by Rick Falkvinge
February 07, 2016
The copyright industry
keeps repeating the mantra
that the copyright monopoly
is somehow "necessary".
proves conclusively that it
The copyright industry has long repeated
the claim to politicians that the copyright monopoly is necessary
for any culture to be created at all, to the point where politicians
actually believe this nonsense.
Actually, their 'lie' is divided into
The first falsehood is that
authors, makers, and inventors must be paid for anything to
be created at all.
This lie is actually rather
obscene coming from an industry which has deliberately
created structures that make sure 99.99% of musicians never
see a single cent in royalties:
99% of good musicians are
never signed by a label, and of those who are, 99% never
see a cent in royalties.
So it's quite obscene arguing
that culture must be paid for, when this very industry makes
sure that less than one artist in ten thousand get any money
for their art.
The second lie is that the only
way for artists to make any money is to give the copyright
industry an absolute private governmentally-sanctioned
distribution monopoly, the copyright monopoly, that takes
precedence over any kind of innovation, technology, and
This is an equally obscene lie:
all research shows that
artists make more money than ever since the advent of
file sharing, but the sales-per-copy is down the drain.
The fact that the
parasitic middlemen are hurting is the best news
ever for artists, who get a much larger piece of the pie.
Of course, the copyright
industry - the parasitic middlemen in question - insist on
pretending their interests are aligned with those of the
artist, which they never were.
Therefore, in believing these two lies
combined, politicians grant this private governmentally-sanctioned
monopoly - the copyright monopoly - in the belief that such a
harmful monopoly is necessary for culture to exist in society.
(Just to illustrate what kind of blatant
nonsense this is, all archeological digs have been rich in various
expressions of culture. We create as a species because we can't
exist in a society and not express culture - it's because of our
fundamental wiring: not because of a harmful monopoly.)
So what could act as conclusive proof that these lies are, well,
In the construct of
Creative Commons, you have placed
the power over this monopoly with the authors and makers themselves,
rather with the parasitic middlemen.
And the interesting observation is, that
once you do, millions of creators renounce their already-awarded
harmful monopolies for a number of reasons:
because they make more money
because they prefer to create
culture that way
because it's the moral thing to
Once you point out that the actual
people who create are renouncing their already-awarded monopolies,
and are doing so by the millions - actually, more than an estimated
one billion works of art according to the Creative
Commons organization - the entire web of lies falls apart.
The copyright monopoly isn't necessary for culture to exist.
It was always tailored to benefit the
parasitic middlemen. And these middlemen have tried their
damndest to prevent actual artists from seeing any of the money.
Now, you could argue that specific expressions of culture couldn't
exist. You'd be easily disproven - for example, most
multimillion-dollar blockbusters make their investment back on
opening weekend, far before any digital copy exists as a torrent.
Besides, why would you prop up and lock
in a specific form of culture with a harmful monopoly, when forms of
culture have always evolved with humanity?