Talk:Criticism of copyright

Anti copyright "sentiment"

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)

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)

Critisms of anything is always gonna be anti- we wouldn’t have criticism without that. WikiGrower1 (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Copyright and people with disabilities

Where can we talk about how copyright effects people with disabilities accessing work about how not all countries have signed THE MARRAKESH TREATY which the treaty basically ensures people with disabilities. And how in countries that haven’t signed it, copyright holders could prevent people from disabilities from accessing content? WikiGrower1 (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I found a link for how many countries accepted MARRAKESH TREATY https://www.eifl.net/news/2022-another-good-year-marrakesh-treaty#:~:text=The%20Treaty%20%E2%80%93%20full%20name%2C%20Marrakesh,the%20'book%20famine'). WikiGrower1 (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Innovation and remixes

Isn’t one of the criticism of copyright is that it limits innovation in ways you can adapt work. For example if someone has a copyright of a video game, and only the copyright holder has the right to make levels, it has the effect of limiting the amount of possible levels from other people. In some cases copyright laws can discourage making new works rather than encourage new works by limiting what works artists can create and out of fear of being sued for copyright infringement especially when creators think their ideas or expression come from someone else. WikiGrower1 (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Well I suppose it would be easier if you could just steal other people's works, modify a video game that cost tens of millions of dollars, years of work, and employed many people to create. (Civ 6 took 6 years based upon decades of previous works and employed 180 people). It would certainly be cheaper than hiring and paying people yourself so you could undercut the originator, toss those people out of work, and make it impossible for new companies that would create new works based upon new, innovative ideas from scratch to exist. Look, I'm being sardonic. But you are making a personal argument. We don't do what you and I just did. We use reliable sources and employ a neutral point of view. Our personal opinions do not beong in an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The text of the wiki is also not perfect on its first shot. The last thing WG added was sourced, and you reverted it primarily because you disagreed with it and (I'll agree) WG didn't say it neutrally enough. There's no call to be sardonic here. What WG just said on a talk page is a valid criticism of copyright, and there probably are RSes that state that view. If someone finds one and presents it properly in this article about criticisms, then it's fine. lethargilistic (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

primarily because you disagreed with it would appear to be your opinion of my personal beliefs. I have no problem with properly sourced additions of DUE opinions, so long as we attribute and provide contrary views as opposed to stating an opinion in Wikivoice as fact. Or should we create another article titled: Criticism of Criticism of copyright? Perfection doesn't exist. This article starts well, but I think it loses its way after a while and appears to posit solutions that ignore consequences. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

My point is it isn’t just in video games. When a composer composes music, they may not always have the tune in their head which is common and therefore have to branch off to another song to create their own song. Artists don’t always have what they want to create off the top of their head and therefore may want to branch off into other people’s ideas without infringing on other people’s copyrights. Since ideas aren’t protected by copyright but the expression of ideas are, it’s difficult sometimes to copy ideas without the expression. Additionally some creators could use copyright protection to prevent others from improving upon their work so that only the original creator can reap the benefits from the improvement but as a tradeoff, it could slow progress on improvements on the work as there is only 1 creator compared to many creators improving upon the work. While society does accept that the original creator should benefit from its creation and that by knowing that other’s can’t use your work without permission can incentivize creativity, whether it improves innovation is still a debate. We could probably add something along those lines on the economic arguments. WikiGrower1 (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes I've heard the rationalizations used for intellectual property rights violations a thousand times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Consider using this link below https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3485&context=lawreview WikiGrower1 (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn’t it say Liang argues that the 19th Century saw the prolific authorship of literary works in the absence of meaningful copyright that benefited the author and mentions that most of the profits go to the publisher not the author in most cases with copyright laws

In the authorship section, shouldn’t it say Liang argues that the 19th Century saw the prolific authorship of literary works in the absence of meaningful copyright that benefited the author and mentions that most of the profits go to the publisher not the author in most cases with copyright laws WikiGrower1 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

It would be clearer WikiGrower1 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

NPOV / Wikivoice

Shouldn't this article be rewritten to use a more neutral tone, as recommended in WP:Wikivoice?

For example, instead of stating "Policy X is bad for the economy," it should say something like "Critics argue that Policy X could have negative effects on the economy".

The article Criticism of the United Nations is a good example of how this can be done effectively. Aim551551551 (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aim551551551 I notice that you have already changed the entire article to reflect your preference, and I don't have time to review the whole thing now. But I will say that there is a distinction between observing facts about what copyright does to the economy in order to then articulate that not everyone agrees the tradeoffs are worth it and saying "Copyright is bad for the economy." Not everything in this article should be couched as "Critics argue" because not everything negative that copyright does is debatable; whether the tradeoff is worth it is the debate. This does not become a WIKIVOICE issue simply because someone might disagree with observable facts as reported in reliable sources or might disagree with the opinion that copyright is not worth its tradeoffs. lethargilistic (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

"Unlike physical property, works restricted by copyright are not scarce because copies can be made without destroying the original or depriving anyone else of ownership." This part is ok.

"The scarcity is created by copyright, a legal fiction established by the state." Do you have reliable scholarly sources where 1) critics claim that copyright is a "legal fiction" and 2) that this claim reflects an established consensus fact rather than analysis? Aim551551551 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aim551551551 The term "legal fiction" is not derogatory. It just means that the legal concept is designed to make administration of the law easier (or possible), not to reflect reality. So any source discussing copyright as a source of artificial scarcity is a source explaining that it is a legal fiction. And the fact that copyright is a legal fiction is not open to good-faith dispute; it is one. Some people like it and some people dislike it.

To be fair, I was just going through it without reviewing the sources currently linked, so I don't make any representations as to how well the sentence summarizes what they say. But, if they do discuss artificial scarcity, then referring to copyright as a legal fiction is summarization, not analysis. lethargilistic (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Basically, the term "legal fiction" is a fiction in itself -- an excuse to violate the rights of owners. As a neutral source, we must be careful in how we document such claims. And yes, "legal fiction" as used here is clearly derogatory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

That's just not true. Legal fictions exist throughout the law for many reasons, and they're not typically "excuses" for anything in particular. Most often, they evolve to simplify complex procedures where the result is the most important part. For example, adoption involves a legal fiction where the adoptive parent is considered the biological parent while the biological parents are divested of that status despite the reality that they are the biological parents. With copyright, the work is treated as scarce despite the reality that it may be copied many times. That disconnect is indicative of a legal fiction. This observation isn't a judgment as to whether this particular legal fiction is good or bad; critics would say that this one is bad. The article current says that it is a legal fiction and that critics think it is a bad one. It's fine. lethargilistic (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

That's your opinion. The article must be neutral. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're going for here, but "nuh uh" is not really sufficient to establish a good-faith dispute here? I just described what a legal fiction is. The term "legal fiction" is neutral; it describes a common feature of legal systems. I guess you could say the term is not neutral within the context of arguing that legal fictions in and of themselves are bad, but that is a fringe view and not what's going on here. Or, at least, that wasn't going on before you just baldly stated that legal fictions are "an excuse to violate the rights of owners," which is not at all what they are. lethargilistic (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This sounds like a legal argument. That's not what we do here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not making a legal argument. I'm saying what a legal fiction is. This is not controversial. lethargilistic (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The problem isn't about whether copyright is legitimate or not. The problem is that we must make a legitimate effort to be as neutral as possible.

Do you frequently hear governments proudly claiming that "copyright is a legal fiction" with a positive connotation to the public? Do you frequently hear news outlets talking about copyright as a "legal fiction" in a positive context? Not at all. However, I can find several sources where it has been used pejoratively.

The objective of the neutral point of view is not to weaken the arguments of critics. Wikivoice doesn't weaken the strength of arguments.

But here, we are living in a reality where the majority perceives the institution of copyright as legitimate, so we must be more careful with our wording toward both sides. If the overwhelming majority of people and institutions condemned copyright, and copyright laws were universally abolished, we could write with a more assertive tone, but we are not there yet. Aim551551551 (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You're adding your own analysis and trying to engage in original research, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The goal of Wikipedia is to summarize and reflect what reliable sources say, not to present personal interpretations.

If you make a claim, it must be supported by reliable sources. For example, you said that it is a commonly accepted fact that copyright is a "legal fiction" to the extent that prefacing it with "Critics argue" was unnecessary. Could you please provide sources that demonstrate this widespread consensus?

Furthermore, as @Objective3000 pointed out, the term legal fiction can carry a derogatory connotation. Little meaning is lost by using a more neutral alternative such as "legal construct" which better fits the neutral point of view policy.

If you feel like the article does not adequately represent or summarize certain arguments found in the sources, we are open to discussing improvements and working together to incorporate them, provided they are properly sourced, avoid original research and try to adopt a neutral tone.

By the way, I have also reviewed your other recent edits, which we can discuss separately, as they appear to raise additional problems regarding neutrality. Aim551551551 (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not doing analysis. I'm saying what a term means. This term is not a neutrality issue. This discussion is two people who are assuming that a positive view of copyright is neutral, which it isn't. Describing a fact about copyright and then pointing out that people critique copyright because of it is not POV. Insisting that every tradeoff presented by copyright is just something "critics say" definitely is POV. I don't know what else there is to say about this, and I'm gonna disengage.

If you have a specific critique of a different part of the article, feel free to share and we can address that separately. But if it's just "I don't like pointing out tradeoffs of copyright as if they're real," then it's not an appropriate objection. They are real. You can think that the benefits of copyright outweigh the tradeoffs if you want. But you can't pretend there aren't tradeoffs, especially on the article that's literally about what the other side thinks of those tradeoffs. lethargilistic (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Here and here are problems concerning neutrality, and the same arguments as previously said mostly apply.

No problem, you can disengage, but after some time has passed, we may eventually have to ask for input from the community if we can't find a way to resolve the dispute. Aim551551551 (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aim551551551 I think those edit summaries are sufficient explanations of why those are not POV statements, so I don't have much else to add. Observing that copyright raises ethical issues is not derogatory; everything raises ethical issues. It's not really common to do empirical studies of copyright's efficacy; I could expand upon why that is, but that would be analysis. However, again, I did not review the citation on the comment about studies. If the current citations are not appropriate for that sentence, then cite it to the chapter of "The Public Domain" by James Boyle that describes copyright policy as an "evidence-free zone" (or whatever. It's been a while since I read that). There are plenty of sources observing that lack of empiricism in the space.

My goal with reviewing the article earlier was just to rephrase them to ensure that each was posited as a fact followed by what critics say about that fact. I don't think I reverted any of them to exactly how they were before you edited them to just be "critics say." So, to an extent, I agreed with you that the preexisting version could have been improved. lethargilistic (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Boyle has published works and should definitely be fitting to include on the article.

But even with his inclusion, I would still rather phrase it as "Boyle argues that" or "Boyle claims," or something similar, so if you were not satisfied with this Wikivoice way of wording, his inclusion won't resolve the dispute.

The problem is that these "facts" represent a minority view and are not commonly accepted conclusions. We can't boldly state as fact controversial ideas that the majority does not accept.

We may have to see what the other members of the community think. Aim551551551 (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aim551551551 We might have to wait for more input. The last thing I'll point out tonight (reiterate, really) is just that the conclusion that "copyright is bad" is the minority view. The statement that "copyright is not commonly justified with empirical studies" is not just a view. It's a fairly typical observation, although one might quibble about the amount necessary to be "common." But the statement itself is not indicating that empirical studies never happen; it's indicating that they're less common than deontological arguments. People with minority views argue from that observation in some of their attempts to show that their minority view is correct. But couching the observation in terms of "Boyle says" just because Boyle in particular said it in a critique of copyright is not appropriate. It's a form of false balance, really. lethargilistic (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I got curious about whether the empiricism issue had changed, and I don't think it has, based on what I saw. But here are two more articles specifically about the empiricism issue.

• Christopher Jon Sprigman, Copyright and Creative Incentives: What We Know (and Don't), 55 Hous. L. Rev. 451 (2017).
• Ivan P. L. Png, Copyright: A Plea for Empirical Research, 3 Rev. Econ. Rsch. on Copyright Issues 3 (2006).

But I did find one article claiming to show that law professors do not read economists' papers when they do empirical studies of this issue. I have to go to sleep, so I'm not going to read it in depth. That would probably be good cite to use for a rejoinder within this section, at the very least.

• https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/article/view/13075

lethargilistic (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

RFC about the use of "legal fiction" to describe copyright

Should the words "legal fiction" be used to describe copyright? Aim551551551 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• lethargilistic wrote: "Unlike physical property, works restricted by copyright are not scarce because copies can be made without destroying the original or depriving anyone else of ownership. The scarcity is created by copyright, a legal fiction established by the state. Accordingly, critics frequently observe that copyright infringement is not the same as theft, because theft deprives someone of access to what has been taken."

I personally objected to the use of the words "legal fiction" for two reasons:

- First of all, the term is pejorative, it has negative connotations.

- Secondly, there is no evidence of a consensus among media outlets or academic circles to use the term "legal fiction" to describe copyright in a non-pejorative way. In fact, few sources, if any, exist where this term is not used pejoratively.

I suggested replacing the term "legal fiction" with "legal construct" to better reflect a neutral point of view. The editor lethargilistic, however, supports retaining "legal fiction" arguing that the term is objectively accurate and more precisely describes the nature of copyright. Aim551551551 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Legal fiction is a recognised term, it is not pejorative. However, copyright is definitely not a legal fiction: it's been covered by legislation for a long time, at least three hundred years in the United Kingdom (see Statute of Anne), and since the law was passed prior to 1776, applied to the United States as well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The fact that a legal fiction has been codified does not mean it is no longer a legal fiction. lethargilistic (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, actually it does. The fact that anti-copyright folks think it is not a pejorative does not mean it isn't. It is a pejorative when it is law and has no basis other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The adoption example that I gave you above is codified. Treating the adoptive parent as the birth parent is still a legal fiction.

Additionally, this is not an IDONTLIKEIT moment. It's a comment about artificial scarcity. It seems like you don't like criticisms of copyright generally, and you are allowed to have that opinion. But most of your comments in these threads have been summary mischaracterizations with citations to inapposite guidelines. Here, "Actually it does" is not even an argument. Please engage in good faith or don't engage. lethargilistic (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:AGF O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I have been. You're pushing it. That's all I have to say about it. lethargilistic (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Calling copyright a legal fiction could be seen as pejorative, even though not all uses of the term 'legal fiction' are intended negatively.

Similarly, claiming that Africa is in Europe is pejorative, even though describing a country as being in Europe is generally not considered offensive. Aim551551551 (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

My position is set out fairly clearly above. However, I will comment further on this: In fact, few sources, if any, exist where this term [legal fiction] is not used pejoratively. This is strictly not true. The term legal fiction has existed for a long time and has been used neutrally in legal scholarship. The example that springs immediately to mind is John Chipman Gray's The Nature and Sources of Law (1909), which as I recall has a whole chapter surveying this topic and what various scholars have said about it. The argument of this RFC is essentially that the term "legal fiction" has been tainted by people using it to complain about laws generally as being fake. That is not what is happening here. The term is used here in the same way that it is used on the page Wikipedia has for legal fiction: it is a term indicating a legal concept is designed to make administration of the law easier (or possible), not to reflect reality. Copyright is a legal fiction because it legally represents artificial scarcity. lethargilistic (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Is it law? If so, where is the fiction? And I have difficulty understanding why anyone ever finds the artificial scarcity argument compelling. It's absurd on its face. Copyvios cause scarcity of value. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Our purpose here is not to evaluate whether the artificial scarcity argument is a good argument against copyright. Keep your personal opinion about whether copyright is justified out of this conversation. lethargilistic (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Is it only a personal opinion if it doesn't agree with what appears to be yours? Again, WP:AGF And please stop using the term "articficial scarcity" as if it is some law of nature. If anything is a "fiction" it is that term. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

No; I don't care if we agree about whether copyright should exist. The problem with your comments is that the goodness or badness of copyright has nothing to do with whether "legal fiction" is an appropriate term describing copyright. Your arguments in these threads have explicitly been from the premise that copyright is good. Here, you have basically said that copyright is good, therefore the concept of artificial scarcity doesn't apply to works. That is not an appropriate way to have this discussion. If you respond like this again, I simply will not reply. lethargilistic (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Your arguments in these threads have explicitly been from the premise that copyright is good. Firstly, Wikipedia respects copyright as policy. And well, if any of my arguments have been along those lines, they are that property rights are good in general -- not simply intellectual property rights. But more specifically, what I am saying is that the belief that certain people do not have property rights for their work is an opinion that cannot be stated in WikiVoice. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know the motivations of @Objective3000 but that's definitely not my motivation. I couldn't care less about whether the article presents 2 or even 10,000 "impossible to refute" arguments against copyright; however, I do care about the neutrality of tone. Wikipedia shouldn't read like a sensationalist news website; it should make a reasonable attempt to sound neutral.

And by the way, in case you don't believe me, I had intended to add other categories of strong arguments that are currently missing from this article (for example, copyright has frequently been criticized for its legal complexity, yet this article makes no mention of it). Aim551551551 (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

What I said above was directed at O3 for behavior that is pretty objectively out of scope. I haven't said anything about you here. That said, I don't think your characterization of my argument in this comment was called for in the slightest. I have made a straightforward, detailed argument for my assertion that the current language is neutral, and people can agree with me or not. Your initial summary of it for this thread was mostly acceptable to me. So it is absolutely beyond me why you would now accuse me of saying things I did not say ("impossible to refute") or imply that my sentence is written to be "sensationalist" or tack on this bit about whether I "believe" you about your intent regarding things we are not talking about right now.

But if I AGF, there is one part of this message worth a reply. I think your "impossible to refute" comment was about my statements in the previous thread that it is a fact that copyright imposes artificial scarcity. Again, I remind you of the difference between a tradeoff made by a copyright system and an opinion about whether copyright is justified when its benefits are weighed against its tradeoffs. Tradeoffs are facts; e.g., Copyright imposes an artificial scarcity on copies of works of authorship. Opinions are arguments from facts; e.g., although copyright creates an artificial scarcity of copies, copyright is justified because it promotes the creation of works and the social benefit created by marginal works outweighs any social costs from artificial scarcity. Facts can be in wikivoice, and opinions cannot. I hope that distinction is clear now. lethargilistic (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

It is about semantics and precise language: it is objectively true and (almost) universally accepted that copyright imposes restrictions on how information can be legally distributed. This can be stated in Wikivoice, I 100% agree with that.

But calling it "artificial scarcity" in Wikivoice is kinda pushing it imo, because it could be seen as pejorative, and it is unclear whether there is a consensus for copyright to be called that way.

If your "facts" are not universally accepted in a contentious area, it is better to tread with caution, even if they are true. Aim551551551 (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This article cannot be written as if copyright is a self-evident good. The copyright article itself can't be written as if copyright is a self-evident good. It would be a violation of NPOV to treat a pro-copyright opinion as a fact in exactly the same way as it would be for an anti-copyright opinion. Moreover, the fact that copyright exists as a policy in most states does not imply that copyright is accepted everywhere by people; most people have no opinion about whether copyright should exist or not, and a tiny few have any meaningful role in determining whether a state adopts any particular policy. What you have said in this last comment is not a good argument when we are trying to determine what the wikivoice should say. Whether an opinion is widely held or not goes to how much coverage is WP:DUE or UNDUE, not to how the information is presented in VOICE.

But, to address the suggested change directly: "Restrictions on how information can be legally distributed" is a very long way of saying "artificial scarcity", and there is no good reason to not use that widely-used term.

You are basically conjecturing that it would be a VOICE violation to put "copyright" in the same sentence as any named concept that someone might have a critical opinion about. That's not what we do here. We don't write entire articles with WP:WEASELWORDS. The approach you're advocating for here is not conducive to writing an article.

Moreover, people are voting here regarding the use of the term "legal fiction" in this context. They are not endorsing your theory of how VOICE works or how your theory applies to other terms because this RFC is not about that. I would strongly suggest that you take a breath and stay completely on-topic in future messages to me. lethargilistic (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

It would do for me to explain why I do not think "legal concept" is right for this sentence as well. The point of the sentence in question is to establish that copyright law does not map directly on to reality. Consider the sentence after the change: The scarcity is created by copyright, a legal concept established by the state. This sentence does convey that idea, true. However, by using the term "legal concept" to imply "legal fiction", the article would actually be taking the position that legal concepts in general do not map onto reality. That is, by trying to avoid a pejorative meaning of "legal fiction" this way, the article would actually be adopting the view of someone who believes all law is legal fictions (and, typically, someone who believes that fringe view thinks that that is a bad thing). If it is determined that "legal fiction" won't work for this, then the sentence will likely need to be rewritten. lethargilistic (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

We could state that several critics view copyright as illegitimate, criminal, or counterproductive if we have reliable sources where they express such opinions, but we wouldn't be able to present that perspective with Wikivoice. Aim551551551 (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This comment is not responsive to what I said here about why "legal concept" is inapt for this sentence. You will notice that the last sentence of my previous comment is open to the possibility that others will disagree with me about how this dispute should be resolved. I am not proposing a third option, so there is nothing else for me to say here. lethargilistic (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Calling copyright a legal fiction is pejorative, because the overwhelming majority of people don't agree that it is a legal fiction. Aim551551551 (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - No, "legal fiction" should not be used to describe copyright in WikiVoice. It is an opinion by those who want abolishment of intellectual property rights. It can be used as an opinion with attribution. I would say the same for "artificial scarcity". A term disproved IRL by many bankruptcies. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  It is factually accurate to state that copying information does not deprive the original holder of it. However, asserting that "therefore information is not scarce" in Wikivoice pushes the boundaries of this argument. Many proponents of copyright would contend that such a claim is misleading, as the creation of information often requires significant effort, time, and resources, which they argue justifies treating it as a scarce commodity. That said, I am willing to tolerate the phrasing "information is not scarce" in Wikivoice as a compromise.

  Nevertheless, if members of the community later object to this wording ("information is not scarce" in Wikivoice), anti-copyright proponents should refrain from criticism after having previously attempted to exploit ambiguous or grey areas. Aim551551551 (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  copying information does not deprive the original holder of it. It deprives them of the full value of that which they created. But again, scarcity can be listed as an attributed opinion. Just cannot use Wikivoice. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  From a strict perspective, if someone copies a file, the person who originally created the file still has access to their version; that's the view of anti-copyright proponents, and this specific claim, in isolation, is factually correct and self-evident.

  If an artist creates music on an online platform like Bandcamp and someone buys it, burns it onto a CD, and gives the CD to a friend, the original artist still has their version of the music file.

  This is self-evident, and pretty much everyone agrees with this specific part of the argument. If worded properly, using neutral terms, I wouldn't take issue with including this specific point in Wikivoice.

  But saying "therefore information is not scarce" is really pushing it: a lot of pro-copyright proponents would not be happy to read that "information is not scarce," so we should err on the side of caution. Aim551551551 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  If someone copies it and puts it on YT, the copyright holder still has his copy, but it is worth less. That's why YT has to deal with masses of DMCA takedowns a day. I disagree that pretty much everyone agrees with this specific part of the argument considering the tens of billions lost a year and massive job losses. Easy to look it up. I'm not trying to make an argument for copyright here. I am simply saying we should not use Wikivoice. We should attribute opinions that are on one side of the subject. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  We are in agreement, the person who created the original still has their copy. "If someone copies it and puts it on YT, the copyright holder still has his copy"

  I never said that there wasn't any "but," after this.

  stating that they still have their copy would be acceptable in Wikivoice, as this specific small part of the argument is not even controversial and is self-evident.

  The disagreement isn't about whether the original creator still has access to their personal file, it's about the consequences. Aim551551551 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  The copyright holder still has the original -- but it is often worth less (i.e. it has been damaged). Incidentally, one of the OED definitions for "steal" is "To take or appropriate dishonestly (anything belonging to another, whether material or immaterial)." O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  "but it is often worth less (i.e. it has been damaged)."

  Many critics of copyright disagree with calling it "damaged," so that's not an uncontroversial statement anymore. In fact, many critics of copyright would object with the claim that economic loss even occurred.

  Whereas the previous statement (the original creator still physically having the file in their own hard drives) is self-evident, universally accepted by everyone and laughably easy to verify.

  You're talking about economic value, I was talking about the file on the hard drive.

  The only remaining critic of the old argument is whether it's incomplete or stripped of its broader context, not about the individual statement; whether the files are still accessible or not.

  That's why I consider it acceptable to state in Wikivoice that files are still accessible to their original creators after copying. Aim551551551 (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I know many critics of copyright claim no loss has occurred despite the estimates of hundreds of thousands of jobs lost and tens of billions of dollars a year, just in the US film and music industries. We cannot state absurdity in wikivoice. A file on a disk is an extreme simplification. A movie is vastly more complex than that. Point is, we can explain the criticisms. But we should not do so in our own voice as if these claims are "truth". It is verifiable that critics believe such (or at least espouse such) and thus should be included. It is NOT verifiable that the criticisms make any sense. This article is about the criticisms. It is not supposed to push the believe that intellectual property rights are bad. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose We should use the term legal fiction because it is an established jargon, but we should not label copyrights as such in wikivoice. This page is supposed to focus on the critiques, not become one of them. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  This is a more accurate statement. Thank you for the correction. I have no problem stating, "Copyright has been frequently described as a legal fiction by scholars X, Y, and Z," if true. The main issue is saying so in Wikivoice without the slightest hint of hesitation. Aim551551551 (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Aim551551551 Reading prior discussion that led to the RFC, if seems is was proposed by those who wanted to say it in wikivoice (the status quo) even if that isn't clear from the RFC (albeit it does say "should we...describe"). Few would argue, if we find reliable sources (scholarly, journalistic, etc.) stating their or others' opinion that it's a legal fiction, we shouldn't put that in here as a critique of copyright. [Really saying this to put your comment in context for the closing administrator.] Llew Mawr (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose (Invited here by FRS). "Legal fiction" may not be pejorative, but copyright is not commonly given as an example of one by scholars of legal fictions. We should only quote those calling it "a legal fiction" as criticism (albeit it's not an attack per se) not use it in wikivoice. This is supported by the fact the articles Copyright and crucially Legal fiction and their sources do not even mention it as a legal fiction. (FWIW, IMO arguably the much more recent concept of intellectual property may be a legal fiction as intangibles weren't previously considered property. Copyright evolved very differently from legal fictions quickly became statutory and wasn't originally even a right in a modern sense but a licensing and regulation/censorship. Thus failing criteria listed at Legal fiction.) Llew Mawr (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  Incidentally, although software is not "tangible" by the dictionary definition; accounting rules allow businesses to capitalize software as a tangible asset. Of course a copyrighted book is tangible by any definition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  It depends upon your definition of tangible, it does not work with every definition.

  Tangible in everyday speech is often defined as something real, not imaginary or able to be shown, touched, or experienced.

  Legal protections for creative works are not tangible to people who view copyright as illegitimate.

  A physical book is tangible; critics of copyright don't see the copyright part as tangible. Aim551551551 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes the copyright critics don't see it that way. Of course they don't. But accounting rules do and the IRS recognizes this as a tangible asset and amortizable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think we can call intellectual property a recent concept. The U.S. Constitution established this in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, known as the Intellectual Property Clause or "Patent and Copyright Clause". It empowers Congress to

  promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

  I don't think we should call a right provided by the Constitution a "legal fiction". The original concept of intellectual property rights dates to Sybaris in 6th Century BCE Greece. Also 6th Century CE Ireland, ("To every cow belongs its calf; to every book its copy").O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Copyright is not a constitutional right. The Progress Clause authorizes but does not require Congress to create copyright statutes. I will not reply to any response to this message that is about the merits of copyright policy. lethargilistic (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for telling me how I can respond to you. The Constitution empowers Congress and Congress writes the laws, as they did in this case. President George Washington signed the Copyright Act of 1790. It is clearly not a "recent concept". O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support, of course. This is actually quite straight-forward. We are not here to debate or, worse, decide upon the veracity of the claim that "copyright is legal fiction." We are here to discuss as to whether or not that claim, verifiably made by opponents of the copyright concept per se, should be included in the article. Which is about criticism of copyright! I am completely unable to see how we could ever justify engaging in such blatant involvement of our personal opinions on the matter of the copyright concept and delete a statement that is foundational to the criticism. -The Gnome (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

P.S. Need it be said that the proper and also obvious way to phrase this would be, "according to critics of the copyright concept (sources cited here), copyright is legal fiction"? I guess it does. -The Gnome (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Note to closer It seems that there is a spectrum of possible outcomes that is getting awkwardly shoehorned into a support/oppose binary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Note to closer. If you have the time, the previous section at "NPOV / Wikivoice" is essentially the preamble to this. I point this out in part because my argument is set out in my own words there. But the context for the interpersonal angle to this is there, too. I'd appreciate a close that skipped all mention of the interpersonal angle, thanks. lethargilistic (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: even if to scholars this has a clear definition, this could easily be misunderstood by the average reader. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Given that people seem to agree with the conclusion that the term "legal fiction" shouldn't be used in this case, I think it would be better for the article for me to concede and make the change myself rather than wait for a close. Reworded. lethargilistic (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You also need to stop making changes to state in Wikivoice other opinions of critics. Make the arguments here first. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment it seems as though several of those opposing "legal fiction" think legal fiction means something other than what it actually means. Some comments insinuate that legal fiction = a fictitious law or a fake law, a law that doesn't really exist, and other comments saying that nothing that exists in statutes can be legal fictions.

But none of that is what "legal fiction" means. The laws that create legal fictions (be they common laws OR statutes) are not make believe. The various and sundry "fictions" are devised by the laws, for the reason that they are deemed useful for the law's intent. That a certain thing is a legal fiction is not a criticism in and of itself, but the fact that a certain thing IS a legal fiction is likely to be relevant to any specific criticisms of it, i.e., as background information/contextual framework. Frankly, the nature of this discussion feels akin to, say, Catholic apologists responding to criticism of Catholicism with "But Catholicism isn't a religion!" ~2026-13001-64 (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Edit Warring

@Objective3000: Stop edit warring and discuss changes to the article here if they are controversial. You are the one suggesting changes, not me. We can't have a discussion about your suggestions until you start a discussion and explain what it is you are objecting to, specifically. lethargilistic (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You are removing text like Critics argue that copyright is invalid because leaving the text to state a belief in Wikivoice with edit summaries like: The beginning of this is objectively true, not a "critics say" moment and The fact that it raises ethical questions is true. That is, you are changing the article to state your personal opinions as true instead of what critics believe. Look at the RfC above where such text you added is not supported. You are welcome to discuss this here. But do not try to force your opinions into the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't feel like @Lethargilistic is trying in good faith to be as neutral as possible, sorry. Objective3000 is not edit-warring.

Wikipedia articles are meant to evolve through collaborative effort, and it appears that Lethargilistic may be approaching the content in a way that attempts to push the boundaries of neutrality, potentially favoring a perspective that's as subjective as policy might allow.

While collaboration is central to Wikipedia, the current approach on this article doesn't seem to prioritize openness or ease of cooperation.

I'm not alone in observing that there are aspects of the development of this article that warrant legitimate concerns. Aim551551551 (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

First, O3: Aim added the phrase "Critics argue" to basically every section of the article. I removed them. The change to add "critics argue" to every section was controversial. The status quo of the article is without them. That's why the WP:ONUS is on you to describe why they should be there and why they should remain down until there is consensus that they should be used. I am not stating my personal belief as to whether copyright is good or bad; I have purposefully avoiding talking about that question as much as possible. The RFC above was about "legal fiction." The others were not generally discussing "critics argue" or participating in the lengthy exchange between the two of you about whether copyright is justified, which was off-topic.

Second, Aim. This rewriting of history that everyone can read doesn't merit a full reply. I have engaged with all of your messages to me in good faith even when you have not done the same. I have noted when your messages have been disrespectful, yes, but I have always tried to find something productive to respond to in them. At this point, the majority of your messages to me are generally not productive, insisting that because copyright is a common policy worldwide that it must be described as if everything it does is good by default and anything it does that not everyone likes could be something that critics made up. But that's not how it works. Copyright is a design. Designs have tradeoffs. And those tradeoffs are real. The core thing I have been saying is that the article should talk about copyright as if it is a real policy, and real policies have tradeoffs.

Ultimately, this is a classic Wikipedia problem where there are three people in a discussion and two of them think they can create consensus among themselves that cancels out the third. Worse, it is the variation of that problem where the two are evangelists for a certain policy, and they want to treat their preference as a cultural default. I'm frankly tired of it. lethargilistic (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The change to add "critics argue" to every section was controversial. I'm sorry, but I do not see how it is controversial to add that these are opinions held by some people. Otherwise we are stating these opinions are noncontroversial facts in wikivoice. Your last paragraph is frankly disgusting and you should strike it. WP:CIV WP:AGF O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Some critics

When saying "critics argue" or "critics believe", we really should be saying "some critics". Not all critics believe in all arguments. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I approve.

The only downside is that it does sound slightly clunkier, but the neutrality is well worth it. Aim551551551 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard Discussion

Forgot to document this here, it seems. I posted about this dispute on the NPOV noticeboard in the hopes of generating some less-involved takes because the difference of interpretation seems pretty clearly divided. It didn't get any bites from third-parties, though. lethargilistic (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Uncertain impact on economic section on innovation.

On the economic issues section, it should be clarified, not just that some critics say it might not improve innovation, but it might worsen innovation by preventing others from building upon people’s work. In other words, the article should state it is unclear whether it will improve or worsen innovation. People debate whether it improves innovation knowing the creator can profit off their work and control whether others can use the work or whether it worsens innovation by preventing others from building upon people’s work or increasing legal risk knowing there’s a chance, they could be sued if a court found them to be infringing upon other people’s work. ~2026-43656-95 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually, that's sorta funny. Sounds like laws protecting intellectual property rights are bad because you might get caught or sued. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. The suggestion was fine. lethargilistic (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I see what he is saying but I think it is more that when a creator creates a work and realizes they can’t build off of that work because they would be committing copyright infringement. ~2026-48597-57 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

A copyright holder can build off their own work under law going back to the formation of the US. Without copyright protections, they may not have the market for improving their own product. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2026 (UTC)