Pirated Books: A Blessing or a Curse?

I, for one, have always been a beneficiary of pirated books. If a book I want to read is accessible and free, I think it'd be non-Nigerian of me to turn the other way, even if sometimes it's at the expense of running the author to the ground. And when I say this, I don't mean to say Nigerians are dishonest people (some of them are, but I think it is a common feature of the human race), but it is more of the ability to grab success by its balls. To never turn your back on opportunities.

I think this is one of the offences which paints morality as grey, because where do we start to draw the line on piracy? People who don't pirate books pirate movies, and people who don't pirate movies probably pirate other forms of art. I think it's hypocritical to call people out for pirating books when piracy is an inherent part of almost every form of art we consume. And it really shifts the conversation when a form of art is being pirated for non-malicious reasons, like passion. Not everyone is rich enough to buy books at will, and most readers I know (including myself) would fall into penury if they bought every book they wanted to read. I think accessibility to books is good for society. We need to read more as a society, especially in the new wake of anti-intellectualism and olodo uprising.

But I understand the disservice it does to the artist. Imagine putting endless time, talent, and resources into your work, only to find it being distributed for free in a WhatsApp group. And I know some artists don't mind; some do their art purely for the sake of consumerism, and if more people were to consume their art, it'd be enough.

But the artist has to eat, too.

In this case, I think the common enemy is capitalism. The reader wants to be able to afford their book whenever they want. They are not rich enough to spend a bogus amount of money on books, but they want to read, still. The artist wants a reward for his work, and as much as he'd like his art out in the world to touch minds, to move lives, to inspire, he also needs capital for promotion. We cannot undermine the value of capital in art production and promotion.

The common ground is that both the artist and the art consumer need more money. They want to be able to afford the art they consume, and the artist needs capital and strength to make more art.

I don't think there's particularly a side to take in this discourse. Sometimes, things just are, and it's easy to point accusing fingers when you've not walked in the shoes of the other party.

But two facts should be true:

Should the reader be able to have unauthorised access to books whenever he wants? Well, yes.

Should the artist be rewarded for his labour? Absolutely.

It's important to emphasise, though, that the artist is usually the scapegoat when these roles inevitably overlap.

But essentially, art is an inherent part of human existence. It is simply impossible to separate art from humanity. There will always be artists to supply and there will always be consumers to demand, regardless of the advancement of technology and the human race.

May we never live in a world without art.