Cyber-Wrongdoers
A comment on a previous post by my dear friend, Mr. S:
"I may have shown this thing [pdf] to you before, but it's an 'educational curriculum' put out by the good people at the Business Softwared Alliance. Very scary, and it's an excellent example of how businesses frame downloading as simply 'wrong' (and of the more general conflation of legality and morality)."
posted by andrew at 5:18 PM
8 Comments:
I just want to let you know that I'm stealing this blog post and putting it up as my own on my blog.
12:42 AM
Hi Andrew. First, let me say that I've enjoyed reading your blog since Petya alerted me to its existence a couple of weeks ago. I initially resisted my temptation to press you on this question, but since it's become a recurring theme...
Can you say more exactly about why it is that you think those who wish to condemn person-to-person filesharing of music are, as you say, conflating legality and morality? This seems to suggest that you see no moral ground for such objections, and this is what I'm confused about.
Again, from what I can piece together, it seems that you believe that art is somehow, or ought to be, resistant to the commercialization that affects the products of the labor of most people. I wonder about this claim. Is it "patently absurd" on your view for corporations to claim the right to profit off the work of non-artists?
I don't mean any of these questions to sound combative, I just want to hear more about what you think, because this is an issue that interests me on many different levels. Why? I think because though I feel strongly compelled to regard the practice as unethical, I nevertheless participate in it regularly without any serious misgivings.
1:45 AM
I don't take it as combative at all. I'm still developing what I think about illegal downloading. And I think it's good to clarify what's actually happening when people download.
I see the illegal music downloading campaign as being a lot like the War on Drugs. There is nothing inherently morally wrong about, let's say, marijuana use (despite claims that it supports terrorism). However, the criminalization and continued anti-drug media campaign have painted marijuana use as both a moral wrong. Similarly, something that isn't inherently wrong -- the free exchange of music -- is constructed as a moral wrong through its criminalization. (Now, of course, you could argue that it is a moral wrong as it limits artists' ability to make money. But I'll get to that in a second).
To me, the whole debate has to be framed in terms of social needs. Societies, particularly post-industrial ones, need entertainment and, therefore, full-time support for those who create entertainment. The music industry has created a scenario in which many members view their system of entertainment distribution as non-feasible. Most consumers want to a) try out music before they commit to it, b) have a full album of good music or the ability to purchase just the one good song, and c) a reason price. The popularity of illegal downloading shows they aren't satisfying this need. Additionally, with the exception of hugely popular artists (e.g., Metallica), most recording artists don't profit from record sales, only from concert tours. Thus, the record companies are satisfying neither of two essential social needs. So, it's not that music shouldn't be commercialized (all my favorite music is the product of commercialization), but that the social need for free/inexpensive art trumps the need for companies to profit.
Like drugs, this is a "demand problem." You can't cut off or alter public demand, so companies must adapt to their needs. The recording industry has more or less refused to do this. Even iTunes (which has been really, really popular) does not go far enough in letting people try-before-they-buy and offer reasonable prices.
As for the companies' right to profit, I don't think any such right exists. Of course, someone has to provide the studio space, equipment, etc. and deserves to profit off that (although I think Marx would have been pro-DIY), but artists have to pay the studios back(!) for that. At the moment, studios are basically an impediment to satisfying the essential entertainment needs of society and until they serve in a facilitating capacity, I don't think it's morally wrong to resist their economic organization of the music industry.
Likewise, if companies facilitated the drug distribution process, rather than supporting the continued criminalization, I think they would turn a well-earned profit.
10:51 AM
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
10:52 AM
I think the most compelling argument against intellectual property with relation to digital media is that any technology or legislation that seeks to prevent you from copying and distributing a given file actually infringes on your property rights. Essentially, you are being told that it is illegal to rearrange the bits on hardware that you own in certain ways.
As an example to demonstrate how absurd this is, say you were to play the output from a random number generator, parsed so that the resulting values corresponded to music tones, and recorded the output to a file. Then say at some point, completely randomly, you happened to generate a sequence of sounds that exactly matched a copyrighted work. While improbably, this is not impossible. Would you have broken the law in doing this? Are you legally allowed to distribute the resulting file?
11:13 AM
I think the most compelling argument against intellectual property with relation to digital media is that any technology or legislation that seeks to prevent you from copying and distributing a given file actually infringes on your property rights. Essentially, you are being told that it is illegal to rearrange the bits on hardware that you own in certain ways.
As an example to demonstrate how absurd this is, say you were to play the output from a random number generator, parsed so that the resulting values corresponded to music tones, and recorded the output to a file. Then say at some point, completely randomly, you happened to generate a sequence of sounds that exactly matched a copyrighted work. While improbably, this is not impossible. Would you have broken the law in doing this? Are you legally allowed to distribute the resulting file?
2:32 PM
Interesting point, Mr. Maschas. And I appreciate your vehemence in posting twice.
2:46 PM
Your blog engine sucks.
12:43 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home