Talk:Criticism of copyright

message: I have removed Defective by design from the list of groups mentioned as being "anti-copyright", as their is no evidence that this group is opposed to copyright per se, just the use of DRM as their homepage at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/about shows  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.255.69 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-DRM != Anticopyright 

message: The normal legal way to declare a work to be completely free of copyright—belonging to everyone, to do with as they please—is to declare it to be in the public domain. This is mentioned in the article.
If something is not clear from the article, find a reliable source that makes it clear, and by all means integrate the info into the article (with citation, of course). :)—überRegenbogen (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Declaring non-copyright

message: I read through the bullet points under "Anti-copyright movement" listing arguments against copyright and I didn't find any arguments along a line of thought that I've had (any suggestions on how to word this better, and does anyone else think this way?):
In the case of entertainment works, the existance of a work may not raise one's quality of life. Instead, it may only raise the bar of quality of life. For example, if someone makes a movie and I watch it, I may be no better off than if that movie wasn't made (I'll just find something else to do). On the other hand, if someone makes the movie but I can't afford it, I'm worse off because my friends who watched it are talking about it and I'm left out. So the work shouldn't be copyrightable or else its mere existance will make people who can't afford it worse off. Rather, people who have seen it should be able to share it with their friends freely.
::This seems pretty easy to me.  I think this line of reasoning is flawed.  By your definition, anything to which you do not have access, lowers your quality of life.  You choose an arbitrary focus on monetary issues (cost), but why?  What if there is something you simply cant grasp?  What if your friends are discussing string theory and you dont have the background in theoretical physics and math to comprehend it? Or something you physically cannot reach?  Your friends traveled to Kuala Lampur and saw something and you are unable to make that journey.  I would put forth that you tie access to cost because that fits your political agenda (whether you realize it or not).  Reality is that any concept of "equality" is artificial.  So a theoretical "utopian" society (utopian in the sense that those who dream of this would consider it utopia) can create an artificial leveling of access, but can it change the fact that someone may be physically stronger, or more attractive, than you?  In other words, under some vision of Utopian Socialism, do you really have any better chance with Scarlett Johanssen?  No, you dont.  So why is that different, at its core, than the fact that maybe you cant afford to see a movie today?  It isnt.  Its just that its very attractive and left-wing PC to attack monetary systems and acknowledging that they are really just the Darwinian outcome of an advanced species continued attempts to survive and thrive, would nullify an entire branch of philosophy that remains popular.
::But even within the (narrow) scope of your base assumptions, that someone being denied access to what they cannot afford is a "wrong", I would argue that in short time there would simply be no works for you to share.  The creation of a movie requires tremendous work and effort by numerous people.  If there is no possibility that laboring on a movie, or a book, or music, would help the artist to survive, at some point, they would need to devote their time to ensuring survival.  So you and your friends would have no movie to discuss and instead could devote that time to the labor camp.  I mean seriously... I find many folks who are anti-copyright really just dont want to have to pay for what they dont see as a physical object.  This may be a rude awakening for the deep thinkers who are truly trying to chart a course for a greater state of man in the future, but many of your supporters simply dont want to pay for music, or literature, or film because they feel there is a chance they wont have to (compared to a material object which is universally accepted - if grudgingly - as having some agreed upon value).
::So I think it is ironic that one effect of the anti-copyright movement is a further devaluing of creative works which, indirectly, inflates the value of material objects (this *must* be the exact opposite of what an anti-copyright type would want)  I would like to hear more thought from folks around how they expect artists to be fairly compensated under a system where their works can not be in any way protected.  For a hint, the ideas need to be a bit more realistic than a "universal art tax" or "the good will of man" Many artists and thinkers who have pushed hardest for the erradication of all forms of copyright are already wealthy and comfortable and now treat societal change on a grand scale as a hobby.  Either that, or like Stallman, they are radical ideologues who feel they can pass judgement on what quality of life someone should be allowed.  So for a Bob Dylan, sure, its easy to be anti-copyright.  For Stallman, it seems clear to him that is ok for ONE man (him) to determine what quality of life a programmer should be ALLOWED to have (the arrogance of that is mind-boggling - imagine if he were putting forth a right-wing viewpoint with that same degree of arrogance? he'd have been decried as a "fascist lunatic" long ago rather than hailed as a hero)  
::But there seems to be something particularly monstrous about telling someone who writes decent poetry and would like to do that all the time rather than work for Walmart, that they should be ashamed that they feel their poetry should have any monetary value and, instead, should be just happy to contribute to the "good of man".  Especially when that message is coming from multi-millionaire artists with a guilt complex, college professors living fat off of $50k/year USD tuitions and someone like Stallman.
::: The idea that something is devalued by eliminating the viability of a business model based on legally enforced artificial scarcity to the point that one can't make a living at creating it is a common fallacy -- but it's a fallacy (specifically of a false dilemma) nonetheless. -- Apotheon (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that wikipedia has a policy of No original research. Wikipedia isn't the right place to describe new ideas, but to describe (neutrally) the main arguments that others use. — Matt Crypto 09:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The value of entertainment 

message: No attempt has even been made to balance this article with counter arguments. It is propoganda. I have serious doubts about whether this article should exist in its present form. Something like opinions on the value of copyright would be better. If it is just about a "movement" it should stick to history, and leave the pros and cons to a more broadranging article. Oliver Chettle 03:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way I could possibly make this NPOV is by stubbing it. Computerjoe 11:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marked pov

message: Isn't the article most incomplete without mentioning Debord and the SI? And waht about the history? Can somebody volunteer a candidate for the first use of an explicit anti-copyright notice? Debord put 'All texts published in Potlatch can be reproduced, adapted or quoted without any mention of the source in Potlach, which was published 1954-1957. --Pjacobi 18:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Situationists 

message: Curps is keep inserting POV into this article and refuse to discuss. Amnesity 09:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the return of the old anti-Alkivar troll, creating armies of sockpuppets, targeting Warez and related articles.  He was active a few months ago and now has returned, same old story.  A new twist is involvement in Wikitruth.  Also vandalizing some math articles for no good reason. -- Curps 09:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop Curps From Vandalising This Article

message: "it is likely that popular artists will still be able to make a living by means of advertising and product promotion, as they do at present or perhaps by busking, if that is the only option open to them."
what on earth were u thinking whenever [whoever] wrote that?
i think britney spears (or popular artist X) would still do stadium tours and concerts if there were no copyright, rather than sitting on a street corner with a guitar and a cap for the loose change of passers by.
:The only difference being that Britney would no longer have to bother paying the authors of the songs she uses for their work.  Yeah, that'd be great :P.  But I agree with you, this article really does suck right now.  It's so full of unreferenced personal opinion and unbacked bias that I think I just became a convinced supporter of copyright from reading it.  Fortunately, I'm sure I'll get over it soon enough.  I'm certain there are good arguments for abolishing copyright.  I'm equally certain they are not in this article, or at least not presented in a convincing way.Chaleur (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  busking?!? 

message: I am concerned about the introduction to this article that states that creative commons and copyleft are forms of anti-copyright, this is not the case.
Creative commons for example relays very much on copyright law to achieve it’s aims, as do many copyleft schemes (GNU, etc.).  These schemes form legally binding contracts (Creative Commons licenses have been upheld in court see: http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6052292.html ).  Copyleft could not exist without copyright and whilst it’s objectives are often misinterpreted to be in conflict with copyright (freedom of information vs the protection of operation is debate within, not outside copyright) they, these licenses, all assert ownership of some degree (CC the moral right of the authour) and are singing from the same hymn sheet no matter how out of tune they may sound.
To be truly anti-copyright the scheme, in my opinion, would have to address (or fail to address as the case may be) the rights of ownership with regard to IPR.  --DeepVeinInsomnia 09:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  GPL and the many licenses it inspired are meaningless without copyright.  They don't belong in an "Anti-copyright" article, nor does the EFF, or CC.  --AC 06:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, these are NOT the same things. 64.148.241.133 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think they are completely anti-copyright, but I think it's a safe assertion from reading their websites they don't agree on the state of copyright today. I changed the intro to reflect this. Masterhomer  21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyleft and creative commons is not anti copyright 

message: This article should in somehow mention evolution in everything as an example.
I mean, do companies that produce cassette tapes have a right to use legal action against the cd?
What about movie theaters that go empty, do they take legal action against the dvd or free shows?
Or do bike creators get mad at people that develop motorcycles?
What about newspapers and newsgroups/sites, 'snail-mail' and e-mail, glass bottles and soda cans, ...
People should lay down arms when it regards to new things that work.
In this case, humanity no longer wants to pay ridiculous prices for something they can hear on the radio for free anyway.
Hasn't it always been so that new things are invented and old systems dissapear?
What about the hypocrisy of copyright, take the very first song ever to hit number 1 from 0 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart (Your not alone - Michael Jackson) which, after 12 years of fighting in the court, has turned out to be plagiarism. Song turned out to be made by two Belgian brothers instead.
Ok sorry I'm rambling on about other things, but seriously, what is copyright then? Being the first one to 'license' something and gain big profits so no one dares to question you?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakuun (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eveolution in general or 'get with the program' 

message: Anti-Copyrightists are usually people who are affected negatively by it, these people are usually also anti-capitalistic, anti-WTO, and anti-globalization. For reasons, you might want to check out the critisism of WTO. -GW2005
: I wonder where you get those ideas.  Please source your statements about such correlations as "these people are usually also anti-capitalistic".  You might also want to mention what relevance that statement has to anything. -- Apotheon (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt they are against capitalism, since copyrights are more socialist, considering how they are designed to control trade with law.66.183.59.211 (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn't read the above in details: 

message: If one considers that an artist or author may at anytime choose to reduce their output for any arbitrary reason, the argument that without copyright, reduced output would follow as a consequence is moot. Artists may reduce output while there are strong copyright laws in existence because their work is being heavily traded and merchants are making profits or for any number of other reasons. Therefore the argument that copyright is needed to ensure more work is produced is not valid. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduced output of work argument invalid 

message: I think the "Creative Commons" section is more related to culture/social arguments: a passing reference to unspecified possible alternatives to current business practices does not make an economic argument. The file sharing section in the economic arguments is relevant, and could (should?) evolve into a discourse on "public goods". Ratbertovich (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, and have moved it to the cultural arguments section accordingly. Thanks, Shreevatsa (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic arguments section 

message: This section is about ideas which cannot be copyrighted. The quote is not relevant to the article.Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-originality 

message: This article needs a bit more consideration of the widespread libertarian opposition to copyright, at least so as not to give the impression that the anti-copyright movement is entirely socialistic. I added the non-scarcity argument, but it needs to more work (I don't have the time at the moment, unfortunately). Vox Imperatoris (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Libertarian philosophy supports intellectual property rights. Any political philosophy that opposes intellectual property rights, yet purports to be a "Libertarian" philosophy, is almost certainly a version of Anarchism: Libertarian Socialism, left-Libertarianism, etc. The confusion is the result of historical etymology of the word "Libertarian", which used to be used as a synonym of "Anarchist", until the Second World War. 219.89.249.161 (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Libertarians

message: Most of the groups in this article can't be described as "anti-copyright", per se, only a very few. Many are in favor of copyleft of software (which is in favor of copyright, fundamentally, in that it uses copyright to keep source code free, while a system entirely without copyright could still limit the freedom to tinker, by allowing distribution of binaries without source), fundamental reforms of the time period of monopolies granted by copyright law (Lessig and others) while not abandoning them all together, reimposing the derivation of profit standard for infringement to exist, allowing creators to voluntarily modify  the scope and the nature of the rights exerted (Creative Commons), reforming DRM by removing the use of the state's coercive power in preventing disablement of such, etc.
I would split this article into "anti-copyright" to deal with groups who are opposed to all copyright, as well as theoretical and practical arguments made by these individuals, and "copyright reform" to deal with groups that are against the copyright status quo but are not against copyright all together.
What do others think?Katana0182 (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the distinction should be made and a split should occur. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting article. 

message: There seems to be a crucial misconception on the Austrian view on IP and copyright in this article.
Rothbard as an example: Rothbard distinguishes between patents and copyrights. He argues against patents but for copyright. He states that patents are illegitimate because they are enforced by the state on an arbitrary basis, namely, that the first person to invent something gets the monopoly on it. If one invents something patented independently he is prohibited to earn the fruits of his work which is unjust. Copyrights are legitimate because they are a form of contract: If A produces a mousetrap and sells it with a (C) sign then it means that A sells the mousetrap with the permission of limited usage, that one cannot create replicas etc, which is fully legitimate as it is voluntary contract between buyer and seller.
There is no single "Austrian" view on IP and copyrights.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cognaq (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian perspective 

message: In an edit summary I was asked o explain my removal of two wiki links in the see also section, namely Anarcho-communism and Antitrust (redirects to Competition law). Too many links is not helpful and will damage navigability, my reasoning behind chopping out these two is:
*There are numerous forms of anarchism and communism (:Category:Anarchism by form, :Category:Communism), from my understanding most anarchists and communists are anti copyright, thus not a reason to link any one of them specifically. In addition, multiple other political, and non-political movements are anti copyright; listing them all simply isn't possible.
*As for Competition law, the article only mentions "copy" twice: Copyright misuse in a navbox, and List of countries' copyright length in the see also section. From the lead: "Competition law, known in the United States  as antitrust law, are laws that promote or maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct.". This does not seems like a sufficient reason to link it from this article.
I hope this made my reasoning clearer. jonkerz♠ 02:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No reply in +2 weeks, re-removing links, jonkerz♠ 20:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of links in the see also section 

message: The entire Intellectual Monopoly section is a quote, and more importantly, a biased quote. This should be replaced with actual content, written from a neutral point of view.-Zyrath (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intellectual Monopoly 

message: In the section "Criticism", it is said:
"According to a study by the Institute for Policy Innovation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy think tank, piracy of Copyright material costs the U.S. economy $5.5 billion in annual earnings among U.S. workers, as well as $837 million in lost annual tax revenue and $20.5 billion in lost annual output to all US industries. Furthermore it estimates that piracy costs the U.S 141,030 jobs, two thirds of which are outside the film industry."
However, these studies may be dubious. See: A $13 billion fantasy: latest music piracy study overstates effect of P2P ("First and foremost, it appears to fall into the 'illicit downloads == lost sales' fallacy" ) Now, I know they are speaking of a different article by the IPI, but the approaches used in the one cited in the Wikipedia article are the same.
However, at this point, I'm not necessarily recommending removing the text, as it is a criticism raised. Shrewmania (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how 'nonpartisan' IPI is, but you are quoting an opinion piece by an editor of Ars Technica, whose WP article says writes in an opinionated style. Unfortunately, there exist a large number of poor sources in the WP articles on this subject.Objective3000 (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While being opinionated doesn't necessarily mean blatant falsehoods, I can see how it's not as good as an NPOV. In any case, would you say that the IPI citation is reliable or unreliable itself? Personally, I believe it leans towards the latter. (but even if it's unreliable, see my comment above ("However, at this point...")). Shrewmania (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Also, by "there exist a large number of poor sources," do you mean to say that on both sides of the argument sources are poor, or just on the pro-IP or anti-IP side of the debate? Shrewmania (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I am for removing the whole IPI paragraph, and not on the credibility basis (though IMHO any source which is founded by Dick Armey and claims to be non-partisan, is not really credible), but on the basis that IPI research claims losses from piracy, and might be relevant only in the article on piracy; inferring that losses from piracy have relation to anti-copyright, is an invalid WP:SYN, promoting point of view which is not in original source. Per my interpretation of WP:SYN, references really belong to anti-copyright page, when sources explicitly refer to anti-copyright (or usefulness/problems with copyright laws), anything else is invalid WP:SYN. And even if anti-copyright and piracy is the same thing (which I don't think is true), then such references still don't belong here, instead piracy and anti-copyright pages should be merged. Ipsign (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The claimed losses to the industry in the criticism section 

message: Couldn't it be said that the right to create mashups is an extension or subset of the right to quote? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gray Album 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Dana boomer (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: This article has been renamed, without discussion, and is now seeing mass deletions of accepted text by someone with a clear POV who appears to have no interest in discussion. This would appear to be a problem.Objective3000 (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent activity 

message: Maybe the contents could be put in other sections of the article, or removed altogether? 81.233.196.43 (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical Issues is a stub 

message: User:90.203.193.86, You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war  according to the reverts you have made on :Opposition to copyright. Wikipedia users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
# Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
# Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 
In addition, your other edits suggest a close association with the music industry. If this is the case, our policy on conflict of interest editing applies as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly an example of edit-warring. OTOH, the text should be removed as it gives a couple of questionable, ancient examples in a narrow area to come to a broad brush conclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: It's under no. 21:
[Höffner. "Copyright and structure of authors' earnings"  (PDF). Retrieved February 11, 2012.]
The PDF cannot be found on the linked address and has been completely removed from that domain. I found the PDF on SlideShare, but that cannot be regarded as an official source. Furthermore, it is not a study as seems to be implied, although contains a useful comparison.
There is also an official article from Der Spiegel that mentions the same slide, available in English and German.
This is just a note. I have left the matter as it is for more experienced editors to handle.
:Thanks for the note. Frankly, the slideshow is rather absurd. Basing an argument on worldwide IP rights based upon a look at only two countries, a couple of centuries ago, ignoring a vast number of other possible influences. Objective3000 (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reference currently leads to a nonexistent source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Opposition to copyright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704120358/http://techlawadvisor.com/blog/2004/02/grey_tuesday.htm to http://techlawadvisor.com/blog/2004/02/grey_tuesday.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050521234902/http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041209105106/LHA20050520091532/index.html to http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041209105106/LHA20050520091532/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627183910/http://rockosamhalle.se/texter/fleischer.pdf to http://www.rockosamhalle.se/texter/fleischer.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130319070346/http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~adali/hettinger.pdf to http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~adali/hettinger.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If the lede was too long, we can discuss what to cut. However, as for the reversion in general, I'd like an explanation for exactly what you think was inappropriate about the content of this version of the lede. It was an explanation of the viewpoint, and briefly looked at one example. That is appropriate for an overview of an ideology with many conflicting ideas. lethargilistic (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your change tried to argue the case for opposition to copyright, as opposed to describing what it is. Indeed, the change even exaggerated the case by, for example, suggesting that copyright can guarantee income. In no manner does it do so. We must leave any possible discussions of arguments for the body, and keep the text neutral. Even in the Democracy article, the lead describes democracies, but doesn’t argue whether the concept is good or bad. As it is, this article is not neutrally written since it presents one side, often absurdly and often with highly slanted puffery like  . It could easily be argued that the opposite is true. O3000 (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede is too long 

message: * Sci-Hub  - network of pirated research papers, "Sci-Hub can instantly provide access to more than two-thirds of all scholarly articles",  Lindsay McKenzie. Sci-Hub’s cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription journals are doomed, data analyst suggests. Science Magazine. Jul. 27, 2017. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/sci-hub-s-cache-pirated-papers-so-big-subscription-journals-are-doomed-data-analyst 
Onlyforwikiapps (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Added link about sci-hub 

message: In the first sentence, this article conflates criticism of copyright with anti copyright "sentiment". Sentiment implies emotional response and is often regarded pejoratively, whereas most of the the arguments for and against copyright are based on logical reasoning, not sentiment. As such this label is misleading and possibly pejorative, it should be removed form the article or preceded with "regarded by some as sentiment" or words to that effect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.146.3 (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. "Anti-X sentiment" is a common phrase that has no implications as to logical soundness of the position. I'm not categorically opposed to changing it to something else, but a) it needs to be as pithy, and b) it can't be couched. lethargilistic (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti copyright "sentiment"