Why I am against Copyright

An Actually Unpopular Opinion

Back to Catalog

The stuff I have written here were as a response to some questions a reader had but I have omitted it because I didn't ask for their permission to post their half of the conversation, and also because it would have the post much longer. A few things here and there might not make sense but the argument is there:

I am glad somebody gets my jokes. I kind of like slipping it in there while sounding serious. Stuffy charm? That's what I write like when I am seething.

Well, as for conceptual art it is certainly funded by money laundering but there's people who do genuinely get something out of it, and although I cannot feel it myself, I find it interesting to hear their reasoning. I think I mentioned K-ON and digi in the article. Although I find his thoughts on his experience watching it interesting and understandable but I didn't get anything out of it myself and I will not pretend that I did when I talk about K-ON.  I guess the issue that I have with some of the people who are into stuff like Warhol is that they think their stuff is equal to or even greater than something which took some actual craft to make.

No, it's fine. I'll talk about copyright. As I said in my article most people will tell you what they actually think if you ask them  without being like some sort of new atheist ready to deboonk and play a game of exchaning known talking points, kinda like table tennis but retarded, rather than hearing out what anyone has to say about anything. Like sometimes it can look like two bots, NPC1 and NPC2, trotting out  talking points in an almost pre-planned manner. Like, "You'll say that when I say this, alright? Okay . Good."

As for copyright my views are pretty usual, intellectual rights are not property rights. If I actually stole your car you wouldn't have a car but if I made a copy of your car you would still have yours.  Also if you take copyright to its logical conclusion well then you end up with the "you will own nothing and you will be happy" world of subscription services that we are headed to.

Or in other words if you can't make a copy of something you bought then you don't really own it, you can't really tinker with it, and you are totally dependent on the person who allegedly sold it to you but really you have just borrowed it from them, property rights become meaningless in a world where people increasingly cannot own property it, and if they cannot even substantially modify their own property without someone's permission then they don't really own anything, they didn't buy it, they're just increasingly renting everything for everything which they own. And so intellectual rights are antithetical to property rights, real ownership which I do still believe in even though I am not a lolbert - there are things worth protecting from the market like Tradition.

People who pay crunchyroll and who feel superior for it don't deserve any respect or attention. You already know that the money doesn't go to anime creators but rather mostly to wankfests like that deformed crunchyroll cartoon (how dare anyone call it anime) with an all white female middle class progressive production. Fucking parasites! They only fixed the html5 player when Digibro attention-whored about it.

Now some might say that anime has always been affected and inspired by the West so what's the difference now? The problem is that the West has cancer, ligma, whatever Metokur is afflicted by, and AIDs now to a degree which it did not have say when Cowboy Bebop was made. Until the west is cured of this rapidly increasing retardation the West is basically a cultural blight and should be isolated.

Of course I know Japan is like Britain just a province of the  the United States so whatever happens in America will happen there. These cancerous subscription services like Crunchyroll are hastening that.

Speaking of copyright and anime, I really liked how annoyed Blank was when I posted a link to Daicon III and IV. I really like how much copying or "sharing" there's in anime and I think that people basically learn anything by copying so let people do that. That's how you set up a tradition of any kind anyway, people imitiating (read: copying) artists they admire and modifying it slightly with their own thing, building upon what was there before and expanding it. Copyright cancer gets in the way, it's moral syphilis so step over it.

As for most people being better off without media, I meant it in almost a Ted Kazynski kind of way, however unlike Uncle Ted I am not a universalist so I think they are a minority who can consume art and media productively rather then letting it consume them. I just don't trust most people anymore to have that capability or will to not just be passive consumers but to think and create themselves.

Basically Uncle Ted's idea is that anything you do that is removed, by any number of levels, from ensuring your survival, is just a surrogate activity. In a way it is almost Aristotelian, you need to go out there and touch grass in irl minecraft survival mode (if uncle Ted had found minecraft he might have taken less interest in the implications of the US postal system) rather than living in your own head with platonic cushions and featherless bipeds and lolis and Gundams (tip: Say "Aren't they all Gundams?" to piss off Gundam fans).

I really liked Uncle Ted's "no u" against society by labeling it as oversocialised when he was psychologised for not being social enough. At some level though, and I know there will be much seething and gnashing of teeth, when I say he could have done better and it was clear he didn't have enough control of his urges and so he had to run away like Shinji. Come to think of it Eva kind of is Riaju Propaganda. I just don't think Uncle Ted is the exception and I think most people would be emotionally better off without mass media because they can't handle it.

If that gypsy on Youtoob, Veeh, is a trustworthy source then in totalitarian communist Romania people were happier when they didn't have access to free media but when the government just told them there was no crime or disorder, people apparently left their front doors unlocked whereas now though crime rates in Romania are supposedly lower, they have built fences and walls around their homes because they hear of every little crime in the country and the world which happens - which makes them feel powerless. And because they feel powerless they are easier to lead around by the state and financial interest. So the argument is that these people might have been better off in isolated hamlets without much access to media.

Personally I think the genie is out of the bottle, you are not going to stop what Nick Land calls the Acceleration of Capital, so while I agree that people might be better off without most media I doubt whether it is feasible and so I am seeking for other means other than the restriction of media and capital, for however improbable these other means may be, they are not as improbable as the restriction of Capital and mass media in the long term. It is not all doom and gloom, because of the internets people have broken off into smaller communities and interests and any community which is specific and small gives more power to each member and you know what comes with power. This is incidentally the reason why Democracy has been a failure. As Hoppe said, almost any kind of system can work for a small community but democracy does not work for a large community. This is probably the reason why despite the fact that Switzerland is a democracy it is less shit than most, because a lot of decisions are taken at the local canton level. Basically a small country divided even into smaller bits.

Going back to the Aristotelian Uncle Ted metaphor (it's just a metaphor, I haven't read a word of what Aristotle said, I just watch anime) the problem with mass culture, mass media (i.e. Most media), and for that matter large-scale-democracy is that it is just too abstract, platonic almost (again, I have no idea what that word means), in short it is idiotic to assume that most people are willing or able to, that they've even got the time to spend to understand the media they consume critically and exercise the power they have over their own lives, rather they will use the media to separate themselves from their own lives and responsibilities and so leaving them weaker and with less agency, easier pickings for invisible people who don't care about them but have power over them through the press and the academy, Moldbug's decentralised Cathedral.

Back to copyright, yes without copyright we might have less media or we might not. As for the decrease in originality which copyright people claim will come, I just laugh at that, given the lack of creativity in our current intellectual property hoarding  environment of mainstream media, all the creativity and originality is on the fringes where copyright is not enforced. I am not saying everything could be Touhoes but more things could be.

"But if it wasn't created by Disney - Pinocchio, Aladin, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty wouldn't exist!" cries the copyright-shill as he strikes you. My argument is basically the lolbert argument about government infrastructure spending. When the government builds a bridge you can see that bridge and say that it is good but you can't see what that stolen (sorry I meant taxed) money would have gone to fund had it being allocated more efficiently by the market. It is the same here too, you can see Star Wars and  that it is trash but you can't see the transformative works that would have been made had it been for copyright.

Small artists who actually take risks would greatly benefit from the abolishment of copyright, as they can get attention by making original content freely for any established community around some franchise or "universe" as Zarathustra's Serpent would call it.

As for the interests of the """original""" artists themselves, firstly there is nothing new under the sun, secondly whatever impact this has on their incomes it can only have a positive impact on their output as there will be more competition, and this impact on their output is what should matter to them most if they are true artists. If their output suffers because there's others are better at writing stories in the universe they created then that is what must happen.

By Otaking, or The Good Student