Historically, copyright has been somewhat successful as a mechanism to "reward" content creators with payment for their efforts.

However, it is gradually becoming apparent that there is a conflict between the capabilities of computers and computer networks, especially the internet, and the successful enforcement of copyright law.

This realisation leads to one of two conclusions, depending on which "side" you're on:

- Copyright is only useful if the benefits to the general public exceed the costs, therefore we should gradually abandon copyright, so that we can take full advantage of the powers of computers and the internet, or,
- Copyright is a natural right of authors, which they should not be deprived of, so we should alter both computers and the internet, so that copyright can continue to be enforced to the maximum extent possible.

### We Might Have To Make A Choice

If indeed there are things "X" which cannot co-exist with copyright, then we are faced with a stark choice in each case:

- Do we keep "X", and lose copyright?
- Do we keep copyright, and lose "X"?

Granted, there are some partial compromises often suggested, such as:

- Do we keep "X", and make do with a reduced version of copyright?
- Do we keep copyright, and make do with a reduced version of "X"?

Typically the compromises are rejected by one side or the other, on one of the following grounds:

- Copyright is a natural right, and a "reduced" version of copyright is an unjust loss of a natural right, even if the loss is only partial.
- Generally "X" does not even have a "reduced" version, or the reduced version of "X" is so different from "X" that it isn't really "X" anymore.

### Denial of Conflict

If the general public realised that these conflicts existed, then those politicians involved in the "war on piracy" would be force to acknowledge the conflicts, and ask the public which of "copyright" and "X" (in each case) they would prefer. But, unfortunately, what usually happens is the following:

- A legal or technical scheme is proposed to "stamp out" some particular mode of digital piracy.
- Complaints are made that the scheme will threaten "X".
- Proponents of the scheme deny that the scheme threatens "X", or admit that there is some risk but the overall threat to "X" is very minor.
- A theoretical argument is advanced as to why there is a fundamental conflict between copyright and "X", so any scheme which prevents piracy must necessarily threaten "X".
- The theoretical argument is too technical for most people to understand, so it just gets ignored.

## So, What is This "X", Which Might Not Be More Important Than Copyright?

Some specific examples of "X" are:

- Computing freedom
- The internet
- Freedom of speech
- User-generated content

There is a common theme running through all these examples, in that they describe different aspects of the freedom of members of the general public (i.e. all of us) to communicate with each other in various ways.

How does each of the "X"'s conflict with copyright?

### Is Copyright More Important Than Computing Freedom?

Copying data from one place to another is a fairly basic capability of general purpose computing devices. To leave this very basic feature out of computing systems is a non-trivial task. However, this has not stopped the "copyright industry" from trying.

Indeed, there are whole software ecosystems based entirely on the premise that the software runs on non-free "not-quite general purpose" computers which are not capable of simple copying, and which do not allow the user to install arbitrary software (unless "modded" in some way). This includes many game consoles, such as the X-Box and the Playstation, and in more recent times, Apple iOS devices, including the iPhone and iPad.

Unfortunately for those who wish that all computers were controlled in a manner guaranteeing the enforcement of copyright, consumers continue to benefit from personal computers, which for the most part are true general purpose computers.

These computers are "free", because anyone can write software that runs on them, and anyone else can install the same software, if it is freely distributed, on their computers.

(See also The coming war on general computation.)

Ironically, to write software for non-free computers requires that developers have access to computers which are free. Which implies the existence of a special class of privileged owners of free computers (where those free computers are stored in special secure locations inaccessible to the general public), who write all the software that the rest of us are permitted to install on our computers.

If the general public had to choose, which would they choose, copyright, or computing freedom?

### Is Copyright More Important Than The Internet?

The basic function of the internet is to copy data, in the form of packets, from any computer on the network to any other computer on the network. This basic functionality conflicts severely with idea of copyright – that all copying from any digital storage system to any other digital storage system should be strictly controlled.

Inevitably the copyright industry proposes various alterations or amendments to the internet, or additional controls imposed on the internet, with the intention to prevent "unauthorised copying".

Unfortunately such attempts invariably deal with whatever copying system the general public is currently using to do their pirating.

No one has succeeded in proposing any plausible alteration to the Internet which is guaranteed to prevent all possible methods of copying data from one place to another.

If the general public had to choose, which would they choose, copyright, or the internet?

### Is Copyright More Important Than Freedom of Speech?

Freedom of speech is about freedom of communication, as is "piracy". One can attempt to distinguish the two freedoms on the grounds that the content of "free speech" is generally much smaller than content of most popular pirated content – perhaps a few kilobytes to encode the typical "speech" in written form, versus megabytes for songs or gigabytes for movies.

Unfortunately, it turns out that almost all proposed "copy-protection" schemes involve special secrets, and these secrets are often quite small. Such secrets include the DVD CSS code, and special encryption keys such as the AACS encryption key and the HDCP master key.

The protection of these secrets directly conflicts with normal "freedom of speech", because the secret data being protected could quite plausibly be contained within a normal spoken "speech". In other words, if people are free to "speak", they are free to disclose the protected secrets of copy-protection schemes.

Copyright enforcement also threatens freedom of speech in a more general sense, in that if the "authorities" have tight control over all aspects of computer function and internet data transfer, for the purpose of preventing piracy, then that same control will give them the ability to limit all forms of communication.

If the general public had to choose, which would they choose, copyright, or freedom of speech?

### Is Copyright More Important Than User-Generated Content?

On the face of it, user-generated content, in the form of "amateur" content, would seem not to conflict with the enforcement of copyright, which is all about "professionals" protecting their content, and the associated revenue streams.

However, any system for efficiently hosting, promoting and discovering user-generated content can always be easily abused by those same users to host, promote and discover unauthorised copies of copyrighted content.

Not to mention that some user-generated content is both user-generated and infringing. Like a 5-year old doing a cover of a rock song by a well-known rock band on YouTube. Presumably a 5-year old doesn't threaten the rock band's revenue model. But what if a 25 year old does a cover? What if it's really good, and some people prefer it to the original, and that 25 year old isn't paying any license fees to the rock band?

This conflict between copyright and user-generated content is directly embodied in the infamous USA's DMCA "safe-harbour" law, and also in the even more infamous attempt to eliminate such "safe harbour" in the proposed SOPA bill, where those hosting user-generated content might have to take down their entire hosting system if even one user is deemed to be posting "content" which is actually infringing on someone else's content in some way.

If the general public had to choose, which would they choose, copyright, or user-generated content?

## Googling for "Copyright Is More Important Than"

In the process of writing this article, I did some research, and I discovered the following:

- Nobody ever actually says "Copyright Is More Important Than X", but,
- Sometimes, someone says something which implies that copyright is more important than "X", and then someone else points out that implication.

Actually I could only find one good recent example:

- France: Copyright Is More Important Than Human Rights