UT Professor Jay Budziszewski Fisks Students Who Steal

God bless Jay Budziszewski.

Budziszewski writes a dialogue about engaging his philosophy students regarding stealing music, film and software.  (Hat Tip: Justin Taylor, Between Two Worlds)

My own experience in discussing this topic with students, including Christian students? Overwhelmingly they refuse to stop stealing, even when they acknowledge that they have stolen. I engaged literally hundreds of students about this topic at UVa, and after all the discussing, two root reasons would emerge from the students: 1) I can (technology enables me) and 2) I want to.

With a few exceptions, Christian students engaged in the same stealing, and deployed the same anti-Christian reasoning.  One student finally became persuaded that it was stealing, so resolved to steal no more, but wouldn't pay for the 1,000+ songs she had already stolen, nor delete them.

Again, with a few exceptions, the only way to make a dent in the Christian students? Tell them of my personal friendship with Caedmons Call, and how Caedmon's band members related to me their perspective about having their hundreds of hours of hard work taken from them for free. Then the students would say, "Oh. Well, I won't download their stuff. I'll buy their stuff."

Meaning, these students were incapable of submitting themselves to abstract principle, but, if they felt some sentiment for a personal connection, then they might adjust their behavior.  Effectively, the Ten Commandments only had force in their lives if they had positive sentiment for the person wronged in a violation of the Commandments.

Some reader will write in, as often happens here, and defend this state of affairs.   

Comments

[GL]

A reader attempted to leave a comment without using his/her real name or a valid email address.

http://commongroundsonline.typepad.com/common_grounds_online/2005/04/cgo_rules_for_c.html

See #6.

If you're willing to abide by the rules, you're welcome to try again.

[John Jones]

Me! I’ll defend this state of affairs!

That dialogue isn’t very convincing. I don’t see that Budziszewski has done anything more than set up some straw men and then knock them down. The professor in the dialogue is doing his Socratic best to completely misunderstand what is being said to him (which is somewhat fascinating, considering the fact that the professor is presumably a stand in for the author). Consider this exchange:

"I say stealing is depriving someone of due payment for something he owns. That makes everything clear."

"Does it?"

"Yes, because if I was never going to buy the software in the first place, then the owner hasn't lost anything by my copying it. See? Copying hasn't deprived him of his payment, because he wasn't going to receive one anyway."

"Mmm-hmm. One thing puzzles me."

"What? I've thought this all out."

"It sounds like you're just saying, 'Whenever I don't want to pay for something, it's okay to take it without paying.'"

He hesitated. "Ye-e-es ..."

I’m not quite sure how what the student says can be rationally interpreted as ‘Whenever I don't want to pay for something, it's okay to take it without paying,’ to give one example.

More importantly, the crux of the issue—at least as it relates to Christians and morality—is not “what is stealing?” because in the case of copying music that question has already been answered: with some caveats, copying digital music files is against the law, and that means it’s stealing. Case closed.

The real question, which is not alluded to anywhere in the dialogue (a fact which, for me, makes the dialogue seem rather silly and detached from the reality of the issue) is whether or not breaking the law is in all cases immoral. Since Christians are not up in arms about speeding, double parking, or feeding meters (sorry, I have cars on the brain today), what’s the big deal about this issue? The reasons given in the dialogue—those who violate copyright are 1) materially disadvantaging musicians by depriving them of a living and 2) limiting the spread of new music—aren’t very compelling. Musicians are using the thieves’ copy-machine of choice—the internet—to create new revenue streams for themselves (http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/10/estimates-radio.html), and the ease with which music can be created and distributed using digital tools has greatly increased the variety and quality of music available to the average consumer (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2007/2095456.htm you have to click on “show transcript”). In short, the net result is that musicians still make money (if they are willing to adapt their business models), and music is not becoming less diverse. Which brings us right back to: Is breaking the law always immoral? (I say no, if you haven’t guessed yet.) If not, what is immoral about making copies of digital music files?

John

P.S. GL (if that’s your real name :) – Where do my links go in these comments (you know, a href . . .)? Links are good.

[Justin]

John, you evade the issue quite well. Since the point has little to do with sales via the Internet, artists who freely give away their music, or the freedom of a Christian to break the law, I think it would be best to focus on what was written, not what we wish was written.

Short answer: don't take what isn't yours, and that goes for when it's an artist who makes their living from people purchasing their works. That goes double when the artist has made it clear that they don't appreciate you copying their music/movie. We should be above that.

If you like it, find a way to legally obtain it. It's laughable how many ways there are to listen to music freely on the net today.

[John Jones]

Justin,

Thanks for the reply.

I’m not sure what issue I'm evading. If you have read the Budziszewski piece, you know that he explicitly introduces the topic of how file sharing harms musician’s livelihoods—

"In the first place, it harms the musician or game developer. Most people have to make a living. A person might make music or develop games just for the enjoyment of his friends, but if he takes the trouble of making his work available to you, he normally does so in the expectation that you'll give something in return."

—and how it deprives listeners of quality music—

"In the second place, piracy harms all the other people who enjoy music and games. By forcing the musicians and game developers to find other ways to make a living, it reduces the number of new songs and games that can be enjoyed."

This is “what was written” (truth be told, I “wish” he hadn’t written it, not the other way around :). My comments about new business models for musicians on the internet were a direct response to these points, demonstrating that they are unfounded fears. Being unfounded fears, if they are the primary support for his argument, there is something seriously wrong with his argument.

As for the question of whether Christians should or should not break the law, I introduced that topic because I think it is what this debate is really about. By the standard articulated in Budziszewski’s dialogue, and by you in your comment, anyone who has ever made a mixtape for a friend, recorded a movie or show off of television, or recorded a live music performance off of the radio or in person is a thief because that person is “taking” what isn’t “theirs.” However, we do not spend our time accusing people who partake of these activities of being thieves (would you take that position, Justin? Am I a thief because I record basketball games off the TV and sometimes share them with my brother? There’s no way I can reasonably argue that those games are “mine,” and I certainly have “taken” them, yes?).

This fact implies to me that the issue is not quite as cut-and-dried as Budziszewski’s dialogue and the other posts here would make it seem. The real issue is not “don’t take what isn’t yours” because all of our interactions with media are characterized by our “taking” of what isn’t “ours” (for instance, the RIAA has argued that transferring music from CDs you have legally purchased is theft—http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html—if that is the case, then every person reading this post who owns an iPod is a thief. Do you agree with that position? The music on that CD isn’t “theirs,” is it? They just bought the CD, right?). Rather the issue is: is breaking these laws immoral? And are our copyright laws good ones?

Final question: if it is always wrong to “take what isn’t yours,” how could it be doubly wrong to “take” from people who don’t want you to “take” from them?

Thanks again,

John

[Timothy Fary]

I just did an impromptu survey with some of my soldiers; I talked to officers, Sr. NCOs, and junior enlisted soldiers. To a man, they all said "yes it's stealing." They all also confessed that they had stolen. In military culture, stealing from your buddy (the guy to your right or left) is very high on a list of verboten behavior. They REALLY bristled when I said "Okay, so you're a thief." They did bring up that a lack of personal relationship made the stealing easier, but the excuse that came up the most was a lack of respect for the 3rd party, the record label. They cited the inflated prices, the executives getting rich off of the artists' work. They claimed industry robs the artist and the consumer and so to steal the music is simply a correction of the existing abuses. According to them, they are participating in a revolution of sorts bringing down "the man" who has held down good artists, and bilked the consumer. Part of the unwillingness to repent may be that they see digital media and the internet as Robin Hood.

I'm not endorsing this line of reasoning at all. But I found it interesting, and thought you might too.

[Rob Harrison]

That argument might have some persuasive force if the online theft of music only affected the music companies, which have definitely tended to treat their performers like serfs. It doesn't, so it doesn't. That is, however, an excellent argument in favor of performers selling directly to the public. Selling, as in people actually paying money instead of taking things for free, would be the key word here, however.

[Rong]

Forgive me Father for I have sinned my last confession was....

If you really want to know who the bad boys (and girls) of electronic thievery are talk to a room full of techno geeks. As a software developer I see more sharing and exploiting of programs than a Christian should ever be privy to.

My friend, "Don't want to pay for Vista? Need the latest version of DreamWeaver? Want to rip your DVD and bypass the latest Sony ARccOS protection system?! Then step right up and find your nearest application developer, webguru, system administrator, etc. If they don't already have what you need they have a friend that does and few short minutes using a BitTorrent client will gain you your hearts desire."

Seriously in the world of high tech. ripping off software, in the thousands of dollars is not at all unheard of.

Good luck getting this thru the heads of a bunch of college students, whose most likely response is, "everyone else is doing it".

[Daniel Pope]

I don't really agree with the professor. Any professor can beat up students with any kind of philosophical theory of whatever, so I don't get what's so impressive. (I don't see many Christians cheering on professors for encouraging John Locke's tabula rasa idea, but maybe I'm not paying enough attention). It is more productive to think about why things are the way they are, and whether we like the system we see, and whether the music industry is actually helping musicians and their art than doing what this professor did.

That said, I do think it is poor form to download music when the labels are interested in commodifying artists by owning someone else's music. But there are plenty of bands and singers out there who prefer for their music to be widely distributed, and I really think that matters in thinking about what legal systems for the music industry should look like.

A few comments, I hope these are worth considering. For the record, though, I don't use P2P programs except to download digital files of songs I have on vinyl (which John has pointed out as being illegal, absurdly). I do think it's particularly unfortunate when people download all sorts of hundred dollar programs. I don't know that it's terribly different than downloading a song, but some arguments could be made to that effect.

We have to take into consideration the fact that the music industry of 1950 is completely different after almost six decades of development, and I do think these historical shifts have implications for the way we consider music exchange.

First, as studios began recording music in 1s and 0s instead of bumps and ridges on tape, software developers began digitizing the sound boards, the equalizers, the range adjustors and the effects as well. Eventually, all of these programs were rolled up into one, and now anyone who owns the program can record music. Programs out there now can record studio quality music, and if you buy a MacBook you're going to get a quality one out of the box. This would have been unimaginable a few years ago, let alone in the 50s and 60s when hundreds of thousands of dollars or pounds were spent crafting sound recording booths and purchasing custom equipment for mixing.

Second, we have experienced a veritable EXPLOSION in the quantity of music produced. Along with the natural economic expansion of quality studios, individuals can purchase high quality equipment for relatively little, and it would be hard to measure how much new music has been produced. By my age, my mother was enjoying a heavy dose of wonderful music from all sorts of great artists that I love today. In fact, the catalyst for my love of music happened when I bought her a CD of a vinyl, and then indefinitely borrowed it later. You can't really compare the Beatles or R&B with Nickelback or popular hip-hop. Kids who are actually thinking about what they listen to don't have the luxury of listening to it on the radio and have to do tons of work getting to a decent list of bands.

Some other facts are worth mentioning, such as the TERRIBLE quality of any mp3 compared to any other medium, not even radio or tape formats. One Russian mp3 distributor (who apparently operates legally) sells songs for 2 cents, which is about what the format is worth. iTunes' dollar-a-song policy is a complete racket. That doesn't justifying downloading an album, but there should be a meaningful graph of sound quality to price, and when the kids are checking out songs they just don't hear it. (I really get worried about how kids are going to lose their sense of dynamic range. Some nights it keeps me up).

A lot of frankly inspiring things are going on in the music world, including Radiohead's earth-shattering distribution of their latest album, In Rainbows. They let people download the music at whatever they were willing to pay, and didn't care if anyone downloaded it free of charge. The result? Radiohead made more money from one album than most musicians make on their albums, especially if they are signed to a major label. I hope other musicians notice that.

One final subject is worth mentioning. The real entities hurting the state of music (and if we're going to be bothering ourselves at ALL with this subject without whining the state of music must be our concern) are mega-conglomerates like Clear Channel which are in the business of absorbing and regulating local radio stations. Labels have to pay Clear Channel to play their songs (at the tune of $200,000 per) and recourse to Clear Channel broadcasts is one of the best ways to make money.

The music industry is in a bad way, and most of what the RIAA is doing is a rear guard stance against a process that appears to be inevitable. The fact that the entity meant to protect music is now so blinded by the bottom line that they're producing what can hardly be called music is a minor cultural tragedy, but that doesn't justify downloading an album free of charge.

But if anyone is going to speak intelligently on the subject, it is probably more convincing to speak to the kids about historical changes in the 20th century than political philosophy in the 17th.

[Sarah Grace]

Music is art. It's hard to put a price on art (okay, humor me a bit, art costs money, but I am going to define art as something that seeks to invoke a more ideal end than a dollar sign). Music is an experience and often times is trying to speak to our finer, nobler natures of beauty, love, and what have you. Or if not noble in what it provokes, music, at least, lets you enjoy and experience whatever sensations that noise can produce to take you into whatever realm music meets us in.

I am going to make a generalizations and say, that besides Rap music, most songs and music are not about making money. I would even argue people like to sing about things that matter to them and encouraging people to not view money as the key to happiness. Then I would go further and say some songs even sing about sticking it to the man and all those institutions that keep us from being free. Music promotes freedom, one could say. It does not provoke a desire to adhere to legal terms and regulations.

Also, there may be preconceived notions about 'art' that imply that art is truly art if it overcomes adversary and the artist has suffered for his art. Maybe, I have no references or credibility in a statement like that, but I feel like somewhere along the line, modern notions about artists include a belief that an artist believes in something more than money and values that more than making money. In fact, it may be the assigned role of an artist to pursue and create things that reflect and inspire society to believe that making money is not the true meaning in life.

Therefore, taking into account all these generalizations, I can see how people can justify stealing music as appreciating art. It's paid for, somehow, but it also should be free. It's like going into the National Museum of Art, which is free, and seeing a Van Gogh or a Monet. Downloading a song and letting it move you should be the same, right?

Except when livelihood is connected to one's art, so an argument can go. But bring in musicians who have mad it big. They seem to have enough money, will they whose art we love, then turn into symbols of greed? Possibly. At least, it seems that is what happens. Would we still love artists if they become more about dollars and less about art? Yes. But maybe that is why we can fill justified about stealing their art. They should make enough money to live comfortably, and we'll support them in that (musicians have plenty of ways of making money besides cd sales...concerts, for example). But I think we prefer to think of artists having nature that doesn't really care about making dollars, but are more about making music that enriches people's lives outside the area of economics.

Are you with me so far? We could extrapolate this scenario to books, but there are bastions of free books called the Library. So, could we say that Music's realm of free appreciation is, then, the internet?

It may be a twisted philosophical way of thinking, but I think you can think of it as not stealing, but rather, appreciating art. Thus bring in hazy arguments about letting art be true to its nature versus it being a lowly product of consumerism.

[Matthew Pipkin]

The argument that museums and libraries are "free" and that there should be an equivalent venue for the appreciation for music has a rather large gap. While those experiences may be offered free of charge to the public, all of the paintings, sculptures, books etc. have certainly been paid for at some point. All culture facilities require financial support from tax-payers and private contributors, and the writers/artists have all been compensated for the works on display.

Moreover, museums and libraries provide temporary access to art, in that you can only view art while you are standing in the museum and you have to return library books when you finish reading them. You can experience the art but you cannot possess it. When you download a song, you are essentially taking full title.

Finally, the musical equivalent of a library already exists: its called a library. Most modern libraries have a huge catalogue of music (and movies, for that matter) available for check-out, free of charge. But since checking out something from a library requires effort and doesn't satisfy our need for instant gratification, most people never even consider it as a an option.

[Paul N.]

Downloading music without paying is sometimes stealing, but in many cases artists encourage the free distribution of their music. The thinking is that more people will hear their stuff if they don't have to pay, and that in turn will build a fanbase that will increase concert attendance. Of course, artists really ought not sign with a label and THEN encourage the free downloading of their music (unless that's permissible in their contract, which can't be likely).

The up-shot is that before either blindly downloading or shelling out $10 on iTunes, it might be worth checking into a given band's stance on this issue. If they are willing to freely distribute, and there doesn't seem to be a dispute with their label about it, you can have the best of both worlds.