This is something I'm acutely aware of and it's not what I'm getting at. I know that bringing panopticon style policing to the cultural sphere would be an unfathomable catastrophe. And though I didn't say so here, I've been long opposed to regarding unauthorized copies as "stolen" and that making them is, in itself, an act of theft - in large part because that line of reasoning invites such a horrific response.

But none of this changes the fact that when someone makes (not takes, but makes) a copy, they simultaneously generate an obligation to the author. If there is an act of theft involved, it pertains to the money owed to the author, and a person's keeping in his pocket something that, by rights, belongs in the author's. I mean, we can talk all we want about the infinite nature of intangible goods, and how this makes analogies with naturally limited physical goods absurd. But in doing so, we're narrowly focusing on the digital copy itself, and not the money - which is not in infinite supply - and which didn't change hands when it should have. Expanding the scope of discussion to include this amount makes the charge of theft less absurd that it is when applied to the copy alone. This is a subtle distinction, I admit, but that doesn't make it any less real.

Obviously, author's moral claims aren't unlimited. Fair Use, for instance, encompasses a set of situations in which a copy can be made without minting a corresponding obligation. This is a good and necessary thing. Indeed, I'm all for a significant expansion of what constitutes Fair Use. (Whatever else you may think of me, please don't mistake me for an advocate of the maximalist RIAA / MPAA positions.)

At the same time, I think the moral obligation to pay that comes with many, if not most copies, is something that's gotten very short thrift. Just because technology makes it easy to dodge this responsibility doesn't mean that it goes away. And if copyright as we've know it isn't a viable system any longer, then we need to come up with one that is.

Here, it's worth remembering that patronage usually involves much more risk than being a customer. This leads to a very different relationship with the artist than artists have with customers. After all, it's one thing to buy a ticket to a hit show. It's another to underwrite the costs of the theater company long before anyone knows how good the result will be. Generally speaking, being a patron means handing over money before the work in question exists. Being a customer means paying the artist after the fact. And unless you're covering the costs and obligations of bringing an existing work to a substantially wider audience, you can't claim to be underwriting something that already exists.

In many ways, it can be very liberating for artists to have the money they need up front. At the same time, this can limit where they go with it. A viable commercial market allows them to take chances a patron wouldn't underwrite, and do well if the bets they make pay off. This is another reason to keep the distinction between patron and customers very clear. Their effect on artists differs considerably, and I don't think one can be easily substituted for the other.