This essay is a weird conflation of two issues: copyright and government censorship. Yes, I suppose they're both "enemies" of the free flow of information, but I think it's an unfair comparison.
There's nothing special about the Internet from the perspective of copyright. I don't really understand why so many people have such a problem with the concept of copyright, but it seems especially acute with regard to the web crowd. I suspect it's because the ease with which copyright can be violated online makes people feel that it can hardly be doing any damage, so what's the big deal. The ironic thing is that people on HN cry bloody murder when someone rips off a webpage design or posts blogspam instead of linking to the original source. Please explain how this is different?
I'd recommend reading Lessig's stuff, if you'd want to find out more. I've listened to his lectures and read his stuff, but not well enough to give an argument here on his behalf.
I doubt many people have a problem with the concept of copyright. There are a huge number, though, who have a problem with the implementation of copyright, especially when they're well aware of its original intent. (See: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12....)
Copyrights are monopoly rights that the state assigns to individuals for the public good. The public good here is not just creation of works (both original and derivative) but also their consumption. Copyright law has always been concerned with finding a healthy balance between the two. This is why fair use is protected and also why copyrights are required to expire.
Now the reason the internet is such a big deal when it comes to copyright, is that it makes distribution, and hence consumption, much much easier than in the past. In fact, it also makes creating derivative works a whole lot easier. So there is a strong argument to be made that the good gained by weakening copyright laws would outweigh any harm. In fact, this is the argument Google is making with their book scanning project and related settlement.
The fundamental issue is that because the model of the world on which our current copyright laws were based has changed so radically, we should consider rewriting the laws to obtain a better copyright balance.
Now the reason the internet is such a big deal when it comes to copyright, is that it makes distribution, and hence consumption, much much easier than in the past. In fact, it also makes creating derivative works a whole lot easier. So there is a strong argument to be made that the good gained by weakening copyright laws would outweigh any harm.
Can you elaborate on this? I don't see the logical progression at all.
It's not a conflation at all. You really should have a reason why Disney movies should be censored from the internet, but Chinese dissident materials should not be. Clearly there could be such a reason, but there is a parallel.
Obviously there's nothing special about the internet from the perspective of copyright; but there's nothing special about the internet from the perspective of Chinese government censorship either. So once again, the two are parallel.
If you want to distinguish between them, come up with a reason why they're not parallel.
They are not parallel because most countries respect copyright. Enforcing copyright is not censorship in those countries. Putting (unexpired) copyrighted material on the public internet violates copyright. Ensuring that this does not happen is not censorship as commonly understood.
Censorship by government presumably violates its citizens' right to free speech. If this is not the case, then this is not censorship as commonly understood.
China is wrong because they're in the minority; essentially they're outvoted. If most countries didn't respect copyright but did censor, then that would be right instead.
I think what he is trying to say (though it might be worded a little wrong) is that by enforcing copyright a country is enforcing what is generally considered an attempt to maintain a fair balance (note: no comment on whether this is successful or not) on content distribution to stimulate positive net gain.
Compared to a government enforcing what is generally considered censorship and a negative net gain.
(if the vast percentage of the world agreed censorship of the type China exhibits was right, then, well, yes it would be "right" - but that is much more of a philosophical question)
What I am trying to say is ultimately in response to this:
> You really should have a reason why Disney movies should be censored from the internet, but Chinese dissident materials should not be.
Disney movies should be "censored" from the internet because countries which respect copyright ought to enforce such. Chinese dissident materials should not be "censored" from the internet because Chinese dissidents presumably have a right to free speech. This is the Western perspective, as I understand it.
I am pointing out the difference between the two scenarios and not necessarily endorsing the Western perspective.
But both Copyright and Censorship are similarly opposed to the reader's will.
Both are more about placing constraints on consumption than about restricting production. Neither care about what you produce as long as noone else sees it.
when someone rips off a webpage design or posts blogspam instead of linking to the original source. Please explain how this is different?
Sure it's copyright infringement, but the sin we're crying bloody murder about is PLAGIARISM
It's the whole point of the BSD license: you can't pass off this source code as yours. In the original license with the advertising clause that applied to object code as well.
There's nothing special about the Internet from the perspective of copyright. I don't really understand why so many people have such a problem with the concept of copyright, but it seems especially acute with regard to the web crowd. I suspect it's because the ease with which copyright can be violated online makes people feel that it can hardly be doing any damage, so what's the big deal. The ironic thing is that people on HN cry bloody murder when someone rips off a webpage design or posts blogspam instead of linking to the original source. Please explain how this is different?