[free-sklyarov] Backlash

[Anatoly Vorobey]

You, Adrian Dunston, were spotted writing this on Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 01:58:25PM -0700:
> >> I know I'm splitting hairs here but -- like Richard Stallman -- I have to
> >> disagree with our using the term piracy to describe copyright
> infringement.
> 
> >This is not a new usage. It dates back to the 17th century.
> 
> When the idea of owning printed content was gaining acceptance, this word
> was introduced to create an emotional connection to prosecuting rogue
> publishers.

I don't think this is correct. The copyright in England was not thought as a
form of intellectual *property* until much much later. As you no doubt are
aware, the Framers didn't consider it a form of property either, at the end
of the 18th century.

And I'm not sure just how often rogue publishers were actually prosecuted;
but it's true that the word was borrowed from its more usual meaning, and it
was enthusiastically used by authors, because authors felt that the rogue
publishers were depriving them of their livelyhood - the official publishers
couldn't pay much, if any, money to the author if the book was widely
pirated. 

> The age of the term does not change its inadequacy of
> description nor the reason for its introduction into the language.  

Why is it inadequate for description? It's perfectly adequate. The whole
business of sea-pirate-association is a huge red herring. Speakers of a language
pick out the word's meaning using the context, and unless there're strong
social reasons to consider the word a stand-in for a different one (for instance,
if it's an euphemism of a taboo), the word doesn't normally invoke any 
irrelevant associations. 

With your attitude, it'd make sense to ask the British to refrain from using
their perfectly ordinary word "fag" in the sense of "a cigarette".

> 
> >That's one meaning of the word; another is a person who infringes on other
> >people's copyrights, especially (but not necessarily) with the purpose of
> >a financial gain. I'm sure that your favourite dictionary will be able to
> >clue you in.
> 
> I concede that your definition is correct in an evolving language, but I
> will personally avoid using it and encourage others to do the same.
> Webster's of 1913 agrees with me.

I don't see how that follows; it includes the definition 
"One who infringes the law of copyright, or publishes the work of an author 
without permission."

> >Let's leave political correctness in the dustbin of history where it
> properly
> >belongs. 
> 
> I'm not arguing for political correctness.  I find the social
> over-regulation of speech abhorrent.

And yet that's exactly what you're seeking to achieve.

>  I would rather not ask people to
> modify their speech patterns.  Unfortunately this fight is going to deal a
> lot with image, and calling people evil nasty hacker PIRATE degenerates is
> the sort of thing that won the DeCSS case for the MPAA.

Do you really think it was the public image that won the case?

> >If you want copyright infringement to become a noble affair, I suggest
> >you look into the possibility of proudly using the word "pirate" - like
> black
> >people have done with "nigger" , or gay people with "gay".
> 
> It worked for "gay" which was a happy term to begin with, but it did not
> work for "nigger" which -- here in North Carolina -- I am socially forbidden
> from saying in public.  (It actually upsets people.)

Yes, but it's common to use the word among black people when speaking to
each other (I won't go into the hypocricy of trying to ban it elsewhere and
at the same time condoning this usage).

>  I'm not championing
> the cause of piracy, I'm merely trying to keep it linguistically separate
> from raping and pillaging which often require stronger laws and penalties.

But it *is* already separate. That's how language works. 

> >> Drafters of copyright law coined the term piracy in order to help justify
> >> the need for laws like the DMCA.
> 
> >Get a historical dictionary, or a clue, or both.

I apologise; that was rude of me.

> I was not referring to US law.  Historically, the term was used to make
> infringing printers look bad to people who otherwise wouldn't care.  I do
> not have a historical dictionary (until they put the Oxford English online
> in its entirety)

I have the OED in a dead tree version. If you need citations of "pirate" in that
sense from 17-19th centuries, I can type them in for you.

-- 
Anatoly Vorobey,
mellon at pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton