The copyright monopoly is based on the idea of exchange. Exchanging exclusive rights, supplying the intellectual industry with culture and knowledge for the general public. 
It turns out that the whole thing is a lie, as creators compete or not to provide culture and knowledge anyway.
The copyright monopoly (Copyright) returned to Great Britain 1710, (1695 had stopped it).
It was adopted because printers (not the writers) insisted that if they did not have the exclusive rights to make a profit, they would not print anything.
This was the typewriters and not the writers or content creators who re-introduced the monopoly of copyright through the so-called Anne or Statute of Anne's statutes.)
The UK Parliament accepted this proposal, and therefore the social contract of the copyright monopoly was formed:
"In return for providing services only so that culture can be put to work for the benefit of citizens, publishers and distributors will have limited time exclusive rights."
Question: if there were no exclusive rights and, in general, the copyright monopoly, would there be no culture, no culture?
This is the convention that governments have and use Companies since then: in exchange for providing a magical service that makes culture exist, publishers have the right to enjoy profits from the exclusive rights. Exclusive rights give them every right to punish and withhold.
The social contract between the public and the copyright industry is: in return for exclusive rights, publishers will have the culture, and they are the only ones who can provide the availability of culture.
Copyright… ..What do you say?
With the advent of the Internet, we see that people create without having the exclusive rights to others without the monopoly. And there are millions of creators!
For the works they produce they have publicly renounced their rights or have commissioned them for publication with Creative Commons permission.
YouTube alone has 300 hours of new video every minute. This means that YouTube alone provides 18.000 TV shows channela that operate 24/7.
You will say that most of them are not worth watching, but the same is true of legitimate TV channels.
The idea that the copyright industry is the only one capable of providing culture is very daring and it is a bit of a shame to declare it 2015.
So if you were the government, or the buyer what would you do? The buyer who pays expensive exclusive rights in the entertainment industry which claims that this contract is the only way to make culture available.
Really what would you do?
Will you terminate the contract with the vendor of public culture and demand harmful exclusive rights in exchange for a culture that he has not created?
Will you find another supplier who provides better services to the public?
There is no reason why the entertainment industry should enjoy exclusive rights. There is no reason why they are in their possession should be revoked. No social contract has been signed, so the contract can be revoked.
View of Rick Falkving, founder of the Swedish Pirates Party. Posted in TorrentFreak.
