A File-Sharing Honor Code
Thursday, April 2nd, 2009 by Patrick RossShould we all just throw up our hands, say infringement online can never be tamed, and find some way to compensate creators even if that means forfeiture of their rights over distribution and reproduction? Some say yes. I continue to maintain that consumer-friendly legal models (sometimes enabled by rights management) and education can make the digital space a better world for both creators and their rights.
A sign of the uphill battle facing creators, however, has been laid out by behavioral economist Dan Ariely in a must-watch video before a TED conference. (Thanks to Dean Kay for passing on the reference from Ed Pettersen.) It suggests we may need a consumer honor code when it comes to creative works.
We are all predictably irrational, Ariely tells us, citing several studies he has done on cheating. Bottom line, a lot of people cheat a little bit. His lessons tell us a lot about file-sharing and how people rationalize that behavior (the very term, using the word “sharing,” is to me part of the rationalization).
It turns out that if we can still look at ourselves in the mirror and feel good about ourselves, we’re willing to bend the rules a bit and rationalize our behavior based on a number of factors.
The normal economic incentives aren’t at play here, Ariely found. We hear a lot about game theory and the Prisoner’s Dilemma in explaining why people infringe — mainly, if everyone else is doing it, I’d be a fool not to — and that certainly is a factor. But Ariely discovered people don’t tend to lay this out logically, weighing the probability of getting caught, what they stand to gain, and how much punishment they’d face. Whether the risk is high or nonexistent, the gain is low or high, and even when there is no punishment, most people cheat, but only a bit.
“We can cheat a little bit and still feel good about ourselves,” Ariely said. That may be a separate calculation — how much harm am I doing? — which comes not from economic rationality but from moral guidelines. In fact, Ariely found that when people were given the opportunity to cheat in naming all of the Ten Commandments — a task no one could do, by the way — even athiests wouldn’t cheat.
So we find that we feel being a little naughty is okay. So we feel we can download a few songs, or a few dozen, but not a ton. Sometimes people defend infringement by saying hey don’t download without authorization hundreds of songs or movies, and they even pay for music or movies sometimes. The rationalization is at work.
But why not shoplift just a few CDs or DVDs? That’s not much different, right?
Ariely’s work suggests consumers perceive a difference. People were more inclined to cheat when they earned tokens — that had real economic value — than when the cheating led directly to money. Stealing a pencil from work, he said, is easier to rationalize than stealing a dime from the petty cash drawer, even though the value is the same.
I can see that with creative works. A physical work — a CD, a DVD, a videogame cartridge — appears to a consumer to have value beyond the work. It doesn’t, really; it’s just a plastic conveyance. But it has a price tag on it, and it takes up real estate in a store. An unauthorized creative work online takes up no physical space and has no price tag on it. The same amount of creativity and sweat equity went into the work, whether in physical or online form, but it would seem we process them differently. Or I should say, those who don’t have experience with the creation of a copyrighted work of economic value see a difference. A published songwriter or novelist will correctly see no difference, but most of us aren’t published songwriters or novelists.
So where does an honor code fit in? It turns out peer pressure plays a part in our behavior. On the negative side, if someone in our circle cheats, and we know it, we give ourselves a license to cheat as well. Interestingly enough, we are far less likely to do so if the cheat is not in our circle; there, it appears we don’t wish to lump ourselves with that person. Ariely discovered this by conducting an experiment with an actor blatantly cheating and identifying himself either with or not with a group of subjects.
Conversely, when we have a sense that our peers are playing by the rules we are loathe to break them. Here he had people behaving within the norms stipulated to subjects regarding an MIT honor code. Most interesting about that experiment? MIT has no honor code. Just believing there might be one and that others were following it made the subjects behave.
I find myself in discussions with infringers quite frequently. The only consistent deterrent I’ve ever seen to infringement online is the fear of spam, viruses and trojans. That’s a negative, and not one produced by creators. But perhaps we could help people who are playing by the rules to encourage others in their circles to do the same, and even commit to an honor code, formal or informal. Peer pressure is helping to spread infringement, but it can also help reduce it.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
How about the Queen? Should she have to give her Ipod back? Technically what she did is infringement! (This is actually relevant)
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/first-sale-president-obama-and-queen-england
April 4th, 2009 at 3:52 am
I thought, with the ipod that any purchase carries with it the right to upload/backup a certain (small) number of copies, for personal use, so that any computer crash didn’t erase your purchase.
I’m surprised that physically giving a loaded ipod (or computer) as a gift is considered infringement. One learns every day. I should think the musical artists would be absolutely delighted if Her Majesty’s people would list what was on the ipod. Does Apple have a royal warrant?
April 4th, 2009 at 8:43 am
I am very sorry to say something so provocative and mean, but perhaps the most efficient way to bring home that copyright infringement is illegal would be to bring a suit against a teacher or two.
Of course, the scapegoat should be a well-insured teacher, whose very well-known and well-endowed school stands fully behind its staff, and whose local education authority fully supports all its schools. Children should not suffer.
Children are taught in school from a very young age that copyright infringement is acceptable.
My own child is to be in a school performance of an adaptation of a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. At least the choir mistress (a lovely woman) bought a copy of the songbook for every child’s folder, but –still– the book says in large print COPYING IS ILLEGAL. Every child has a photocopied copy beside the bound, print copy, because one needs a copy in order to have ones lines highlighted.
For all I know, there may be some fine print saying somewhere that one copy may be made of each songbook.
Even if this particular teacher, in this particular school isn’t really breaking the law, because it makes sense to highlight a child’s lines –doesn’t it?– the children see “COPYING IS ILLEGAL” and they see that “copying is illegal” doesn’t mean anything.
For attitudes to change, children have to be “taught” that copying is illegal and those who copy can get into trouble.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I can’t believe that you would even suggest such a thing, but I guess copyright enforcers will use any dirty tricks they can to get their “point” across.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:27 am
Neal,
It depends what “the point” is. Also, it depends whether rational discussion of a problem is a dirty trick. In the case of Napster, children were sued, weren’t they? There is a precedent.
Sometimes it is useful to play Devil’s Advocate. I infer that you do so through the use of irony.
My point is that children in America (and probably in Britain, too) are taught by their teachers’ example that everyone steals, and there is nothing wrong with stealing (if your budget constraints mean that you cannot afford to waste money paying for paper products).
How does a society “unteach” something we’ve grown up with over the last 20 years?
Maybe there are so many bigger problems in the world that we want to turn a blind eye to stealing as long as we only steal from artists, models, entertainers, celebrities, actors, writers.
Unfortunately, once people believe that they are entitled to take what they want, it’s hard to turn back the clock.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Rowena, copyright law in its current state is not something guaranteed or permanent. It is boosted in the public mind whenever that public sees it used in a good way - rationally as pertains to the situation in question. Whenever it hurts - whenever it is irrationally used to harm - copyright law is damaged. It is sane and reasonable supporters of copyright who wish to satisfy both creators and buyers alike who are its only hope.
Keep pressing forward, and you’ll end up leaving the teacher with no choice but using piracy or public domain / creative commons material simply because the copyrighted stuff is locked down so far.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Copyright law is suppose to protect anyone who writes music, books, plays, and or creates sound recordings. The copyright office has done away with the SR forms and changed them
with another form. Online Piracy is running rampit and Major Label Artist taking music from
Mypsace, Twitter, Facebook, and all the rest of them. The law is clear anyone cannot infringe
the rights of others for commerical gain, and if caught it carrys felony and or criminal charge.
The problem is the many cases are all settled before any punishment is rendered for the behavoir of the infringer, unless your in the sixth circuit located in nashville TN. Many of the
music cases should be sent their, because thats a music community who understands the
power of copyright law and WIPO international laws.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I just noticed that I’m behind the times. A music teacher was sued… and apparently it hasn’t had any effect whatsoever.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/court-congress-cant-put-public-domain-back-into-copyright.ars
April 8th, 2009 at 1:38 am
Yes, we should be suing *all* the teachers who use works that are in the public doman.
/sarcasm.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Neal,
We should meet at dawn somewhere, and duel! Then one of us would get satisfaction.
If works were in the public domain, would the work have “COPYING IS ILLEGAL” printed prominently in the book?
What does “COPYING IS ILLEGAL” mean to you?
If you see a sign that says “(Doing this) IS ILLEGAL” do you do it, anyway? If your children see you ignoring “This is Illegal” signs, do you expect them to use their judgement when you tell them not to do something?