The Continuation of Privacy is not Property
I. The Digital Schism — When Ownership Lost Its Meaning
When the first wave of the digital era swept across the world in the late 1990s, it did something no economic theory was ready for — it shattered the idea that possession could define ownership. A song, a film, or a game once existed in a tangible form: a vinyl record, a reel of film, a cartridge, something that could be held, worn down, or broken. Then came the copy — perfect, weightless, infinite. One file became millions, and no one could tell the original from the imitation.
The industries that profited from scarcity suddenly found themselves fighting ghosts. Their model was built on the assumption that control equals value. But control evaporates the moment information touches the internet. The act of copying is no longer an act of theft but of existence itself — a natural consequence of the medium. The record companies, movie studios, and software giants declared war on their own audience, demanding the right to enforce scarcity where none could logically exist. They turned art into a walled garden patrolled by lawyers.
Yet art — and invention — are not born to be hoarded. The act of creation is by nature public. The artist may begin in solitude, but the work only becomes meaningful when seen, heard, or used. This contradiction — between expression and possession — is what makes modern copyright law untenable.
II. The Rise of Artificial Scarcity
The digital economy was supposed to liberate the individual — instant access, infinite replication, a universal library of human creation. Instead, it became a theatre of control. What could have been a world of open sharing was transformed into a labyrinth of licences, terms of service, and encryption keys. The irony is painful: a song you buy is no longer yours, a book you download can be deleted remotely, and the very device you own spies on how often you play it. Ownership, once simple, has become conditional — an illusion permitted by subscription.
This new scarcity isn’t natural; it’s engineered. The industries that once printed discs now print permissions. What used to be a purchase has become a lease on culture, renewed every month by payment or revoked by policy. The promise of technology — to expand access — has been inverted into a mechanism of digital rent-seeking. Every byte is counted, every click monitored, every file encrypted, not for the protection of the artist, but for the security of the middleman.
And yet, the most profound truth still holds: scarcity cannot exist in the digital realm without violence — not physical, but legal and algorithmic. Digital Rights Management (DRM) and intellectual property enforcement act as the chains of this system, ensuring that even after you buy a file, it remains tethered to its original owner. You are not a proprietor; you are a participant in someone else’s monopoly.
This is why the idea of a two-year exclusivity period is revolutionary. It reintroduces balance between creation and community. For two years, an artist or inventor may enjoy the full fruits of their labour — the applause, the income, the novelty. But after that? The creation must return to the commons. Otherwise, culture calcifies into an economy of hoarding.
III. The Two-Year Principle of Cultural Restitution
The two-year rule is not an arbitrary number. It’s a moral recalibration — a recognition that creation exists in time, and time erodes exclusivity. Every invention, song, or film is born from the materials of its age: the culture that raised the creator, the tools refined by generations, the collective experiences of the world. To claim permanent dominion over such a product is to deny the very soil from which it sprang. The creator’s genius is real, but so is the world’s contribution.
Two years is enough for fairness, not greed. It allows for the natural arc of attention: creation, reception, reward. During this window, the originator can profit, license, or sell their work in peace. But once the window closes, the work must breathe again — it must be allowed to rejoin the living conversation of culture. In this way, creativity remains a river, not a dam.
This is what we mean by cultural restitution. It isn’t theft from the creator; it’s restoration to the public. After two years, the song becomes everyone’s to remix, the code becomes everyone’s to build upon, the story becomes everyone’s to retell. Such a rule would not diminish creativity — it would multiply it. Every act of sharing would become an act of homage, every remix a new invention. The economy of scarcity would transform into an ecology of participation.
If copyright once protected the weak from piracy, now it protects the powerful from relevance. The two-year principle reverses this imbalance. It says to the artist: you may profit from your labour, but not from eternity. After that, your work returns to the community that made you possible. That is true authorship — to give back what was borrowed.
IV. Physical vs Digital Property
There is a fundamental confusion in modern law — the failure to distinguish between the object and the idea contained within it. A book, a vinyl record, a sculpture, or a car — these are physical things, finite and degradable. Their ownership is simple: you buy it, you possess it, you can resell it. A digital file, however, is an echo, a pattern of information that can be reproduced endlessly without cost or loss. Yet we treat both as though they obey the same economic logic.
This misunderstanding fuels the crisis of copyright. A physical good has scarcity; it is constrained by material existence. A digital file, on the other hand, is constrained only by permission. Once a file has been created, it can multiply infinitely. Trying to control that multiplication is like trying to fence off sunlight. The industries that build walls around information are fighting the nature of the digital itself — the fluid, self-replicating property of the medium.
When someone purchases a record, they own the object and the right to play it — not the concept of the music itself. But when someone buys a song online, the file is locked by licence; ownership is reduced to mere access. The purchaser cannot lend it, resell it, or even sometimes move it to another device without triggering warnings or violations. This is not commerce — it is servitude.
To restore integrity to property, the line must be redrawn. Physical goods can and should remain bound by ownership and resale. They exist in the marketplace. But digital creations belong to the commons after their period of stewardship — they are informational by nature, communal by function. Once the creator has earned their reward, the creation must be allowed to circulate freely. Anything less is a form of cultural enclosure — an attempt to charge rent on ideas.
V. The Rebirth of the Commons Through Sharing
Every civilisation must decide what it considers sacred. Some worship land, others capital, others the freedom to think and speak without fear. The digital age, however, has elevated possession to the status of a god. Everything must have a lock, a licence, or a trademark. Yet the paradox is clear: the more we try to own, the less we truly share — and without sharing, culture withers.
The return to the commons is not nostalgia; it is necessity. When knowledge, music, or technology flows freely, society grows in unpredictable and fertile directions. Every remix, modification, or translation becomes a form of collective authorship. The human story becomes cumulative again — as it was before copyright became a fortress.
This is not to deny the value of creators. Quite the opposite. In a commons-based system, creators are honoured through participation, not monopoly. Their names travel further, their ideas evolve faster, and their influence deepens rather than diminishes. When a song is shared, it doesn’t die — it multiplies. When code is forked and improved, the original programmer’s insight ripples outward.
Imagine a world where every work after two years enters the shared pool — a living archive of global imagination. Students could learn from any film, remixers could build symphonies from old beats, engineers could refine blueprints without fear. Commerce would remain for new works, but creation itself would belong to all.
The act of sharing would cease to be seen as theft and would return to what it once was: the foundation of civilisation. For all progress is borrowed progress. No idea stands alone; no creator creates ex nihilo. Every mind leans on others, every invention rests on old blueprints. The commons simply makes this truth explicit — that knowledge and art belong, in the end, to everyone.
Epilogue: The End of Possession
Every transaction is a moment of surrender. The instant a creation leaves the hands of its maker, it begins its transformation — from private labour to public life. To deny that transition is to deny reality itself. Commerce, in truth, is the ritual of relinquishment: we trade not to cling, but to let go.
Modern law, however, has forgotten this. It treats ideas as though they were land — territories to be fenced off and inherited, rather than sparks that ignite others. The great mistake of the industrial and digital ages alike is to confuse use with control. But use belongs to all who participate, while control belongs to no one for long. The longer we cling to the illusion of endless ownership, the further we drift from the spirit of creation itself.
True creativity does not fear imitation — it invites it. A copied song, a remade film, a reimagined tool: these are signs that the work has entered life. It breathes beyond its originator, and in doing so, honours them more deeply than any locked archive ever could. Two years of profit is fair; a lifetime of monopoly is not.
To create, to share, and to move on — this is the natural cycle. Ownership was never meant to be eternal. The commons is not the enemy of art; it is its final home. And when all the gates have rusted and all the licences have expired, what will remain are the songs, stories, and inventions that people kept alive through sharing — not through law, but through love.
*****
Exactly — that’s the paradox that history never quite resolved. The commons is what every ideology has reached for but few have managed to protect. Where communism sought to enforce shared ownership through central control, the commons achieves it through mutual trust and distributed stewardship. It is self-regulating, because its power doesn’t concentrate — it circulates.
And you’re right: pair it with sortition, and you’ve created something that resists both corruption and capture. A society where roles are temporary, authority is rotational, and accountability is built into randomness — that’s the closest thing to a living, breathing democracy. It’s not about equality as a slogan, but equality as a mechanism.
In that sense, your vision — audited sortition safeguarding the commons — is a kind of post-ideological communism: not state-run, not market-driven, but participation sustained. The people don’t need to seize the means of production; they simply need to guard the means of fairness.
No comments:
Post a Comment