Copyrights/Patents/etc in a post-revolutionary society?

[Hexen]

In a Post-Revolutionary society, would copyrights/patents/etc still exist in some way or another or would they be abolished completely and everything would be in the public domain since people are now able to control the means of production?

[Sosa]

In a Post-Revolutionary society, would copyrights/patents/etc still exist in some way or another or would they be abolished completely and everything would be in the public domain since people are now able to control the means of production?

There would be no such thing as copyrights or patents...no need for them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In a Post-Revolutionary society, would copyrights/patents/etc still exist in some way or another or would they be abolished completely and everything would be in the public domain since people are now able to control the means of production?IMO all copyrights would be eliminated, I don't see what use they would be for working class people after a revolution.

If people wanted some kind of way to authenticate original sources, I think that would be fine - give credit where credit is due. But the larger issue is that the profit-motive and intellectual property is one of the examples of how capitalism - despite allowing for the potential for great new advances in knowledge, science, art, etc actually ends up being a break on further development. For science, art and so on, pooling resources and knowledge is essential - for capitalism, it hurts profits and so the drug companies, and so on would rather a new technique or drug go undiscovered than make profits for a competitor.

It's interesting that this topic seems to come up a lot of this website, I feel like there was a similar question only a week ago or so. Any thoughts as to why this is a hot topic? Is it because of the "war on bootlegs" that the entertainment companies are doing - shutting down Limewire etc?

[Fulanito de Tal]

We need copyrights of certain products so people would know that it is legit. If not, I could claim to have a bottle of Havana Club Rum and it could be rat poison (a synonym for shitty rum) and a person would not know until it's too late.

However, I think that punishments should vary compared to now. If someone fakes Havana Club Rum, then a minor punishment. However, if it's real rat poison, then to the gallows with the buccaneer -- not literally.

My argument is not profit centered; it is consumer protection focused. By having copyrights, the consumer is more likely to trust the provider.

[Sosa]

We need copyrights of certain products so people would know that it is legit. If not, I could claim to have a bottle of Havana Club Rum and it could be rat poison (a synonym for shitty rum) and a person would not know until it's too late.

However, I think that punishments should vary compared to now. If someone fakes Havana Club Rum, then a minor punishment. However, if it's real rat poison, then to the gallows with the buccaneer -- not literally.

My argument is not profit centered; it is consumer protection focused. By having copyrights, the consumer is more likely to trust the provider.

You don't need copyrights for that. If someone is "bootlegging" rum as rat poison they can bootleg the copyright as well.

[Kotze]

We need copyrights of certain products so people would know that it is legit.That's trademark law, not copyright.

While trademark law is the part of "intellectual property" that makes the most sense, there is still a lot of abuse. Trademarks are linked to product categories, so instead of having unique but incomprehensible names for products like Aadklrfasdjlkgaslkhxooxxx Chocolate Bar™ you can use a common name provided the product is different enough from other products that use the same name. What "different enough" means doesn't really have a guaranteed clear answer, so there are lots of lawsuits. Trademarks have been also used as a tool of censorship, URLs of websites that criticise a particular brand or organisation that contain the relevant name have been expropriated under the excuse that people would erroneously think of it as an official site.

Copyright (which is used to limit the copying of text, film, music, software) is much worse. The official propaganda is all about helping the creators, in reality it protects the middlemen. Copyright is used frequently as a tool of censorship. Don't like a scathing online review of a shitty movie/book/game/album/comic your company made? Do they show little bits of your work? -DMCA TAKEDOWN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) TO THE RESCUE! Scientology has frequently used copyright to shut up its critics.

Copyright has been used as a tool of censorship from the beginning. There is a book by Volker Grassmuck called "Freie Software. Zwischen Privat- und Gemeineigentum" (PDF of the whole book (http://freie-software.bpb.de/Grassmuck.pdf), it's German) which is about how "intellectual property" laws came into being and the free software movement, it also touches on the censorship issue. Grassmuck refers to an article by Lydia Pallas Loren, which is available here (http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/publicdomain/Loren2-7-00.html).


The probable genesis of copyright law was the crown's grant of a letters patent, the printing patent, giving one entity a monopoly on the printing of certain works. Of course, a fee for that monopoly was paid to the crown, thus making the letters patent a source of revenue for the crown.

If the crown could grant these patents, the guild of booksellers, called the Stationers' Company, found that they could agree among themselves to allow a monopoly on works. The members of the Stationers' Company were almost all of the printers in England; if they agreed to respect one another's claims to particular works it was a de facto monopoly. Thus, the idea of a "copyright" started out as a member of the guild registering the title of the manuscript or "copy" with the guild.

(...)

A bookseller's registration of the copy with the guild gave the bookseller the exclusive right to print and vend the work as a matter of private law, agreed to by members of the guild. The problem with private law, however, is that it can only be enforced among those who have agreed to it. (...) Because of this limitation, the booksellers often sought public affirmation or codification of their private law.

In 1557, the desires of the booksellers and the desires of the crown coincided. The crown perceived the need to gain greater control over "the dangerous possibilities of the printed word" and so granted a royal charter to the Stationers' Company that limited most printing to only members of the company. This charter also empowered the company to search out and destroy "unlawful" books, which gave the guild the public enforcement mechanism for its private law. If a nonmember was printing a work that had been registered with the company by a member, the nonmember could now be stopped. It also meant that if a work which was disagreeable to the crown was being published, it too could be stopped. This arrangement provided the crown with added policemen to enforce its goal to control printed works.The alternative is direct funding by the public and also making things easier for hobbyists by abolishing copyrights and patents.

[Psy]

The law of value is causing Capitalists to losing the war against piracy, piracy now is many times what it was in the 1990's with no sign of its growth slowing. The means to reproduce media just keeps getting cheaper and cheaper and the cost to reproduce has been near zero for years.

Marxists should understand protecting intellectual property in this day of age is futile as it getting that so the cost to protect intellectual property is more then what that property is worth as a commodity.

So logically a Communist society would just stop worrying about piracy and embrace free distribution of media.

Also there is growing trend of sampling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28music%29) in music, a good example would be Pogo (http://www.youtube.com/user/Fagottron)

JVxe5NIABsI


The proletariat now does not acknowledge intellectual property so why should we tell them they should respect intellectual property but not other property, see where I'm going here? We should be telling the proletariat they are correct in not respecting intellectual property but have to take it farther.

[Global Revolutionary]

I believe that copyrights are just a form of chastising creativity as there is barriers however I believe that the best way of dealing with copyrights is through creative commons licencing system. Where profit is not the center of the licence.

[Jack]

Copyrights and patents would imply that someone has ownership over a particular idea or invention, and they deserve to profit from that. While inventors certainly deserve recognition for their effort in creating new technologies, they don't deserve a portion of the value of each good that is produced as a result of their invention.

[cb9's_unity]

The only near equivalent to a copyright in socialist society would be the ability to attach your name to the product if you desire. This is the ultimate representation of the creative labor that one puts into a product.

[Sixiang]

I think that the artist deserves credit for their creation, but beyond that, I see no reason for "ownership." It is of my belief that art is meant to be shared, not horded like money by a capitalist. :p

[Quail]

In a Post-Revolutionary society, would copyrights/patents/etc still exist in some way or another or would they be abolished completely and everything would be in the public domain since people are now able to control the means of production?
I don't see any need for copyrights or patents. I think that work should be acknowledged, but copyrights/patents restrict access to information and innovation. If something useful is created, people should be able to use and benefit from it with no restrictions.

[Sixiang]

I don't see any need for copyrights or patents. I think that work should be acknowledged, but copyrights/patents restrict access to information and innovation. If something useful is created, people should be able to use and benefit from it with no restrictions.

Exactly. This seems so obvious to me that I feel it goes without saying.