I am a copyright stickler. I try to discourage infringement of copyright laws whenever possible. As a result, my wishes often directly clash with the wishes of others that I socialize with. I suspect other copyright sticklers can relate. Though I wish more people cared about not infringing copyright, it’s difficult to change people’s minds on this issue so I won’t attempt to do that here. Rather, I will outline a situation where I felt uncomfortable discouraging copyright infringement in hopes that it will show you the social influences that make such a situation possible and how you can avoid encouraging such a situation.
Tonight I was at a social event at a friend’s place. We had finished dinner and were deciding on a movie to watch with the group of about ten people that were there. The host had a shelf full of legitimate DVDs as well as some movies on a media server that appeared to be illegally obtained through file sharing services. It was suggested that we watch a movie from the media server which we started watching. As it started, I asked something like “Can we watch a legal movie instead?” to no one in particular but audible enough that everyone could hear (I thought, anyway). No one responded and the movie continued.
As the illegally obtained movie continued to play, I contemplated the ways I could stop encouraging copyright infringement. One option was to try my plea to watch a legal movie again, perhaps this time directing it at someone specific. By doing this, I would risk being seen as a jerk who is upsetting the entertainment and there seem to be some social norms against interrupting a movie. So I decided against that option. Another option was to walk out of the room, trying to get others to join me in a non-infringing activity. This would also interrupt the movie for some and would make those who chose to continue watching the movie feel bad, which is not a horrible thing to do, but is not usually considered socially acceptable.
So I sat there watching the movie, internally saddened by my unwillingness to break the social norms in order to discourage copyright infringement and quietly upset about the social circumstances that perpetuated my reluctance to do something.
What can you do to help prevent situations like the one I found myself in tonight? For one, you should never suggest using any content (movies, music, written works, etc.) that was obtained illegally in the presence of others, especially if you know some of them are copyright sticklers. Ideally, you should never infringe on copyright laws, but I know from experience that that is impossible to argue to many people.
Secondly, don’t let a comment addressed to the group go unheard. Speak up when you hear someone asking the group to do something else by saying something like “Yeah, maybe we should watch something else.” Though it may not feel like it, saying nothing is implicitly agreeing to the current state of affairs (in this case, watching an illegally obtained movie). To the person that has expressed their disagreement, it feels like no one cares what he or she thinks.
Hopefully you find these comments helpful in being sensitive to a copyright stickler like myself. I would be happy to elaborate on any of them if you’d like. Just write a comment on this post.
I have done my best to accurately represent what happened at tonight’s event. If I am in error on any of the information (for example, if the movie we watched was in fact obtained legally) then I would appreciate if someone would inform me of this.
I was particularly upset about tonight’s instance of copyright infringement because it occurred during a meeting of a campus group that should be one of the most adamant about respecting laws. I hope for the sake of this campus group, and the larger worldwide body of which it is a part, that its leaders (and leaders worldwide) make an effort to understand and avoid copyright infringement and to educate group members to do the same.
A sad situation all around. To be fair, it took me a long time to realize quite how hardcore you are about copyright infringement. (of course you wouldn’t consider it hardcore at all, but the baseline-standard that should be default… but still.) It’s quite likely they just didn’t understand how serious you were when you voiced your concern. I’d like to think that, if ppl knew how you felt, they’d have cared enough to change the plans….. I /hope/ that’s the case, anyway. :S
I find this comment interesting: “I was particularly upset about tonight’s instance of copyright infringement because it occurred during a meeting of a campus group that should be one of the most adamant about respecting laws.” I tend (quite likely in error) to feel justified breaking the law for the sake of what I see as moral benefit… although in all honesty I can’t say that happens very often. The movie could have been rented or something, I presume, to have made it legal? But anyway, I wonder if besides not caring about copyright, the host felt that it was more important, morally etc., to watch that movie unburdened rather than obey the copyright legalese. *shrug* Again, not that this is necessarily justified, but it’s not necessarily black-and-white, but a matter of perspective.
Out of curiosity, are you a stickler for copyright law in -particular-, or simply because it is a law of the land and we should obey the law? I mean, what do you think about speeding in traffic, jaywalking, and etc. other laws that are, erm, easily broken?
Anyway, the situation last night was certainly unfortunate. It’s kind of a shame what that says about the community. I mean, that they weren’t sensitive to your feelings on the matter (naturally, I care less about the copyright infringement itself… sorry dewd). I guess, your experience reminds me of how I feel when I’m within the presence of the consumption of alcohol. It just /bothers/ me, I don’t want to support it, I don’t want to be a part of it, I want to do whatever I can to encourage an alternate, erm, beverage/entertainment-venue. Then again, that was more pertinent when I was 15, and I -also- had the law on my side….. but still, my attitude hasn’t really changed.
I’m also a copyright stickler, and I’ve found myself in similar situations. What I’ve sometimes done, and what I posit that you should have done, is first ask if the movie was pirated, and upon hearing “yes” (or the absence of “no”) left the event. There’s no need to try to get others to join you – people make their own decisions about it, and if they don’t want to be converted to the belief that copyright infringement is wrong with sound arguments, then there’s nothing you can do, and nothing you need to do, other than refuse to participate. If people hate you as a result or if it’s not “socially acceptable”, then that’s just a consequence we sometimes have to suffer for doing what’s right. As it turns out, no one seemed to mind a great deal when I have left events, and I haven’t lost any friendships or anything over it, so I don’t think it’s really that bad.
Music is a more difficult situation. It’s easy to avoid watching a movie, but if someone is playing stolen music at an event, it’s hard to avoid listening. I don’t see anything wrong with staying, as long as it isn’t the music you’re staying /for/ – if you want to stay to socialize in spite of the music.
Biggz wrote:
I agree that if they knew how I felt, they would have acted differently. I think most people assume everyone has similar views on copyright infringement with minor variations where, for example, some people choose to buy CDs they like more often than other people.
Every person has a different definition of morality so what is considered to be of moral benefit will vary from person to person. I disagree with many definitions of morality, but I am not an ultimate authority on what is moral. As you said, it is a matter of perspective.
I believe that we should follow the law of the land unless there is a good reason not to. In particular, if you have sufficient reason to believe that you understand the negative impacts that a law is designed to reduce and you believe you can break the law without causing one of the negative impacts it was designed to reduce, then I think you are justified in breaking the law.
I will use jaywalking as an example. I believe the laws against jaywalking are designed to prevent pedestrians from being hit and, more generally, to reduce the number of places on a road where a driver has to worry about pedestrians. If I am confident that there are no vehicles that would have to worry about me if I walked across the road, then I feel I am justified in breaking the law against jaywalking because I will not cause one of the negative impacts that the law is designed to reduce.
If one is justified in breaking the law as described above, one should only break the law if one would receive a benefit by breaking the law that could not be received by not breaking the law. This was probably assumed by the reader, but I’ve added it for completeness.
When people feel they are justified in breaking the law in this way, it is usually because lawmakers have made incorrect assumptions about the people and situations that are affected. For example, laws that prohibit the distribution of software designed to circumvent technical protection measures (TPMs) assume that there are no legitimate uses for such software. It is always best to discuss laws that you feel need changing with a government representative, but it is not always feasible to do so.
It should be noted that people should be very certain that they understand the reasoning behind a law when they choose to break it. Many people choose to break laws when they don’t fully understand the reasoning behind them and end up being negatively impacted as a result.
In the case of copyright, my reasons for being a stickler are more pragmatic. While I wish that all creators of digital content would choose to license their content such that it is freely redistributable (and in the case of software, that the source code is also), I realize that is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Until it does, I think our goal should be to make getting content easier.
Right now, if I want to watch a movie, I have to travel to a video rental store, go through their selection of movies to find the one I want (if they even have what I want), pay for the DVD, then travel home, and put the movie in the DVD player. Only then can I actually watch it. This is unacceptable. If I want a movie, I should be able to go to my media center, enter my credit card number, and begin watching immediately. So why don’t I just pirate the movie since I can do that from my media center and I don’t even need to pay for it?
The reason I can’t buy a movie online in a legal way is precisely because of people that think piracy is ok. Movie producers must keep their content locked in physical media because piracy would be more prevalent than it already is if they sold it online without copy protection. Don’t you think they would be distributing their movies using easier means if they thought they could trust consumers not to pirate their movies? I suggest reading my latest post for further discussion on this.
Some people choose to pirate content in order to hurt the big businesses that they see as making outrageous profits from it. These people should carefully consider the effect of their actions as they may actually be helping the big businesses they are trying to hurt. I describe why on the free culture discussion list.
While I think some types of content could survive without copyright laws (as music does in China through concerts), there are some that wouldn’t and I’m not willing to say that we should just get rid of those types of content. One type of content that would probably die is non-documentary movies. Though many of these movies are purely entertainment, many of them (such as “V for Vendetta” and “Blood Diamond”) have a deeper point. Furthermore, I think such movies are the only way in which many people are confronted with such issues because few people will contemplate these issues unless they are entertained at the same time. I have looked hard but haven’t been able to find any similar movies whose licenses allow free distribution.
One reason for upholding copyright laws is that it shows you exactly how much it costs consumers, in terms of money and inconvenience, to use a particular business model. Then you will see that it costs $20 for a CD when you could get the same sort of thing off Jamendo for free. This method uses the power of free markets to determine the price. If everyone followed this model and found that music on Jamendo was as good or better than pay-for music, we would have free music without breaking any laws, without forcing anyone to give away their music, and without forcing anyone to use a particular business model.