NEVER JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER — A treatise on the pondering’s of the collective on the topic of copyright, power structures governing use of ideas, and on the idea of owning and controlling an idea in the first place.
By — Borg Brain
Recently there was a discussion that came up over some NFT’s(Non-Fungible Tokens) in a TG(Telegram) channel I was in, specifically, accusations of copyright infringement, and theft of intellectual property. The point is, when the discussion came up, there was a whole bunch of comments on copyright, and from my point of view, there was a serious lack of thought and understanding when it came to what was being discussed, specifically about copyright and intellectual property. I made a statement to this, and someone asked for more information, so I ended up writing a bunch on the subject. It was quite long, and a few people thought I should put it out as a Medium article, so I’ve decided to start a Medium account and start publishing some writings, if and when I have the inclination to write about something interesting that people might derive some value from in the future. There are no promises of future writings. Don’t @ me.
My original comment on several hundred messages around this whole issue had to do with the thought that most people talk about copyright without understanding it fully, the laws and goal-posts, or understand the history, or where it comes from, and the implications of everything. I am not going to claim to be an expert on copyright laws, however, it’s a subject I’ve looked into for over 2 decades, and I’ve put a lot of thought into the subject, and hopefully, the ponderings I have spent so much time on will be effectively disseminated and communicated through the following article. This article is based on 5–6 individual TG posts in a row, and they have been mostly left intact, outside of a little editing for spelling and clarity. Finally, I do not think it is relevant to bring up the details of the original issue: the accusations of theft of intellectual property of a specific person. I am not out to accuse a specific person of a thing and get involved in a dramatic situation. The purpose is to promote discussion and thought on copyright itself, it’s history, and the idea of intellectual property.
So, in essence, is when the Gutenberg Press came out, it changed everything. Of course, I would suggest reading the relevant wikipedia entries to get some of the basics in more detail. But the following will summarize, very briefly, some of the contents.
Running a printing press, in the early days of press, spread so quickly, as anyone who had one essentially had a license to print money. It’s an important part of modern capitalistic history. Printing presses aren’t just important because of the economics… It was also what led to the widespread distribution of books, drastically rising literacy rates, and books being attainable by the common man(it used to be something only accessible by the nobility and clergy….the powers that be at the time, the upper class). So this has a huge part to do with an educated working class. It’s a huge part of what led to the formation of the middle class, as well as the rise in democracy, in Western Europe, but also, through colonization, the rest of the world(of course, colonization was also a devastating force, this I would never deny, but this is a discussion for another time).
Furthermore, without the widespread rapid printing and distribution of cheap written materials, the network of Gutenberg Presses are also responsible for being able to be comfortably labelled the first mass communication network. The self awareness of the common man, the rise of individualism and democracy, as well as the single most important thing that led to the industrial revolution.
Books are so important. Like, we gotta look at the basics here first to really put this in perspective. Modern civilisation, as we know it, technology, and all the stuff we take for granted, owes its existence to one thing above all: The Book. — (any book, every book, the history of the thing and the thing itself)
We can talk about “Big Data”, but data is just information, and we understand how important information is, because information makes more information, and we can’t have technology, education, medicine, or any kind of large scale organisation of society without it. So books are just the original Big Data. The early inception of what we understand as the book, when all the shit originally went down, was when Gutenberg introduced his printing press, and they spread across Europe, and soon, the world. And while we are coming into a massive global revolution when it comes to Big Data, I think it is an important subject to discuss. Who controls and has access to data? Who has rights? What is the big deal?
The early days of the printing press were very much aligned with libertarian and capitalistic views. Later, the state and power structures of a particular jurisdiction tried to create methods of control, the reign in out-of-control printing and copying of pre-existing works. Everything that was printed up to such legislations were enacted, were simply part of collected human knowledge. And when the first copyright laws came into play, it had a lot to do with who got CREDIT for a particular work. The idea of OWNERSHIP of an idea was not something that just happened overnight. It took some time for humans to adapt to this new way of thinking about an idea, and was not something pushed in the original legislation, governing bodies, and controls. Indeed, the concept did not exist yet.
So, we can see, the wild-wild west of the first 250 years of the printing press was incredibly influential, and important to the expanding mind of the common person. But of course, any system will get reigned-in at some point by some power structure somewhere. Legislators will always need things to legislate. You can look at some of the early examples of modern copyright as to “civilise” the printing world, and give creators rights over their work. This may be partially true, but it was actually mostly for credit of creation of a work, and not for commercial benefit of an individual. There is always a cost in such trade offs, and that is TOTAL freedom of information. As well as an incredibly powerful concept, that has massive consequences: an idea can now be “owned” by an individual, or organisation. Furthermore, it did not take long for individuals and organisations who were able to leverage power structures to their desires to see that there was incredible profit to be made in controlling something as power as an idea.
As time went on, and the courts courted, and judges judged, and lawyers deliberated, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the whole of what we know as global copyright law, was formed. Slowly, the legislation grew and grew, and as humans created new things, types of media, and sectors, there now had to be new ruling systems to govern each one. The “copyright” started to become something that wasn’t just books and knowledge and the written word, but now covering sound, art, likenesses, concepts, frameworks, methods, innovations, and technologies.
Of course, we can say “a creator should be given credit for their work” and obviously, it should be true. But, a creator getting “credit” for work that they did is a VERY different thing. Furthermore, having systems to control things is not necessarily a bad thing either. But the trade off is important to understand. The keys to the car were handed over to power structures. Of course, in a capitalistic society, power systems always favour those with more power. This applies to copyright law as well as court systems, and systems of law and government itself. A power structure can always be corrupted by other centers of power and create an unjust and inequitable environment.
I’m not writing any of this trying to convince anyone of one specific ideal or structure to be the best choice forward when it comes to copyright. I’m also not trying to convince anyone that copyright is a good or bad idea, or that our system isn’t fine as it is. I just think there is a powerful concept that is forgotten by the west, wrapped up in our systems…. That there is a huge element of freedom that is traded away when we agree to rigid copyright structures. And the freedom of thoughts and ideas is something that will always breed progress and innovation. If the rules are too rigid, and the powerful get to bend them to their will, and leverage their power to gain more power under these sets of rules than is granted to the common person, then the system is not equitable, nor fair. Also, it’s important to note, that in any system where there is organisation and rules, the more strict the punishment for breaking the rules, the tighter the rules are, and the more rules there are, the most restrictive the environment, and the less experimentation will happen. Less experimentation, less freedom, will always equal less innovation.
Another thing here, I’m really not trying to convince everyone we should reject copyright law, or the idea of ownership of an idea. I’m hoping to simply convey, there is a trade off, and a sacrifice we make as a society, when we try to rigidly structure, and create rules and punishments, over how ideas are used, consumed, and disseminated.
“Fair Use” is an important concept to understand. As well as “Public Domain”. And as a side, “Parody Law”, as well as “Censorship”. Of course, I can only speak of some of these concepts in a general sense, as they differ over time, as well as from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To try to summarize all of copyright in an article, the history, the rules, the current laws, would be a fools gambit, so this isn’t even an attempt. It would be like trying to distill the entire contents of the most widely printed book in the history of the world into one word. Can I get an AMEN to that?
Fair Use states that anyone can take anything that exists already, and is copyrighted, and use it for their own purposes, or twist it and turn it and use elements, or to create something else that is new from copyrighted items, within some set of guidelines(limitations). Of course, this whole territory is so dynamic, from one area of copyright to another, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it is impossible to really comment much more on this subject outside of very generalised outlines. Suffice to say, it is very difficult to make an objective ruling over something that can only be measured or observed in a subjective manner. An example of this would be something like : “you can use an image and profit from it or copyright it yourself if you have changed the previous image by 30%”. — of course, how do you measure that? I mean, in an objective and fair manner? It’s ludicrous. I might be able to give someone a math quiz, and there are right and wrong answers, and 99.9% of the world will agree on the final mark that the student is given. It was an interesting thing going to Art School in University, and some of the teachers spent a lot of time trying to be transparent about their system for grading a particular project. One day in class(a sculpture class, if it must be known), a discussion was happening and I said “I do not care about my grade scores at all, if what I am being marked on is completely subjective”. This got me in trouble with the teacher, they stopped liking me, and failed me out of the course. In the end they simply proved to me their prejudices and hypocrisy, and that my original comment was true. I finished all the class work, and handed everything in on time, and they never took the time to even look at my final project. I still do not care to this day, as I went into Art School with this exact mindset before I ever entered the doors to my first class. I was there to learn, networking and meeting people, have fun focusing on my art for a few years, to be young and follow my dream, and to use school facilities to make stuff that gave myself, and hopefully some others’, some joy.
Public Domain is a classification of copyrighted works where the original copyright has expired, and the “right” to this information is now handed over to the public as a sort of gift back into the repository of freely usable and accessible collection of human works. The issue with Public Domain when the rich and powerful come into play is made plain by an entity like Disney, where they have been able to skirt around the idea of an “expiration” of copyright for their intellectual property. This is a significant development in the history of copyright, and should be looked at seriously and in detail by a philosophical mind. What are the implications for a denial to humankind of works reverting back to the public domain after a set period of time? It is not an equitable situation for the common man nor human kind. If an entity is powerful enough, they can change the rules for them alone. Enter, power structures being leveraged by powerful entities so the law of the land bends in their favour in the name of profits. This isn’t an indictment against Disney, either. They are a corporation and capitalistic entity, and why would they not take advantage of all the tools allowed to them in a capitalistic system? Money talks and bullshit walks. If I were Disney, existing in the name of creating entertainment and profiting from that entertainment for the benefit of shareholders and the company itself, from an objective standpoint, I would do the same thing. It all makes perfect logical sense. However, it is important to note what exactly is going on here, and who benefits most from us all agreeing to these rigid power structures and governing body ruling over ideas.
Parody Law is again different from place to place, but is similar to “Fair Use”, but in essence, an entity can use anything, and be far more liberal with how much they borrow from other works, in the express purpose to provide commentary, usually in the form of comedy. Think about Weird Al Yankovich, and think South Park. And if you want some interesting thoughts about copyright, I would track down the thoughts of those two specific cases as well. They have experience pushing the boundaries of what is or isn’t acceptable.
Censorship is the final topic I will cover. This is a huge part of copyright law. The idea that one entity can have total control over what can or cannot be allowed into the public sphere is an incredible power. Let’s look at a couple examples.
If a small startup says it has invented a type of electric vehicle, there is a massive threat from some companies, namely, traditional car companies as well as big oil. Look at the history of these things, as copyrights and technologies and small companies were purchased for years by massive players to SUPPRESS TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION AND PROGRESS. Look it up. Elon Musk has personally stated that he started Tesla in the first place, because “Detroit” was purposefully killing the electric car. The whole subject was covered well in the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?”(2006). It’s important to note, the electric car would have happened sooner than it would have if it was not for these power structures being leveraged by powerful entities out of fear that progress would lead to them losing marketshare, power, and significance. How rich it must be then, from an objective outside viewer, to see how their collective efforts to stop a thing from happening, is literally what caused their worst fears to happen in the first place. Unfortunately, there is not an Elon Musk for every sector where suppression of ideas are used to control innovation and freedom.
Another form of censorship is state, or corporate control of an idea, usually through the leveraged use of media. An ugly example of this can be found in the use of Propaganda by some countries, both in the current zeitgeist, as well as in history(of course, we in the west think of most propaganda under a different name: public relations — which upon further inspection just goes to show just how effective of a tool it is in the first place). Propaganda, or Public Relations(thank you Edward Bernays??), are tools that propagate, fertilize, and promote a specific idea. Looking at a further example of censorship, and in a sense, the opposite of Propaganda, are laws coming into play to control what is allowed to be circulated in public. Restrictive censorship. Going to jail for publishing a porno magazine. Ask Larry Flint(Hustler) about that one. Here is another individual/example worth looking into in terms of a series of cases that had a great impact on censorship laws in the west.
So yes, censorship has many arms, and some directly under the umbrella of copyright, but there is an incredible amount of crossover. If most of what exists that humans have created is copyrighted and owned by some entity, somewhere, and the structures of copyright favour the powerful, then it would be natural to understand that much of what has happened, or currently is happening, in terms of censorship, and copyright, is largely leveraged through these power/judicial systems by those entities with more power than others’.
I think it is important for us all to understand some of these concepts on a deep philosophical level, because the implications to these controls over human thought and ideas is a very powerful one, and I don’t think we talk about it, nor meditate on it, nearly enough, as a society. Of course, that goes with most things. But considering the history of copyright, the history of mass communication, of innovations, and of revolutions of society…. We gotta understand that power structures for organisation of human beings are important, but there is always a trade off in terms of hidden costs. Without discussing the tradeoffs, measuring them, understanding what is lost in terms of hidden costs, and what it costs society as a whole, we are giving permission to have one system of rights denied in favour of another system. Permission granted through acquiescence, if we do not ponder it, discuss it, and voice informed protest against a system, or a particular aspect of a system.
If I were to say, there is a perfect system, I would say it would be the same perfect system for governments, as well as any organisational power structure: a balanced one. Checks and balances should not be able to be skirted by those who are powerful, as that is corruption of an equitable system. It is the willful creation of an unjust system. We need to retain some of the libertarian/anarchist ideas of true freedom that leads to experimentation, which leads to innovation. It’s likely the single most important element that leads to PROGRESS. We need some organising force, which is where the socialism/fascism elements come in. Human/societal/technological progress is always more efficient and effective when there is some organisation behind it, which comes from power structures in most cases. Finally, capitalism is absolutely important as well, and I would be remiss in not mentioning it. The idea of personal reward, is also a powerful one that leads to much innovation. Without having a possibility to better one’s situation, and to attain a promise of greater opportunity to fulfill one’s desires, and have a more comfortable life for oneself and one’s family/community, we have lost a critical point of motivation to create and innovate in the first place. Any of these types of political/ideological ideals in the pure form are unsustainable, IMO(from my perspective based on the history of such ideologies), so of course, the truth is usually in the middle, and the most extreme sides to any argument are usually something better discussed theoretically as opposed to being applied practically.
So, with any power structure, I think a balanced approach is the most sustainable, where we get the benefits of each element of the pie, to continue innovating, and progressing, without corruptions of power structures swinging the balance too far in one direction or the other, creating unjust, inefficient systems, without the promise of incentives to contribute to the whole.
I’m not trying to turn this into a discussion of politics, but to deny the influence of politics over the power structures that govern the sum of human knowledge would be an ignorant claim to make. The influence is undeniable. And it’s worth discussing exactly what the tradeoffs are in this whole thing, and where we are headed…. is our system fine as it is?
I guess if any of this, what I’ve written, is to have a purpose, it is to provoke thoughts of anyone who is reading this, and to go out and read about the related topics, and to discuss it all. I just think we sleep on this topic, as a society, and never really look at it beyond the skin-deep level. The really interesting and important stuff is in the bones, it’s in the brains, and the organs. The skin is just the outer layer, what you see on the surface, and it’s mostly a mirage. Or perhaps the commonly held understanding and belief of what copyright is, at its core, is simply a surface level understanding that needs to be expanded, and meditated upon, to have honest discussions going forward over what copyright is, what it does, and how it affects us all.
In the end, when discussing such incredibly complex and critical subjects as copyright, intellectual property, the power structures that govern IP, as well as the idea of ownership and control of an idea in and of itself, the best course of action, IMO, is to never judge a book by it’s cover.
E-mail — borgbraincrypto@gmail.com
Twitter — @Borg_brain
