The creator can offer the work at no cost per his discretion. But only he has that privilege. If anyone else wishes to distribute the work, then they must have explicit permission from the creator.

It’s like codifying respect for a person’s ideas. In a practical sense, it’s almost impossible to enforce (as Eli points out, piracy is rampant thanks to the internet). But trying to teach people respect, at a societal and legal level, that’s still kind of a noble battle, even if piracy is running rampant today. People might learn to ask first, instead. Use their manners, you know? ;)

=Absolutely.= Copyright isn’t about money. It’s about the creator’s right to control how his creation is used.

The creator can offer the work at no cost per his discretion. But only he has that privilege. If anyone else wishes to distribute the work, then they must have explicit permission from the creator.

“Where’s the damage? How is it calculated?”

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

Even if the pirate isn’t making a profit and wasn’t acting maliciously, he can still be liable for a *minimum* of $750 plus attorney costs.

-J

Where’s the damage? How is it calculated? What was stolen? I think it would be a very tricky thing to try to bring to court, and so again, is this piracy? Especially when most cases could well be that kid, the “biggest fan ever” who just wanted to share his favourite song/story/etc. It’s exposure, which is the mentality of the internet culture right now — share everything. “Information is free” or whatever current slogans people are using.

I’d say you didn’t need to be reminded so much as shown another perspective, since you’ve always been a huge proponent of “human attention” as a benefit to “free” distribution.

Your anecdotal account is probably correct and I’d wager not even uncommon. Savvy purveyors of content on the web are well-served to find ways to make it as easy as possible for their fans to promote on their behalf, whether it’s as simple as supplying cool web banners or as elaborate as an affiliate program.

I had another element occur to me later: Copyright.

One aspect of copyright law, at least in America, holds that the copyright owner must enforce his rights or risk losing them. That’s how you get otherwise ridiculous stories like Disney suing a day-care center; they can’t just let it go because it presents a risk to their copyrights and trademarks.

So going back to Hypothetical Band (and if anyone actually names their band that, the name’s all yours)… judges may understand that pirates will take their music and deliver it without their approval. However, if it can be proven that that band was aware of that distribution and opted not to act, then it could be ruled that they have failed to police their rights and therefore forfeit them. Even the most liberal Creative Commons license places some demands on those who redistribute content.

Again, savvy purveyors of content keep this in mind. For example, some companies provide “fansite kits” of pre-approved content which can be used… and a mandatory copyright notice to post alongside it.

- John

Metrics may be one of those cost-factors indeed. Another cost-factor might be the social/psychological sense of ownership … things just doesn’t feel right when you’ve taken my work and put it on a filesharing site.

(I’ve read an anecdotal account of one such incident, however, and when the author contacted the kid doing it, he found one of his biggest fans. The kid was filesharing because he so loved the books! Talk about worst case scenario …

I’ll take a swing: Metrics.

Going with the album download example… a band can determine with reasonable accuracy how many people grabbed the album off their website. Far as I know — and please, someone correct me if I’m wrong — there’s no way to account for how many people grabbed the album off Joe Fan’s torrent.

The number of downloads can be used to provide a moderate estimate of the band’s fan base. This number is then used for everything from selecting a venue for live shows to setting print runs for t-shirts to demonstrating popularity when Big Business comes calling.

Of course, this assumes the our hypothetical band has just been putting the link out there on its own. The band may ask for people to register before downloading the album, providing them additional demographic information and an avenue for future communication.

This ties into the discussion on “free” we had over in the pay-per-chapter thread. Just because there isn’t an exchange of currency, we can’t assume that the band isn’t receiving something of value. Even if it’s done with the best of intentions, our overzealous fan who distributes the content through his own channels instead of the band’s channels may end up depriving the band of some value.

If our hypothetical fan really wants to help this hypothetical band, then everyone is better off if he directs people to the band’s chosen method of downloading instead of going off on his own.

-J

I’m afraid I can’t give a definitive answer for this, Gav. Anybody else want to add an opinion?

But giving away something that was already free kind of just means they’re giving it more exposure, aren’t they?

A study in piracy is often a study in incentives. And it’s not clear what the incentives are when you look at these two scenarios. Could it be habit? Could it be a misguided sense of Internet egalitarianism? Some pirates share copies because they love the material so much that they must spread the word to their friends … which means torrent sites. What we can learn from this, however, is that in mediums where piracy is the norm rather than the exception, torrent downloads will exist regardless of the availability of the original work.

Which simply means that if you’re big, you very well should expect and prepare for some piracy in the future. Not now, maybe, because ebook piracy is just beginning to pick up. But soon.

With web-fiction, most of us are offering our stories for free. Donations are welcome, and appreciated. Some authors have memorabilia for sale, like shirts or cups or what have you. Others have Lulu editions so people can buy a print copy as an artifact of their experience online, or just because they prefer paper to digital.

But in the end, it’s free material — it would be easy to pirate and plagiarize, but what would be the point? It’s already free. I don’t see it being a big problem for web fiction.

Historically, no one “owned” songs or stories — traveling troubadours and minstrels and acting groups learned from each other, passed stories on by word of mouth, and elaborated, adding their own touches. Shakespeare borrowed from history and Italian plays, Mallory got his Mort d’Arthur from old legends. I think the internet is encouraging a similar dynamic, where creativity flourishes with a new view of “ownership” that is fluid.

What it means, what it will look like long term, requires more thought, but I don’t think the old ways of traditional publishing and piracy really apply at all.