Copying Is Not Theft
March 25th, 2010 | 9,654 views | 11 Comments » | TweetWhen artists do work, they should be paid — no one is debating that. Musicians are paid when they perform at concerts, when they sell discs, and when they compose for someone. Artists are paid when they sell their artwork, when they are commissioned to make art, and when their art appears in art museums.
However, artists shouldn’t chase down and sue every adolescent who copies their work without advance permission. The job of artists is to create stuff — and for that they should be compensated. They should not necessarily be compensated for the distribution of their work, especially when computers and the Internet make it trivial to distribute bits at a near-zero cost.
At the end of the day, artists should be paid when they make stuff. Mozilla is a great example of a company that understands this. Let’s say that software engineers are artists for the sake of this example (in many ways, we are artists). So, Mozilla engineers get paid when they’re designing, programming, and submitting patches for Firefox, Thunderbird, and SeaMonkey. Yet, when the time comes for the software to be distributed, Mozilla engineers are not paid anything. All Mozilla software is free (as in freedom) and open source, as governed by the Mozilla Public License.
I can copy Firefox onto a CD, give it to my friend, and he can install Firefox on his computer — all without permission from or payment to Mozilla. In this model, it’s the actual act of authoring a new work that is compensated, and not the mere distribution.
Why am I ranting about this? Well, I just stumbled upon an awesome little song by Nina Paley about copying being different from theft which made me think about the differences between authoring something (a creative process) and distributing it (a very non-creative process).
Here’s the song:
Nina Paley singing “Copying isn’t theft”
And there’s a cute little cartoon that goes along with it.
The original animated short
Unsurprisingly, there have been a ton of people who have remixed this cartoon, adding their own creativity to the original author’s work to create something new and different. This is an awesome example of the good that can come from the freedom to remix copyrighted works (although in this case, Nina released her work under a Creative Commons license).
Punk remix
Jazz remix
Piano arrangement
8-bit remix
Ragtime version
In french!
Indian remix
Subhi & Gurpreet’s version of “Copying is not theft”
UPDATE: I found another cool version of the song:
I think you will make a good lawyer. Talk to the prelaw advisor in your school and maybe you should enroll in one or two undergraduate courses on Internet legal topics.
@captain: (Correct me if I misinterpret what you are writing.) There is no need to get sarcastic. We all know (approximately) how “the law” (at least in that one country, the United States) currently _is_. This article, however, is talking about how the law _should be_.
@Harleqin: I don’t think captain is being sarcastic. But, I agree with you — the law as it currently exists in the United States is just sad. Lobbyists and interests groups have too much undue influence over the law making process which causes bad ideas to become law all the time. Politicians aren’t necessarily corrupt per se, but in the current political system, politicians spend 80% of their time pandering to potential donors and lobbyist groups and only 20% of their time actually working.
Inevitably lawyers end up spending their time reading these poorly-written, misguided laws, and in the worst case, actually enforcing them on unsuspecting individuals (copyright and patent law being two prime examples). This is one system that I want no part in.
Thanks for your comment, Harleqin!
There are differences between copying and copyrights! Copyrights are the set of exclusive legal rights authors have over their works…. So, copying is theft when it involves deprivation of property from one person to another… It is illegal to copy and distribute movies, music and software….
Of course there is a difference between copying and copyrights! That’s obvious. Where I think we disagree is over the actual effects of copying.
When I make a copy of a software program and give it to my neighbor, this in no way, shape, or form deprives anyone of property. I still have my copy, and now my neighbor has his own copy. It’s true that the software vendor may have lost a “sale,” but he wasn’t deprived of any property, which is, of course, the definition of stealing. Copying is merely the sharing and spreading of information. And remember, information wants to be free.
You are right — copyright law does give authors a set of legal rights over their works. But remember, the purpose of copyright law is to encourage more creative works to be produced for the benefit of the public. Government acts on behalf of the public to grant authors a limited monopoly (copyright) over their creative works for a short period of time. Government is basically giving up our freedoms to use, remix, and share published work for a limited time in exchange for the promise that more works will be published. This isn’t necessarily a bad idea!
If authors know they will have a monopoly over their book for 10 years after they publish it, they are more likely to publish it.
While the idea of copyright isn’t necessarily flawed, it’s current implementation in law certainly is. The set of rights that copyright holders are currently given is way too expansive. It puts the interests of a few large publishing corporations above those of millions of Americans.
Publishing companies don’t need to have monopolies over a creative work for 70 years after the author’s death in order to make a profit. Given the purpose of copyright — to encourage authors to publish more works — does it even make sense to grant copyright after an author has died? It’s not like they are going to be any more creative after they are dead.
If we reduced the copyright term down to just 10 or 15 years, just as many works would be published. Sure, publishing companies would make a lot less money. But, I don’t believe we should gauge the success of our laws in terms of how much profit is generated for large publishing companies. The public’s interests should be the #1 priority. Since the primary goal of copyright is to encourage authors to publish more works, we should find the absolute minimum set of rights to grant to authors, while still providing a good incentive for authors to publish.
I hope this sheds some light on my opinion. Thanks for your comment!
[...] already written about misinterpreting copyright and why copying is not theft in other blog posts — check them out if you’re [...]
Howdy there,this is Tina Laberge,just identified your Post on google and i must say this blog is great.may I quote some of the article found in this web site to my local buddies?i’m not sure and what you think?anyway,Many thanks!
@ Feross: Excellent post. I agree with your limitation of copyright, albeit only as a compromise to complete abolishment of IP.
Interestingly, who needs such long protection terms? Not individual persons – we sometimes don’t even last that long on this planet. But the corporation, with its pseudo-individual status, survives long after the actual author has passed. That is who benefits from the monopoly created by lengthy copyright.
Thanks! I agree that the corporation’s pseudo-individual status is a real problem. In this case, the government should really optimize for the greatest collective societal benefit and freedom and stop giving away our rights so casually.
I appreciate, cause I found exactly what I was looking for. You’ve ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye.
[...] person, whereas copying creates a second piece of that work. Yes, the artist may lose a sale, but copying is not theft. I am not justifying piracy, but I do believe that most true artists care more about sharing their [...]