Piracy:sometimes it really is just black-and-white

            Media piracy has been a major issue for years. One only needs to watch the “Don’t Copy that Floppy” video (below) from 1992 to see the battle-taking place over two decades ago. The issue is one that has affected me from an early age, as a result of my being born at the dawn of the personal computing era. Despite being an avid music fan, I did not buy a single music album until I bought Kanye West’s My Beautiful, Dark, Twisted Fantasy out of a sense of loyalty to the artist at the age of nineteen. I had no need. By the time I was old enough to walk into a store and buy something, I had access to 20 GB of free music, and soon I would have the ability to acquire whatever I wanted. I also copied dozens of DVDs upon the release of DVD burners with DVDxCopy. When video streaming advance, I watched bootlegged episodes of The Walking Dead online.

            Many of us conceive the arguments on piracy as a simple battle between the copyright holders and those who want to pay less for their media. In R. Lobato’s “Six Faces of Piracy,” however, he suggests that we must have a more dynamic understanding of piracy. According to Lobato, theft is only one aspect of piracy, and it is only part of a constructed idea on piracy that results from the relatively recent idea of intellectual property. Lobato argues this aspect has received far too much focus, when there are five other aspects of piracy that exist: free enterprise, free speech, authorship, resistance, and access.

            I will examine these arguments, going from most effective to least effective. In my opinion, the arguments for piracy are valid, but most of them apply to cases where lawsuits do not occur frequently. The major lawsuits that do occur apply to blatant reproduction of mainstream media to get the same materials for free.

            The argument for piracy as expression makes sense, so long as it actually is expression, and not just reproducing the exact same content. The remix culture that has formed in the last two decades relies heavily on the ability to copy content, but alter it creatively. There is a large grey area here as to whether the material has been altered enough, but that will be a battle for the courts to decide. Ultimately, however, one may argue that if the material is being used as a means of original expression, it is not piracy at all.

            Piracy as access is a solid argument. There is a lot of material that has not actually been published online, or is impossible to access legally in remote regions. Still, the major lawsuits are not on the unheard of little materials or in the small countries, they are mainstream, and easily accessible.

            The argument for free-enterprise argument is intriguing. This argument is based on libertarian ideals, that interfering through legal means actually ends up hurting the market. In the end, however, most of the legitimate reasons for free enterprise are to allow remix culture and free enterprise., then use piracy for that which is not protected by copyrights

            Lobato describes the argument for piracy as authorship as a “poststructuralist critique of authorship.” This is a difficult side to defend. According to this argument, all language and experience is learned from society, and therefore creative content belongs to society and not the individual. Taken to an extreme, this philosophy would lead to the destruction of intellectual property, and a massive slow down in innovation.

            Last, there is the argument for resistance, as a Marxist critique of the media industry. Perhaps the laws are outdated, but one does not try to revise the law by breaking it, but rather using the democratic systems that all legitimate governments have to alter it. If one is offended by the corporate media industry’s attempts to profiteer, then one should select the art that is not copyrighted.  

            Intellectual property is not something that exists solely in the media. We can examine other industries to see the importance of defending intellectual property. Historically, pharmaceuticals have primarily been created because of the help of patents. The creation of pharmaceuticals requires unfathomable amounts of time and research, which is only possible if investors are confident their idea will not be stolen when it is produced. The arts are no different.

            Those who deny the financial losses of piracy are simply enjoying the benefits of the difficulties of calculating the effects of a black market. (Black markets are, by nature, difficult to model.) Perhaps the MPAA has misrepresented the figures of losses from piracy. But in their defense, there is no legitimate way to measure piracy: No one can track the exact number of thefts or how many copies would have been purchased had the theft not occurred. Still, a 2012 review of academic literature at Carnegie Mellon University reveals that the overwhelming statistics show piracy, both from material and file sharing, harms sales in a statistically significant manner.

            Piracy is not just disrespect for the law; it is disrespect for the artists themselves. If the artists did not want to protect their material, they would not have gone to the trouble of purchasing a copyright.

            There are many ways people falsely rationalize their piracy. One of the less reasonable reasons is that lawyers and a whole new business is being created. Indeed, robbing a bank is probably going to require many extra hours for law enforcement officers and attorneys. Still, the fact that other people may benefit from illegal activity is no argument to do so.

            Also, the perspective that only the corporation executives and the lawyers get paid from lawsuits, be that actually true, is one of ignorance. This anti-establishment argument is one that refuses to accept the business structures of the arts themselves. Artists who do not want to be involved in corporations have the right to choose whichever company they want, or none at all. Also, the idea that many in the corporations already have enough money is illegitimate. (If you think the Kellogs’ CEO makes too much money, that does not give you the right to steal a box of cereal.)

            Lobatto’s essay is one that provides some intriguing views of piracy. Still, it such should not distract anyone from the fact that most piracy is theft. Some aspects of file sharing are reproduction, such as the remix culture, are in a grey area that still must be assessed. But the majority of piracy is not in a grey area, it is black-and-white. It is illegal and unethical.

            Another absurd argument is that for those who do not have the means to purchase a product, theft causes no harm. There is a good article by Rob Hart on how people rationalize piracy. As Hart states, "An eBook is a luxury, not a right. If you can't afford it, too bad, but that's life. If you go to Target and they have a flatscreen television you like, but you can't afford it, can you just take it? No.”

            Piracy is such an interesting ethical case because you are so far detached from those you are hurting and also so safe from prosecution for illegal activity. Personally, I find piracy so fascinating to me is how my views on it have changed growing up. When everyone else does it, or you have older siblings, such as myself, it’s hard to decide against it. Not until you start to think independently can you really start to question what you’re doing. If you do start to ask these questions, however, I think it is important not to rationalize your way out of the truth. When you bit torrent that Taylor Swift album for free, you are committing theft.

My cousin, Snoop Dogg, and Convergence Culture

            My first experience with convergence culture was in 2006. My cousin and a friend made a music video to rapper Snoop Dogg's song, “Drop it Like it’s Hot.” The video made by two bored teenagers living in a suburb near Green Bay, Wisconsin combined the professional, cool, and obscene culture of rap with an amateur, silly, and suburban culture. The video successfully illustrates Henry Jenkin’s thesis in his book Convergence Culture. Jenkin’s argues that a new type of culture has evolved, one that involves the mingling of the amateur and the professional, as well as old formats of media with the new.

            Jenkin’s thesis is best shown in my cousin’s video when Snoop Dogg raps of “killers in the street. ” The video switches to a picture of my cousin sitting on an empty road, listening to “Mr. Brightside” by The Killers on a boom box. With this pun, we see music of one professional shown through the means of amateurs to relate to that of another professional.

            Jenkin’s argument is one that has become increasingly relevant every year. Indeed, the way I access much of my culture is through the means of social networks. I choose to watch YouTube videos and shows based on the comments of my friends and I select which songs to listen to via their playlists on Spotify. I have watched on YouTube the commentary on a separate commentary of someone playing Mario 64.

            Recent years have also proven Jenkin’s argument that the “black box” will not exist. . (Although Microsoft is trying as hard to build the Black Box as they can by adding broadcast TV to the upcoming next Xbox.)  It seems there will always be a demand for tangible media, because of its permanence and inability to be erased. There will also be portable types of media and types meant for the home. Thus, no single “black box” will ever dominate the media industry.

            One aspect of Jenkin’s argument that is most interesting is how it directly conflicts with Andrew Keen’s argument that democratization of media is killing culture. Keen presents the rise of the amateur as something that detracts from the professional's work, whereas Jenkin's portrays it as something that adds. Jenkin's mentions that the earlier adopters were "white, male, middle class, and college educated," but that this seems to be changing. It would be interesting to hear Keen's reaction to this, but I think it would be negative, for most of Keen's argument seems to be founded on elitism.

Keen's elitism? (revised)

            When Andrew Keen released The Cult of the Amateur in 2007, many believed his theory that the Internet’s democratization of information distribution would damage American culture. Indeed, in the earliest days of the Web 2.0, the idea that the average computer user could competently help spread the news and knowledge may not have been intuitive. Keen latched onto this fear, and lamented that a world had been created that ruined the efficacy of Adam Smith's division of labor by allowing amateurs to have major effects on our sources of information.

            When Jimmy Wales created Wikipedia, however, he took this fear into account. By requiring the user to cite sources and by allowing for the constant reediting of a page by the community, Wales created an Encyclopedia more extensive than any previous one. Then, in 2005, a major study by a respected journal showed that Wikipedia has the same reliability in its content as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Millions of users, together, created a site of information larger than any known to man. Therefore, many people without the supposed authority to write on such topics, in fact, did so successfully.
            Keen's argument is one of extreme pretention. He assassinates Jimmy Wales's character by noting that he was a graduate school dropout, a gamer, an Ayn Rand reader, and a creator of a peer-to-peer site with links to female celebrities. Keen writes:
       "What Keen had learned as an adolescent playing video games, and relearned from his experience      
       with Bomis [the peer-to-peer website], was the power of the network, the value of what to became
       known as 'distributed technology.'"

            This is not to say that there does not a high rate of mistakes, negligence, and ignorance throughout the Internet. In the case of Wikipedia, however, a system that requires citation of published sources and the constant fact checking by thousands of contributors. Thus, there exists a meritocracy within cyberspace to weed out bad writing.

            The last decade, however, helped reveal that knowledge exists outside the academy and the pressroom. The path to positions of status, such as a doctoral degree or a journalist, is not just one of intelligence and motivation, but also a talent in navigating a system. Partially due to this change in understanding of knowledge, Keen’s book rings with the contemporary reader as one of elitism.

           

The leap from Rheingold to Turkle (revised)

There is an intimate connection between Howard Rheingold’s The Virtual Community from 1993 and Sherry Turkle’s Alone Together from 2011. Rheingold envisioned a utopic future, in which people with similar interests and experiences could find each other. Turkle lamented the tradeoffs that resulted from this connectivity.

Indeed, the Internet has resulted in a possible “CMC (Computer Mediated Communication)-triggered change” on a “person-to person interaction” (xxvii) as Rheingold envisioned. For example, millions date through the Internet. However, with greater unity on the Internet, users found less time in their interactions outside of cyberspace. In fact, a recent article in The Atlantic suggests that even in the midst of a relationship, people are often distracted by their online dating cites, such as OKcupid.com. The temptations of connecting online often outdo the importance of connecting with those nearby in the real world. 

The Internet also came to the professional world, and email helped move us even closer to a 24/7 culture. With this greater speed and connectivity come greater expectations, as well. I remember when I was in my Tween years, my dad's Blackberry suddenly allowed him to work productively anywhere at anytime. As a result, when we would travel together, for example, it would often be hard to get his attention or talk with him because he spent all of his time on the phone.

The mobilization of the Internet augmented the changes resulting from greater connectivity. For example, Rheingold most likely did not envision Turkle’s example of a parent focus on email on a smart phone rather than a child being picked up from school.  Indeed, every decision has benefits and costs, and perhaps what few anticipated was the sheer amount of time invested in the Internet that would become such a cost. 

The debate of whether or not technology actually improves our lives goes back a long way. Sigmund Freud, for example, thought the telephone was a wonderful way to communicate with his son, but he wondered if it hadn't been for the technology of the locomotive, his son would be so far from him.

Two Anti-Heroes: Russian Spammer Vardan Kushnir and Jay Gatsby

            The real life tale of Vardan Kushnir, is especially intriguing because of how closely the downfall of the Russian spammer matched that of Jay Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s character in The Great Gatsby. This is a most appropriate topic, with coming the release of The Great Gatsby film in May.

            Both rose from humble beginnings: Gatsby was raised by farmers in North Dakota, Kushnir by a single mother in Armenia. Both had great dreams, Gatsby wanted wealth and Kushnir wanted to be “like Bill Gates.” Their dreams takes dark paths, however; Gatsby sells alcohol illegally, Kushnir spams thousands. Gatsby’s parties become renown on Long Island for their drinking and raucousness, Kushnir became known for expensive fashion and orgies. Both create enemies during their ascension who shoot them to death on a summer night.

            Perhaps they feel so similar because of how their environments related. Gatsby came of age in the gang-ridden age of the Roaring 1920s, Kushnir in the exceedingly corrupt post-Communist 1990s Russia.  Both decades resulted from an artificial lawlessness, the former from American prohibition, and the latter from the fall of the Soviet Union.

            Additionally, the development of the Internet in the 1990s created a frontier not dissimilar form the American West on the 19^th century. Internet hackers created havoc in a world without police. Kushnir sent up to 7 million emails a day, filling a single persons’ email with 50 emails. The only way to stop Internet rogues was for the people to put enforcing the norms into their own hands. This was most often done by-hacking the perpetrator and therefore ending their reign solely on the web. In the case of Kushnir, however, it grew past cyberspace and to real life murder.

            The tales of Gatsby and Kushnir are most distressing because the characters could be considered products of their environments. The possibilities of opulence in a lawless society would be enticing to most. In the end, however, there were few left to care. Gatsby’s father and a friend were the only ones to attend his funeral. And probably the only person sorrowful for Kushnir’s death was his mother.