Copyright law is merely an extension of the concept of private property rights to the realm of intangible ideas. As I am against the idea of private property rights, it would therefore be morally inconsistent for me to be championing copyright as the 'solution' to any form of oppression. The concept of tangible and intangible 'private property' is used to justify corporations and governments withholding water from the thirsty, food from the hungry, homes from the homeless, medicine from the ill, literacy from the illiterate, and knowledge from the ignorant.
This is a tool of oppression, and cannot be used to achieve justice. 'But I can benefit from using it' -- yes, sometimes we can, but not without oppressing others. That is the price of this tool--the eradication of the commons for the benefit of the few--the only question is whether you are one of the few on the benefit side or one of the many on the side who is harmed.
I understand why people use copyright just as I understand why people participate in other oppressive structures as a means of survival, and I understand people doing what they need to do to survive in a broken world. However, I think it's important not to justify societal structures from a moral perspective merely on the basis of their necessity within those structures themselves. Engaging with evil systems for survival is something we all need to do at times. However, we shouldn't be using personal necessity as a basis for the moral justification of a societal system. We should instead be calling for society to be fixed to remove the necessity of benefit to ourselves coming only at harm to others in the first place.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}