Piracy. Theft. They’re the favorite loaded words of the copyright lobby, which likes to sling them around like they’re going out of style, sometimes using them both at once. Copyright infringement is piracy! Copyright infringement is theft! Piracy is theft! Even if it’s true, it’s counterproductive—it tends to cause the discussion to wander away from the rightness or wrongness of the behavior to the rightness or wrongness of the words used to describe it.
On Ars Technica, Asher Hawkins has an interesting exploration of the history of the words and their usage in the context of copyright infringement. It’s really quite fascinating—I had no idea that the word “piracy” was being used as far back as 1704 by Robinson Crusoe author Daniel Defoe. Although neither “piracy” nor “theft” are mentioned in current copyright statues, the word “infringement” didn’t enter US law until 1870.
Perhaps even more interesting is that not everyone who uses the terms use them in the same way.
Notice that the MPAA definition covers a relatively broad array of misconduct, while the robe-wearing crowd generally uses "piracy" to characterize large-scale, typically profit-motivated violations of copyright. But both approaches reflect a desire to persuade the world, via metaphor, that the conduct being described is inherently harmful. They don’t always have the desired effect—consider, for instance, the name chosen by the creators of The Pirate Bay.
Because there’s never been a universal consensus as to what, exactly, "piracy" and "theft" mean when used in the copyright context, different people with different agendas use them to evoke different concepts. George Orwell famously criticized the "dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power" after being repeatedly used by people who no longer even know what they originally meant. That’s sort of what’s going on in today’s copyright debate with "piracy" and "theft," but with the twist that the meanings of these metaphors were never particularly clear to begin with.
At one point Hawkins even points out that some people are finding the use of the word “piracy” even more counterproductive now since the Pirates of the Caribbean movies depict pirates as awesome! (I’ve actually touched on this before.)
Hawkins explores the history and uses of the words “piracy,” “theft”, and “infringement” pertaining to copyright violations, and looks at how and why people use them and the arguments for and against their use in a copyright context. Even if it won’t necessarily change people’s minds about the terms they use, it is nonetheless interesting to know more about their historical contexts.
It’s a funny thing: back before everything went digital, media piracy was something you could joke about in the movies. They don’t seem to be laughing so much now.
I know that you have made this point before, and that you have thought rather a lot about the issues.
What words to you suggest we try, and for what misconduct?
Of course they aren’t good words. They are a moral panic on the part of those using them to try to stop you from thinking about the complete issue and just take their part.
If you want an emotionally neutral term, the legal tone of “infringement” is your best bet.
But this is isn’t an emotionally neutral issue, particularly for those of us on the front lines on both sides of the issue. Nor is it a morally neutral issue for those of us who have our works posted without our permissions for some to enjoy for free or for others to profit from.
As someone who has been part of this battle for almost a dozen years, I noticed the term “pirate” lost its cache for the book thief crowd soon after the Somalia pirates started getting press in the real world. Not a damn thing glamorous or fun about those pirates.
My own personal favorite term for book thieves is “book-stealing weasels.” My apologies of the animal of the same name.
Moral panic? Not so much. Outrage, yes.
If you like to read books, then you need to protect the ability of those who create them to make a living from doing that. This much should be obvious to all.
The theory that corporate fat cats are the only beneficiaries of copyright is balderdash. Even when publishers make money, and even in the small fraction of cases where the books are coming from large companies, the majority of the profit from the type of books to be found in bookstores almost always lands in the hands of the author.
For a typical example, check out this old post of mine:
http://gropenassoc.com/blog/2010/09/do-publishers-rip-off-authors/
It’s obvious that many “pirates” (what should we call them??) would never buy the book. It’s equally obvious that SOME would buy if they couldn’t get it free. The prevalence of illegal copying is therefore clearly taking money away from those who have clearly created something of value and deserve to get their share.
Is moral outrage not reasonable?
Let me try again. My post didn’t appear then I was told I’d already posted when I tried to put it up a second time.
If you want an emotionally neutral term, the legal tone of “infringement” is your best bet.
But this is isn’t an emotionally neutral issue, particularly for those of us on the front lines on both sides of the issue. Nor is it a morally neutral issue for those of us who have our works posted without our permissions for some to enjoy for free or for others to profit from.
As someone who has been part of this battle for almost a dozen years, I noticed the term “pirate” lost its cache for the book thief crowd soon after the Somalia pirates started getting press in the real world. Not a damn thing glamorous or fun about those pirates.
My own personal favorite term for book thieves is “book-stealing weasels.” My apologies of the animal of the same name.
I stand by the term moral panic. It’s an attempt to get people to not think about the complete issue and to portray the “pirates” as “folk devils.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic
I’ve always referred to people who infringe copyright as copyright infringers, since that makes the most sense to me. It’s also the only term, to the best of my knowledge (and anyone can feel free to correct me if I am mistaken), that actually appears in any copyright legislation (though in US copyright law it’s “infringer of [the] copyright”).
Frankly, calling them anything else is likely the industry’s attempt to blow things out of proportion.
Infringers does sound neutral.
But I suspect that Malignant Carp and I would have significant disagreement over the right proportions for this issue.
I suspect that anyone who sees their ability to put food on the family table evaporating because they can’t get paid for their writing anymore is likely to see it as a very large deal indeed. And they’re the folks most likely to be hurt by this phenomenon.
Great editors will be able to work. Authors with any ambition for success will hire them, even if publishing founders.
Publicists are always in demand.
Back office types have transferrable skill sets, to one extent or another.
But writing jobs are less common. And writers are already on the edges of some type of economic distress, on average.
I think copyright infringement is the best term for what is going on. Unfortunately, copyright has a bad name due to the ridiculous extension of the length that copyright in America and the over zealous lawsuits brought about by the RIAA.
Scott,
You may not be aware that the US had to extend its copyright terms in order to finally come into compliance with the international accords on copyright.
But the problems with making the entire world change to suit the American opinion, it’s rare for someone to need to clear permissions or to want to use a copyright that’s more than a decade or two old. So, even if copyright were to drop to a more “reasonable” number like 20 years, with the option to renew, it wouldn’t make a difference very often.
In fact, I suspect that most folks who work with IP would be happy with a 20 year, and the option to renew a few times. That would free those rights that are of limited or no value, and yet preserve the rights to those properties that are still viable income producers for their creators. We just can’t do that without re-doing the entire, pain in the neck process of Berne.
I just don’t see length of term as a real problem in 99% of the pragmatic, real-world issues of IP.
Marion, the US didn’t have to add 20 years to existing copyrights in 1998, that was Disney lobbying and Sonny Bono advocating. In order to come into compliance with the Berne international accords, the US only needed to switch to life+50, which is what Australia used to have and Canada still does. Yes, the EU had already switched to life+70, but there’s no need for the US to switch its term life to be the maximum of any country (yes, I realize there are a few countries with longer terms).
Bruce,
You’re right, of course, when we were extending to comply, we went a little farther, but truly, how often does it matter? Life + 50 vs life + 70 is a distinction without much import most of the time. The exceptions are immensely profitable and successful, hence obvious, but quite, quite rare.
(It remains an open question how much cultural harm is done by creators’ inability to use Disney’s plasticized-IP without permission . . . )