This is an added comment to Cory Doctlow’s recent demand that the above phrase needs to be killed. Not only is he the inspiration behind the Scarlet PI brand (he’s in the dedication) but he’s the one who encourages the use of the Creative Commons license, a license I use exclusively. He’s one of the leading front man in what he calls “Copyfight,” or what I’d call “Copyright Law Reform.”
As most of us know by now, we’re caught in the crossfire between traditional copyright law, and the trans warp drive speed spread of information that the Internet grants. When traditional Copyright Laws were written, there wasn’t turntables, tape recorders, radios, VCRs and Cable. When those and many more technologies popped up, traditional Copyright Laws couldn’t keep up and the people who supposedly own the creative works, most of them weren’t even the creators themselves, lost their shit. Here’s a list of their caterwauling examples from before the invention of the Internet:
#5. VCR’s Will Kill Television!
#4. Phonographs and Player Pianos Will Kill Music!
#3. Pirated BASIC Will Kill Software Development!
#2. The Cassette Will Kill Music! Again!
#1. The Printing Press Will Kill Literature!
None of those happened. In fact, just the opposite is true. Music, Television, Software Development, and Literature grew by leaps and bounds because of these technologies, because it became possible that more or more people will have access to them. It became easier for the people to do with the creative works, as what Cory said in his reasons behind his copyfighting:
When non-industrial entities (e.g., people, schools, church groups, etc.) interacted with copyrighted works, they did things that copyright law didn’t have anything to say about: they read books, they listened to music, they sang around the piano or went to the movies. They discussed this stuff. They sang it in the shower. Retold it (with variations) to the kids at bedtime. Quoted it. Painted murals for the kids’ room based on it.
Now we have the internet, and what happened with the VCR, Music Players, Printing Presses and all the other inventions before it, even Radio, all appeared to be in slow motion by comparison. And that caused many corporation to really get paranoid, and in some cases, outright Evil. And by evil, I mean suing a 12 Year Old Little Girl out of her college fund because she didn’t want to buy a $20 album with just one good song. And worse off, they went on television and boasted it. That’s worse than overstepping their bounds. To me that’s pedo-fucking-phelia. And don’t let me get started with what the RIAA thinks is an appropriate fine for downloading a song in the first place. (Hint: They actually think The Pirate Bay owes them more money than what is actually available, read ‘printed and coined,’ in the whole world.)
I swore off every buying a music CD in my life at that point. On Principle. For all I know about the RIAA, they’d get erections on the idea of taking everything away from you and selling you into slavery just because you have a song running in your head. Much less in your iPod. It’s probably the only way they can get it up, I suppose.

The main reason behind all this hyperbole is because of the nature of the internet. It basically runs on copies. Every time you press a key or download a web page, you make a copy. It’s how they work. The Internet, by its nature, is completely incompatible to traditional Copyright Law, a law that has been written when people are still going about in horses and buggies. It does not address properly the environment we have today. That is why we have the Creative Commons License so that these holes can be filled in.
And that’s why I believe that we should have Copyright Law Reform so it can address what is the new kind of Fair Use today. And in “Why I copyfight,” Cory tells the reason why:
Copyright law valorizes copying as a rare and noteworthy event. On the Internet, copying is automatic, massive, instantaneous, free, and constant. Clip a Dilbert cartoon and stick it on your office door and you’re not violating copyright. Take a picture of your office door and put it on your homepage so that the same co-workers can see it, and you’ve violated copyright law, and since copyright law treats copying as such a rarified activity, it assesses penalties that run to the hundreds of thousands of dollars for each act of infringement.
There’s a word for all the stuff we do with creative works — all the conversing, retelling, singing, acting out, drawing, and thinking: we call it culture.
Culture’s old. It’s older than copyright.
The existence of culture is why copyright is valuable. The fact that we have a bottomless appetite for songs to sing together, for stories to share, for art to see and add to our visual vocabulary is the reason that people will pay money for these things.
Let me say that again: the reason copyright exists is because culture creates a market for creative works. If there was no market for creative works, there’d be no reason to care about copyright.
That leads up to the phrase “Information Wants To Be Free,” which is what Cory is now trying to shoot down. The reason why he’s doing so, and I saw this easily, is because of the confusion behind the definition of the word “Free” is:
It’s time for IWTBF to die because it’s become the easiest, laziest straw man for Hollywood’s authoritarian bullies to throw up as a justification for the monotonic increase of surveillance, control, and censorship in our networks and tools. I can imagine them saying: “These people only want network freedom because they believe that ‘information wants to be free’. They pretend to be concerned about freedom, but the only ‘free’ they care about is ‘free of charge.’”
Before you claim that I’m going all Clinton on you, let me explain that there are two definitions of the word “Free,” as it applies here. Free as in Beer, Gratis, and Free as in Speech, Libre. You’ll find the comparison in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_Libre
When someone like me says IWTBF, we mean Libre. When some RIAA pedo lawyer hears is, however, he thinks Gratis. And immediately calls on that 12-year-old girl and sticks it in her pooper, and she better love it or else he’ll take her lunch money.
And therein lies our problem. The phrase isn’t a bad one, but the meaning gets the proverbial lost in the translation, and it is still spoken in English.
What everyone involved needs to understand, except for that lawyer because his need for Delicious Loli has rotted his brain, is the difference between Gratis and Libre. You can have one and not the other. That’s why you sometimes have to pay for open source software, because the people who made that software still has to eat, and they don’t often have the luxury of getting up before the crack of dawn to drag their butts to a burger joint to put on a smelly monkey suit and flip burgers all day.
That’s where I’m at with my own works myself. You have to pay for the books, unless I offer the whole text free, but once you do, you pretty much have a wide birth of free use liberties—including distributing the work yourself and especially making derivative works (The coming Scarlet PI book “Adventure Under the Rising Sun,” is just that!) under the Creative Commons License. In fact, it’s flat out encouraged. In essence you’re buying what I’d call an Open Source book. It’s libre but it’s not gratis.
It’s this distinction that needs to be address if we are going to have that sensible Copyright Law Reform that we need in this world, and in some minds we need it more than Health Care Reform or even Immigration Reform. It’s vital for the culture as a whole to be as open and as libre as it should be. Because, as Cory said at the end of “Why I Copyright,” if culture, is not this open, this libre, or as Cory says, “loses the copyright wars,” the reason for copyright dies with it. Because nobody would be willing to risk getting sued than raped by some corporation, or even acknowledge them with their purchases. Or get raped in the ass by some drooling lawyer who ODed on Viagra.
And if Copyright laws become so strict that people stop using or appreciating creativity, where would we be as a species then?