Thread by @NMamatas

1. All right, here's something to consider in discussions of copyright, piracy, and the like.

Copyright is a site of struggle, and the state, particularly the courts, has an instrumentalist function.

2. There is nothing "natural" about copyright, but clearly some level of copyright is useful for encouraging cultural production. It's actually a fairly low level—people create all sorts of things for personal reasons.

For cultural DISTRIBUTION, though...

3. In the early days of the United States, the country was a massive haven for "piracy"—for domestic production and distribution of British literature. This country was small, poor, and stupid. Piracy was a great help to it! The US isn't small or poor anymore!

4. "Hey, you forgot 'not stu—'"

Just keep reading.

5. At the same time, the US had its own copyright system in place. Article I, Section 8.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

6. Look close: it's not "To promote the well-being of Authors and Inventors", it's for "the Progress of Science and useful Arts". (And also the goofy bullshit everyone on Twitter gets exercised about—you people shove all sorts of garbage into your brain-holes.)

7. That authors and inventors benefit from intellectual property is a side effect of its value in the market and the "progress" that markets provide.

I mean, doesn't your kid's lunch taste better when Shrek's stupid face is on the lunch box? PROGRESS!

8. A lot of rights and licenses emerge out of practice. Back before the Internet got big, writers often concerned themselves with only selling First North American Serial Rights to a periodical. And yes, they could even sell Second North American Serial Rights to Reader's Digest!

9. You're not going to find a lot of statutes describing or talking about this license. It was an emergent property of contracts and common practice. And common practice was basically poor writers being squeezed by publishers and writers occasionally squeezing back.

10. When the Internet got big, the idea of World Electronic rights manifested. It wasn't automatic. And there were fights about who could publish what again!

Lookie:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_…

11. If I were a craven centrist I might explain that copyright is a tool used to encourage distribution of cultural products and piracy a dicinsentive—but I am a rampaging Communist so I'll point out instead that corporations love going to the courts to increase their power.

12. Society does not come together to do anything! Everything is a fight!

One way for corporations to gain a lot of power is to rigorously enforce IP rights, and create new licenses, rights, types of IP enforcement, etc.

13. ANOTHER way for corporations to gain a lot of power is to undermine IP rights, create new venues of distribution, put limitations on licenses, reduce the power of Authors and Inventors and the like.

14. Google, YouTube, Scribd, Crunchyroll have all flouted copyright/other IP laws in order to build platforms, attract investors, and collect millions upon millions of bucks.

That is, they were very profitable pirates. Until such time that going legit would mean more millions.

15. Almost no corporate actor manifests some principled and consistent vision of copyright. Copyright is great when it can be used as a hammer against creators! Flouting copyright is great when it can be used as a hammer against creators!

16. Thus, pro-piracy positions are also not themselves principled anti-corporate or anti-capitalist positions. Plenty of the time "Oh yeah, information needs to be free!" business is just some kid with a bad haircut and funny glasses forming an objective bloc with ConHugeCo.

17. So copyright is a site of struggle and that struggle largely manifests in common practice of licensing rights and then in the courts—and as you probably already know, large companies have more and better lawyers than even your favorite rich writer or inventor.

18. So in fact there are times when it might make sense to take a pro-piracy position (are corporations using copyright to hammer creators?) and there are times when it might make sense to take an anti-piracy position (are corporations flouting copyright to hammer creators?).

19. But isn't it best that all intangibles be free? Yes!

It is also best that food, shelter, healthcare, utilities, and other commanding heights of the economy be free, workplaces democratic, and the market a Cockshott-Cottrell tatonnement within a cybernetic planned economy.

20. Does one get to commanding heights/workplace democracy/shadow markets by siding with corporations that flout copyright?

Not anymore than one destroys the wage-labour system by siding with corporations that withhold wages.

21. It was interesting to see, earlier this week, people calling for certain novels in popular series to be released early, the way certain current films are going to streaming immediately.

The studios don't care if you're safe at home. The fucking theaters are closed!

22. Books also stay in print much longer than movies stay in the theater, plus half of them already get to readers via mail order. There's no need other than baby-hand gimme-gimmie that a novel needs to be released early during a pandemic.

23. There's little principled talk from supporters of Open Library—which by the way has a dumb interface and awful-looking scans, so it's worth what you pay for it—despite the left gloss on today's rhetoric.

It's still siding with a big corporate complex. (NGOs *are* corps.)

24. Just keep in mind, whenever any institution says that they just want to help by either opening the floodgates, or by slamming them shut...THEY DO NOT WANT TO HELP.

Fin.