Anti-copyright

Anti-copyright notices

Such statements are legally required because, under the Berne Convention in international copyright law, works are protected even if no copyright statement is attached to them. However, "anti-copyright" statements typically do not take the form of either sophisticated open content licenses or a simple dedication to the public domain; instead, they usually just encourage wide distribution. It is possible to denounce all claims to copyright in a work including moral rights in a written disclaimer.

An example of an anti-copyright notice is the following: :Anti-Copyright! Reprint freely, in any manner desired, even without naming the source. Where such notices are attached depends highly on the type of work. They are often found in anarchist magazines and books.

A copyright waiver might state the following: The author of this work hereby waives all claim of copyright (economic and moral) in this work and immediately places it in the public domain; it may be used, distorted or destroyed in any manner whatsoever without further attribution or notice to the creator.

Most people would regard "anti-copyright" notices as being equivalent to a dedication of material into the public domain (as in the second example above). Some of these disclaimers, however, are less accurate and need to be interpreted individually as the term anti-copyright has no accepted legal meaning. For example, if just free distribution is encouraged, modification or lack of atribution is still illegal, making the material ineligible for collaborative writing projects like Wikipedia. In such a case anti-copyright is not a true denial of copyright, but just a modification of the protection it affords copyright holders.

Anti-copyright movement The opposition to copyright law per se is not strictly limited to anarchists. The term "infoanarchism[?]" was coined in recent years (starting with a July 2000 TIME Magazine article about Ian Clarke[?] called "The Infoanarchist") to describe specific opposition to intellectual property, often including patents. The classic argument for intellectual property is that protection of author and creator's rights encourages further creative work by giving the creator a source of income. Those against copyright suggest that income to a creator must be generated by ancilliary means, for different reasons:

• Making the creator dependent on a system that requires enforcement directly ties them to large corporate entities which are able to carry out this enforcement, but may at the same time limit creative output to that which is compatible with the mainstream.
• Information in modern digital networks can be reproduced at very low cost; this makes it possible for people with low income to participate in the "information society", unless copyright is strictly enforced.
• The need to enforce copyright requires the creator to act directly against his audience; for example, in the wake of Napster, several artists such as Metallica strongly condemned fans who shared their music.
• The enforcement itself may become so difficult that it endangers free expression[?]. The same methods used to prevent the distribution of copyrighted works can be used to prevent the distribution of undesirable speech.
• Enforcement mechanisms such as Digital Rights Management endanger existing consumer rights like fair use, and can be used to further tie creators to the corporate entities that control this technology. "Trusted computing" platforms may refuse to play, display or execute content that is not properly "certified" by central authorities.
• Little known creators depend on distribution to become popular -- for them, copyright limits their potential outreach, and donations may be a better option. Well known creators can always ask for money from their fans upfront (Street Performer Protocol).

The classical anarchist perspective on anti-copyright is that ideas and knowledge should not be owned or controlled. This is perhaps best summed up in Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's slogan Property is Theft. Anarchists do not consider plagiarism and theft of other people's ideas a good thing. Anarchists and others who do so would be looked at as dishonest and untrustworthy. What is more important to anarchists is the refusal to "own" ideas and knowledge as such things are not capable of ownership, being part of the patrimony of our common heritage.

See also: copyleft vs. copyright