"Scabs" and Gresham's Law
I talked to Howard because I was flabbergasted myself that he thought writer #1 giving away free ebooks was harming writers #2 and #3 and #4 and...

So don't shoot the messenger here -- because I'm not agreeing with Howard, just explaining what he said in response.  (In fact, while I want to see the discussion, I'll say up front that I personally <i>don't</i> agree with his theory, but that'll have to wait for another post as I don't have time right now.)  (Also noting this is with his permission.)

His concept stems from what's called Gresham's Law, which is about "bad" money driving out "good" money.  I.e., he's hypothesizing that the more people give away freebies, the harder it becomes for others to get paid (e.g. because publishers or readers might exploit the freebie propensity in order to pay authors less).  To the extent that he believe's that's true, he sees authors having an obligation to stand together to prevent it. 

(And -- aha! -- I'm connecting the dots here:  If he believes authors should stand together to prevent this problem, those who give away freebies would be crossing the "picket" line, I guess, for their own benefit at the expense of the rest, and thus be "scabs."  So now at least I understand why he felt the word was applicable.  I don't think he made his fundamental point anywhere near clear enough.  [Now that I understand it, I still think the logic is flawed.])

Also noting he agrees it's his own position, not SFWA's.  I think he went for the incindiary approach in order to get folks talking.  He said he's seen bad trends in the music industry regarding freebies and such, and wants authors spared that pain.

But, let's chew on this Gresham's Law concept.  Google on it for more info; wikipedia has a decent intro.

As I said, I don't personally believe his theory; in fact, I think it's flawed.  (Not Gresham's Law, which I think is valid, but it's application to this situation.  My feeling is it applies in reverse.)  But it's a valid topic for civil discussion.