By Christopher Lind
27 August 2009
Have you ever downloaded music from the Internet? Do you know anyone else who has – a son or daughter perhaps? Have you ever sent a copy of a song you liked to a friend? When you did, were you sharing a treasured experience and giving a gift; or were you shoplifting and passing along stolen goods? Those are very different images for the same activity aren’t they?
Joel was 16 in 2003 when he received a letter demanding $5,250.00 for 7 songs he had downloaded through a file sharing service on the Internet. Joel was scared by this official and legal letter demanding payment so, with help from his parents, he sent along a cheque for $500 and explained that he was a high school student and couldn’t afford anything more than that. They offered to settle for $3500 and his cheque was returned.
Joel graduated from high school and moved to Boston to attend university. Four years had passed when he received a notice requiring him to appear in court. He was being sued, along with some 30,000 other people, by companies like Sony Music, Warner Brothers and Arista records, all coordinated by the Record Industry Association. Joel offered to settle for $5,000 but the record companies now wanted $10,500.
At this point a Law Professor offered to represent Joel in court. Charles Neeson holds the William F. Wed Chair in Law at Harvard University where he is also the founder and Co-Director of the Birkman Center for Internet and Society. Prof. Neeson believes that the Internet is a digital version of the old common grazing lands of the 17th century. Prof. Neeson believes the Internet was started as an open domain but has recently been fenced off by capital investors who want to increase their profits through new exclusive property rights.
Joel lost his court case this summer, as expected. He was found guilty of downloading 30 songs and required to pay compensation of $22,500 per song. That means $675,000. He will appeal.
Sociologists will tell you that markets are embedded in society through law, politics and morality. However, it is possible for markets to partly embedded and partly disembedded. The market for property rights in digital music is embedded in American law through the Digital Theft Deterrence Act. However, it is not embedded in morality. Not only are there professors and academic institutes that think digital file sharing is not theft, there are artists too. John Perry Barlow, lyricist for the famous musical group, the Grateful Dead, believes that the online world presents us with a new form of the ‘gift economy’ “where no moral blameworthiness attaches to non-commercial sharing”. When new markets are created, morality is often contested. When public libraries were created, large publishers campaigned against them because borrowing books was going to take away their profits. It is still possible to find old paperbacks with a notice inside the front cover warning the reader that this book could not be lent or even resold.
Markets require legitimacy – political, legal and moral legitimacy. When Mahatma Gandhi marched his followers to the sea in order to make their own salt, he was breaking the British law by refusing to pay the salt tax. Was he a criminal? According to the British colonial legal system, yes. Was he morally right? According to the Indian people, even more so.
You can follow Joel’s story for free at http://joelfightsback.com
Visit the website at christopherlind.ca
Visit the YouTube channel at Moral Economy column on YouTube
1 comment:
I'm not sure I understand the title of this entry. How does this story show morality being against the law?
I assume you just mean that an arguably-morally-justified action (downloading) is against the law. But even then, it's only *arguably* justified. In such a context, there's at least a pretty good argument for following the law. Disagreement with a law doesn't in itself license lawlessness.
Post a Comment