A rant on copyright

Expanded from a comment in lucy_anne‘s journal:

So long as folks stick to making public domain works available online, I have no complaint. What I do have issues with is seeking ways to make copyrighted works available without permission of the copyright holder.

If you want to fight to reform copyright law, go for it. I actually would agree that the current term of copyright is too long. Copyright is intended to provide creators with rights to their creations for a term long enough to support themselves and their families, not to provide them with those rights in perpetuity. Make changes, if you think they’re needed.

But I don’t get how those who claim to respect the creator of a work can in the same breath disrespect that creator’s request that their copyright be respected. If a writer chooses to make a work available for free–and many of us do try to make some work available, when we can–that’s great. But how can you expect every writer to do this for ever single work? Do you not get that creating takes time and work, and that creations do not appear out of thin air? Would you expect a doctor to work for free, and to support herself with a second day job?

Then again, maybe I misunderstand. Maybe the whole point is that only artists who don’t need sleep (that is, those who can produce in quantity with day jobs) should get to publish. If so, I take back all of the above. Copyright pirates don’t disrespect writers–they actively hate them. I feel so much better now.

I hope all those who think that copyright is outdated–and that artists are just being difficult when they seek to enforce it–are happy when the quality of work available to them declines, because creators can’t afford the time to create the best work for free. If there’s a system that will let writers make a significant portion of their living without copyright–well, terrific, let me know when you find it–but we haven’t found it yet.

What I’m seeing, though, is that most of those who want to ditch copyright aren’t particularly concerned with the implications for the creators of works anyway–they’re concerned with their own personal convenience. Perish the thought someone might have to visit a library to find a work, or do anything more complicated than a Google search.

I’m no longer convinced copyright piracy is about high-minded principles about free access to information. I think it’s mostly about simple self-interest.

Can’t afford to buy a work that isn’t available for free? Visit your local library, thus encouraging them to buy more such works. Can’t afford the price of seeing a movie? Wait for it to hit second-run theaters, or rent a copy. You won’t get it instantly, the moment you want it–but if you’re an adult, you can wait. Delayed gratification will not kill you. There may be a few works that there’s no way to get ahold of except to pirate them or pay exhorbitant lots of money–but in most cases, I don’t think that’s so.

And I’m really, really tired of hearing folks whining that, if they can’t access something immediately, copyright is broken and piracy is their only option.

(Edited to reflect that Google is not, at this time, working to reproduce works online, but only to index them.)