Copyright Restricts the Right To Property

Chair. Can be owned without restrictions.

Copyright is not the same thing as the right to property. It is a restriction on the right to property.

Suppose that I buy a chair. I go into a shop, perform the ritual of selling and buying, and hand over the money. The chair is now my property, and I can do whatever I want with it. I can allow other people to sit on it for a charge, I can manufacture my own copies of it, or I can transform it into something new and sell it. Since I am the owner of the chair, these are some of the things I am allowed to do with my property.

But suppose that I buy a copy of a film instead. Again, I go into the shop, perform the ritual of selling and buying, and hand over the money. That copy of the film is now my property, but I am still not allowed to do what I want with it. I am not allowed to show it to other people for a charge, I am not allowed to manufacture my own copies of it, and I am not allowed to transform it into something new and sell it. Although I am the owner of the copy of the film, copyright places restrictions on what I may do with my property.

You can argue if the restrictions on the right to property that follow from copyright are good or bad, but you cannot deny that they are restrictions.

Copyright is in conflict with the right to property. It is not a part of it.

The same reasoning applies to patents and protected designs.

If the chair I bought contains some technical solution that has been patented, I am not allowed to manufacture copies of it and sell. In fact, I am not allowed to manufacture and sell any chair that contains the patented solution, regardless of whether I use an existing chair as the model or not. Although I own the wood and the tools that are necessary to do it, I am not allowed to. Patents are a restriction on the right to property.

Design patents, or protected designs, work the same way. Most ordinary chairs have no design protection. Then I am free to make as many copies as I want. But if the chair I bought is covered by design protection, I am not allowed to make copies of it and sell, even if I own the wood and the tools necessary. Just like patents, protected designs are a restriction on the right to property.

Again: You can discuss if these restrictions on the right to property are good or bad. For instance, the Pirate Party wants to keep most of the copyright legislation for commercial purposes, even though we admit that this is a restriction on the right to property.

But you cannot defend copyright, patents, or protected designs by saying that you consider the right to property sacred. It is as if someone would defend the death penalty with the argument that life is sacred. That particular logic doesn’t work.

…………

This text in Swedish

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik