Where Nobody Knows You're a Music Thief

[Kooperman]

ON THE CONTRARY
Where Nobody Knows You're a Music Thief
By DANIEL AKST

Published: October 5, 2003


IMAGINE that you sell newspapers on the honor system. You put some papers out on a table, along with a can for the money. It would surprise hardly anyone if, at the end of the day, more papers were taken than were paid for.

But Dan Ariely, a professor of media and management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied people's online behavior, says that when experimenters who actually tried this mounted a mirror above the newspapers, more people left money when they took a paper. Apparently, many of us can be shamed into honesty.


That's the trouble with the Internet. If it's a place where nobody knows you're a dog, as a New Yorker cartoon once said, then it's also a place where nobody knows you're a crook, either. Even you may not know. Anonymity allows honest people to sustain a higher level of dishonesty without guilt, as is obvious to many people who have tried online dating.

Nothing captures this phenomenon better than Internet music sharing. What's remarkable about the controversy over music sharing is not how many people are involved - although the number is certainly large - but rather their fervent rationalizing. Internet music sharers, and their defenders, have variously argued that the music industry is evil, that CD's are too expensive and that record companies have brought this upon themselves by failing to offer their wares online.

Even stranger than these tortured justifications is the willingness of parents and others in polite society to acquiesce. After all, Internet music sharing is "pretty clearly a copyright violation," says Joseph P. Liu, an assistant professor at Boston College Law School and an intellectual property specialist. It does not matter if the music business is tasteless, oligopolistic or foolish, as some of its critics contend. Even the greedy and the oafish enjoy the protection of the law.

How is it that otherwise law-abiding citizens do not seem to mind? One reason, Professor Ariely says, is self-deception: "People tell themselves stories they like to hear to justify what they're doing, so they can get something for nothing." That's why the mirror was so effective in the experiment; it impaired the self-deception of those who would steal a newspaper. Moreover, he says, people's willingness to pay is strongly tied to their sense of fairness about price. Consumers know that the cost of producing a CD is low, and because the music shared online is incorporeal, why should anyone mind if they don't pay?

The reason we should all mind is that Internet music sharing represents a profound assault on the very idea of intellectual property. Today it's music, but tomorrow it will be movies and then books, and the justifications will be the same. The implications should be obvious to producers of intellectual property, but the outcry has been muffled in part because universities have come to own and operate so much of the nation's intellectual life.

Many academic intellectuals, who do not seem to like business much anyway, derive relatively little income directly from their writings. Instead, they hope to profit from their intellectual output by attaining tenure and renown. If you live on an academic paycheck - instead of royalties - then the free electronic distribution of your scholarly works is probably preferable to having a university press print 500 copies bound directly for the deepest library stacks.

The absurd Robin Hood narrative that has sprung up around music sharing only obscures what is happening: that a large group of mainly middle-class individuals are not just breaking the law, but also attacking the legal concept that is essential to freedom and prosperity in the information age.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, what's the fairest thing of all? The answer is probably authentication. Sooner or later we will need to know who everyone on the Internet is, and who confirmed their identities. Internet access providers who admit unauthenticated users will have to be shut out, even if that means shutting out whole countries.

In such a world, there would be no doubt about who was violating copyright laws or otherwise misusing the electronic commons. It's sad, I know. The ability to shed one's identity online seemed a dream for a while, but as the poet Delmore Schwartz reminds us, "in dreams begin responsibilities."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/bu...ey/05cont.html

[Kooperman]

The reason I posted this story today was BECAUSE it was so one-sided. If we don't pay attention to all angles of spin that the opposition feeds the public we won't be prepared to counter it properly. If members such as Shadow Lane want to stay snug in their insular cocoon and close their eyes to anything that runs counter to their opinion, that's their choice. But when you're in a battle, you've got to watch all sides for a sneak attack. The RIAA has lost considerable public support lately....this article was placed to regain some of that support. Chances are good that OUR spin will show up soon.

[rainbowdemon]

IMAGINE that you sell newspapers on the honor system. You put some papers out on a table, along with a can for the money. It would surprise hardly anyone if, at the end of the day, more papers were taken than were paid for.

I know, the ski shop where I work has a set-up like this for snack food. It usually comes up short. And these are people that have known each other for years!!

[FrozenShadow23]

I might pay for the newspaper if it was properly priced and worthy of payment. Most likely, I wouldn't pay. I don't personally download because of a lack of shame. Lots of people know I download. People mention software and I'll mention that I "aquired" that a short time ago and that it is excellent software. Both me and him know exactly what just happend, and both of us realize that each of us illegally downloaded the software/game/music. It may be that way for some people, and I imagine that it is, but not for me.

[shawners]

Nobody knows im a dog but me =) Im fed up with buying albums cause its rare that all the tracks on the cd will entertain you or give you as much enjoyment as a DVD Movie.. I like mixing the songs together and creating my own perfect disc, If i have to join four songs off four albums of the same artist to create great works.. By God I Shall. I like finding the rare acoustic stuff or unreleased demos that these artist should be ashamed taht were made.lol

[Malicious Intent]

I'd love to laugh and say that everyone online will never be authenticated, but thats what I did when hearing the idea of individual file sharers getting sued.

Even the greedy and the oafish enjoy the protection of the law.

Not at the cost of their victims.

[Shadow Lane]

That quote-unquote article is nothing more than a long, drawn-out anti-filesharing opinion.

That's OK. He got to state his opinion, can I state mine. Here it is:

If I wanted to read RIAA flavored opinions, I'd go to the RIAA forums.

[Ken17625]

Sooner or later we will need to know who everyone on the Internet is, and who confirmed their identities. Internet access providers who admit unauthenticated users will have to be shut out, even if that means shutting out whole countries.

Wow.

As George Carlin would say.........

"Some people are really fucking stupid".


On a side note, i'd pay for the newspaper.

But even if I was clearly identified, I would still not have an guilt issues about downloading music. The author seems to think we would have some sort of shame if we were put in a spotlight. That is, of course, largely false.

[Krell]

"People tell themselves stories they like to hear to justify what they're doing, so they can get something for nothing."

Wrong, here's a story I would like to hear - CD'S, any artist, $5.00. . anytime. Then I might fucking buy one. I dont care if the artists get the money, that's their problem, tell them to not quit their day job, or in the case of rap or pop, get any job, and quit the business all together.

The implications should be obvious to producers of intellectual property

Who says they should get paid continously for their work? Rethink that bullshit rational. I'm not still getting paid for work I did 20 years ago.

The absurd Robin Hood narrative

Yes it is absurd.

but also attacking the legal concept that is essential to freedom and prosperity in the information age.

SO which is it, freedom, or prosperity? What absudity is he refering to, that of the lazy assed intellectual property "owner" , or that of the middle class person who sees the absurdity of paying $18 for some shit CD with 2 decent tracks on it, or $25 for a DVD, that couldnt cut it at the box office?




Sooner or later we will need to know who everyone on the Internet is, and who confirmed their identities
Who freaking says so?

If I wanted to read RIAA flavored opinions, I'd go to the RIAA forums.

No one hates RIAA propaganda more than I do, but it's a free country man, Kooperman doesnt stay up late writing this shit, he just passes it along for our parousel, learn to use the back button.


.

[Lamourlady]

agreed. i would pay for the paper as well.
not because of shame, but because they trusted me in the first place.
they do it out here in farm country all the time with their goods from the field...little stands, unattended.
also, yes....it is just one person's opinion....it was stated and i disagree.
when talking of this subject...all facts must be taken into consideration.....right or wrong....a change must be made and that means for the RIAA as well.
whether or not we r thieves....we have spoken in an unusual way......so listen or get off the pot.

*hey, Krell ;)*