The other day I read a piece by John Mellencamp about internet piracy. He was discussing the fact that musicians are losing income due to illegal downloads.
What struck me was how poor the comments were that accompanied the article. I read about half of the 1,000 comments and about 90% were terrible! The arguments people were making were non-logical and non-transferable.
Here’s a few arguments summed up and exposed:
“Musicians should only be paid for live performances” – Okay, then what about all the actors in Hollywood working on TV shows? They should only be paid by the live studio audience, and then they should get no money when the show broadcasts?
“Mellencamp has enough money so he shouldn’t be upset if people pirate his music” – So if someone is a millionaire, then it should be okay for other people to steal their possessions and investments?
“People are pirating because music has been overpriced” – If something is overpriced, then consumers have a choice: don’t buy it! We’re not talking about someone stealing food to feed his family, we’re talking about songs.
“People should only have to pay for what they think something is worth” – Go to a deparment store and say, “This shirt costs $20, but I’m think it’s only worth $10, so that’s what I’m going to pay.” See how this works out for you.
“I support the right to pirate” – See how you feel when someone “pirates” your car, and then get back to me.
And on it goes. They were plently of other bogus arguments, but I just wanted to pick out a few to illustrate my point.
So why is the quality of these arguments so poor? I have some ideas I’ll put forward in the next post.
Then isn’t it ironic that you use a poor quality argument yourself?
“I support the right to pirate” – See how you feel when someone “pirates” your car, and then get back to me.
Making a digital copy of an existing string of binary info is simply not the same thing as physically stealing someone’s car. I’m not convinced by the people who want to get rid of IP altogether, but they make some excellent arguments. The fashion industry, for example, exists and thrives without IP protection (clothes can’t be copyrighted). What I am sure of is that IP law in it’s current US form is completely off the rails.
Yes it is the same. He has the LEGAL copyright to his songs. We’re not talking about a person burning a copy for a friend. We’re talking about someone putting the songs up for mass download.
Of course clothes can be copyrighted! What do you think the Nike Swoosh is??
You are confusing brands with clothes. You can’t copyright a clothing design but you obviously have the right to your trademark brand. If Levis comes out with some new style of jeans, flared legs, low cut, etc. Anyone is allowed to make that exact same cut of jeans, down to the millimeter. What they are not allowed to do is sell them as Levis. These are plain facts that can be easily verified by a couple minutes of googling.
The economist Russ Roberts did an interview with someone in the fashion industry about this very topic and how it relates to IP and innovation. It raises interesting issues about how much IP protection is needed to promote innovation.
As far as piracy goes, a single copy is piracy. The amount of copies made doesn’t matter, the point that you seem to be willfully ignoring is that it is not the same thing as physically stealing your car.
Again, I find it ironic that I’m the one arguing in a measured manner with knowledge of what I’m talking about and you are the one responding in a petulant manner, and your whole point is that the level of discourse on the internet is in decline.
Here’s the Roberts interview, it is with Johanna Blakley.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/06/blakely_on_fash.html
I realize you can’t copyright clothing DESIGN, but if a person wants to know they are getting the original product, that is why they have labels. So we are talking about two types of intellectual property – the design and the brand name.
Just as someone can steal a song, they can steal clothes from the store, or they could put a fake Nike logo on something and say it is original. All of which is illegal.
Part of the reason, at least historically, there has been no copyright on clothing design is that 1) it’s hard to prove, and 2) clothing is a necessity and they want to keep the price down. Obviously, then you’re comparing apples and oranges between songs and clothing. My example with songs and cars is actually much closer because it’s not that hard to prove theft in either case.
A single copy is not piracy, at least it isn’t now, as shops like iTunes give users right to share downloads in a limited way. What has been illegal is wholesale mass download to anonymous users. This is piracy in my book.
Just as you think the level of my responses is poor, I think the exact same of yours.
Sean,
One general thing as I’ve meditated a bit on it. The exchange we just had is one example of why arguing on the internet usually doesn’t work.
Here’s my opinion as to why:
1) People say/type things differently on the internet than they would face-to-face. People also interpret the typed messages differently than they would for an in-person conversation. There are no other cues to provide the listener more information.
2) I have no idea who you are. I’ve never met you in person. So how much am I going to invest in this argument? I mean, what do I get if I win?
3) The non-real-time nature of discussion hinders it. For example, I thought you meant clothes, when you thought you were saying clothing design. In an in-person conversation, that would be cleared up in a second. On the internet, it takes hours.
Think of it this way: let’s say we sat down to lunch for an hour and talked about intellectual property. We may not agree after the meal, but I bet we could find some common ground.
But arguing over the internet? It’s very difficult to get anywhere. People throw stones and then move on. Usually nothing is learned.
All this is why I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that arguing on the internet is a waste of time.
I wasn’t comparing songs to fashion in a direct sense, I was pointing out that it’s a thriving industry that functions without IP.
Violating someone’s brand or trademark is fraud. It is lying. Enforcing this is important for the obvious reason that contracts need to be enforced for a healthy marketplace to function. Copying a pair of Levi’s exactly and selling them as Stevi’s is perfectly legal. Trying to pass them off as Levi’s, however, is fraud and actionable.
However I could draw some parallels with clothing and music. Music is something that we’ve been doing since before recorded history and great music was being created and written down and proliferated long before draconian IP laws. It often has been associated and propagated by religion, and I imagine for those people it is and was an important necessity of life.
I don’t think IP ought to be abolished altogether, I’d like to see things like music, films, books, etc come more into line with patents which last for a much shorter time. However, if it was abolished completely I don’t think it would harken a tragic end to great music, and I say this as someone who once lived in Hollywood and aspired to become a professional musician. People like Beethoven were making great music long before juicy contracts with record companies and 100+ years of IP ownership laws existed. If fact, it could be that all that money actually retards the development of great music.
A single copy of purchased music, for personal use, depending on the license agreement, is not illegal (this happened after consumer backlash). Making a copy for a friend is illegal, it IS piracy. People who download an illegal copy generally upload an illegal copy, ie, they share to a 1/1 ratio. The same as if you made an illegal copy for a friend who made an illegal copy for another friend, and so on. The degree to which this takes place has nothing to do with the basic argument. Piracy–making a digital copy for oneself–is not the same thing as stealing a physical object from someone. It’s not the same as stealing someone’s car. It’s simply not the same. If you were to print out a bunch of CDs and put labels on them and sell them out of the trunk of your car, that would be more akin to the physical theft of stealing someone’s car. Like trying to sell Stevis as Levis.
As far as your arguments about arguing on the internet go, I agree mostly. Trolls, hit & running, throwing stones, etc. All that crap exists and is probably increasing in scope as the internet increases in size and breadth of coverage. However, it really depends on the venue, and there are more niches now for intelligent discourse than ever before.
I’d quibble with the problem of non-real-time interaction you mention. While simple misunderstandings might muddy the waters, composing one’s thought into a longish (well, super-long) comment such as this is different than discussing IP face-to-face in a cafe. One is forced to be more disciplined to make an argument and collect one’s thoughts into a more cogent form, I believe.