[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

I find the idea of needing an author's permission or approval to distribute their work ridiculous. Authors find themselves in the middle of libraries all the time, to be read by anyone ready to pony up an address and a quick trip, whether they want to be or not.

Jaime:

I can't tell from your user info what country you are posting from. Perhaps you may not be aware of the public policy justification for the basic concept of copyright here in the US. It may be different in other countries, I don't know details elsewhere.

Copyright in the US is an explicit trade: Content creators get a temporary limited property right in the content they create, thus "ensuring" that they have the opportunity to profit from their work. In exchange, all content enters the public domain on expiration of copyright. The key idea -- which is explicitly stated in the Constitution, by the way -- is that the opportunity for profit is intended to provide an incentive for content creators (writers, artists, programmers, etc.) to create more content. For the creators, it's a chance to make more money. For the public, it's a chance both to have paid access to the content early on, and free access to the content later.

Thus, here in the US, if you are "pirating" content you are reneging on the Public's side of the deal by failing to compensate the creator according to the terms he has set. That's the "[...] property right" part above. Libraries, access for the blind and disabled, and fair-use access fall under the "limited" part of "limited property right."

So, in the US at least, "idea of needing an author's permission or approval to distribute their work" is far from being ridiculous -- it's a key aspect of our legal approach to encouraging production of interesting and useful (and even enjoyable!) content. With the exception of traditional fair use (see below) we very deliberately treat copyright in its literal meaning of "the right to make copies" as an ordinary property right with all the obvious legal implications.

Libraries aren't a counterexample, because they fall under traditional fair use. Using content for parody or satire may be done without permission from the copyright owner -- but the copyright owner must nevertheless be paid for the use of the work at the same rate as if the use had been made with permission -- fair use rights again. Similarly, lending a book to a friend, format and time shifting music or video (for personal use only!), making mix tapes for (personal use only!), quoting reasonable-size portions (up to 1000 words or 50% of a work whichever is less is guaranteed OK; larger portions may or may not fall under fair use) of a work for critical or educational use -- all due to traditional fair-use rights as articulated in various court rulings. Those same court rulings tell us that there are other fair-use rights not yet articulated. But wide-scale distribution without permission of the copyright owner is certainly not one of those fair-use rights -- we have existing case-law that clearly shows that.

But with a boycott, one does not obtain the product one is refusing to buy.

Exactly!!! And that's why it fits inside the legal and ethical framework. A boycott says that the copyright owner's terms are so far out of whack that you'd rather do without their product than meet their terms. That's a very powerful statement; it gets attention in the business world and in the media.

Many people will cave in to pressure and refuse to boycott, despite disagreeing with prices or other practices, because in the end having the work in question is too powerful a draw for them. While engaging in piracy, it is easier to refuse to buy products and thus one can have more of an economical impact.

And this part of your quote explains perfectly why piracy is a problem for everyone -- pirates included! -- in a way that a boycott is not. Sure, you have modestly more economic impact (but arguably not THAT much more). At the same time, you play into the hands of the idiots who don't want to try more sensible business models by both raising the perceived stakes (their view: "we have to DO something or they'll just steal it all!"), you have a negative impact on the folks who actually pay (the idiots say "we'll add DRM to stop the piracy"), you harm the authors/musicians/programmers/whomever who don't get their royalty payment for the copy or copies that you download, and you make the argument in favor of saner business models more difficult (the idiot's response: "But that would only work if the pirates go away; as things stand they'll just steal it all!").

<deep breath...>

On top of all that, you lose the moral weight of saying that the principal of refusing to deal with stupid idiots and broken business models is more important than being able to consume the content they are trying to sell to you. And that moral impact is the best chance you have for getting the attention of legislators and the press. The press loves a boycott. It means there's a controversy, and controversy sells papers (and news shows, and web sites, and...). It gets the attention of legislators too. After all, people who care enough to forgo the latest Steven King novel (or pop tune, or whatever) might also care enough to vote against a legislator who doesn't support their position -- and potential loss of (a significant number of) votes carries even more weight than large corporate donations. Really. We've seen it happen before in plenty of places.

So if you actually want to change the system, hit the big-content idiots in the pocketbook AND the press AND the legislatures. And that requires a boycott. Piracy hits them a little bit harder in the pocketbook, but loses the other two factors. And you really need all three to achieve a sensible change. For just one example, piracy might lead to modestly saner business models... but it certainly won't do anything to help with the excessive term of copyright!

[...] Like I said, part of why I like piracy is that readers get to win in either case. If they won't listen to us because of our actions, that is fine; we will merely continue pirating and get the product for free. It's their move to play and draw people TOWARDS them with alternative services. There is little they can do to draw us AWAY from piracy.

Of course it's always easier to try to have it both ways. And to me that says that you care more about consuming the content than about changing the system. And if that's the truth, why not just say so? If you care more about changing the system, you should act like it! But talking as though you wish to change the system, while acting like getting the content is what matters isn't just inconsistent. It also leads to worse outcomes overall than taking either of the two consistent positions!


Xenophon