It took me a while to come to grips with this post, only because I didn't want to let anyone think that I’m defending theft. Just a few comments with regard to intellectual property.
This is a new idea, historically. How do “traditional” songs/stories become traditional anyway? One person must have come up with the idea – s/he never got credit for it. That is “copyright infringement” as is defined nowadays. Shoot, there is precedent in the law for someone to have a copyright on stuff they posted off-the-cuff on the Net. But we think nothing of recording, re-recording, copying, reprinting “traditional” works. So what changed?
Someone(s) saw that they could 1) encourage more art by 2) protecting the work so artists could make money and hence 3) collect taxes on it. Money – the “root of all evil” – is the basis of copyrights. I’m not saying it is wrong, but let us not sugar-coat it either. In the days before recording media (and mass-production of works), there was no point to copyright. You couldn’t record a performance and then sell it somewhere else. You couldn’t mass-produce a book. In fact, to be copied even once (before the printing press) was a great honor. To be copied many times elevated you to celebrity status. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It remains so today.
Copyright is the product of technology. It provided the *capability* to make serious money off of someone’s work, and to steal it. And now technology is turning art full circle – effectively (if not legally/morally) rendering copyright obsolete. So how does an artist survive such a situation? For performance artists (musicians, actors, etc) it is simple – provide live performances, and make your money off of that. For writers and graphic artists, it is more difficult. Several ideas have been put forward. Direct selling (after all, you never know if a copy has been altered) is one, reading aloud live is another (having someone do it for you). Technology may help protect some work, but remember that whatever technology can do, it can undo. Some forms of art (painting, sculpture) aren’t easily copied.
I’m not sure how we as a society should react to art theft. I am sure that hiding behind idealism and legal maneuvering isn’t productive. I’m sure that we need to think outside the box to fix it. I think if artists were smart, they’d cut out the middleman and sell direct. The middlemen get 90% of the price of a book. Why shouldn’t the author simply sell his e-book for $0.90 and get it over with?
Cheers,
Bryan
