There are many good and valid reasons why people wish to be able to publish and transmit information electronically.  The rise of social web sites testifies to the willingness of people to make information available to selected individuals or groups.

However, a willingness to share should not be interpreted as a wholesale license to all and sundry to freely make copies of electronic information and re-distribute it without even acknowledging the original ownership, or paying a Copyright fee.

Much has been made, in the technology world, of the concepts of Open Source, CopyLeft, Limited Rights and so on, as arguments for the desirability of making all electronically held information freely available to all comers.  In the music receiving industry (as against the music publishing industry) there has been considerable pressure to make copying and redistribution a ‘right,’ merely because it is difficult to prevent. 

Such arguments are intellectually barren.  They are like saying that because you own a gun you have a ‘right’ to shoot anything you like because it is difficult to stop you, or that because you can buy a car you can drive it anywhere you like and in any manner that you wish.

Because people suffer physical harm as a result of such poor behaviours we pass laws to take action if behaviour is unacceptable.  Since Copyright is an economic right, we also have laws to protect Copyright owners from economic harm where behaviour is unacceptable.

So we must reject the claim that merely because you can do something then you automatically have the right to do it.  (This was never true in Roman Law countries anyway.)

Empirical evidence suggests that computer users cannot be trusted to use information provided electronically only and solely for lawful purposes.  Regrettably, it is essential to instil enlightened self-interest into the users of electronically provided information.  This is essential, simply because, “Computers are all about copying.” (Prof. JAL Sterling and S Mathews in a paper on protocols and interfaces).  Not only do computers facilitate copying, but they ensure that such copies are always perfect in every detail.

This creates significant problems whose Intellectual Property(IP) (whether being offered for sale or being made available for some purpose as the result of a commercial agreement or a ruling of a competent Court, or some other reason) is being distributed electronically.  Agreements for the control of the use of IP are normally very precise, and set out to prevent unauthorized use.  Given the propensity of users to do things because they can, it is essential to provide a system of controls (Digital Rights Management or DRM) that actively ensure that the permitted uses must be observed, and cannot be trivially ignored.

Similarly, those wishing to make their livings from selling their intellectual capacity (creating works by thinking) as opposed to their physical capacity (making objects) must have the ability to enforce their economic right.  To suggest that all the world (tout le monde) cannot make their livings from publishing and selling on the Internet would be a travesty of the so-called knowledge-based economies.  Whilst some may seek to demonstrate their intellectual capacities by ‘giving away’ the fruits of their labours as marketing in the hope of selling something else, not everyone has the luxury of such an indulgence.  One cannot see authors such as JK Rowling agreeing,  http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article3621625.ece seems to be an indication of her view about copying!

Academics (who, incidentally are paid to write, and often write as a matter of advertising, as do I) may claim that all intellectual capacity should be available for their study, comment, parody and so on.  I wonder how many electronic copies of Deathly Hallows were provided free gratis to the academic community for that purpose?  And without any limitation as to copying and being able to pass on?

The fact of the matter is that there are cogent economic and political reasons why DRM technologies are required to protect documents in electronic form, and it is wrong to suggest that that there should be no mechanisms enforcing the control of authorized use made available and put in place.  Let those who wish to give away their work do so if they will, but allow those who sell their work to obtain fair and relevant recompense for their labours.