Editing Criticism of copyright (section)

==Cultural arguments==
[[File:Copying is not theft.ogv|thumb|right|First "Minute Meme" video of QuestionCopyright.org]]
===Freedom of knowledge===
[[File:FREE BEER version 3.2, St Austell 2.jpg|thumb| "[[Free Beer]]" demonstrator supporting the "freedom of knowledge" idea: ''"Copyright is preventing access to knowledge"'' (2007).]]
Groups such as ''Hipatia'' advance anti-copyright arguments in the name of "freedom of knowledge" and argue that knowledge should be "shared in solidarity". Such groups may perceive "freedom of knowledge" as a right, and/or as fundamental in realising the [[right to education]], which is an internationally recognised [[Human rights|human right]], as well as the right to a [[Free culture movement|free culture]] and the right to free communication. They argue that current copyright law hinders the realisation of these rights in today's knowledge societies relying on new technological means of communication and see copyright law as preventing or slowing human progress.<ref name=autogenerated4>{{cite web |url= http://www.hipatia.info/index.php?id=manifesto2_en |title= Second Manifesto |publisher= Hipatia |access-date= 2008-07-25 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081201103820/http://www.hipatia.info/index.php?id=manifesto2_en |archive-date= December 1, 2008 |url-status= dead }}</ref>

===Authorship and creativity===
[[Lawrence Liang]], founder of the [[Alternative Law Forum]], argues that current copyright is based on a too narrow definition of "author", which is assumed to be clear and undisputed. Liang observes that the concept of "the author" is assumed to make universal sense across cultures and across time. Instead, Liang argues that the notion of the author as a unique and transcendent being, possessing originality of spirit, was constructed in Europe after the [[Industrial Revolution]], to distinguish the personality of the author from the expanding realm of mass-produced goods. Hence works created by "authors" were deemed original, and merges with the doctrine of [[property]] prevalent at the time.<ref name=autogenerated2>{{cite web | url = https://www.countercurrents.org/hr-suresh010205.htm | last = Liang | first = Lawrence | title = Copyright/Copyleft: Myths About Copyright | publisher = Infochangeindia.org | date = February 2005 | access-date = August 13, 2017 | archive-date = August 13, 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170813182938/https://www.countercurrents.org/hr-suresh010205.htm | url-status = live }}</ref>

Liang argues that the concept of "author" is tied to the notion of copyright and emerged to define a new social relationship—the way society perceives the ownership of knowledge. The concept of "author" thus naturalised a particular process of knowledge production where the emphasis on individual contribution and individual ownership takes precedence over the concept of "community knowledge".<ref name=autogenerated2 /> Relying on the concept of the author, copyright is based on the assumption that without an intellectual property rights regime, authors would have no incentive to further create, and that artists cannot produce new works without an economic incentive. Liang challenges this logic, arguing that "many authors who have little hope of ever finding a market for their publications, and whose copyright is, as a result, virtually worthless, have in the past, and even in the present, continued to write."<ref name=autogenerated2 /> Liang points out that people produce works purely for personal satisfaction, or even for respect and recognition from peers. Liang argues that the 19th Century saw the prolific authorship of literary works in the absence of meaningful copyright that benefited the author. In fact, Liang argues, copyright protection usually benefited the publisher, and rarely the author.<ref name=autogenerated2 />

===Preservation of cultural works===
The Center for the Study of Public Domain has raised concerns on how the protracted copyright terms in the United States have caused historical films and other cultural works to be destroyed due to disintegration before they can be digitized.<ref name=pooh>{{cite news|last=Vermes|first=Jason|date=10 January 2022|title=How Winnie-the-Pooh highlights flaws in U.S. copyright law — and what that could mean for Canada|url=https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/trump-supporters-prep-for-2024-bye-bye-blackberry-don-t-look-up-why-we-procrastinate-joygerm-day-and-more-1.6307339/how-winnie-the-pooh-highlights-flaws-in-u-s-copyright-law-and-what-that-could-mean-for-canada-1.6309960|work=[[CBC Radio]]|publisher=[[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]]|location=|access-date=8 March 2022|archive-date=March 8, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220308092420/https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/trump-supporters-prep-for-2024-bye-bye-blackberry-don-t-look-up-why-we-procrastinate-joygerm-day-and-more-1.6307339/how-winnie-the-pooh-highlights-flaws-in-u-s-copyright-law-and-what-that-could-mean-for-canada-1.6309960|url-status=live}}</ref>  The center has described the copyright terms as "absurdly long" which hold little economic benefit to rights holders and prevents efforts to preserve historical artefacts.<ref name=pooh/> Director Jennifer Jenkins has said that by the time artefacts enter the public domain in the United States after 95 years, many culturally significant works such as old films and sound recordings have already been lost as a consequence of the long copyright terms.<ref>{{cite news|author=<!--not stated-->|date=3 January 2022|title=Why you can now repurpose 'Winnie-the-Pooh' for free|url=https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/why-you-can-now-repurpose-winnie-the-pooh-for-free-20220103-p59lka|work=[[Australian Financial Review]]|publisher=[[Nine Entertainment]]|location=|access-date=8 March 2022|archive-date=October 8, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221008104033/https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/why-you-can-now-repurpose-winnie-the-pooh-for-free-20220103-p59lka|url-status=live}}</ref>