Comments on: Abolishing non-commercial copyright http://a2f2a.com/2010/01/17/abolishing-non-commercial-copyright/ The net's first, and only, artists-to-fans-to-artists blog! Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:57:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Crosbie Fitch http://a2f2a.com/2010/01/17/abolishing-non-commercial-copyright/comment-page-1/#comment-1911 Crosbie Fitch Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:21:35 +0000 http://a2f2a.com/?p=1230#comment-1911 I'd suggest that a better, ethical distinction is not commercial/non-commercial, but corporation/individual. It's not unethical to subject corporations to copyright, but it is unethical to subject individuals to it. This is because corporations, being artificial entities, don't have such a thing as a natural right to liberty. a) Commercial/non-commercial Individuals and corporations can file-share or stream music with impunity as long as no money changes hands. Individuals are sued when they sell their MP3 player without having first deleted its contents. b) Corporate/Individual Copyright applies to corporations as usual, in all cases, whether commercial or non-commercial. Individuals are never sued for copyright infringement, even if money changes hands, e.g. when selling full MP3 players, or as indie artists singing covers at a concert in exchange for a share of ticket sales. The labels of signed artists would have to pay a license fee, etc. Even so, I'd argue that even if copyright applied only to corporations it would still be culturally detrimental. However, for an interim compromise, a corporate/individual demarcation would be far better than a commercial/non-commercial one. <em>A slave is not given liberty if they aren't allowed to work for money.</em> I’d suggest that a better, ethical distinction is not commercial/non-commercial, but corporation/individual.

It’s not unethical to subject corporations to copyright, but it is unethical to subject individuals to it. This is because corporations, being artificial entities, don’t have such a thing as a natural right to liberty.

a) Commercial/non-commercial

Individuals and corporations can file-share or stream music with impunity as long as no money changes hands.

Individuals are sued when they sell their MP3 player without having first deleted its contents.

b) Corporate/Individual

Copyright applies to corporations as usual, in all cases, whether commercial or non-commercial.

Individuals are never sued for copyright infringement, even if money changes hands, e.g. when selling full MP3 players, or as indie artists singing covers at a concert in exchange for a share of ticket sales. The labels of signed artists would have to pay a license fee, etc.

Even so, I’d argue that even if copyright applied only to corporations it would still be culturally detrimental. However, for an interim compromise, a corporate/individual demarcation would be far better than a commercial/non-commercial one.

A slave is not given liberty if they aren’t allowed to work for money.

]]>