Socialist views of piracy (digital)

[RedQuarks]

I am fairly familiar with the common socialist view that copyright inhibits development and innovation as it places certain technology in the hands of a few and often is used to prevent other artists from doing their work, and I agree 100%. Though, opinions on piracy within capitalist society differ. Please do note that I am making the distinction between views within capitalist society and socialist society and that I am not trying to mix the two, a major mistake conservatives make when trying to understand socialism.

Now ideally, any artist or inventor should be recognized for their work even in a socialist society, though they would simply be rewarded for their work and have the same obligations any other person has -- there would be no extravagant award or monetary cost for their works. Though, in capitalist society, there is indeed a monetary award for each CD sold. I myself enjoy listening to music quite a bit, and it is very easy to find online for free, though I do purchase some music and software to support those trying to get on their feet and do what they enjoy. Personally though, I see no problem with piracy when it comes to large artists or software developers, I'm not paying money I don't have simply to attempt to enjoy life when they do not need it, but I digress...

So, can anybody give me any socialist views on piracy as well as copyright? I understand the criticisms and know why I oppose copyright and patents, though I can't find any far left works concerning the matter. If anybody knows of any more information that would be appreciated!

[Guardia Rossa]

It's because far-leftists opinion is somewhat obvious. Production is social, we create based on the society, we create to the society, there is no real good in copyright except if you are a bourgeois and you want money.

[RedWorker]

These are my views on the issue:

Immediate reform for today's capitalism: all current "copyright violations" should be legal unless they are used to produce a product that will be sold. So e.g. you can freely download anything, you can use someone's copyrighted work in your own work as long as it is free, otherwise the current rules apply.

Long term: If we don't recognize private property, then we hardly can recognize intellectual property... communism will make copyright irrelevant.

Yes, downloading something for free rather than paying $5 to some "indie" developer/musician/whatever (i.e. your typical petty-bourgeois fucker, let's not obscure our language) prevents him from earning $5. But so what? And furthermore, it is likely that a) people who are downloading it for free and never pay weren't going to pay even if there was no way for them to download it, b) "piracy" probably helps: some people end up buying the game, content is made more popular, etc. E.g. 20 illegally download a game and they make videos of the game each of which get an average of 10,000 views. That means a lot more sales. Or someone downloads the game and tells about it to his friends, some of them also get the game and tell more friends, etc. Countless examples are available.

And as for what is being specifically said in the OP: "socialist society" in any meaning that what would be relevant here can mean nothing more than what Marxism names 'communist society' in its materialist analysis of history. In this case there is no monetary reward at all for anybody's work (except possibly labor credits in the early stage of communist society), all commodities are freely available etc. so copyright is not even possible in the first place.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Do we celebrate open-source software now, like Wikipedia and Linux? Sure, they are pretty neat. Do we build mansions for and pray at the feet of their creators? No, that goes against the whole spirit of the project. I would like to think that in a socialist society based on co-operation and sharing rather than competition and the enigma of 'entrepreneurialism', there would be a greater inclination towards this sort of mutual appreciation, yet greater equality.

You imagine that with individualised endeavours such as music stars, actors, and sports players that there will always be a degree of individual reverence and fame because these are people who do things that are viewed as inspirational and exceptional. But still, that can be healthy as long as a relative degree of equality is maintained in terms of social standing and economic provision.

[Futility Personified]

You can get a large swathe of the intellectual and creative enterprise of our species online for free (illegally). I don't think in an ideal post revolutionary world we'd need to pay people to create, or to do owt, it'd just need doing. Artistic types would probably feel the same inclination to help out as those who are not so inclined, although the artistic types might get let off on the basis of their skills. Communism is not a smooth road, if you want uber fame and success and not having to do fuck all then you'd better make some songs espousing bourgeois ideology and fucking in a coat room to some ranky trap beat.

[RedQuarks]

It seems I was very vague in my original post. I don't believe that copyright should exist whatsoever -- it inhibits development of culture by limiting certain goods to a few and in many cases prevents workers and scientists from using copyrighted technology, makes it difficult to obtain many goods (ex: I program and have pirated many programs because I simply can't afford them), and in some cases steals the technology and protects it with a copyright, overall it inhibits the spread of information and innovation in general. For example, if I wanted to print copies of Luxemburg's "Reform or Revolution" to hand out provided I had the capital, or I wished to discuss her book w/o correct MLA/APA/etc. and attributions I would be destroyed by the publisher, in this case Dover Publishing. Which further makes it odd that the works of a communist who died 95/96 years ago are nowcopyrighted by a publisher in the first place.

I was simply saying that I didn't see a reason to pirate all software and music in capitalist society, certaintly don't want people to starve for trying to do what they enjoy. That being said, one has to then draw the line between subsistence and greed. Thus, in capitalist society, I pirate plenty of things, but certain very small developers I do give my money, provided prices are reasonable. I simply say that in Communist society the name of the creator of the work/discovery/invention be made known so that they may be easily found and questioned about their work or encouraged to produce more. By no means do I argue for entrepreneurship or collection of capital and great fame. I still do advocate for cooperation as I am a Communist and nearly every correctly executed study on cooperation vs competition has shown that cooperation yields far more desirable results.

[tuwix]

So, can anybody give me any socialist views on piracy as well as copyright? I understand the criticisms and know why I oppose copyright and patents, though I can't find any far left works concerning the matter. If anybody knows of any more information that would be appreciated!

Intellectual property is that kind of property that even right-wing libertarians are against although they worship a property very much. But far-leftist are against private property. Although we distinct a personal property from private property, then so-calles 'intellectual property' isn't personal in any way. So it must be abolished as all private property.

[Hatshepsut]

I don't know that socialism has an "opinion on piracy." Copyright up to now has enfolded several distinct areas of regulating the use of creative works, e.g. moral rights such as the right to attribution (being credited for the work), right to first publication, and right to have integrity of the work respected (forbidding alteration without permission) in addition to the sales monopoly we usually think of when we hear the © word.

Others on the thread have stated that creators should be paid once for the value of their creative work, in what I take to be lower communism. No copyright franchise permitting continuous extraction of what amounts to a rent should attach to creative works any more than it should attach to land. Attribution, integrity, and first publication may be negotiable issues, with needs of society given first priority but an author's "right" not to be defamed, distorted, or denied recognition allowed some weight when society hasn't yet reached higher communism.

[Ocean Seal]

Anti-piracy is legit where capitalism gets ridiculous. You have a commodity that you can literally give to everyone for free, and you hoard it. Yep sounds sensible to me...

[ñángara]

Anti-piracy is legit where capitalism gets ridiculous... "Piracy" in the 3rd World is what has made Bill Gate's Operating System the "standard de facto" of the software industry.