On the Gripping Hand

Interesting ethical question, Mark: you insist that copyright infringement is in a different ethical catagory to theft, yeah? Yet personally you won’t have a bar of it.

Not quite. My point is that copyright infringement is in a different legal category to theft and, because copyright is a legal construct (as is theft BTW), you cannot discuss it rationally without acknowledging that. My personal ethics compel me to pay my own way, and to give credit (and money) where it’s due.

I view the distinction between ethics, morals and the law as this:
ethics are internal subjective, morals are external subjective and the law is external objective. That is, ethics are about what I think is right and wrong, morals are about what the people around me think is right and wrong, and the law is about what we collectively agree is right and wrong. None of these are universal or inherent in the human condition. They are all learned behaviours that enable us to live together as a society. And sometimes, the agreed behaviour of the law may not accord with the ethics of the individual or the moral code of a group but, because we have collectively made the rules, they take precedence over personal preferences.

I can see many sides of the debate and, while I can understand the thinking of people who just want stuff to be free, it doesn’t mean I agree with them. I think their position is as unsustainable as the copyright maximalists in the long term. But both have to be considered if we are to move forward. Both are stakeholders, along with all those in-between. The arguments I hear from the likes of RIANZ are all skewed towards one end of the spectrum, and are technologically unfeasible. The arguments from “free-riders” are skewed the other way, and (for me) ethically unacceptable.

I believe that copyright is a useful method of encouraging innovation and creation of new art by remunerating artists for prior work in order to afford them the resources to move forward to the next project. And I don’t just say that because I are one. ;-)

I don’t believe it’s a property right, indivisible and eternal. I believe its a contract between the creator of work and the society s/he lives in to afford the creator control over the use of and revenue from the act of creation for a limited time. After that time, the work becomes the property of the society.

Can you put your finger on what it is about this “not-theft” that is so clearly unethical you won’t do it? Is it simply that it’s not fair?

Pretty much. I want to get paid as much as anyone else does (one day, Roger Fitch!) so it would be hypocritical of me to say “well, pay me, but I won’t pay you” and I’ve never been a big fan of hypocrisy.

I can kind’ve see that, yet since you’ve so vehemently taken the line: “the world ain’t fair- get over it” I’m struggling a bit.

Yes, it’s not. Just because I believe in a certain perspective doesn’t mean the world does the same or operates in concert with my beliefs. I think it should be fair, but I know it’s not and no amount of bleating “But it’s not fair!” will make it so. That’s the pragmatist in me – you’ve got to live in the world that is, and deal with what it throws at you. I might wish it was different, and indeed I do, but it’s not going to remake itself to my wishes just because I wish it.

It’s not incompatible to hold an ethical position in a world that doesn’t operate that way. In fact, I think it’s essential in order to keep your balance. Those who operate without ethics to guide them will never be able to make the changes needed. I acknowledge that my ethical stance may not be shared by others – that’s their problem, not mine. I don”t argue from an ethical position, because that’s my business. I don’t argue from a moral position, because that a sure way to never get anything done. I argue about the legal position because it’s behaviours we need to change, and the legal method is the only way to objectively do that.

I want the maximalists to realise that their day is done, because the world has moved on and their perspective doesn’t rule any more. I want the free-riders to accept that people should be paid for the work that they do. I want creators and publishers to understand that the scarcity model is dead in the digital world and they have to adjust their thinking to the abundance model, and the fact that they need to stop seeing every copy as revenue lost or yet to be earned, but to start looking at the opportunities offered to increase the potential size of the pie.

It think Reznor gets this, and Doctorow and many others. It’s early days but they’re making money, so they’re making it work. The old ways are on life support, going kicking and screaming into the dark.

How much money has the movie and music industry spent on trying to criminalise their customers? How much difference might that money have made to some musician or writer or performer, if they’d focused on finding new ways to funnel that money to them?

I think we’re all pretty much agreed that the media industries have screwed up in their approach. But their rhetoric is pervading all debate – “stealing”, “pirates”, and such. “Won’t someone think of the struggling artist?”. We need to get away from that and away from the “content just wants to be free” as well. To move forward we need an approach that is fair and balanced, that recognises the new reality instead of railing against it and that looks to create a new model that’s not just about protecting vested interests on both sides.