[Morlac]

I really wanted to stay out of this argument because I think it's rather futile to try to convince anyone of the rightness or wrongness of piracy when they've so clearly made up their minds. However, it's been a pretty civil discourse so far, so I'm going to dip my toe into the water...

First, Moejoe, I see what you did there (and in many of your posts...)

Disavowing the ridiculous IP of certain mega-conglomerates is how we fight. Ignoring Copyrght is another.

Mega-conglomerates do own a lot of IP. So do small companies (like mine -- full disclosure: I'm a very small publisher as well as an author). So do individuals. You can argue that the interests of each faction do not always align, but it's disingenuous to characterize this as being only about mega-conglomerates.

Mega-conglomerates are not necessarily evil. They are self-interested. They can be foolishly short-sighted. They can be prone to doublethink. But all of those can be true of individuals and small groups as well. The danger lies in the fact that mega-conglomerates are powerful enough to try to enforce their will on others and do so successfully.

If, however, one believes that mega-cons are inherently dangerous, bad, or even evil, one should certainly fight back. The means you choose to do that can still be judged by others and by society at large on a moral and legal basis. While I agree that IP-piracy, especially of a digital nature, is qualitatively different from stealing physical goods or physically harming the mega-con executives, the rightness or wrongness of your cause does not instantly render your actions just or unjust. (Should a pirate who honestly doesn't care about your good fight and simply wants to get some free stuff with never a thought of paying anyone should be judged much more harshly than you?)

If it is juvenile to want to do that which has been done since the beginning of our existence as human beings, then I am juvenile.

That one is known as the naturalistic fallacy -- the false proposition that something is right because it is "natural." Well, for most of human history, it was also acceptable for the powerful to simply oppress or enslave or steal from the weaker. Heck, for most of human history we did without indoor plumbing. Personally, I'd like to keep what progress we've made in getting away from both of those states.

Some reports and other articles that may be useful for those who claim they need them to make up their mind:

Couldn't read the dutch one. Familiar with the others, most of which were, I believe, cited in Chris Anderson's "Free."

First, with the possible exception of the dutch one, these are not "studies." The Reznor and 50 cent articles are anecdotes. I'm glad that both gentlemen are realists who can find a way to capitalize on the situation. And I agree that there are ways to leverage the additional exposure piracy can provide. But that's in no way the same thing as saying that piracy is good. Polluting the environment creates vast opportunities for new businesses to take advantage of our desire to clean up the pollution. Does that mean that pollution is a good thing? Should we all join the "Polluter Party" to agitate our government to encourage more pollution so we can get better jobs with enviro-cleanup companies?

And what about the "File Sharing Good for Music Biz" study? That was a survey, not a study. It asked people who download music on legal download services questions about their own habits and attitudes. It focused on how peer recommendations and other social aspects can be used to influence consumer tastes and purchasing. In no way did this deal with the question of piracy, nor were the people polled actually pirates.

I ask again, for want of clarity, all those who claim to be on the side of the 'artists', what it is that you 'do' that truly supports those artists?

As an author I try to write what my audience will find interesting, illuminating, educational, and/or uplifting. I try to support other artists with encouragement, advice, reviews, recommendations, and, when economically possible -- since I'm a small publisher, not a rich one -- as a consumer I will buy their work.

As an editor, I try to help the author shape his or her message -- to put it in the clearest, most forceful, most compelling form possible.

As a publisher, I try to convince people to give our books a chance. In my business (educational publishing) free samples have always been around. We give free printed copies of our books to teachers and administrators to look at and evaluate. Of course that costs us money, but it's the best -- often the only -- way that they can judge whether or not it works for them. But it's one thing for us to choose to provide those free samples and quite another thing to have someone pirate them.

Moejoe and many other people on both sides of the argument seem to be intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate people. I wish there was less of the demonizing of either side going on. From Moejoe's rhetoric, I'm afraid that he will dismiss and dislike me simply because I am a publisher. That would be a sad thing, at least for me.

To anyone who's still reading this who hasn't committed to one "side" or the other yet, I hope that you found something useful in this long post!