And the next generation cannot think in any other way. Because it is a natural way to think. We need to re-think our own outdated notions of intellectual property:
The Generational Divide in Copyright Morality
Recently, however, I spoke at a college. It was the first time I'd ever addressed an audience of 100 percent young people. And the demonstration bombed.
In an auditorium of 500, no matter how far my questions went down that garden path, maybe two hands went up. I just could not find a spot on the spectrum that would trigger these kids' morality alarm. They listened to each example, looking at me like I was nuts.
Finally, with mock exasperation, I said, "O.K., let's try one that's a little less complicated: You want a movie or an album. You don't want to pay for it. So you download it."
There it was: the bald-faced, worst-case example, without any nuance or mitigating factors whatsoever.
"Who thinks that might be wrong?"
Two hands out of 500.
Now, maybe there was some peer pressure involved; nobody wants to look like a goody-goody.
Maybe all this is obvious to you, and maybe you could have predicted it. But to see this vivid demonstration of the generational divide, in person, blew me away.
Yes, it is obvious and predictable. Very. Kids grok it.
- Log in to post comments
Damn. Maybe I'm not as old as I feel. I agree with the kids.
The definition of property is this; if someone takes your property from you, you no longer have it. You have experienced a loss. If someone takes your 'intellectual property', chances are, you won't even know about it. Therefore, 'intellectual property' is not property.
Exactly right. The fact that shrill voices keep insisting on calling copyright violation "theft" is probably a large part of why so many people don't take it seriously. It's obviously over the top.
I personally would argue that copyright violation is much more like trespassing...but "intellectual property" barons know how silly they'd sound if they tried to claim that they were losing umpty-billion dollars every year to people "tresspassing on their copyrights".
This issue will also come up with home fabrication.
New Scientist, 1/9/07
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn10922-desktop-fabricator-m…
"A cheap self-assembly device capable of fabricating 3D objects has been developed by US researchers. They hope the machine could kick start a revolution in home fabrication or "rapid prototyping" just as early computer kits sparked an explosion in home computing. ...
These create objects by depositing layer upon layer of liquid or powdered material. ...
The standard version of their Freeform fabricator or "fabber" is about the size of a microwave oven ... It can generate 3D objects from plastic and various other materials. ...
Bowyer adds that the Fab@Home machine could probably already be used to make many cheap injection-moulded products already on the market: "I can imagine people swapping plans of things to make online, or paying to download them instead of going to the shop."
Or maybe they won't pay to download them.
Design wants to be free? (See comments thread.)
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=674
A controversy on a blog dedicated to issues of artistic property theft.
Check out this recent Lawrence Lessig TED talk
The fundamental problem is that we are asking the wrong question.
The question that is being asked at the highest levels-- at least nominally**-- is "how do we protect intellectual property?"
The question that should be asked is "how do we ensure that creators can make a living contributing their creations to society?"
The former question presupposes that the up-to-20th century answer to the second question is protection of intellectual property. But that made sense only because mass production and distribution of ideas and expression required more resources than an individual could muster, and as such it was relatively easy to regulate. That is no longer true.
Alas, very, very few people recognize that the latter question is the right question to ask. And, if you say that the second question does not imply the first, you're accused of not understanding the "morality of theft" or some such. But the latter question is the one that urgently needs addressing, and the former question is now only getting in the way by postponing addressing the real question.
** (The people who are asking the question in good faith ask this. In reality, of course, the RIAA and MPAA are trying to figure out how they can maintain their dominant position of control and income in an era when the nature of reality no longer fully supports their business model. They only care about the rights of creators insofar as they can leverage those rights for their own power.)