme idea than the version you present. Similarly, if someone argued that "Meat is murder", they probably aren't arguing for anything less than strict vegetarianism. If their position was that we need to eat fewer animals, then "Meat is murder" is a poor way to explain your position - because the obvious conclusion is much more extreme than that.

I think you are being misled by my heading (I blame the subeditor!): I am not saying, nor do I mean to imply, that all copyright is censorship. What I am saying is that I agree with Lessig that copyright is being used to censor and regulate the market of ideas.

Some copyright is indeed necessary to prevent others reaping the rewards of the labor of others, but this is not what is being criticised here. The "Mickey Mouse" amendments serve to maitain the interests of corporations not individuals, and the old scheme of the author's lifetime plus some period to allow the author's family to reap the benefits of the author's work seems to me entirely justified. It shouldn't, however, make fair use a matter for court decisions all the time. If I use Mickey Mouse as an icon, I am not stealing from Walt or his family.

I just spent a year tracking down and trying to get permission to reprint hundreds of short pieces from various sources, some of which were over 80 years old. It was a nightmare and in the end my collation is missing some items because they were not able to be given permission. This interferes with scholarship. It is wrong.

Oh, and uqbar: Tufte's strictures - which are the Word of God - do not apply to Lessig's presentation. One of the sins of Powerpoint is that it distracts the audience from understanding the point. Lessig's approach doesn't distract anyone, it underlines what he is saying.

But de gustibus non est disputandum

the old scheme of the author's lifetime plus some period to allow the author's family to reap the benefits of the author's work seems to me entirely justified.

(nod) I'll certainly agree with that. I do think IP laws have gotten kind of ridiculous.