My friend Greg Pye is worried that people-like-us who are "stealing" music are not ashamed.
http://gregpye.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/stealing-music/
Shame is a good word for the feelings that should be involved here. I don't think shame is clicking-in right now, because social norms on what constitutes reasonable music-buying behaviour have not yet evolved. The real problem is that there is no sign of a mechanism emerging to define or shape these new norms.
When I was leaving college my entire gang made and swapped swapped copies of each other's favourite audio tapes. I resent (and reject) the insinuation that that was either illegal or immoral. Most reasonable people agree that ordinary listeners like you or me should be people should be able to share our music with our friends and family.
Almost everyone also agrees that people who make music should be able to make a decent living. Nobody is really fussed about whether that decent living is paid for by CD sales, concerts or royalties from on-line radio stations.
The hard part is finding a set of social norms on what constitutes a "reasonable" level of copying. For instance, I think there is something shady about borrowing a DVD from Blockbuster, burning a few dozen copies and selling the copies on eBay. I don't have any qualms about copying a ~80 GB of music from a high-school buddy's hard drive for my own listening pleasure.
Calibrating personal judgments like this socializing them would help all of us evolve to a new set of norms. This is similar in spirit to calibrating performance ratings or credit decisions at a company like Capital One. The courts could have been the credible authority forcing the calibration to happen. They could have forced results of the calibration to be socialized through the media. Instead, by coming down squarely on the side of the fat-cat media bosses, the courts have simply polarized the situation.
It's been a bit of a needless tragedy. The only silver lining is that enough reasonable and powerful people hate the court's one-sided view passionately enough to hope that something will shake loose.
http://gregpye.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/stealing-music/
Shame is a good word for the feelings that should be involved here. I don't think shame is clicking-in right now, because social norms on what constitutes reasonable music-buying behaviour have not yet evolved. The real problem is that there is no sign of a mechanism emerging to define or shape these new norms.
When I was leaving college my entire gang made and swapped swapped copies of each other's favourite audio tapes. I resent (and reject) the insinuation that that was either illegal or immoral. Most reasonable people agree that ordinary listeners like you or me should be people should be able to share our music with our friends and family.
Almost everyone also agrees that people who make music should be able to make a decent living. Nobody is really fussed about whether that decent living is paid for by CD sales, concerts or royalties from on-line radio stations.
The hard part is finding a set of social norms on what constitutes a "reasonable" level of copying. For instance, I think there is something shady about borrowing a DVD from Blockbuster, burning a few dozen copies and selling the copies on eBay. I don't have any qualms about copying a ~80 GB of music from a high-school buddy's hard drive for my own listening pleasure.
Calibrating personal judgments like this socializing them would help all of us evolve to a new set of norms. This is similar in spirit to calibrating performance ratings or credit decisions at a company like Capital One. The courts could have been the credible authority forcing the calibration to happen. They could have forced results of the calibration to be socialized through the media. Instead, by coming down squarely on the side of the fat-cat media bosses, the courts have simply polarized the situation.
It's been a bit of a needless tragedy. The only silver lining is that enough reasonable and powerful people hate the court's one-sided view passionately enough to hope that something will shake loose.
2 comments:
The difficulty is that what you describe as a social judgment or court calibration is in fact judged by courts (at least in the US) as a breach of copyright. I'm not quite sure if that is technically illegal or 'just' a civil offence, but that is splitting hairs. What is legal is ruled by the judiciary, following statute and case law. They have ruled that it is illegal. There may be room to appeal on the proposed damages, but I haven't heard anyone seriously suggesting an appeal the basic judgement for a prima-face case of music copying - and copying 80Gb of music would fall squarely in that camp for me I'm afraid. So, you can resent the statement that it is illegal, but in the US at least it has been declared by the courts to be illegal - it's not a matter of insinuation, and you can resent or reject it all you like. You'd still have to pay the damages.
Your example is also odd in some respects. You'd find it uncomfortable to make a dozen copies of a DVD and sell them. Total 'lost' income of ~£100 for the studio concerned. But, you'd be happy to copy 80Gb of music (roughly 1000 albums depending on the codec). Even if you would only 'buy' 1 in 10 that is a lost income of ~£1000, or an order of magnitude higher. So, from an artist/producer perspective, you'd find it socially better to steal 10 times as much?
None of that gets away from a personal dislike for the business model of the music industry (anyone watching what Guy Hands is up to?), but I have a choice there - I can not buy if I dislike their stance (e.g. crippleware on CDs). I can lobby for a change in copyright law. I can avoid oppressive DRM. All three seem doable.
Oh, and before I leave too much of an impression that I am sitting on my pedestal, yes I am being somewhat hypocritical. I have occasionally gone above the speed limit, and that certainly is clearly a criminal offence (the points are timed out now though). But, I have no stolen music, films, books or any other copyright material. And, I remain surprised that people don't feel somewhat ashamed if they do.
The fact that courts have ruled on something does not mean the ruling is right.
I think this is interesting enough to turn into a proper post :)
Post a Comment