MP3s and Piracy:

This is a faux-dialogue I created for a friend's website that is based on a composite of different arguments I have had with advocates of intellectual looting, aka "file sharing". My responses to the purple "questions" are in grey.

I really like capitalism and freedom! I mean where else but America could a college student create a brilliant application like Napster and become an overnight millionaire, simply by recognizing the demands of listeners and catering to them?

Um, that ain't capitalism, that's looting. Capitalism can offer a lot of value and make your life better, but it can't provide goods or services without recognizing the rights of those who produce them. Only slavery can do that.

So you're saying Napster is slavery? That's absurd!

If by "absurd" you mean "ridiculously accurate", then yes, you're right.

I mean no one is standing over these musicians and record executives and yelling "put yo' back into it boy!". They choose to sell CDs. If I buy a CD, it's mine to use as I choose, that's what freedom is all about. I should be free to make copies for myself and my friends- It's not like I'm profiting from file-trading, I'm just sharing. You're saying I should be forcibly enjoined from sharing?

Most definitely. Or more to the point, you can't "share" that to which you yourself have no right. Whether you benefit from it or not, there is no question you are violating the rights of the producers when you "share" or make unauthorized copies of songs. When you buy a CD, you buy the rights to one single copy of that work, to listen to and play for whomever you choose (depending on the stipulation of the copyright). The artist, the producers, and all others with whom they contract to bring the product to market are responsible for bringing the product into existence. Therefore, the copyright holders, and no one else, get to decide the terms under which they will offer the product. If you don't like the terms of the agreement, you are free not to buy the CDs, but you don't get to negotiate a "trade" with another individual without regard to his terms. What would that be, if not stealing?

What about freedom of speech? Doesn't file-sharing constitute a type of speech? What about derivative works that still contain an enormous amount of creative work? How can I express myself if I'm constantly in danger of copyright infringement?

If you're constantly running afoul of copyrights in your attempts to create something original, you probably never had much to "express" in the first place. Your freedom of expression does not give you the right to sacrifice someone else's interests. You have the right to speak, but you don't have the right to use my house, my microphone, or a brilliant new system of sound transmission of my invention to say what you want to say. In the same sense, you don't have the right make a Broadway musical based on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged without her or her heirs' consent. You may have poured your heart and soul into such a work, but that is beside the point. If you build a house on my property, I have every right to tear it down, no matter how much work you put into it. Likewise, I have every right to sue you if you sample or copy my music to support your "expression". If your expression does in fact depend on the work of others, then you had better respect their rights and their autonomy.

What about the record companies, do they respect the rights of the artists? Those artists don't have control of their works, they are forced to give up all ownership to the huge media conglomerates. The artists themselves barely get to break even.

So by stealing music, you will help make the system more just? In fact, musicians are free not to deal with record companies. They can, and do, release their music independently and sometimes fare better than their major label counterparts. However, many musicians recognize that they are better off in a modern industry where economies of scale and division of labor confer a huge benefit, than in a cottage industry where a few tireless individuals run themselves ragged trying to master every aspect of an enormously complex industry. And, get this, they are perfectly free to trade the rights to their songs in return for huge advances and the possibility of fame and fortune. Just as the right to your life must include the right to end your life, the right to property includes the right to trade, dispose of or even recklessly destroy that property.

What about the bigger picture? Copyright laws were originally introduced in this country to encourage creative productivity and scientific progress for the public good. Doesn't file-sharing contribute to the overall development of culture?

Didn't slavery contribute to the overall development of culture? Was Stalin's mass murder and starvation of millions of Russian citizens not rationalized by an appeal to public interest? Whatever the legal history of copyright laws, their moral justification lies in that they are intellectual property rights and that, like all property rights, they are fundamental to individual rights. The spread of ideas, the advancement of science, etc. are only good in so much as they benefit individuals. They are not absolute goods, to be pursued for some at the expense of others for the sake of society.