Copyright Arguments

Someone I follow on Twitter (@adamsavage) Tweeted a link to an articulate discussion between a teen-aged girl and a copyright owner (James Robert Brown) of some sheet music she was sharing without his permission:


(http://www.jasonrobertbrown.com/weblog/2010/06/fighting_with_teenagers_a_copy.php)


What is so interesting to me about this is that I, the convicted felon presumably without morals, have frequently argued over the past ten years that the fact that people can't afford to pay for music they are downloading illegally and therefore would not reduce the amount of revenue the copyright owner would receive by doing so, does not make it okay.


There is also much relentless (there's that word again) arguing on both sides of the issue, and it is quite refreshing to see two people go at it in such an articulate way. I view such brain-sharpening activity as its own reward, regardless of whether either side concedes defeat. In fact, I have often strengthened my understanding of an issue by thinking about it intensely while making arguments to state my case, and I'd say others have experienced the same result.


There are some aspects of the issue that I'm not decided on, such as how long a copyright should be effective, as in the case of family members of the deceased creator of the copyrighted material claiming ownership for decades after the creator's death and similar issues.


There is also a great "Penn Says" episode on the subject, which also demonstrates how emotional (and irrational) some people become when discussing the subject. (Penn Jillette's wife, Emily, apparently received some nasty threats after rationally bringing up the fact that it might be illegal to rip the music from CD's for personal use and then send the CD's to the military. A "good cause", but still illegal.) You can view that episode here:

http://www.crackle.com/c/Penn_Says/Sending_Cds_To_the_Military/2397145

It's amazing how quickly self-righteously moral people can become self-righteously immoral when it comes to something illegal or immoral they've decided they should be allowed to do because it's "for a good cause" or because it's "so common".


I've long thought that drunk driving and speeding should be felonies, since they actually put lives at risk. But alas, you'll do more time for tax evasion than you'll ever do for engaging in an irresponsible behavior that could take someone's life.


In the grand scheme of things, I suppose it might not seem like a big deal that so many artists and content creators' work gets "shared" without payment, especially since it was money they weren't going to make anyway from poor people and fellow "starving artists" who couldn't afford to own it any other way than stealing it. But the truth is, the sense of entitlement it creates will ultimately destroy what little respect remains for other people's property, be it physical or intellectual.


And if you value America and what America stands for, you should recognize that this is but one more very dangerous step towards socialism. The idea that anyone who can't afford what you have can take it without your permission without providing anything in return is even worse than taxing citizens for government programs they didn't vote for. You may not have voted for it, but at least it's something tangible (however wasteful and/or socialistic) that comes from the exchange.


"Sharers" of copyrighted material provide nothing to the copyright owner but arrogance, and that's a form of payment most of us would prefer never to clear our bank.


-A.M.