Patricia Briggs

This "argument", in various forms, is being broadly trumpeted by pirates. As far as I know it embodies no logical fallacy, and is an accurate assessment of the current situation. Despite it's apparent veracity, it's not a justification. This is merely positing that "Might Makes Right". Those who espouse it are effectively saying that morality, ethics, and justice are meaningless concepts. Their obedience to the law is based solely on the perceived probability of punishment. There's not much point in even arguing with these folks, they're only motivated by greed.

This is actually a fairly clever bit of wrangling, but it commits the fallacy of division. While digital distribution does allow an existing work to copied ad infinitum at negligible cost, the distribution is not the only, nor indeed the primary, reason for the scarcity of good books. The scarcity is due to there being a limited number of authors with the time and skill to write said books.

Digital editions will surely play an increasing role in book distribution, but it doesn't obviate the need for the author, or diminish the amount of time and effort required to actually create the work. The author, not the distribution is the source of scarcity. If the author wishes to be compensated, the supply of books must be restricted, by selling copies to those willing to pay to access the content.

OK, I can't help it, I hate this argument. It's usually something said by pirates to taunt copyright holders, adding insult to injury. They often take the time to clarify just what sort of innovation is required. Naturally, anything that can be digitized can be taken without permission, so traditional content is valueless. Writing a great book isn't enough, if you want it to be worth anything, you'll need to add something to the book which has two important properties. It must make the book much more enjoyable, so that the majority of consumers will want the enhanced version. It must also not be any form of content that can be digitized (because all digital content is valueless). Until content creators manage to invent this mythical thing, all of the time and effort they put into their craft is 'outdated', and pirates are fully justified in taking it.

Somehow, it reminds me of Rumpelstiltskin, "You must spin this straw into gold by morning, or you will be put to death. Figuring out how to do it is your problem." I don't think I need to expound further on how utterly unjust, unreasonable and self-serving this argument is. Besides, I'm busy poking around for my fairy Godmother 'cause I've got this pile of straw and a deadline . . .

I've worked as a programmer, DBA and sysop, and I've been using Linux since it's very early days. I'm a firm believer in open source software, and have contributed code to a number of projects at sourceforge. I'm also familiar with the creative commons, Laurence Lessig, GNU, etc.

However, there are some fundamental differences between software and entertainment. Let's take a simple utility, CP (copy for you old DOS geeks) as an example. It does a simple job, and it needs to do the same job, in the same way, on every computer. Rather than paying for a commercial version of CP on thousands of computers, the open source community builds their own, freely distributable version. Even if the first version lacks some whistles and bells, it's easy enough for other coders to add those, and distribute a new version of CP with the additional features. The model works very well for simple code, but somewhat less well for complex projects. Unlike entertainment, utility programs are conservative; they're expected to work the same way everywhere, and don't need to change very often. Once someone donates the time and effort to create a working version, it's useful to many people, and will presumably remain useful indefinitely. It's the combination of broad utility and longevity that provides the value in open-source development.

So, imagine if authors took this argument to heart, and adopted the open source model. Some daring author donates two hundred pages of a generic science fiction novel, and folks begin tweaking it to produce a better book. Actually, I can't imagine this model working for something as abstract as a book, but let's suppose that somehow it results in novel of phenomenal quality. Would this satisfy the need for science fiction reading for the majority of readers on a semi-permanent basis? Would they read it, and be content to read nothing else? Of course not, people don't want to read just one book, regardless of how finely crafted it might be. The reading public demands the production of many new titles each month, all written at a professional level (which is not as easy as the pirates apparently believe). The open source model is simply not appropriate for the market. Of course, I'm sure there are many who will say that I'm out of touch and just don't "get it". I invite you to prove me wrong. After all, commercial and open source software exist side by side, so the current publishing industry shouldn't be an impediment. Feel free to develop a line of open-source books. If you attract my market, so be it. I predict that getting the free talent (and project maintainers) to produce a half-dozen or so original books each month will be impossible. Good Luck!

This slogan has become the rallying point for the "free culture" movement, who generally feel that copyright, patents, and DRM are restricting our freedom of expression by locking up the building blocks of our shared culture. They feel that artistic endeavor should be freely shared, and many of them embrace Creative Commons licensing for their own work. Many free culture supporters favor the complete abolition of intellectual property protections, while others would prefer to reform the law. Books could (and have) be written on what is actually meant by free. There's free as in cost, free from DRM, free for sampling or derivative works, free for study . . . however, that's far beyond the scope of this little article to analyze.

Honestly, I agree with many of these ideas. I think copyright reform is badly overdue, and DRM punishes the legitimate customer. I applaud those who release their work under the creative commons. Giving of your time and creative talent to freely enrich the world is a lovely thing, and kudos are in order for those who choose to do so.

Some of the free culture supporters are dedicated to "liberating" content that is "held captive" by greedy creators demanding financial recompense for its release. They crack movies, books and music and upload them for the masses.

The problem is that not all information wants to be free. My bank account and PIN number, for example, don't want to be free. Some information is cheap to produce, and some is expensive. Blockbuster movies are extremely expensive to produce, and high-quality news requires reporters and news offices to be maintained around the globe. This information is not free from cost, and the costs need to be recovered in order to continue to produce information. Ultimately, it needs to be the content creator who decides which information should be freely shared, and which has commercial value. The pirates are forcibly sharing other people's work, depriving them of the opportunity to be compensated for the very real costs of creation, which is not morally defensible.

Yet more tortuous twisting of an oft-abused science. All economic theory, however, is based on the presumption of a willing buyer and a willing seller. In the case of copyright infringement, the seller was not willing. If a mugger holds a gun to your head and says, "Give me your wallet!", the ensuing transaction cannot be construed to indicate that money is valueless. It's robbery, not free trade.

In simple economics, a buyer may do three things: buy, negotiate, or do without. The pirates introduce a fourth option, taking the offered item without paying. They are, by definition, not customers, and their action is not covered by simple economics. However, since your econ professor can't help, you might try either moral philosophy or jurisprudence classes for more information!

I've heard several variations on this argument. The basic idea seems to be that authors are somehow unconscionably greedy, working for a few months and then living a life of luxury forever, while honest folks work for wages every day. Naturally, the only way to fix the situation is to take the author's work for free.

The fact is that most authors never manage to make a living wage despite the excessively long copyright terms. It takes many months, often years to craft a good novel and get it published. Authors don't get paid an hourly wage, so the sales of the final product need to compensate for hundreds or thousands of hours of labor. At fifty cents or so per book, it can take a long time to make writing a profitable venture.

Of course, this argument is really a red herring. Copyright terms have been extended to ridiculous lengths, and most authors would probably agree that copyright reform is needed. However, the vast majority of book piracy involves new releases, not books that are thirty or forty years old. Copyright reform is a serious issue, but it has virtually nothing to do with the illegal downloading of last week's bestselling novel.

The world certainly doesn't owe author's (or anyone else) a living. The statement presumes that authors produce nothing of value, then insinuates that they are somehow demanding to be supported in an unproductive life. The skilled craftsman is portrayed as a demanding beggar. Logically, it's an ad-hominem attack. Since it's also untrue, it's simply slander. Authors produce a product for which there is a significant demand, and ask only the right to sell their wares without having them taken and distributed for free. They're craftsmen, not indigents, and they're demanding a fair chance not a free lunch.

The idea seems to be that people are incapable of controlling their actions, and will do whatever technology permits. Since copyright infringement requires only a few mouse clicks, it's absolutely inevitable, and therefore must be socially acceptable. This argument is based on the premise that morality is determined by convenience.

Let's assume, for a second, that's true. Since modern firearms make killing folks as easy as point-and-click, I assume that the pirates also support that. After all, it's both fast and easy, so it would be senseless to legislate against it, or censure those who do it, right?

Obviously, there's more to morality than convenience. Enforcement may be a legitimate concern, but that doesn't impact the morality of piracy.

OK, this one irks me. First, most of the folks who work in publishing aren't exactly rich. Second, even if they do manage to make a good living, this argument embodies the classical logical fallacy of the irrelevant appeal. The pirates are suggesting that it's morally acceptable to take whatever you want from someone wealthier than you. Class warfare and jealousy are not a sound foundation for moral judgment.

Absolutely true, score a point for the pirates. The issue is confused enough without mis-labeling the crime. Sometimes this argument is trotted out as a polite request for the use of accurate terms, which I find perfectly acceptable. In fact, I'm being slightly hypocritical by using the term piracy here, which is also an unrelated crime. My justification is that piracy has become the common vernacular for copyright infringement used by both sides of the argument. Throw tomatoes if you must.

Frequently the demand for proper terminology is combined with some intimation that copyright infringement either isn't a crime, or is somehow not a real crime, often by pointing out that it's covered by civil rather than criminal law. You can find some information on the difference between civil and criminal law here. Copyright infringement is illegal, with serious penalties including jail time. Morally it's kissing cousins with theft, as it involves taking something without permission and without payment. The pirates are quick to point out that copying doesn't deprive the author of their work, because they make a copy rather than taking the original file. They usually say something about "not depriving the author of the use of his product", but since the author's intended use was selling copies, I'm a little unclear about the point of this argument.

Since no discussion of copyright infringement is complete without a flawed analogy, here's mine. Remember the old traveling circuses under the big top? Copyright infringement is like sneaking around back, and crawling under the tent. Nobody is physically harmed, and nothing got taken, there's just a few more folks in the audience than on the ticket sales. However, those lost sales hurt the circus performers that depend on ticket sales for their livelihood. Moreover, it's unfair to every customer who did pay good money.

Just like having a few folks crawl under the tent, piracy is currently just an annoyance. However it's gaining momentum. Now the pirates are holding up the back of the tent, and waving people around to the "free" entrance. Remember, by their logic its not theft since they aren't taking anything, except the right of the performers to receive fair payment for their services. All I know is that in a real circus, there were always some mean clowns running around with big paddles looking for anyone trying to sneak in. I don't think they were much interested in talking semantics, and frankly neither am I. Call it copyright infringement, or theft, or 'liberating without permission', it all amounts to the same thing.

Excuse me while I join the Utopian conclave. Maybe I'll sign you up too. Of course artists should love what they do. Everyone should. Heck, I've had a couple of jobs I loved, but I didn't offer to work for free. Why should artists? Art takes time and effort, and most artists work better with basic things like food and shelter.

More importantly, it takes time to master any craft, writing and music included. Any number of people might complete the first draft of a novel, there is a joy in creation. However, most first novels won't be publishable. Far fewer people write the second, or the third, or the tenth, and those that do are generally hoping to make some money. Also, most professional authors will tell you that while there's often some magic in the first draft, editing is work. I don't want to pick on armature writers, but go read a bunch of blogs and fanfic and you'll see that very few people are going to slog through the multiple rounds of drafts and edits it takes to produce professional quality work for fun. I simply don't believe that there are millions of talented people producing professional quality books,and willing to do so without hope of renumeration. If there were, the publishers would be acquiring these wonderful books cheaply from new authors rather than paying much higher acquisition fees to established authors.