Piracy Follow-Up – One

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about designs being shared without the designer’s approval, and suggested that it isn’t right to do so. The post was linked to on HackerNews; then on a few more tech blogs and suddenly the whole subject was attracting attention and comments from a new range of people, and people, what’s more, who have an interest in the subject of copyright – software piracy is a problem too.

It became clear in the course of reading the comments, and the links, and the emails I received, that in fact (debates over ethics and terminology notwithstanding) most of my correspondents felt that the copyright and intellectual property system as it stands is ill-adapted to our digital world, and needs changing. As to how – none of us is very sure about that.

Essentially, the comments and emails fell into two categories: philosophical discussions of how/why the situation is as it is, and suggestions for new business models that might meet the changing circumstances. I’ve split my follow-up into two posts along the same lines.

First, though, my terminology was imprecise, so yes, technically, the unauthorised copying of a digital work is not theft, but copyright infringement.

Second, (going back to Monique’s original post on Inside Number Twenty) I acknowledge that when we see x downloads from the file-sharer, it probably doesn’t equate to x lost sales.

That isn’t the point, though, is it? The real point is that ease of copying has undermined the general appreciation of the value of the item in its digital form.

Any creative work already tends to be undervalued because non-creative people assume that talent does all the work. It is assumed that if you are talented, creating something comes easily (haven’t we all encountered that one?). We who create things know that this isn’t true, that talent needs to be supported by time, effort, and application. Thomas Edison was right when he said that genius is composed of 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.

So there is a problem of education here. The consumer needs to be reminded that creation isn’t simply a matter of snapping one’s fingers, that the artist may have devoted years to learning their craft before being able to produce anything for the market, quite apart from the time they spend in refining their vision to create the final piece. They need to understand that when they use or enjoy a digital copy of a copyrighted artistic work for which they have not paid, the artists whose work they enjoy are the ones who suffer, even if in the case of music and films it is the big media companies that complain.

Taking the specific example of the needlework business – most of the companies, even those producing threads and tools, are really very small. They don’t have a huge financial buffer, and they can be as easily unbalanced by sudden success as by a fall in sales. The companies producing charts often aren’t companies, but just one person, trying to make a living in a way that fits around other obligations.

Even those of us who are not immediately affected, perhaps because we design most of our own pieces, need to remember that the sale of charts and designs supports and encourages the sale of threads, fabrics, tools and charms. If the designers go out of business we may very well find that manufacturers do as well. And we know that we don’t want that.

Perhaps, though, the current business model is truly unworkable, and a new one is needed. I’ll describe some of the suggestions I’ve been sent in another post.

—

Thanks to: Davide ‘Folletto’ Casali, Robert Bronsdon, Mace Moneta, Harleqin, Alex, Eric Larson, Ed Marshall, Philip Hunt, Posy, and Janice.