We may have a different view on the responsibilities individuals hold regarding the control of their own speech. Should Doctorow try to restrain his own words out of respect for the rights he is trying to remove? I don’t think so, and here’s why.

I can fully understand why anti-copyright arguments would seem self-centered and self-serving. However, they appeal naturally to many of us who have known digital networks for most of our lives, regardless of any personal benefit involved. I would suggest that a large percent of Doctorow’s fans believe in the superiority of relaxed copyright law from a rights-based or utilitarian perspective rather than an egoist one. He is making arguments toward these, and his main intention is not to spread the idea of (ahem) “civil disobedience” among the rest, to use a polite phrasing.

But what about those scoundrels who just want free stuff and find his ideas temporarily useful? I do not think the culture of piracy has a strong need for philosophical arguments in order to spread itself, or that Doctorow is having a significant positive effect on infringement. In the long run he wants to change the system to make those activities legal, but that’s rather the point. There are also those who caught with their hands stuck in cookie jars who look to pull his ideas out at the last moment as some haphazard defense, but for all of that they are no less doomed. Given these points, I would suggest that Doctorow is likely to do no great harm to copyright owners unless he is ultimately successful in winning the ideological war in the public’s mind (by which time he would be much more directly involved with the law).

Note I wouldn’t say Mr. Doctorow does this. I think for the most part he encourages other creators to see copyright from his point of view and not seek to enforce rights he — according to your interpretation — does not find valid.

It is clear, however, that many who wish to infringe on others’ rights and are looking for a moral justification for this action take words by individuals such as Mr. Doctorow as a license for infringement. This is inarguable.

If Mr. Doctorow really feels his view of copyright is the correct one, he should engage in the policy debate and encourage a change in the law. That is something he has never done, as far as I know; in fact, EFF has an interesting history in which it officially chose not to engage in Washington. That is fine. But there are many rightsholders out there operating the way the current regime permits them, and I for one find it unfortunate that creators like Mr. Doctorow choose not to extend them the courtesy they deserve as fellow artists by not challenging their (legally correct) interpretation of copyright law.

It does not make me happy to see anyone lose their job. I do not grin to see someone release works of art only to see low sales force them back into the rat race. One of my best friends wants to be a professional artist. Another wishes to be a professional writer, and I know many others.

Obviously, I have completely different views from you over the economic effect of copyright law as it currently stands, its effect on technological development and artistic creation, and whether it is even possible to enforce. I think you are very wrong. I also think you want the best for everyone.

I believe you (and several posters here) misunderstand Cory Doctorow’s reason for (as you call it, giving up some of his rights). He wishes us to, in a certain fashion, return to a rights paradigm which accommodates retelling in the fashion of ancient oral storytelling. There are obvious benefits, and obvious drawbacks – to several of my friends, “moral” rights over derivative content are extremely important. I don’t have a problem with an argument that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits, but from Cory’s point of view, he is relinquishing nothing that he had the right to in the first place. He sees himself as building a better world for creators and audiences alike, just as you see yourself as protecting the one that exists now.

I think that the works and arguments of Macaulay, Hayek, and similar great thinkers through the ages show quite vividly that copyright is given by government, not God, so to speak – it is man’s to give, not his to take away. Otherwise, its natural coverage would be unlimited and its term infinite, and you will not find that in laws modern or historical. Do not, then, harass Lessig for trying to implement his ideas – it does not make him a communist, though it may conceivably make him wrong and irresponsible.

I do agree with Casey in one regard: The creators are the victims. And as it relates to the original post by Mr. Ross: Creators who surrender their creation’s copyright are quite simply allowing themselves to be further victimized. The amount of money stolen from them is compounded by the fact that it is common practice for those who maintain copyrights “on behalf of the artist” license and collect quite quickly and thoroughly, but pay the artist insubstantially, if ever. Yet industry bigs would have you believe that they are the honest ones. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Additionally, it is on-line services, selling intellectual property without license who are socking to the creator, whether he owns his copyright or not. The amount of money and time and effort put into chasing file-sharers would appear misspent, if the creator knew just how much money was being made on his product that he is not aware of.

These are the type of frequent problems people are facing that are relevant to this discussion.