Chron: Internet pirates are treading on `We the People'

Otto: I hear what you are saying, but I think that is more an argument of convenience than moral conviction.

You obviously weren't walking into record stores and shoving CD's under your coat for the love of music before. I doubt you were buying pirated CD's on the black market with regularity before Napster.

What Roddy McDowell did has very little correlation because movies were not available outside of a theater. It would be a logical argument if music was ONLY played live and you had to pay to go to a concert and see it. Besides, McDowell went to tremendous personal risk and considerable cost to acquire the films he did. He didn't just sit in his living room and press a few buttons.

Prior to Napster, most people voiced their protest with the RIAA's corrupt practices by simply not buying music at all or by buying only artists they really supported. I think the oil and gas industry is full of corrupt polluters, yet I don't fill up at a gas station and drive off without paying.

I'm not disputing anyone's claims that the business model of the RIAA is flawed. I'm not disputing that they are corrupt and that there is a better delivery method available out there. I also think they will eventually change.

What I am saying is that I disagree with the argument that downloading is some sort of Robin Hood for the entertainment industry; some form of protest against the RIAA. For years, people made cassette copies of music for their friends and even for sale. But, the spread of music via cassette was extremely limited because it was inconvenient and, in the case of black market sales, sometimes dangerous. Napster just took the next technological step but they didn't do it for the love of music. They did it for money, just like the RIAA.

----

The whole jist of my argument is that downloading isn't something that really bothers me all that much and I can't stand the RIAA, so I can see the desire to want to see them fall.

I just think that using them as an excuse for downloading is a weak one. If people were truly pissed at the RIAA for their corrupt practices, they would have been going to much greater lengths to acquire music illegally long ago OR they would have stopped buying it altogether.

 

Just a quick comment...

Your statement just defined nearly every for-profit business in America. Unless you want to shift from capitalism to some other form of economy, the RIAA is no different in that regard than any other industry in America.

 

i'm down with that you're saying here, and i do understand the necessity of intellectual property rights, patents, etc. but i find ottomaton's argument persuasive as well.

1) you seem to brush off the "robin hood" mentality as a far-fetched excuse. i beg to differ.

yes napster/kazaa is no different from stealing. yet you'll never catch me stealing from blind beggars on the street. but you will find me secretly keying my negligent landlord's car. in either case i benefit personally and no law enforcement exists to punish me, but the moral case is clear. and even if i were blinded by poverty to steal from good or innocent people, i'd still feel the sting from moral rebuke, which i don't feel at all in this case. which in turn brings me to my second point...

2) the law in itself is neither sacred nor moral, except when it serves the public good. and in a capitalist system, plutocratic self-interest just happens to be the means to that end in many cases. however, you'd be twisting the argument on its head if you claim that plutocratic self-interest is the end itself. the law should serve not only to promote capitalism, but also both to direct and restrain this self-interest toward the public good. and as ottomaton argues, this is clearly a case where powerful money-driven institutions have hijacked our well-intentioned system. and if we don't hit back at their pocketbooks, how else?

as for the law itself, when it is no longer backed by its moral basis, you shouldn't be surprised when millions like myself treat it like so much chaff. we ignore it when we can. hide from it if we must. and obey it only when we're left with no choice. thankfully, so long as kazaa and the scores of programs like it exist, we do have a choice.

 

I totally agree. What I don't agree with is the fact that you must steal to accomplish hitting them in their pocketbooks.

If this was food or water or shelter, it would be one thing. This is not. This is music. If you want to hit them in their pocketbooks, you have a right not to purchase music. That is how you hit back.

In the case of industries where products and services cannot be taken for free without serious legal consequenses - fuel, clothing, medical services, etc - people do not normally attempt to extract those things without payment because they see the ramifications. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest those and other industries are hijacking our well-intentioned system as well, some to a much greater degree than an $18 CD.

In the case of clothing, how is $175 for a pair of sneakers justified, especially when, for all intents and purposes, slave labor in another country is making them? Clearly, they are exploiting a market full of kids with a lot of money and a desire to wear the latest trend. So, why not just steal shoes whenever you want them? Obviously, because their is a greater risk of punishment.

That's why I don't buy this Robin Hood argument. There are any number of industries who, it could be argued, gouge the crap out of their customers to a far greater extent and people make the decision to either buy or not buy based on their financial situation, their feelings for the company, etc. They do this without stealing or copying or whatever.

The only difference between that and music is that music is available for free in an, up until now, relatively risk-free environment.

No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to spend $18 on a CD. No one is forcing you to buy ANYTHING. It is ultimately your choice to buy or not to buy.

As for the moral law issue, I'm not talking about obeying laws. I'm talking about taking something from someone who doesn't want it taken. If I were a successful artist and I told you I didn't approve of you downloading my music because I felt it was costing me money, would you do it anyway even if you knew me? And if the answer is "no," why would you then think it is ok to take it from a total stranger who disapproves?

 

jumping in a bit late here....

Being a musician myself, I kinda see both sides.

Personally, I download music in the past because I didnt want to spend $15 on CD that sucked. Specifically CD's with only 1 or 2 good songs.

Now I download music from bands that Im interested in, but havent heard their music. If I dig their ****, I will go out and buy the CD once I have heard some tracks. In this respect it helps bands get more exposure. If your friend says "check this out!", you can download a few songs and see if you likey too.

I think the RIAA is realizing that the product they are selling us is 50% garbage, and consumers dont want to pay for crap. And the extremities they are going to to do so is completely and utterly ludicrous.

WHY WASTE $$$ ON A CD YOU CANNOT LISTEN TO BEFORE YOU PURCHASE IT???

 

Why waste money on a movie you cannot watch before you purchase it?

Why waste money on a meal you may not like?

Why waste money on a pair of shoes you cannot wear before you buy them?

Why is the RIAA getting blamed for CDs that only have a few good songs? Why isn't the artist getting blamed?

 

well, jeff. you kinda answered your own question. it is precisely because we CAN steal from these record companies (in a low-risk manner), that we DO.

if there were similarly risk-free ways to steal from the big sneaker companies, you bet your bottom dollar i'd do the same. (welcome to the $10 contraband Nike/Reebok markets you find in Asia)... i hesitate to go down this line of argument, because in my mind, there is serious competition, innovation, and choice for shoe buyers, and you can still get nice shoes for say $20 if you avoid the brand names.

it is indeed my choice. but what is your point here? are you making a distinction between luxury and necessity? or are your making a distinction between to pay or not to pay.

this music enhances my life. so i want it regardless of whether it is luxury or necessity. its acquisition involves money, which i may pay or not pay. and since i find the distributor to be obnoxious, i don't.

it is good that you've chosen to separate legality from morality, which Mr. Burt had unwisely failed to do.

as for taking music from artists who don't want it taken from them. i would like to point out that the musicians sell their music to the distributors and lose their rights therein. they may be entitled to a tiny fraction of sales, but ownership is clearly no longer theirs. furthermore, isn't "not buying" just as harmful to artists as "downloading"? the only difference is that i get shafted along with everybody else. i despise my landlord, and yet i must obey him when he tells me that i cannot scratch his car? i hit back in the easiest, most direct way i can.

the record companies are basically telling me. yes you can hate us, but you cannot steal from us. if you want to hit back, find some other way. well, frankly, i can't be bothered.

on a moral basis, i definitely see your point about thinking about the artists when we distribute MP3s. it's the record labels that draw our wrath, and yet artists get hurt in our attempt to hit back.

just tell the artists to avoid the distributors... i know this sounds foolish and insensititive. but is it not the same treatment we give drug cartels, human smugglers, etc.? yes some coca farmer would starve, yes those haitians would be better off in america, but they have a choice too. go plant something else. go immigrate somewhere else. so long as musicians go through the record labels, they are going to get shafted by the users of Kazaa. if this is a crusade, the artists who choose to continue working with record labels will be the unfortunate collateral victims.

at this point, you're probably going to scoff that this ain't no crusade, this is just plain stealing. but hey in my mind stealing from bad people screwing up our democratic system feels great, if not downright holy. and in this case, i get to enjoy good music too.

i don't pretend to be morally perfect. and i suspect that people like myself will find a reason to hate everybody if they needed an excuse to steal from them. it may very well be the case here.

i spent 150 bux on cds/dvds for music i couldn't find on kazaa so far this year, and believe me, i felt ripped off every time... why is it that some distributors like Walmart or Dell make you feel that you're getting great value for money, and you're thankful for their existence. And yet the record labels draw so much ire? Just food for thought I guess...

 

Jumping back in here:

Jeff - the corelation I intended with the McDowell thing was that the MPAA had a monopoly on distribution and so were able to control the market like OPEC or other false cartels. They hid behind the "protecting the artistic integrity" because it sounded better than "they're taking the money we worked so hard to weasel out of the people we've farmed" when in fact they had no problem going after the people they protected. When the MPAA lost their lawsuit to prevent the sale of the Betamax, the "sky is falling" situation that they predicted didn't come true. Things, in fact, got better for almost all of the creative people on the production side, as well as for the consumers.

In this way, I find your position as expressed to be somewhat logically simplistic and shortsighted in their way in much the same way that I feel about people who can't see the net benifits of true fair trade, but rather only worry about the price of tomatoes this week.

The RIAA has, in much the same way that the MPAA has, always attempted to control any distribution. The difference being that the RIAA has been willing to grudgingly allow analog distribution means. They have, however, blocked the introduction of the CD, the DVD, the DAT, and basically any other digital copying source.

Also, while I will grant you that the average downloader isn't sitting down to "stick it to the man", I would suggest that the model of things like Riots or other spontanious public actions. The collective pressure of a situation creates a general feeling of discontent and one incident can set a complex chain reaction. In looking at that situation, motives of individuals are hardly complex or necessarily virtuous, when viewed from afar, the dynamic is still evident.

Anyway, if you don't see it, you don't see it. I appreciate why you are defending the position you are defending, and I even agree that many of the downloaders out there are parasitic consumers. I just think there is a bigger picture behind it all.