Copyright kills competition and creatives need to accept it

Copyright stifles the free market. Real creativity thrives through open competition, not government control or artificial scarcity.

Let’s get controversial.

I don’t believe in government-enforced copyright protections. There, I said it. The entire system rests on the notion that the expression of ideas can be owned the same way you own land, a car, or a house. But ideas aren’t scarce resources. Once an idea exists in the open world, it becomes part of humanity’s shared intellectual ecosystem, and ecosystems thrive through competition, not control.

If expression truly matters, it should be able to compete in the marketplace of ideas without the State stepping in to “protect” it.

Now, before I go any further, I’m not talking about work that you copyright for free or anything like that. Instead, I’m targeting paid copyright registered into a government database that grants the holder further legal protections. There is a difference.

The myth of “intellectual property”

The phrase itself is a contradiction. Property refers to scarce, physical goods that require exclusive control to prevent conflict. You can’t both own a piece of land and let someone else farm it at the same time without permission.

But an idea’s expression? Copying it doesn’t deprive the original creator of possession, so long as it isn’t a direct clone of what you created. For example, nobody can copy and paste your work to a document and sell it. Yet, even with this minor rule, it doesn’t mean we need State-backed protections.

The government created copyright to regulate creativity. It’s a form of monopoly privilege, a State-backed claim over how individuals may adapt or distribute information. If you believe in free markets, that should make you uneasy.

The market should choose, not the State

If someone can take your idea, improve it, and deliver it better, that’s competition. And it forces you to either step up your game or exit the market. The choice is yours.

Writers, musicians, filmmakers, and innovators have always borrowed, remixed, and reimagined. Every great movement in art and culture comes from iteration. Jazz, rock, open-source software, all of them evolved because creators ignored the gatekeepers and built on what came before.

The reputation economy

Creators don’t need the State to survive, and they need to realize that. We need reputation and community.

When your work is authentic and meaningful, people will support you voluntarily, whether through direct sales, patronage, or word of mouth. Look at indie authors, open-source developers, or musicians on decentralized platforms. They’re proving every day that value comes from trust and connection, not State-backed enforcement.

The creator who fears imitation doesn’t trust their own uniqueness, but one who embraces it builds something no law can counterfeit.

The real theft? Government overreach?

Copyright restricts creativity. It turns art into paperwork, expression into litigation, and innovation into bureaucracy. That empowers corporations over individuals, even if the individual sometimes wins out. Disney has historically lobbied Congress to extend Mickey Mouse’s copyright rather than letting it expire, while many independent artists face legal burdens simply to sample a few seconds of music.

If creativity is human nature, then government-protected copyright is its unnatural cage.

Let expression compete

The truth is simple: Expression of ideas needs the liberty to compete, not government protection. 

If your story, song, invention, or your worldview can’t withstand open competition, maybe it doesn’t deserve to dominate the marketplace. The most powerful ideas always win out because they resonate, not because they’re legislated.

So here’s my unpopular opinion: Let’s stop pretending copyright is sacred. Let ideas clash, merge, and evolve, because creativity, like liberty itself, only flourishes when it’s free.