April 24, 2005
-
Consider that beloved concept created by the internet called
“filesharing”. I know I have spoken of it much before, but I have never
really clearly stated my full opinion of it and all the controversey
surrounding it. Of course I’ve not hidden nor will I even my as of yet
unshaken believe that filesharing is NOT wrong, nor have I ever
pretended that I don’t think that the abstract philosophical concepts
at the heart of the debate over sharing of files is one of the most
important debates in the history of human existence, but I haven’t
actually given much in the way of arguments one way or another.Nor will I start now. However, I will direct you to an interesting
debate on the topic so that if you have a few hours to spare you can
probably get a good sense of the current state of the debate and draw
your own conclusions.Here it is: http://www.cit.cornell.edu/oit/ucpl/download-debate2.ram
IF this doesn’t work try here:http://www.cit.cornell.edu/oit/UCPL.html
If you don’t see anything that looks like a debate on copyright click
OIT Outreach, and Unversity Computer Policy and Law Program.Now I should say about this debate first off is that I enjoyed it
greatly and I learned something from it. I also found it quite
entertaining. However, I should also say that I didn’t learn all that
much considering the books I’ve already read on the subject and that
every single person from the panelists to the moderator, to the student
audience annoyed me greatly. Why you ask? Well there are many reasons
but most notably is just how overwhelmingly sure of themselves everyone
seemed to be. I mean really I highly doubt anyone left the debate with
even the slightest bit of a different opinion than they started with.
But this is really par for the course for these kinds of gathering. The
hope is that people with diverging views learn a little bit of
something of the opposing view so that they can take it more seriously
and perhaps respect those whose opinions differ from theirs. The goal
isn’t, sadly, to uncover the truth or to have there be any kind of
concensus or agreement on any particular point or issue. Unfortunately
not only do these debates fail to realize these ideal goals, they often
fail even to manage their considerably smaller goals. Panelists who
hate one another end up still hating one another just as much, and
everyone goes home just with a little more fuel to use in the next
debate. People use the debate as just a means to try and imprint their
own opinions on those who haven’t quite made up their mind. In effect
they are campaigning not debating and in many ways some of these
academic debates end up looking just like our presidential debates.That doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy it and that doesn’t I mean I don’t
think we should have more of these and that more people should be
encouraged to watch them and learn from them. I just think that they
could certainly be better if experts on subjects were also those with
the greatest desire to learn more about the subjects and student
questioners devoted themselves to unearthing truth rather than trying
to spout their own opinions.That said, there is one person in this debate whose comments I must
address directly. For of all of the four panelists who stood in
opposition to my own beliefs, his was the opinion that I felt most
sympathetic too and at the same time his proposed solution was the one
I found most repulsive and his style of argument I found amongst the
most annoying. It is the panelist to the far right of whom I speak who
had the misfortune of having to speak after the EFF guy who was just a
higher level debater. He had more skillz. And on top of that he was the last speaker who had to talk in front of an obviously antagonistic crowd.My sympathy for this debater goes further than his crummy seating
arrangement though. His position being of all of the people that he
came to belief that we need stronger copyright law because of
interaction with real people who are suffering right now due to the
violation of copyright law through the internet. In other words his
concern isn’t that big media be allowed to make money, its that pirates
can’t indiscriminately get away with screwing the little guy just
because they can.He reminded me of one of those guys who cries out against the growth of
computer use in industry putting regular secreatry’s and typists and
bank tellers and cashiers out of business. Or perhaps of those in a
previous era who lament the loss of hard labor jobs due to superior
manufacturing processes. I have long found these kinds of thoughts
about the changes that the future brings interesting and I always have
sympathy for them. But I, obviously, don’t think the world would have
ever ended up in a better place by haulting the flow of progress. Quite
the contrary the only way to move forward is the embrace the progress.
Those same people who will suffer due to the way that the internet
makes their work easily ‘stealable’ can use the internet even in an era
of filesharing to progress their own marketability. And you know what?
If they can’t, that’s too damn bad. I’m serious. They might not be able
to make money the same way. Certain businesses and ways of life might
pass away and through not fault of those engaging in them. And it’s
really sad, but the gains in terms of social mobility and equality and
general spread of knowledge and awareness in a society where free
sharing of media and ideas on the internet is greater than the loss of
some people’s livelihoods. Now admittedly it won’t feel that way to
them or to those familiar with their plight but this is the flow
history and it cannot be stopped by will alone.Also interestingly enough this same debater was the most insistent in
the discussion of the moral/ethical question. Admittedly his desire to
debate this topic was twisted as he was trying to get a confession out
of the others in order to trap them in a classic debater’s trick. But I
should say that this is the angle through which there is not enough
discussion in the world of mortals. We need to seriously discuss what
is right with regards to creative content and what is wrong not just
assume that we can all see the so called “obvious” answers to these
moral questions. It is becoming increasingly clear that not all
Americans value the same things with regard to intellectual property
manipulation but many like this debater are still devoted to forcing
everyone to agree on a false oversimplification of the issues of right
and wrong.Anyways more on this later.
