Stuff Infringers Like
Monday, November 30th, 2009 by Patrick Ross
Print This Post
We write a lot on this blog about the puzzling ability of those who are able to rationalize their acquisition of a creator’s work without permission or compensation. Some of those logic-twisting rationalizations are debunked in our piece, “Critiquing Copyright Canards.” We’re not the only ones who have observed this, and picked up on how silly the rationalizations are.
Let me introduce you to the “Stuff White People Like” blog by Christian Lander. I discovered him yesterday by coming across his book of the same name during some Christmas shopping. It makes for a good stocking-stuffer, and as a writer myself, I admire Mr. Lander’s recognition that even though he has posted his work online for free, his ownership of those words still enables him to compile them in a copyrighted book for sale.
I’d like to introduce you to #93 of stuff white people like: music piracy. You can read his full blog post here, but I’m going to include a teaser below:
White people have always been renowned for having ridiculously large music collections. So when file sharing gave white people a chance to acquire all the music they ever wanted, it felt as though it was an earned right and not a privilege.
When (not if) you see a white male with a full iPod, ask him if all of his music is legal. If he does not immediately launch into a diatribe about his right to pirate music, you might have to nudge him a bit by saying “do you think that’s right?” The response will be immediate and uniform.
Among the rationalizations Lander lists are: 1) Musicians only make money from touring and merchandise so piracy doesn’t hurt them. 2) Piracy sticks it to the man, evil corporations. 3) Their vast music collection makes them a music expert and allows them to promote bands to others.
This last point allows Lander to go off on an amusing side journey about the self-importance of vinyl record lovers as well as other tangents.
It’s a most amusing post on a most amusing blog. If there’s a criticism, it’s that I don’t think the goofy reationalizations he zings white people for regarding piracy are limited to one race, but who am I to question a social scientist like Lander? As he notes on his blog, “This is a scientific approach to highlight and explain stuff white people like. They are pretty predictable.”
November 30th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I also have to strongly question the association with whites. European (including people who migrated from Europe but possess the same worldview, e.g. American) whites are some of the most individualistic on the planet, and as such have the greatest concept of personal property rights. If anything I’d imagine European whites are less likely to pirate than non-European-whites - specifically those in more communal societies that have less of an emphasis on personal property.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Oh dear, Justin.
The “white” thing is an author of a book having fun; it’s called satire. I’m not prepared in this blog to make any generalizations about a particular race; I’d ask my readers not to as well. There are other fora for that.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Haha. Well, interpretation of that data (from various psychology classes, especially social psychology) in a negative “racial” way would require the assumption that more collectivistic/communal societies are fundamentally inferior to more individualistic societies, which would say more about the racial/cultural views of the person holding that assumption than about mine
December 1st, 2009 at 11:51 am
There is no doubt a case to be made for paying for intellectual property…the question is: How? and How much? If I take a CD I have bought in a store, rip the music into an MP3 and stick it on my iPod, am I breaking the law? According to many people, I am. It doesn’t matter to them that I may have bought the same music on 3 or 4 different formats already (say Vinyl, cassette, 8-track, and CD - true in the case of Led Zeppilin I)…they say I do not have the right to do that, and that I should pay for it yet again. The only problem I have with this scenario is that record labels (which anyone who has ever been signed to one can tell you) are the biggest crooks in the universe, and are no longer doing their job…which is to give the public new exciting music…they are now in the history business and mainly just re-package what they have in their vaults. New artists have decided that they do not need record labels, and realize the real enemy is obscurity and not the file sharer…that’s why many have been giving their music away in order to support their live playing…which ironically is the same argument record labels used to use to get artists to sign a bad contract for a few cents a recrd which could be negated by “expenses” anyway.
I’m in my 60’s and retired, and don’t care…but even I realize that the old model is dead, and a new kind of music business will have to rise from the ashes. If you look back, what you see is that the people who built the entertainment business were risk-takers. They spotted talent, and put their money on the line. They did not have “A&R Committees”, and marketing departments picking what movies they could make. They did not need something to be “Branded” before they could act. They had “Ears” and “Taste” and were not corporate suits more concerned with their perks than their product…and the people who are making money today are largely the people who have embraced that same model…they will not be one-hit wonders and have a real chance to carve out a living because they respect their fans and understand a very basic business concept…be nice to your customers.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:04 pm
It’s very simple, these rationalizations for thieving. In my mind, it all boils down to one image, that of a spoiled two-year-old child ripping the toy out of the kind child whose toy it is, and then hitting the kind child on the head with it and walking off with it.
That is your typical file sharer.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:05 pm
It should have read: “a spoiled two-year-old child ripping the toy out of the hands of a kind child whose toy it is, and then hitting the kind child on the head with it and walking off with the toy as if it deserved it.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am
Richard well said, but I’m afraid the adversarial relationship with customers is now so entrenched I’m not sure it’s reversible. And it looks like it will continue with things like 3 strike laws and the like. Something like a 3 strike law could push the music industries biggest customers off the Internet. I think it’s unlikely that they’ll end up in music stores, meaning more revenue loss.
And how will that loss be received? Probably with “it’s the infringers we’re not getting!”
Another instance of attack on the consumer, Current ACTA drafts ban interoperability laws … terribly anti consumer. This is probably corporate lobbying but artists will also take the heat for it.
What I’d like to see is a post that might stimulate conversation around how you foster better and mutually beneficial relationship with said infringers. A little more how can we get together on this and a little less blame game.
For instance how about a bill of Copy/Consumer rights that protected both sides together
You will never win fighting with the customer
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
RE Richard Berger’s comment: I find it hilarious that one of the first responses to a story about the lame excuses people use for stealing intellectual property is a bunch of lame excuses for stealing intellectual property. C’mon, at least take the time for a little self examination instead of instantly putting up the same tired defenses for bad behavior that have been rehashed hundreds of times. By the way, it is not against the law for you to make multiple copies of intellectual property that you own - it’s called “fair use” and it is (by law) legal. Sharing it with others is illegal and given that the vast majority of artists are independent, (and severely in the hole regarding the expenses to create their music) immoral.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
“it is not against the law for you to make multiple copies of intellectual property that you own - it’s called “fair use” ”
False statement
Why is it a completely false assertion is allowed to stand and mere mention of the facts not allowed a voice.
Looks like this site is just another voice not for artists but people that profit from artists to perpetuate falsehoods
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 am
Well look at that! Someone who was giving his content away for free on a blog realized there was a secondary market for this content: a book that is a physical representation of his humor. And he was able to become a best selling author without having to bully readers, accuse them of being freeloaders for reading the blog and not buying the book. This is a great example of how all creative people should operate. See we do not need stronger copyright laws.
December 5th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Well…I am just beginning to get my writing out to the public and I don’t understand all the copywrite laws, however, I do think that we will never get every cent that is deserved. There will always be those that will freeload in our society whatever the race and try to justify it (some more than others). When is the last time you found something that wasn’t yours and willfully returned it if no one caught or saw you…guilty as charged:-) I would like to say that I would never do it, but…I plea the fifth…my race…it doesn’t really matter…the genes are all mixed up…which ones faught is it?…Anyway…Whatever…trust that which flows through you to do the right thing…inspiration, understanding and knowledge belongs to no one…we are only the vessel allowing the flow and claiming rights to be paid for it…trust that compensation follows understanding:-) What you resist comes faster than what you desire.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:39 am
So, I buy a CD and let a friend put some of the music from it on her computer because we both like the artist. I do this not knowing if she will buy anything by this artist in the future but also knowing that I will buy more by said artist. Where does this fit in the argument?
I also buy most of my books and CDs second hand due to school related expenses. Do author royalties come anywhere close to covering re-buys?
I do not pirate, but if buying used is just as bad, then that would cut my consumption and lead me to stick to writers and musical artist I am already comfortable with rather than spending the three dollars and getting something totally new. Is it black and white, or is there a grey area?
December 15th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Larry: My sentiments are similar to yours, with the small exception that I would replace “file sharer” with “media executive”.