Since the invention of copyright law beginning in the 17th century, our society has had no way of rewarding those people who produce valuable intellectual works, such as books, movies, inventions, music, and computer software, other than through royalty payments on a per-copy basis. This made sense for a long time, since the creator of the intellectual property was paid strictly by his popularity. If a book sold a lot of copies, the writer got more money.

However, it wasn't until the Napleonic Code (the early 19thcentury) that a copyright was considered the author's property, in that he could sell his copyright to another person. Also, this is the first time a copyright was established for the entire lifetime of a person. The notion of copyright went away from being a privilege granted to an individual by the society as an encouragement to others to do the same. Instead, a copyright was the property of an individual, and a good that could be exchanged just like a chair or a loaf of bread. Thus, where piracy up to this point was violating a just social code meant to encourage innovation, now it was outright theft.

Interestingly, the United States did not adopt this new view of copyright until 1911. The US Constitution explicitly says that the purpose of copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

It is this Napoleonic view of copyright which I reject. An idea cannot be held as a sole possesion of one person.

Before the copyright was established, writers and artists made their living through a system of patronage. When a writer wrote a book, he dedicated it to some wealthy noble of merchant. This bolstered the rich person's reputation and, in exchange, the noble was expected to give a cash bonus to the author, to write similar works.

Today, this system only works in two places. Academia, where researchers are given grants by wealthy corporations or the state in exchange for having their name on the papers, and a first look at the results. And in the Free Software movement.

Enough historical background. The main point of all this is the following:

1) I don't think the current copyright system is a moral one. Copyright law should encourage inventors and artists to serve others through their work. It should encourage innovation by establishing a system which rewards those who innovate, but at the same time should not stifle the free exchange of ideas.

2) Copyright holders should not be able to transfer their copyrights. The reward for innovation is meant to reward the innovators, not some marketing firm.

3) While I disagree with our current copyright system, it is all we have, and it does encourage some amount of innovation, albeit not in music, and little in movies, but in other places. Thus, I have a moral obligation to compensate artists in the only way society allows me to do so until other avenues become available to me, say distributed patronage or even a simply scaled back, less Naponleonic copyright system.

I'm tempted sometimes to simply pirate a game and send the developer a check for $50, since then the guys who actually did the work get the money. But so far, I haven't had the courage to do that, so I continue to buy all my games the old fashioned way.