Simply Red

by on November 28, 2006 · 4 comments

Just for fun, a little piece on copyright as socialism.

So how many meta-levels can we think about this at?

-There’s the whole question of the origin of the word “socialist,” I vaguely recollect that, like “liberal,” it used to be used by free marketers. -There’s the discordance of recognizing that in some country’s mainstream media the term “socialist” is a positive. -There’s the question of whether anyone who accepts copyright must therefore be a socialist. -And then the question of whether markets in general, since they seem pretty good at giving people access to things, are “socialist.”

I’ll stop here.

  • http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk Crosbie Fitch

    Without the chains of copyright, artists cannot set their audiences free.

    Therefore copyright is the greatest gift to artistic freedom of expression the world has ever seen.

    PARENTAL WARNING: Please remind your children that celebrity should not be mistaken for cerebrity. Pop stars can talk complete bollocks as easily as common sense.

  • http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk Crosbie Fitch

    Without the chains of copyright, artists cannot set their audiences free.


    Therefore copyright is the greatest gift to artistic freedom of expression the world has ever seen.


    PARENTAL WARNING: Please remind your children that celebrity should not be mistaken for cerebrity. Pop stars can talk complete bollocks as easily as common sense.

  • http://www.cato.org/people/harper.html Jim Harper

    Well said, Crosbie. How many intellectual inversions can Hucknall go through? “Holding Back the Years” is a great song. Now it will be tainted the same way Seinfeld is by Michael Richards’ bizarre rant.

  • http://www.cato.org/people/harper.html Jim Harper

    Well said, Crosbie. How many intellectual inversions can Hucknall go through? “Holding Back the Years” is a great song. Now it will be tainted the same way Seinfeld is by Michael Richards’ bizarre rant.

Previous post:

Next post: