The Bizarro World of property ethics
I was just trying to imagine how terrible it would be if we lived in a Bizarro World where law abiding citizens who refuse to pay for things they never stole are deemed criminals, but criminals who have stolen are shielded by the law. Then I remember that many European countries are already like this, and Andrew Keen’s column shows us that that the United States might be headed for a similar path if groups like Free Press get their way.
When I hear people suggest that we should have a BBC-Style American broadcasting company, it makes be cringe because of what it entails. Most Americans have no concept of the word “TV license” where law abiding citizens who have no intent on watching government run programs are hunted down by the TV police who sneak into homes by any means possible to find unlicensed TVs.
When I hear people of my generation and younger say “never going to pay for content again”, it baffles me. Most of us are probably ashamed to say that we weren’t fully legal in our starving college days, but most of us grew out of that once we got a job. It’s trivial to just steal a $1 song from the Internet just like it’s trivial to stiff the waitress of her tip at the bar, but it doesn’t mean it’s ethical or that we should try to rationalize our behavior. I guess it’s easier to rationalize the former behavior when you don’t have to look the person in the face you’re stealing from and when it’s easier to get away with. I do find it bizarre that a person won’t pay for content when the same person often has no problem paying $30 for a night of drinks at a bar.
We’re not in a time when people are trying to steal a loaf of bread for survival, we’re in a time when people steal because they can most likely get away with it. They can “cleanse” their conscience by rationalizing it and by trying to change the law through mechanisms like “The Pirate Party“. The more likely route to the nullification of property rights will be brought about from seemingly moderate groups like the Free Culture Movement who target excessive copyright protections on the surface but covet an elimination of most or all copyright protections.
In the place of privately funded content will be tax payer funding through mechanisms like a tax on TV, blank media (think hard drives and flash memory in the future), broadband service, wireless service, higher income taxes, and higher VAT taxes. The problem with this arrangement is that the unholy alliance between media and government simply becomes unavoidable when government signs the media paycheck. The problem with government funded ventures is that they rarely go down in price because they have no competition. The government doesn’t need to be more innovative and more lean to thrive because they can simply raise taxes, and it’s next to impossible to negotiate or escape paying the government. Compared to the government, negotiating with private businesses feels like heaven and the younger generation should think carefully before they eliminate the free market.
I have two immediate arguments, first is free content.
Many of us are still familiar with the idea of free radio. I am pretty sure Satellite radio hasn’t taken over the world yet, or Sirius wouldn’t have merged with XM and the government been alright with this. So we have advertisers that would pay for what the radio played. I don’t have a problem with this model at all. I remember having the same with television back in the days when I lived in the country until the content for network television turned into absolute spew. I feel that was some time around 1999-2000. As a customer, you generally don’t think of paying for content because someone pays for programming to advertise to you. So the idea of paying for content does seem a bit foreign in that regard.
Now as far as piracy of is concerned and I made this point before, when you see the public image of a star on shows like MTV cribs, you don’t exactly feel compelled to spend additional money on their music or movies when they already have more items in their life than you could ever own personally.
On the flip side of this, many people won’t hesitate to go to a concert, which for the artists is where the money really is earned as record labels usually siphon most of the profits from them industry for themselves. Some of these labels promote their artists and help push them to the public. Others lock their artists into death-lock contracts, bill them ridiculous amounts while driving the image of an artist into the ground. Trent Reznor brought this to light in Australia when he found out his label was charging ridiculous amounts for his album because of the dedication of his fans at no benefit to himself.
I have never seen a waitress hauled around in a stretched Humvee. Normally a waitress is in college trying to improve her life or has a couple kids struggling to get by. We can relate to the waitress, we can’t relate to the rockstar.
Once again, this is in no way a justification for theft, only an explanation to the logic of those who continue their ways.
A couple of points. First, the performers aren’t the only ones who did the work to make the album/single. There’s the production people and the song writers, and a lot of those people don’t have those fancy cribs you see on MTV. And even if someone lives in a fancy home, it still doesn’t make it ethical to steal from them.
SAT radio is advertising free, but most people prefer ad-supported radio because they don’t drive their car enough to make SAT radio worth while. But I don’t see how this has anything to do with stealing CDs and DVDs off the Internet or pushing for socialized media and content.
Rebuttal.
On the first point, I couldn’t disagree more on the portion that some put work on an album that is not justly rewarded. On that same token, those record labels that take advantage of fans such as in the case that Trent Reznor had to deal with give the public a bad view of record labels. Once again, I am not saying that stealing is correct, just how many would love to justify it. I understand that many people behind the scenes work on an album that don’t get much credit for it and stand to lose the most when piracy runs rampant. That is something that was advertised at one time on television through a few commercials. Then we learned that the writer’s guild has the ability to go on strike, so again, some of that sympathy was lost.
Second point, I think I failed to correlate this point a bit better that some justify that if it is played on the radio, then it’s alright to copy in the same since that if a television show is on TV, that it is alright to make a copy so that you can watch it on your own time. once again, I realize that this is flawed logic, just further explanation of how the public may or may not view certain forms of piracy.
Now for something new to add to the discussion. How do you make getting something for free look bad? Complain, advertise and ostracize all you want, yet those who want to steal, still view theft as a good thing because they see the benefit without seeing harm done. Hollywood tried several campaigns and I have to be honest, but when I see a commercial come on about the evils of illegal downloading, I feel like firing up a few torrents. I am sure I am not alone in this subject.
“Hollywood tried several campaigns and I have to be honest, but when I see a commercial come on about the evils of illegal downloading, I feel like firing up a few torrents. I am sure I am not alone in this subject.”
I really don’t follow this thinking. If I see an ad that isn’t relevant to me, I just ignore it. It certainly doesn’t make me feel an urge for vengeance via piracy.
[...] talked about this before and we really need to ask ourselves if we want to start paying a tax on our computers and Internet [...]
Leave your response!
Twitter Feed
About Us
Digital Society is a digital think tank that believes culture and commerce are inseparable, that the digital economy flourishes when people are free and rights are secure, and that free markets free people.
Digital Society is an independent 501(c)3 non-profit organization, funded by donations from Jon Henke and from Arts+Labs. We advocate for a pro-culture, pro-commerce digital society through research, analysis and debate on emerging technology issues.
Reply Comments
Transparency and interactivity are trademarks of the Internet era, and we aim to foster them here at Digital Society. It is inevitable that some people will disagree with the technology policy positions we take. We want to have that constructive debate.
The Reply Comments feature gives our critics a chance to respond to our viewpoints and the Digital Society audience convenient access to competing arguments. Any time we directly challenge the views of an individual or a group on this site, the party in question may substantively respond in a guest post.
Please contact executive director Jon Henke by e-mail.
Subscribe
Daily Digest Email
Recent Posts
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Most Viewed