http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1522387,00.asp
RIAA Police Raid Kazaa
By John C. Dvorak
February 9, 2004
It's always something! Last week, in a series of surprise raids, the recording industry police, utilizing warrants based on some obscurities, blew into the Australian offices of Kazaa (Sharman Networks) and half a dozen other places, apparently, and took or trashed everything they could. I was visualizing Elliot Ness bursting into a Frank Nitti warehouse, using big axes to bust up liquor barrels and yelling, "Tell Capone he was paid a visit!" The only things the recording industry mob seems to be missing are machine guns and fedora hats.
This took place after the recording industry, which lost its case in April 2003 trying to shut down various peer-to-peer operations, showed up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena pleading for a reversal. The industry has decided to get tough with everyone. This includes targeting telecommunications companies. In Australia, the stated hope is to find evidence to use against Sharman in the U.S. Sharman says it's just harassment. Welcome to the world of globalization.
So I think the time has come to revisit the stances that moralists out there take on these kinds of issues. Let's consider the issues.
First, let's take theft (please!). Here's a hypothetical scenario: The universe consists of five people. I have a bowl of candy on my porch with a sign saying, "Property of John C. Dvorak—Do Not Remove." Someone comes along and takes the candy. This has always been classified as theft. But now let's suppose that the other four inhabitants of the universe say that when the candy is set out like that, people can go ahead and take it. Four people say that the taking of my property was not theft. I say it was! Who is right?
It depends on the situation, doesn't it? In particular, it depends on the situational ethics of the time and place. The concept of situational ethics gained popularity in the 1960s.
But when does the community deciding an act is okay become tyranny of the majority? Situational ethics can create all sorts of conundrums. And it can go sour, giving rise to phenomena such as the extermination camps of World War II Germany. Usually that's not what happens, thank goodness. In fact, we need situational ethics to maintain modernization in the world. The alternative seems to be backwards fundamentalism in all its forms, with people getting stoned for sometimes (by today's situational standards) dubious crimes.
Much of the situational ethics du jour stems from the collective unconscious of the public-at-large. There are many influences, and the music industry itself is one. I have harped on this before, but it is worth repeating. With music lyrics and actions that teach disrespect for institutions, the law, the legal system, women in particular, and the sex act, how can the music industry cry foul when its product is stolen or seen as fair game for theft? Aren't these the kinds of messages in current rap—the most modern form of popular music?
Let's go back to the candy bowl incident and add one more variable. I'm a singer, and some of my songs tell listeners it's okay to steal my candy—that if I didn't want it stolen, I wouldn't have put it out there, so take it no matter what the sign says, and no matter how much I squawk. Does this change anything?
To complicate things even more, let's say the candy is my real way of making money. In the past, people would knock on my door to buy candy. Now they are just taking it. Many say I'm not home enough, so they have to take the candy. Others think my leaving it out is ridiculous, so they take it because it's there. Some people take the candy with no intention of even eating it. Meanwhile, my music still tells people to take the candy, and I still complain when they do. What can I do?
Either I let people take the candy, or I move it into the house and sell it from there—I change the business model. The old ethics are over. It's me who has to change. Easier said than done.
If I move the candy inside, I'll probably notice I get no sales. Now what? Do I give free tastes? Do I discover that now that people have gotten free candy they never want to pay for it again? The ethics have changed all around. If it's free, then taking it is not stealing. And if it is out, then it's free. Candy outside is thus free. Signs don't help. Complaining doesn't help. Out is, by the new definition, free.
Add another dimension. Say one person has been taking all candy, bringing it home, and selling it from inside the house! Now what? You tell me. I invite the readers to join this week's discussion on situational ethics and the latest episode in the never-ending RIAA soap opera. In the upcoming print edition of PC Magazine, I reexamine the mistakes made in shutting down Napster and how that might be responsible for sending the music industry into this weird tailspin.
Hybrid Mode
