Criticism of copyright

File:Anti-copyright.svg

{{Main|Artificial scarcity}}

There is an argument that copyright is invalid because, unlike physical property, intellectual property is not scarce and is a legal fiction created by the state. The argument claims that copyright infringement, unlike theft, does not deprive the victim of the original item.Kinsella, Stephan [https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0 Against Intellectual Property] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221008104040/https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0 |date=October 8, 2022 }} (2008) Ludwig von Mises Institute.Green, Stuart P. [https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/theft-law-in-the-21st-century.html When Stealing Isn't Stealing] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180130200701/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/theft-law-in-the-21st-century.html |date=January 30, 2018 }} (2012) The New York Times

It is unclear if copyright laws are economically stimulating for most authors, and it is uncommon for copyright laws to be evaluated based on empirical studies of their impacts.{{Cite conference |last=Heald |first=Paul J. |date=2007-01-09 |title=Property Rights and the Efficient Exploitation of Copyrighted Works: An Empirical Analysis of Public Domain and Copyrighted Fiction Best Sellers |conference=2nd Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies |language=en |doi=10.2139/ssrn.955954 |ssrn=955954 |s2cid=152927560 |url=https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/591 |url-access=subscription }}{{Cite book |title=The Public Domain |last=Boyle |first=James |url=http://www.thepublicdomain.org/download/ |year=2008 |access-date=August 22, 2018 |archive-date=January 24, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160124052602/http://www.thepublicdomain.org/download/ |url-status=live }}{{Cite journal |first=Jessica |last=Litman |date=2010-01-14 |title=Real Copyright Reform |journal=Iowa Law Review |volume=96 |issue=1 |language=en |ssrn=1474929}}

One of the founders of Piratbyrån, Rasmus Fleischer, argues that copyright law simply seems unable to cope with the Internet, and hence is obsolete. He argues that the Internet, and particularly Web 2.0, have brought about the uncertain status of the very idea of "stealing" itself, and that instead business models need to adapt to the reality of the Darknet.{{cite web | url = https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/06/09/rasmus-fleischer/future-copyright | last = Fleischer | first = Rasmus | title = The Future of Copyright | publisher = CATO Unbound | date = June 2008 | quote = “We conclude that the snippet function does not give searchers access to effectively competing substitutes. Snippet view, at best and after a large commitment of manpower, produces discontinuous, tiny fragments, amounting in the aggregate to no more than 16% of a book. This does not threaten the rights holders with any significant harm to the value of their copyrights or diminish their harvest of copyright revenue,” wrote the court. | access-date = August 13, 2017 | archive-date = August 13, 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170813184504/https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/06/09/rasmus-fleischer/future-copyright | url-status = live }} He argues that in an attempt to rein in Web 2.0, copyright law in the 21st century is increasingly concerned with criminalising entire technologies, leading to recent attacks on different kinds of search engines, solely because they provide links to files which may be copyrighted. Fleischer points out that Google, while still largely uncontested, operates in a gray zone of copyright (e.g. the business model of Google Books is to display millions of pages of copyrighted and uncopyrighted books as part of a business plan drawing its revenue from advertising). In contrast, others have pointed out that Google Books blocks out large sections of those same books, and they say that does not harm the legitimate interests of rightsholders.{{Cite web |url=http://fortune.com/2015/10/16/google-books-appeals-court/ |title=Google Books is 'highly transformative,' appeals court confirms in fair use ruling |website=Fortune |language=en |access-date=2018-09-03 |archive-date=September 4, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180904011309/http://fortune.com/2015/10/16/google-books-appeals-court/ |url-status=live }}

File:Copying is not theft.ogv

File:FREE BEER version 3.2, St Austell 2.jpg" demonstrator supporting the "freedom of knowledge" idea: "Copyright is preventing access to knowledge" (2007).]]

Groups such as Hipatia advance anti-copyright arguments in the name of "freedom of knowledge" and argue that knowledge should be "shared in solidarity". Such groups may perceive "freedom of knowledge" as a right, and/or as fundamental in realising the right to education, which is an internationally recognised human right, as well as the right to a free culture and the right to free communication. They argue that current copyright law hinders the realisation of these rights in today's knowledge societies relying on new technological means of communication and see copyright law as preventing or slowing human progress.{{cite web |url= http://www.hipatia.info/index.php?id=manifesto2_en |title= Second Manifesto |publisher= Hipatia |access-date= 2008-07-25 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081201103820/http://www.hipatia.info/index.php?id=manifesto2_en |archive-date= December 1, 2008 |url-status= dead }}

Lawrence Liang, founder of the Alternative Law Forum, argues that current copyright is based on a too narrow definition of "author", which is assumed to be clear and undisputed. Liang observes that the concept of "the author" is assumed to make universal sense across cultures and across time. Instead, Liang argues that the notion of the author as a unique and transcendent being, possessing originality of spirit, was constructed in Europe after the Industrial Revolution, to distinguish the personality of the author from the expanding realm of mass-produced goods. Hence works created by "authors" were deemed original, and merges with the doctrine of property prevalent at the time.{{cite web | url = https://www.countercurrents.org/hr-suresh010205.htm | last = Liang | first = Lawrence | title = Copyright/Copyleft: Myths About Copyright | publisher = Infochangeindia.org | date = February 2005 | access-date = August 13, 2017 | archive-date = August 13, 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170813182938/https://www.countercurrents.org/hr-suresh010205.htm | url-status = live }}

Liang argues that the concept of "author" is tied to the notion of copyright and emerged to define a new social relationship—the way society perceives the ownership of knowledge. The concept of "author" thus naturalised a particular process of knowledge production where the emphasis on individual contribution and individual ownership takes precedence over the concept of "community knowledge". Relying on the concept of the author, copyright is based on the assumption that without an intellectual property rights regime, authors would have no incentive to further create, and that artists cannot produce new works without an economic incentive. Liang challenges this logic, arguing that "many authors who have little hope of ever finding a market for their publications, and whose copyright is, as a result, virtually worthless, have in the past, and even in the present, continued to write." Liang points out that people produce works purely for personal satisfaction, or even for respect and recognition from peers. Liang argues that the 19th Century saw the prolific authorship of literary works in the absence of meaningful copyright that benefited the author. In fact, Liang argues, copyright protection usually benefited the publisher, and rarely the author.

The Center for the Study of Public Domain has raised concerns on how the protracted copyright terms in the United States have caused historical films and other cultural works to be destroyed due to disintegration before they can be digitized.{{cite news|last=Vermes|first=Jason|date=10 January 2022|title=How Winnie-the-Pooh highlights flaws in U.S. copyright law — and what that could mean for Canada|url=https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/trump-supporters-prep-for-2024-bye-bye-blackberry-don-t-look-up-why-we-procrastinate-joygerm-day-and-more-1.6307339/how-winnie-the-pooh-highlights-flaws-in-u-s-copyright-law-and-what-that-could-mean-for-canada-1.6309960|work=CBC Radio|publisher=Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|location=|access-date=8 March 2022|archive-date=March 8, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220308092420/https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/trump-supporters-prep-for-2024-bye-bye-blackberry-don-t-look-up-why-we-procrastinate-joygerm-day-and-more-1.6307339/how-winnie-the-pooh-highlights-flaws-in-u-s-copyright-law-and-what-that-could-mean-for-canada-1.6309960|url-status=live}} The center has described the copyright terms as "absurdly long" which hold little economic benefit to rights holders and prevents efforts to preserve historical artefacts. Director Jennifer Jenkins has said that by the time artefacts enter the public domain in the United States after 95 years, many culturally significant works such as old films and sound recordings have already been lost as a consequence of the long copyright terms.{{cite news|author=|date=3 January 2022|title=Why you can now repurpose 'Winnie-the-Pooh' for free|url=https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/why-you-can-now-repurpose-winnie-the-pooh-for-free-20220103-p59lka|work=Australian Financial Review|publisher=Nine Entertainment|location=|access-date=8 March 2022|archive-date=October 8, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221008104033/https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/why-you-can-now-repurpose-winnie-the-pooh-for-free-20220103-p59lka|url-status=live}}

The institution of copyright brings up several ethical issues.

{{Main|Censorship by copyright}}

Critics of copyright argue that copyright has been abused to suppress free speech,{{Cite web |last=Masnick |first=Mike |date=2013-07-26 |title=Why Yes, Copyright Can Be Used To Censor, And 'Fair Use Creep' Is Also Called 'Free Speech' |url=https://www.techdirt.com/2013/07/26/why-yes-copyright-can-be-used-to-censor-fair-use-creep-is-also-called-free-speech/ |access-date=2024-04-02 |website=Techdirt |language=en-US}}{{Cite journal |last=Haber |first=Eldar |date=2013–2014 |title=Copyrighted Crimes: The Copyrightability of Illegal Works |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/SearchVolumeSOLR?view=stp&collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/yjolt16&div=11&terms=censorship%20by%20copyright |journal=Yale Journal of Law and Technology |volume=16 |pages=454–501 |quote=...censorship-by-copyright could endanger other constitutional rights, first and foremost First Amendment rights and possibly due process rights.}} as well as business competition,{{Cite journal |last=Cobia |first=Jeffrey |year=2008 |title=The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Takedown Notice Procedure: Misuses, Abuses, and Shortcomings of the Process |url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/mipr10&g_sent=1&collection=journals&id=391 |journal=Minnesota Journal of Law Science & Technology |volume=1 |pages=391–393 |via=Hein Online}} academic research{{Cite book |last=Westbrook |first=Steve |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=obMIHrKMn-IC&dq=%22Censorship+by+Copyright%22&pg=PA36 |title=Composition and Copyright: Perspectives on Teaching, Text-making, and Fair Use |date=2009-04-09 |publisher=State University of New York Press |isbn=978-1-4384-2599-3 |page=37-38 |language=en}} and artistic expression.{{Cite journal |last=Ghosh |first=Arjun |date=2013 |title=Censorship through Copyright: From print to digital media |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23611080 |journal=Social Scientist |volume=41 |issue=1/2 |pages=51–68 |jstor=23611080 |issn=0970-0293}} As a consequence, copyright legislation such as DMCA has enabled copyright owners to "censor academic discussions and online criticism".

Selmer Bringsjord argues that all forms of copying are morally permissible (without commercial use), because some forms of copying are permissible and there is not a logical distinction between various forms of copying.Selmer Bringsjord, [http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/bringsjord_copying.pdf "In Defence of Copying"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140221015933/http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/bringsjord_copying.pdf |date=February 21, 2014 }}, Public Affairs Quarterly 3 (1989) 1–9.

Edwin Hettinger argues that natural rights arguments for intellectual property are weak and the philosophical tradition justifying property can not guide us in thinking about intellectual property.Alfino, Mark, [http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/alfino/dossier/papers/copyrigh.htm "Intellectual Property and Copyright Ethics"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131004201129/http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/alfino/dossier/papers/copyrigh.htm |date=October 4, 2013 }}, Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 10.2 (1991): 85–109. Reprinted in Robert A. Larmer (Ed.), Ethics in the Workplace, Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing Company, 1996, 278–293.Edwin Hettinger, [http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~adali/hettinger.pdf "Justifying Intellectual Property"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130319070346/http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~adali/hettinger.pdf |date=March 19, 2013 }}, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18 (1989) 31–52. Shelly Warwick believes that copyright law as currently constituted does not appear to have a consistent ethical basis.Warwick, Shelly. [http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/commentary/content/1999060505.html "Is Copyright Ethical? An Examination of the Theories, Laws, and Practices Regarding the Private Ownership of the Intellectual Work of the United States."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150107002718/http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/commentary/content/1999060505.html |date=January 7, 2015 }}, Readings in Cyberethics. 2nd ed. Ed. Richard A. Spinello and Herman T. Tavani. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2004: 305–321.

{{Main|Copyright abolition}}

File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg in support of file sharing, 2006]]

Pirate Cinema and groups like The League of Noble Peers advance more radical arguments, opposing copyright per se. A number of anti-copyright groups have recently emerged in the argument over peer-to-peer file sharing, digital freedom, and freedom of information; these include the Association des Audionautes{{cite magazine | url = https://www.wired.com/2006/09/legitp2p/ | last = Rose | first = Frank | title = P2P Gets Legit | magazine = Wired | date = September 2006 | access-date = August 13, 2017 | archive-date = August 13, 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170813185534/https://www.wired.com/2006/09/legitp2p/ | url-status = live }}{{cite web | url = https://www.linux.com/news/fsf-launches-anti-drm-campaign-outside-winhec-2006 | last = Byfield | first = Bruce | title = FSF launches anti-DRM campaign outside WinHEC 2006 | publisher = Linux | date = May 2006 | access-date = August 13, 2017 | archive-date = August 13, 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170813183424/https://www.linux.com/news/fsf-launches-anti-drm-campaign-outside-winhec-2006 | url-status = live }} and the Kopimism Church of New Zealand.{{cite web | url=http://kopimistsamfundet.co.nz/2012/04/25/challenging-copyright-infringement-notices/ | title=Challenging Copyright | publisher=Kopimism | date=April 2012 | author=Rose, Frank }}{{Dead link|date=July 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}{{cite web | url = http://kopimistsamfundet.co.nz/2012/05/17/the-case-for-copyright-reform/ | last = Byfield | first = Bruce | title = The case for copyright reform | publisher = Kopimism | date = May 2012 }}{{Dead link|date=July 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

In 2003, Eben Moglen, a professor of Law at Columbia University, published The {{proper name|dotCommunist Manifesto}}, which re-interpreted the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx in the light of the development of computer technology and the internet; much of the re-interpreted content discussed copyright law and privilege in Marxist terms.{{cite web|url=http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html|title=dotCommunist Manifesto|last=Moglen|first=Eben|access-date=December 22, 2013|archive-date=November 9, 2005|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051109082248/http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html|url-status=dead}}

Recent developments related to BitTorrent and peer-to-peer file sharing have been termed by media commentators as "copyright wars", with The Pirate Bay being referred to as "the most visible member of a burgeoning international anti-copyright—or pro-piracy—movement".{{cite news | url=http://www.latimes.com/la-ca-webscout29apr29-story.html | title=The Internet sure loves its outlaws | newspaper=Los Angeles Times | date=April 2007 | author=Sarno, David | access-date=February 21, 2015 | archive-date=December 31, 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141231091442/http://www.latimes.com/la-ca-webscout29apr29-story.html | url-status=live }}{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/business/19online.html | title=Pirate Take Sweden | newspaper=The New York Times | date=August 2006 | author=Mitchell, Dan | access-date=February 19, 2017 | archive-date=March 31, 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170331220924/http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/business/19online.html | url-status=live }} One well-publicised instance of electronic civil disobedience in the form of large scale intentional copyright infringement occurred on February 24, 2004, in an event called Grey Tuesday. Activists intentionally violated EMI's copyright of The White Album by distributing MP3 files of a mashup album called The Grey Album, in an attempt to draw public attention to copyright reform issues and anti-copyright ideals. Reportedly over 400 sites participated including 170 that hosted the album with some protesters stating that The Grey Album illustrates a need for revisions in copyright law to allow sampling under fair use of copyrighted material, or proposing a system of fair compensation to allow for sampling.{{cite web| url= http://techlawadvisor.com/blog/2004/02/grey_tuesday.htm| last= Kim| first= Melanie| title= The Mouse that Roared, Grey Tuesday| publisher= Tech Law Advisor| access-date= 2008-07-25| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080704120358/http://techlawadvisor.com/blog/2004/02/grey_tuesday.htm| archive-date= July 4, 2008| url-status= dead}}{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/arts/defiant-downloads-rise-from-underground.html | title=Defiant Downloads Rise From Underground | newspaper=The New York Times | date=February 2004 | author=Werde, Bill | access-date=September 7, 2017 | archive-date=December 10, 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191210114631/https://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/arts/music/25REMI.html?ex=1393045200&en=ecc65808f9ca5b86&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND | url-status=live }}

French group Association des Audionautes is not anti-copyright per se, but proposes a reformed system for copyright enforcement and compensation. Aziz Ridouan, co-founder of the group, proposes for France to legalise peer-to-peer file sharing and to compensate artists through a surcharge on Internet service provider fees (i.e. an alternative compensation system). Wired magazine reported that major music companies have equated Ridouan's proposal with legitimising piracy. In January 2008, seven Swedish members of parliament from the Moderate Party (part of the governing coalition), authored a piece in a Swedish tabloid calling for the complete decriminalisation of file sharing; they wrote that "Decriminalising all non-commercial file sharing and forcing the market to adapt is not just the best solution. It's the only solution, unless we want an ever more extensive control of what citizens do on the Internet."{{cite web | url = https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/01/swedish-prosecutors-dump-4000-legal-docs-on-the-pirate-bay/ | last = Bangeman | first = Eric | title = Swedish prosecutors dump 4,000 legal docs on The Pirate Bay | website = Ars Technica | date = January 2008 | access-date = August 13, 2017 | archive-date = August 11, 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170811055447/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/01/swedish-prosecutors-dump-4000-legal-docs-on-the-pirate-bay/ | url-status = live }}

In June 2015 a WIPO article, "Remix culture and Amateur Creativity: A Copyright Dilemma",{{cite web |url=http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2015/03/article_0006.html |title=Remix Culture and Amateur Creativity: A Copyright Dilemma |date=June 1, 2015 |access-date=2016-03-14 |first=Guilda |last=Rostama |publisher=WIPO |quote=in 2013 a district court ruled that copyright owners do not have the right to simply take down content before undertaking a legal analysis to determine whether the remixed work could fall under fair use, a concept in US copyright law which permits limited use of copyrighted material without the need to obtain the right holder's permission (US District Court, Stephanie Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., Universal Music Publishing Inc., and Universal Music Publishing Group, Case No. 5:07-cv-03783-JF, January 24, 2013).[...] Given the emergence of today's "remix" culture, and the legal uncertainty surrounding remixes and mash-ups, the time would appear to be ripe for policy makers to take a new look at copyright law. |archive-date=March 23, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160323160652/http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2015/03/article_0006.html |url-status=live }} acknowledged the "age of remixing" and the need for a copyright reform while referring to recent law interpretations in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. and Canada's Copyright Modernization Act.

{{Main|Public copyright license}}

Groups that argue for using existing copyright legal framework with special licences to achieve their goals, include the copyleft movement{{cite web |url=https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ |title=What is Copyleft? |access-date=2008-07-29| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080729125820/https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/| archive-date= July 29, 2008 | url-status= live}} and Creative Commons.{{cite web |url= https://creativecommons.org/faq/#is-creative-commons-against-copyright |title= Frequently Asked Questions | publisher = Creative Commons |access-date=2010-12-05| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101127205528/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ| archive-date= November 27, 2010 | url-status= live}} Creative Commons is not anti-copyright per se, but argues for use of more flexible and open copyright licences within existing copyright law.{{cite web |url=https://creativecommons.org/faq/#is-creative-commons-against-copyright |title= FAQ – Is Creative Commons against copyright?| publisher =Creative Commons |access-date=2010-12-05| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101127205528/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ| archive-date= November 27, 2010 | url-status= live}} Creative Commons takes the position that there is an unmet demand for flexibility that allows the copyright owner to release work with only "some rights reserved" or even "no rights reserved". According to Creative Commons many people do not regard default copyright as helping them in gaining the exposure and widespread distribution they want. Creative Commons argue that their licences allow entrepreneurs and artists to employ innovative business models rather than all-out copyright to secure a return on their creative investment.{{cite web |url=https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-is-creative-commons-and-what-do-you-do|title= FAQ – What is Creative Commons?| publisher =Creative Commons |access-date=2010-12-05| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101127205528/http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ| archive-date= November 27, 2010 | url-status= live}}

Scholars and commentators in this field include Lawrence Liang,{{cite web| url= http://meeting.creativecommons.org.tw/program:how-does-an-asian-commons-mean| title= How Does An Asian Commons Mean| publisher= Creative Commons| access-date= 2008-07-31| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080725050513/http://meeting.creativecommons.org.tw/program:how-does-an-asian-commons-mean| archive-date= July 25, 2008| url-status= dead}} Jorge Cortell,{{cite web|url=http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041209105106/LHA20050520091532/index.html|last=Jorge|first=Cortell|title=Lecturer censored in Spanish University (UPV) for defending P2P networks|publisher=Own Website|date=May 2005|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050521234902/http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041209105106/LHA20050520091532/index.html|archive-date=May 21, 2005}} Rasmus Fleischer,{{cite web|url=http://www.rockosamhalle.se/texter/fleischer.pdf|last=Fleischer|first=Rasmus|title="Mechanical music" as a threat against public performance|publisher=Institute of Contemporary History, Sodertorn University College|date=May 2006|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070627183910/http://rockosamhalle.se/texter/fleischer.pdf|archive-date=June 27, 2007}} Stephan Kinsella, and Siva Vaidhyanathan.

Traditional anarchists, such as Leo Tolstoy, expressed their refusal to accept copyright.Leo Tolstoy, Letter to the Free Age Press, 1900

{{Commons cat|Anti-copyright}}

{{div col|colwidth=20em}}

• Anti-copyright notice
• Copyright abolition
• Culture vs. Copyright
• Criticism of intellectual property
• Criticism of patents
• Creative Commons
• Copyfraud
• Copyleft
• Copyright alternatives
• Fair dealing
• Free culture movement
• Freedom of information
• Freedom of speech
• Good Copy Bad Copy
• Home Recording Rights Coalition
• Information management
• Information wants to be free
• Internet freedom
• Missionary Church of Kopimism
• New Zealand Internet Blackout
• Operation Payback
• Philosophy of copyright
• Pirate Party
• Public domain
• Sci-Hub
• Steal This Film
• Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
• Warez

{{div col end}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

{{external links|date=March 2018}}

• [https://www.culturelink.org/news/members/2005/members2005-011.html Abandoning Copyright: A Blessing for Artists, Art, and Society] – Opinion by Professor Joost Smiers
• [https://praxeology.net/anticopyright.htm Anti-Copyright Resources]
• [http://issuepedia.org/Gnomunism Gnomunism] – Utopia of Anti-copyright applied to all types of data that can be copied
• [http://questioncopyright.org/promise The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World] by Karl Fogel of QuestionCopyright.org.
• [https://unlicense.org/ Unlicense.org] – The Unlicense is a template for disclaiming copyright interest in software.
• [http://cvc.culturedialogue.org/wordpress/the-book/ Culture vs. Copyright] – ebook by Anatoly Volynets. The book is composed of dialogues of first graders and their teacher contemplations on cultural, psychological, economical and other aspects of "Intellectual Property".

{{intellectual property activism}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:Criticism of intellectual property

Copyright

Copyright

Category:Copyright law

Category:Articles containing video clips