Nica's Blog

Intellectual property (IP) is being touted by publishers of media as just like the more physical forms of property. "You wouldn't steal someone's cell phone, so why would you steal copyrighted songs?" the ad campaigns explains. "Why, this is STEALING just like any other form of stealing." This isn't exactly true because the musician (or more likely the music distribution company) still has the song. It is not as if Apple Records suddenly is not able to play Abby Road every time you listen to your illegally downloaded MP3.

"But you are denying the creators reimbursement for their creation." Metallica, or some other blow-hard cries. Whenever you hear this argument for the protection of the struggling artist just trying to get what he earns, why not join the argument. "Oh yes you are so correct. You know what really reams my goat? Those damn libraries. How do they expect authors to make a living when one book might be read by people for free! We need to shut down those libraries because they are systematically stealing from every writer in the library, not to mention all those musicians who have Cd's in libraries." At this point the blow-hard and lover of all creators of art and literature might feel some unease. Don't lose your momentum! You need to explain just how big this problem is. "There are people out there who sell their used compact discs and books, and when they get resold in turn the creators of the works get nothing." Have a look of wide-eyed disgust when you mention this. "Used music and used book shops are worse than libraries; they are making money off artists without reimbursement! Such places must be shut down, or at least cleared of all copyrighted materials." Then explain that you are going to spend your weekend going to small coffee shops with recorded music playing and making sure that the owners have permission from the RIAA to play the music in public. Hopefully the blow-hard will have wandered away from you by this time never to return.

Lately I've heard similiar "stealing from the creators" arguments concernign ad blocking software for browsers. Firefox has a nice extension which does a great job eliminating most advertisments from most web sites. I heard on NPR a representative from CNET saying that using such software is similiar to stealing. The notion is that sites are often supported by ad revenue, but people who use ad blocking software thwart this system. If everyone used such software nobody would pay for ads on web sites. Looking at the ads is how you "pay" for the content of the web sites. Don't get sucked in by this argument. If you feel guilty for blocking ads on your browser, they you might as well feel guilty about turning down the volumen during TV commercials and throwing out those slipperly ads in the center fold of the newspaper. If web based advertising turns out to be something that doesn't work because of the nature of the technology, don't blame the user. It is as stupid as blaming users for not buying what is advertised, after all isn't that the whole point of the advertising revenue system?