Anarcho-capitalism

I recently had my car’s oil changed; I don’t do it myself (although I should). The mechanic charged around $20 for labor and parts and performed it in about 20 minutes or so. Even after the labor was performed, I owned the oil and the effects of the change — the mechanic had no right or claim to anything once it left his hands in a mutually accepted trade. I drove my car out of the shop and thought about how different life would be if I had to pay residual fees for driving the car now that the mechanic had performed a service for me. If the oil change was considered art, I might have to. If I wanted to mimic the oil change in exactly the way the mechanic performed it, I have every right to do so using my own labor. If I wanted to perform this same service for a friend with their vehicle, I am allowed to.

When I got home, I put a CD into my CD player. The CD took a lot less than 20 minutes to create with the labor of multiple people. I paid around $20 for it. Even though I had the CD and I had made a mutually accepted trade (money for service and product), I am not the owner of the CD in any way. I can not mimic the labor or final product of the CD with my own labor. I can not make a copy of the CD or perform the same song for a friend, either. It is illegal, and for most people, it is considered immoral.

Yet the difference between the mechanic and the band’s performance is slim. I have friends in the music industry who can write a song in a couple of hours and have it recorded and mixed and mastered quickly after. The mechanic performs hours of work a day, the band performs hours of work a day; one gets a fixed fee, the other believes they should receive residual income for the use of their product.

Under a contract, I can understand two parties agreeing to pay residual fees if both want it this way. Enforcing a rule to not copy the mechanic’s process, under contract, is an option that I believe is completely acceptable to me. Government forcing me to not copy the mechanic’s process is ignorant of the freedoms we all have to learn a process and mimic it for our own benefit.

I see copyright as huge reduction in the rights of an individual to use their time as they please. If I want to change oil, I should be free to as long as I’m not directly hurting someone (say, changing oil on your property against your will and leaving the mess behind). If I want to sing a song, I should be free to as long as I’m not directly hurting someone (say, singing my song loud enough that it pollutes your property). I don’t see any reason to protect a songwriter’s labor by requiring others to pay a fee to reproduce the work they did once.

In a world that abandons copyright, musicians might work in the same way the average mechanic does — they may get salaried jobs creating music for bigger productions, just as the mechanic is a piece of a bigger puzzle. Musicians might work for a group of nightclubs, or they might work for a movie studio or a theatre company. A mechanic can quit his job at Jiffy Lube and go out on his own — this is a huge risk where the rewards only come after years of proving to people that he creates a quality service and a quality products. Musicians should realize the same thing: if they want to go out on their own, the only right they have to income is if they are making a consistent product over a consistent period of time that their customer base approves of. To think that a band can write one song and make millions without producing additional labor is an oddity to me.

Of course, people are willing to pay for the music without repeated work being performed. This is fine to me, as long as it is voluntary. My mechanic receives an annual “tip” Christmas present from me for his years of good service. A band’s residual income as a voluntary tip is fine, but using the law to force me to give them a tip for their product is not an acceptable use of force.

We welcome your thoughts on this article, feel free to discuss it here.