by Warren O. Brennan

Created on: July 14, 2009

Copyrighting is absolutely a form of censorship. The whole idea of copyrighting material, of course, is to prevent the unauthorized re-publication of writings, media, or inventions. This type of enforcement very necessarily requires censorship to occur in order to enforce said law.

The question thus pivots on whether this type of law is (1) necessary and (2) constitutional (assuming we are referring to a liberal democracy form of government).

As to the first question, a strong argument must be made for the fact that financial incentive spurs innovation. Copyright law then becomes the means of securing that financial incentive. Copyright law ensures that intellectual property will be used only in a way the inventor/writer chooses. The owner is able then to use that information in a way to benefit themselves, financially or otherwise. This protection disappears in the absence of copyright law, where anyone is free to utilize an inventors material without proper compensation being afforded to them. While it is certainly true that invention and artistic creativity would not cease without copyright protection, since it is undeniable that many produce intellectual property without any hope of reward, it is certainly true that innovation would be stifled. If an author's published work can merely be reprinted by another under their name or an inventors product can be sold without compensation for time served to develop that product, innovation and academic pursuit will undoubtedly be reduced.

The second issue is of course the legal one. In a free society, we value free expression and avoid censorship at all available avenues. With a strict reading of this standard, copyrighting would surely be thrown out as an invalid form of censorship. However, in a liberal democracy, rights are often limited to protect societal interest. In the instance of copyright law, it is absolutely appropriate to limit the free speech or publication rights of certain individuals in order to protect the original authors intellectual rights. While thinkers should never be prohibited from expanding on ideas that others have developed, the direct plagiarism of another's material is very defiantly inhibiting on another's right to possession over their work. It should therefore follow that laws be enacted to protect this right to information one creates, even if those laws are a form of censorship.

Learn more about this author, Warren O. Brennan.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.