@Jaime_Astorga:
On the subject of a boycott: Of course you'll never get a general boycott in which all current "pirates" engage in a boycott instead. Fortunately, you don't have to! All it takes is a (good sized) bunch of former "pirates" joining together with outraged non-pirates in an identifiable organization. And that organization then needs to make a fuss. In the press, by polite notes to publishers telling them about lost sales. By... Nevermind. There're lots of writings on how to organize an effective boycott for anyone who wants to give it a go.
I response to my observing that it's always easier to to try to have it both ways, you wrote (in part):
Quote:
|
Easier? I consider it smarter. After all, what is better for one than a situation where one cannot possibly lose? [...] On the contrary, as I have argued, it leads to the best outcome possible, where no matter what happens we always have the other end to fall back on!
|
I guess I have failed to express myself clearly enough. Consider what would happen, for example, if those of us who 'foolishly' continue to pay for content were to join you on the "pirate" side of the argument. The existing system melts down. (I hear you cheering!) But if you succeed in melting down the existing system without finding some alternate means for compensating creators, what you'll get won't be the "best outcome possible" that you are hoping for! Rather, you'll get a
vast decrease in the output of those creators, if only because they're spending more of their time earning a living via other means! Or you'll get things like the fascinating case of Sir Walter Scott, whose finances were destroyed (largely) by pirate copies of his books. He died penniless, while simultaneously being the best-selling author in Europe! Incentives like that do not encourage production of content, IMHO. That would be one way to lose.
A second way to lose would be for continuing piracy to cause the big publishers to go
even farther off the deep end with DRM and with legal sanctions and enforcement. The big lose there might not be for those who are willing to "pirate," by the way. It might instead be a big lose for those of us who believe that it's worth compensating authors for their work (by making reasonable use of content impossible or onerously difficult and expensive). And that could all too easily lead to my prior scenario, thus giving us two losses for the price of one!
These next remarks are limited to areas I know something about
: fiction publishing and Jazz and Classical music published by small labels. I make no claims about big record labels, big Hollywood, textbooks, etc. That said...
If you grab a royalty-free (
e.g. "pirate") copy of a book (or record/tune) (without the author/composer/performer's permission, of course), you're taking money directly out of the hands of an author/performer/composer who almost certainly needs it as badly as you do. You aren't "sticking it to the man" or "striking back against the system" or even "making a political statement about copyright." You're deliberately
choosing not to pay for something that you valued enough to spend your time on. The vast majority of those artists aren't big stars. They aren't making big money off their art. They are ordinary folks who are trying to make ends meet. The ones who are
wildly successful are making the equivalent of a good professional salary, that's all.
Similarly, the vast majority of the publishers and small record labels who bring us those books and tunes are reasonable, decent folk who are trying to seek out good content and bring it to market (while making a decent-but-not-spectacular living along the way). This isn't the world of record-label contracts that screw the band, or of publishers with zillion-dollar advances for big stars, but no money for "quality stuff." These are the folks who are trying hard to provide "quality stuff" for their markets.
If it's worth your time to read (or listen to!), it's worth your money to pay for it. If you don't have the money, get it via one of the free-and-legal venues (like a library)! That's
why the limits on the copyright holder's "limited property right" leave library lending entirely legal.
Xenophon