[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by 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...)



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?)


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.

I never said 'right' or 'wrong', what I did say was 'how it is' (at least that is what I was aiming at through my 'fallacies'). You can't stop this tide of sharing is my whole thrust. You cannot stop what is happening, you can only embrace and try to understand. If you do not, you are consigned to be ignored and, lets face it, ridiculed by those who drive the engine of change.

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.

Yes it was a survey, and if you'll look back at what I said before I introduced my 'evidence' I never claimed any were studies - here is what I said....

Some reports and other articles...

Further to this, the word piracy was usurped by the industries who want to demonize the natural extension of the digital (everthing is reproducable at low to zero cost). You are no more a pirate if you share a file than you are a paedophile if you dress your children for school (rough analogy I know, but sharing and piracy are so different its apt I believe).

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.

Again, the word 'pirate'. Which is so seeped into the argument now that it's hard not to use it myself. But nobody is murdering, raping and pillaging to get hold of your material, and they never will. You're trying to make a buck and even though I understand that motivation, I also know that in a world where most information is free, your information isn't really worth a buck any longer. And I'm not being cruel, its just how it is. For you, for me, for any writer. The internet makes everyone a publisher (if they want to be). Every one is now a journalist, an artist, an author and a musician all rolled into one. The means of distribution is at everyone's fingertips, but the price we pay is now reduced to zero. Nobody expects to pay for email or Facebook or Twitter or even this site we are now having this discussion upon. Nobody thinks twice about copyright or infringement or sharing when we share forum posts or blog posts (maybe about plagiarism, but that's a different kettle of fish altogether). And so because of this democratization of content, the value on all creative endeavours has been reduced to near zero.

And that's what we all, as creative types, must consign ourselves to now. The possibility that we'll never make a single penny from our work, no matter how popular, is very real. We must shift our expectations to writing as art, as passion, as vocation rather than career.

Using myself as example, where I once wanted to make a living from writing, now all I want is one of three things (all three would be wonderful):

Eyes
Mind
Heart

I want people to read my work, I want them to think, and I want them to fall in love with what I write. No amount of money can buy those three (well, maybe the first).

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!

No, I don't dismiss what you say at all, as an 'indie' publisher you have my ear more than any rep from the big corps would ever have. But I must plead with you to understand what's happening, and what might happen in the future. I don't want to see all the indie pubs go out of business any more than I want the small press or the indie record labels to go out of business. But you, me, any writer can't bury their head in the sand for much longer in the face of the reality of the internet.