Find the Cognitive Dissonance

Wow. When I wrote my post about copyright violations I was expecting to produce some good cognitive dissonance in the comments but I got more than I could have hoped for.

If you’ve read anything about experiments to produce cognitive dissonance, you know this was the perfect setup. You can produce dissonance by putting a person in a position of doing something that is clearly opposed to his self image. Then wait for his explanation. The explanation will seem absurd to anyone who doesn’t share the dissonance. In this case the model that produced it was…

1. Good people are not criminals.
2. Criminals break laws.
3. I break copyright laws.
4. But since I know I am a good person, my reason why it’s okay to violate copyright laws is (insert something absurd).

The fascinating thing about cognitive dissonance is that it’s immune to intelligence. No matter how smart you are, you can’t think your way out of it. Once your actions and your self image get out of sync, the result is an absurd rationalization. You can see that in the comments.

The people who experienced the dissonance yesterday will have an angry/frustrated reaction to my post today. According to the psychologists, it wouldn’t be likely for anyone to say, “Oops. I now see that I was being irrational.” Instead, the more likely result is getting super pissed off at me for being, in your opinion, so incredibly stupid, not to mention greedy.

For fun, take any of the cognitive dissonance from yesterday’s comments and put them in a comment today. Only the non-copyright-violators will be psychologically equipped for this task. For example, one of my favorite absurd rationalizations for violating copyrights goes like this:

1. Information is free by nature.
2. When rich people cause Congress to create copyright laws, they are taking something from me that used to be free.
3. Therefore, I am not stealing. I’m just taking back what was taken from me.

And then there’s Mindy, who believes it’s not a copyright violation to republish other people’s work as long as she doesn’t charge for it.

I also enjoy the rationalizations from the people who say it is okay to violate copyrights whenever it’s cheaper than paying money. They argue that these violations will encourage greedy publishers to be more efficient, thus transferring wealth from recording companies to…Steve Jobs.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go steal some more pants from Nordstrom. I'm not a thief; I'm just trying to convince them to lower the prices. You're welcome.

What was your favorite absurd rationalization?

Comments

[JavaMoe]

I read many comments.

I can't believe nobody has used the term Value Judgments

[Chazoo]

My favorite cognitive dissonance is that people can't bring themselves to believe that 9/11 was an inside job by criminal elements (with an agenda)in our government, at the top levels of the executive branch and the pentagon. Get your wakeup call at www.secretwarsinter.com

[Sarah]

I think the most painful rationalizations people make are not over copyright laws, but over circumcising babies.

They believe things like:

Babies care what their father's penis looks like.

When paternity is in doubt, it's plausible to check in the pants, if father and son match.

Causing pain to tiny people who can't talk hurts then less than delaying the painful experience until they would punch you out.

Taking away an individuals options about their most private body part can result only in gratitude.

Bullies can't think of mean things to say to boys who are circumcised.
(to be paired with)
The bully will always be circumcised.

Men are too stupid to operate soap.
(to be paired with)
Men dread any process which would require touching their penis.

In general, women are entitled to a sexually modified opposite gender because (fill in the blank reason). (Fill in the blank reason) NEVER should be applied to female genitals as that would be sexist and abhorrent.

It's best to take the most drastic action first, because of the low risk something might go wrong later which would require a less invasive treatment.

It's better to circumcise a boy as a baby and assume the risk that he will need to have his circumcision revised... than to risk leaving his body whole and chance that he would never need to be circumcised at all.

A wonderful article about cognitive dissonance and similar barriers to thought can be found here: http://www.doceo.co.uk/original/learnloss_1.htm

[Joe]

Here's a couple doozy rationalizations for you:

1. The modern system of copyright law is what enables people to become "professionals" at the creation of art.
2. Without copyrights, no one would pay for art of any kind.
3. Much great art was created by amateurs who were paid nothing for their labor, and the majority of the "classics" were created in an economic system which lacked copyright.
4. Despite the obvious truth of #3, if we got rid of copyright today, all art would disappear because of (insert absurd statement here).

Like that one? I'll do you one better:

1. Every technological advance which has infringed on the traditional system of copyrights has created a huge wave of "pirates" who were more interested in using the new technology than paying for art in the traditional way, under the old system.
2. Every time such a technology has been invented, the law has changed to allow the technology, and restrict the rights of creators, in the interest of the common good.
3. After a period of upheaval and pain, every such technology has ended up creating a (huge) net BENEFIT to the previously-pirated-from party.
4. Because (insert name of technology here, "The Internet" would be apropos for the current discussion) is different by making it FREE for people to consume art, allowing the technology to advance THIS TIME would cause the immediate end of all artistic professions and thereby be the end of all creative processes as we know them because (insert absurd statement here).

======

I agree with you that authors should be paid, but copyright law is there to serve the public good, not the interests of the few by propping up previously-successful individuals or companies.

So, the internet took away your ability to control how electronic versions of your creations get distributed. So what? You correctly pointed out that all property rights are artificial -- I'd go you one further argue that they are also fictional (ie, if I have to pay the government property tax to go on "owning" my house, who really "owns" it?) -- why should your copyrights be any different, if reducing them accomplishes some public good?

The radio and tape deck took a similar thing from musicians. The VCR took a similar thing from moviemakers. Similar arguments can be made for every way in which you or I consume "art" -- vinyl records, sheet music, player pianos, and, yes, even the printing presses that make the publishing of "Dilbert" books possible. Shall we outlaw them all?

Or just the ones that concern you?

Another great truism along the lines of your "cognitive dissonance" observation goes something like this:

"It is hard to get a man to understand something, if his living depends on him not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair

[Renee]

I disagree with your premise. If a criminal is defined as someone who breaks the law, then many good people are criminals and vice versa.

We call them "chaotic good," as opposed to "lawful good." Generally they pop up during the reigns of tyrannical governments in particular. (But even the most perfect of gov'ts is not immune to a little tyranny.)

I personally am chaotic neutral, and couldn't care less about whether so and so thinks I am good or bad, and certainly couldn't care less about obeying laws I don't want to :)

You sir, are clearly some sort of lawful aligment. I don't know you well enough to assign you good/evil/neutral.

[me]

[QUOTE]
"All property rights are artificial."

Intellectual property aside, this is a fun statement. Tracking back the history of western governments and freedom in general, things like the Magna Carta, the Constitution, Common Law, and the writings of folks such as Thomas Paine, etc, the foundation of all our freedoms rests on property rights. And this moron thinks they are \u201cartificial\u201d?
[/QUOTE]

Actually, this person is quite right. Property *is* an artificial creation. Not all civilizations had this concept. The Magna Carta, Common Law, etc. are things that help to cement it on our civilization, but it's not a law of nature. It was created ARTIFICIALLY by humans for specific purposes.

By the way, the violence in your post was a nice touch.

[Church]

I dress just like you.

Feeling poorer yet?

[Christopher]

Laws aren't always just.

[Marc D.]

Hmm, let's look at it the other way.

CopyRIGHT law, first enacted by the Statute of Anne of 1710, broke the monopoly of the London Company of Stationers over all ownership of published works and created the following:

1) the right to own a published work.

2) the creation of a limited term of copyright (19 years) after which all works enter the public domain for the common good.

3) the creation of a public domain of works in the first place.

4) the right to copy a published work for various reasons, including "fair use".

Now, let's look at the implementation of copyright today:

1) unless you self-publish, a nice clause in American copyright law allows many works to be considered "works for hire", owned by the person who bought them, not the original author. This is a reversion to pre-1710 practice, with the current large publishers taking the place of the Company of Stationers.

2) by making the circumvention of DRM a criminal act, this effectively re-introduces the concept of perpetual copyright. A work might eventually be allowed into the public domain, but if it is protected by DRM, it is illegal to put that work in the public domain. Hence, we're again back to pre-1710 practice.

3) Thanks to lobbying by the large publishers, no new works will enter the public domain now until 2018 or thereabouts, thanks to a retroactive increase in copyright term to 70 years after death (so effectively 100 years for many authors). One can of course expect more "Mickey Mouse" clauses to come into effect in the next few years, extending the term even longer.

The sad part is, all these rights that we enjoy as part of copyRIGHT law (and not copy PREVENTION) are mostly still *IN* the actual copyright legislation, but are being actively and deliberately circumvented by the publishers through other means.

So the real thieves and bandits are those mainly large corporations that have been twisting copyRIGHT law into something that very closely resembles the state of affairs that existed prior to the important concept of copyright. Meanwhile, the general public and the public domain is getting screwed by companies that abused copyright law to get where they are in the first place. Disney stole shamelessly from Buster Keaton. Fox stole from everyone, and they all moved to California because it had much weaker copyright laws.

Oh, and there are more reward mechanisms for authors than Americans currently seem to think exist. For instance, in Canada we pay a levy on all blank media. In return, downloading music for personal use is legal. You heard me, it's not theft. Quite legal, and the artists get their money too.

So the argument is a non-sequitor. A paradox that doesn't exist because the assumptions are flawed. Let's recap the original argument you claim is absurd. You're right, it is absurd, but not for the reasons you think it is:

1. Good people are not criminals.

Not always. Law and morality have nothing to do with each other. "Good" people broke the law to help slaves escape from the USA and other places. "Good" people broke the law to help Jews, Gypsies and others escape from Nazi Germany. "Good" people break the law in order to protest unjust and unfair laws. "Good" people can, in fact, technically be criminals because law and morality are not equivalent sets.
So your first premise is false. Not a good start.

2. Criminals break laws.

By definition really. Of course, entire classes of people are made criminals by law. It's illegal to be homosexual in many places. It's probably illegal for Dilbert to be shown in other places. However, the statement is a tautology, so it stands.

3. I break copyright laws.

Not necessarily. Perhaps one is just executing certain rights that exist, but that are duly ignored by the strident press and their ignorant shills? The concept of "fair use", for instance, is widely ignored by those who claim they are enforcing copyright. What they are actually doing is enforcing small, selective parts of copyright law and hoping nobody actually read the legislation before they can change it to meet their needs. That "fair use" bit though is unfortunately for them a core part of all copyright laws, and very hard to get rid of. It's still in US law, amongst others. Heck, it's even in the WIPO preamble and embedded into that piece of cack. So no, people do not necessarily break copyright law. They are, however, TOLD that they break copyright law. Claims that suddenly seem to fade away when they get a good lawyer. Unfortunately, not many can do that.

4. But since I know I am a good person, my reason why it’s okay to violate copyright laws is (insert something absurd).

Since 1, 2 and 3 are false, 4 is a non-sequitor, does not follow, and hence does not need to be answered other than by pointing at 1, 2 and 3 and making you fix your flawed logic.

Stick to comics about corporate stupidity. You're much better at that.

[boggsj]

I don't need a rationalization because I don't give a crap about the law. I obey the law for the sole purpose of avoiding imprisonment, not out of any moral obligation to. If I can get a big pile of free movies and music and software and games and books; great! That means I can afford to buy food AND not have to watch ants crawl about for entertainment.

It's also easier to get away with than decapitating the neighbors.

[Whyvan]

Copyright violation (speaking ripping stuff off on the Internet, i.e. comics and music) is fine because the path to prosecution is still a dim and oft missed trail through a gloomy wood. Nicking stuff from the local off-license has a much higher risk of destroying your carefully maintained image of "good human in control".

[James Andrix]

Scott, your belief that you have any right to control of published information is an equally absurd rationalization.

[Kilgore Trout]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

[Joe Sherrod]

If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.
--George Bernard Shaw

I think your problem, Mr. Adams, is that you don't feel like you're getting anything out of it when someone runs off with your ideas en masse without interacting with you directly (or at least by handing you a little bit of money indirectly). The reason this is a problem for you is you are physically incapable of exercising control over distribution on the scale at which your intellectual property is being demanded.

I get it: you want apples too.

I assume there are several reasons you own business and have a creative portfolio that is a bit more diverse than Dilbert, Mr. Adams. There's a group of people our there who aren't going to pay for something they can get for free. If your goal is to make the most money, you've got to come up with things that these people can't get for free and charge them for those. If your goal isn't making money, then why should you give a damn how anyone goes about reading Dilbert? The more options people have, the better. Right? And if your goal is making money... what, are you particularly strapped for cash? I'm sure that one of the world's most intelligent business-educated men is capable of coming up with a person 'get rich quick' scheme that'll work.

The scans of your book that went out online don't come on paper with binding and electricity-free access to the above. Digital paper isn't as good as real paper yet. Until we reach that point, the scanned copy of your book is of lesser quality than the tangible copy, and the people who want the tangible one will still pay for it.

Someone stealing your book online is not the same as someone taking your underwear because it isn't even your underwear they're thieving; it's a picture someone took of your underwear with a magic light-box.

Stop venting about how you're a helpless victim of the internet by picking on your readers for not being as intelligent as you are. You're better than that.

[ASM826]

As long you have the hallucination that we all have no free will, it is impossible for you to complain about anyone's behavior. I have to have free will to steal something, otherwise I am blameless. Of course, you could claim that your lack of free will is what makes you care about this. It might even be your lack of free will and mine that is making me type this.

It really is one or the other, Scott. If I have free will, I can be held accountable. If not, then I am no more responsible for my behavior than an oak tree or a rock.

[Adrian D.]

Scott Adams actually supplied the best response to this.

Scott Adams, I agree with your analysis of your hallucination.

[Gaijin Biker]

Your borrowing-underpants analogy is flawed. I never had any access to your underpants. There is no reason why I should have any right to come into your house and borrow them.

By contrast, if I buy a DVD, I have the DVD in my possession. Copyright law now comes in and stops me from doing things that I would otherwise have a right to do: share stuff I bought with my friends. That's why so many "good" people end up as copyright "criminals": They're not taking something from you; you're taking something from them.

[Matthew Harper]

@David W. Robertson (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/04/find_the_cognit.html#comment-66426144)

According to Kant, there has probably never been a 'moral' act in the entire history of mankind, because moral acts can only be committed by purely rational beings. 'Morality' and 'goodness' are thus something we strive for rather than have.

I'm coming at it from philosophy, you from Christianity, but I take the basic point to be the same: what gives these people the right to think that they are 'good' and therefore either that stealing is not always immoral, or that they didn't steal at all?

Nothing except vanity - another form of immorality.

[Nicholas]

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go steal some more pants from Nordstrom. I'm not a thief; I'm just trying to convince them to lower the prices. You're welcome.

Stealing a physical object has different results than copying a piece of data and I'm sure you know it. It makes me wonder why you'd say something like this. For comedy value I suppose.

When you steal a pair of pants, not only are you not paying the owners, you're depriving them of the object, which they could otherwise sell to someone else. Not so if you copy some data from, say, a friend. The copyright holders still have exactly the same number of physical objects (CDs, DVDs, etc.) to sell to consumers.

Personally, I buy CDs and DVDs most of the time. I don't know why. It would be so easy for me not to. I guess the answer is that I can afford it, so why not? But I think it's disingenuous to make this comparison without pointing out the flaws in the implied analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good word! Most Slashdot stories don't have this many comments! Do you really read them all? And if so, WHY?

[DJFelix]

I believe that breaking copyright is wrong. I also believe that the current law extends copyright law too long, and does not allow for paying customers to use what they buy how they want to.

I am also a realist, and can acknowledge that music/movie/software/etc. piracy will not go away. The genie is out of the bottle, and will not return. The only way for media producers to survive in this hostile environment is to adapt business practices and find new ways to generate income from IP. We still love to buy stuff in America. The media companies need to find new ways to sell us IP that we will actually enjoy.

What dismays me is not so much that there are so many selfish people in the world breaking copyright law, it is that the media companies are so short sighted that they won't find a creative way to stay in business. If they continue on the path they are on, they will die, and there won't be any good media left to steal. Maybe that has to happen before a change can be made.

As long as that happens after the final season of 24, I'm cool.

[Jeff Medcalf]

Here's the only real problem that I have with Mr. Adams' analogy: pants are not intellectual, but tangible, property. If I put a Dilbert cartoon on my website, I have not deprived Mr. Adams of its use, nor of the ability to profit from the cartoon. On the other hand, if I take the pants from Nordstrom, I've deprived Nordstrom of both its ability to use the pants, and its ability to profit from the pants. That's why copyright violation is not theft, per se.

That does not mean that copyright violation is justifiable (excluding fair use and so forth). Even if you are not charging for the viewing of the copyrighted work you do not own, you are distributing the work in a manner contrary to its owners wishes and privileges (despite the term, copyright is a privilege granted by the government, not a right) and by doing so, potentially reducing the owner's profits from the work. That's not theft, but it is doing an indirect harm, and that should be enough to prevent moral people from violating copyright, other than in limited circumstances.

Me? Yes, I've violated copyright in a couple of cases. I've downloaded music from P2P networks that (a) I already own on album, but wanted to get in my iPod without buying a USB-equipped record player, and (b) that were not available for sale at any price (like a song from the soundtrack to Dogs in Space).

In case (a), I don't see how I've caused any harm, because I already own the track, and have paid a license for listening to it as much as I want, whenever and wherever I want. I suppose you could say I've harmed the manufacturer of the USB-equipped record player, but that's a pretty tenuous claim, and I suspect I'd be able to puncture it thoroughly with one question: every time I fail to buy something I've thought about buying, have I harmed the seller? (If so, of course, the reductio ad absurdam is immediate: I cannot avoid doing much greater harm than the putative copyright violation, and copyright violation cannot ever be more harmful than background noise of the dozens of times per week that I think about buying things, and don't.)

In case (b), if I ever see the track for sale, I'll buy it then and there, because I want a higher-quality copy (and would like the entire soundtrack, which presumably would be available with the before-mentioned song). Again, no harm done, because there was no way for the owner to profit from the track, since the owner is not selling the track.

Copyright can be a useful privilege for the government to extend, because it actually does achieve its aim of increasing the cultural and technological works available. Would Mr. Adams have published Dilbert for so long, and so consistently, if he were not able to profit from it? I doubt it.

All that said, I think that copyright is problematic at this point, because of the excessive length of the copyright term. The current term prevents copyrighted material from becoming available for the public to use prior to all but a tiny fraction of it has disappeared from usability. Consider: if there is a textbook written in the 1930s, it won't be available for public use until some time in the 2080s. How many copies, if any, are likely to survive to that point? Yet there is no ability in the meantime to meaningfully preserve the book, because it's not profitable for its owner to do so, and non-owners may not (legally) copy the book into a more durable medium.

I think that sensible copyright reform would increase the amount of public-domain creative works (its ostensible goal).

[Anon Y. Mous]

"Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go steal some more pants from Nordstrom. I'm not a thief; I'm just trying to convince them to lower the prices."

That's not what IP infringers are doing though, is it? The typical infringer buys the ipod, blank cd, etc., and then makes copies of some IP. So, if you were to go down to Nordstrom, note the exact design of the jeans they are selling, go buy the raw materials and necessary tools, and then make your own pair of jeans - you would then have a comparable situation. One other note, you would not sell the jeans, though you might post the design on the internet.

Not quite so outrageous, at least in most people's eyes. The basis of your confusion (intentional or otherwise)is you are trying to say that 2 different things are the same - stealing someone's actual property, and copying an idea without permission. They are not the same thing.

[Tim in PA]

People have an amazing ability to rationalize their behavior. This ability usually starts when they have something they wish to do, and they then proceed to shape their ethics on a case by case basis to fit their actions. Basically, they define what is "right" as "what I would do".

There are certainly some excesses and stupidities associated with copyright law these days, but the basic premise remains sound: to help creative workers profit from their work, thereby encouraging the arts. It's a similar concept to the patent system.

[David W. Robertson]

Scott, I appreciate your motive for creating your cognitive dissonance experiment. From a Christian perspective, the model that you use is based on a false dilemma. According to Jesus, nobody is good except God alone. Thus, I have one question: If people claim that they are good, then what standard are they using to determine whether or not they are good? Whatever standard that they are using certainly isn't the New Testament.

[jpe]

Rationalizing it doesn't make it legal.

And its mere illegality doesn't make it unethical. Since we're talking about "good people," not "law-abiding people," your comment simply begs the question.

[jpe]

1. Good people are not criminals.

This is prima facie absurd. Good people jaywalk. That non-controversial counterexample tells us that good people can break laws and remain good. What's the rule to synthesize from (1) and counter(1)? It's likely that the goodness of the law itself is important to the moral calculus.

And that's pretty obvious.

[Ron]

3: But since I know I am a good person, my reason why it’s okay to violate copyright laws is...

...that statment #1 is not always true.

[Adrian D.]

C-ya needs a different line of work. Challenging a premise is valid argument. I do not know what he sees in his work but he have veen very dismissive here.

The premise that "good people are not criminals" is not valid. History is filled with people who broke existing laws to change the system. It is not immoral to break a bad law. Now, there is debate about whether the copyright laws are good. (I am inclined to think that there should be copyright laws, but that the ones we have are overly-strict.) A quick dismissal as "dissonance" is itself dishonest.

[rev_matt_y]

Late coming, but a music critic on The Now Show (BBC4) whose name I didn't catch had a different perspective on this that I'd genuinely not heard before. To paraphrase: Illegally downloading music is probably the only time in your life that you'll be able to take money away from Sting. Every time you click your mouse, Robbie Williams becomes less rich. This might eventually mean you'll never hear someone accept an award for best remix of an Abba song, and it might mean you never have to hear Westlife ever again.

[Regret]

how do you like this model:

1. laws are for stopping bad people doing bad things
2. i'm a good person
3. conclusion: laws do not apply to me

btw i only think this when i forget i'm an anarchist :P

[Rob]

Ok - I spotted the cognitive dissonance.

it goes something like this
A) I work hard on Dilbert, so I should get all the benefit
B) Other people are getting benefit
C) therefore they must be criminals (and they probably justify it by cognitive dissonance)

you then make the absurd justification for 3)

1. Good people are not criminals.
(lots are - think Nelson Mandella at one end, or me when I copy my purchased CD to my iPod at the other)
2. Criminals break laws.
(yes, but that does not imply that people who break laws need to be considered criminals - lots of laws are ignored by the legal institutions)
3. I break copyright laws.
4. But since I know I am a good person, my reason why it’s okay to violate copyright laws is ---That lots of people break laws---

PS - If you want to maintain the analogy between pants and copytight, how do you explain the construct that copyright lapses after time. Does that not imply that it is a different sort of property right to ownership of pants?

[Stew Hawke]

The only copyright laws that I might be breaking is when I record a TV show. Though I think the law on that was changed recently here to make it OK. But really what else am I supposed to do with a legaly bought machine that is for recording TV shows?

I don't even own an mp3 player. I have CDs and DVDs I bought that I play. Most modern music that I hear I wouldn't listen to it if someone paid ME. Ok it depends how much. For 5 dollars a song I'll listen to a few a day.

However here is my rationalization anyway. Breaching copyright is against the law. But not criminal law. It's a civil offence. One isn't thrown in jail for it one is sued by the copyright owner. If they wish to do so. So it is not stealing as such which is a criminal offence.

So there.

Stew Hawke

[Bassie]

I was watching Blues Clues (children's television program)the other day together with my 2,5 year old daughter. The subject was 'difficult situations'. The situations were similar to the 'rationalizations' you describe.

For example:
1. It is bad to steal
2. Someone steals my book
3. That someone is a bad person

And than the question was: what do you do? Do you steal the book back? Or do you tell the other person that you're feeling bad and suggest that you read the book together?

Now, I'm a non-violent person. But my first instinctive reaction was to steal the book back, and put the thief upside down in a pile of s**t.

Best part of the story is that my daughter made me very proud and choose option 2. Although when I asked her why she choose that, she said that she could steal the other persons books when he was reading her book...

[bitMaster]

I evaded your cognitive trap. :)

Being an intellectual thief (which I have been :P) wasn't wrong, from my point of view.

It was from the authors own.
Maybe not even from theirs, actaully.

I was curious and I didn't have the money to feed my brain with enough inputs... today I'm still very curious, but I do spend a lot of money in supporting the people that give me brainfood.

My own theft acted as a strange form of investment.

Laws don't make people good or bad, they just set rules. Some rules, when bent, yield better results than the respective by-the-law conducts.

Thiefs are not smarter than law abiding guys, but some of them fit the picture just fine. :)

[Amethyst]

I wonder how many people who think downloading music = stealing used to tape songs from the radio onto blank casette tapes to listen to when they were younger? And edit out DJ comments/commercials/etc.?

[Nicki Lagrange]

the owners of "Felix the Cat" take their copyright seriously - after 70 years they've just discovered that the Kit Kat Klock people have been ripping them off!

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/cartoon-culture/felix-the-cat-vs-kit-cat-klock

[c-ya]

Scott, I feel your pain. I deal with cognitive dissonance in my weekly groups with men who have been arrested for domestic violence. The rationale is similar to what you posted:
1. Good guys don't beat their wives/girlfriends.
2. I'm a good guy.
3. I beat my wife/girlfriend.
4. But I'm still a good guy.
5. So obviously it wasn't my fault and I had a
good reason and I am soooo not like all
these other losers in this group.

[Adam]

I also violate copyright because of my lack of free will.

The benefit I receive from copyright violation is substantial--I get the stuff I like for free, and in most cases it's higher quality (not encumbered by DRM, etc.) than if I bought a legitimate product.

The harm to the producer is negligible (meaning, the harm of my isolated act of infringement, not in the aggregate).

And the probability of my getting caught and being punished is virtually nil.

How can I not willfully infringe copyright in this kind of environment?

[Colin]

"All property rights are artificial."

Intellectual property aside, this is a fun statement. Tracking back the history of western governments and freedom in general, things like the Magna Carta, the Constitution, Common Law, and the writings of folks such as Thomas Paine, etc, the foundation of all our freedoms rests on property rights. And this moron thinks they are “artificial”?

I suppose s/he won’t mind when I breech the artificial limits of his front door and take his PC so he can’t post any longer because his right to be secure in his home and his ownership of said PC is, obviously, artificial.

Let’s follow the “if you don’t want it stolen, don’ release it” point with physical property:

If you don’t want it stolen, don’t buy it.
If you don’t want your house broken into, don’t live in one.
If you don’t want your car stolen, walk or take the bus.
If you don’t want your personal space violated by my fist, don’t show your face in public.

[Cody]

I don't agree with #1. Good people can be criminals and criminals can be good people.

[vader1941]

I have no issues with 'Cognitive Dissonance'. I disobey copyright laws all the time, but I do not think of myself as a good person. I am soo bad that if I had a chance, I would feed nitroglycerine to kittens and put them in a washing machine, just to see them explode AND drown at the same time, MHUAHAHAHAH!

Now if you catch me doing something like adopting a puppy, or
helping an old lady, I will succumb to cognitive dissonance.

[Ben]

Copyright violation might be theft under the law, but that doesn't mean the law is great either. These days, copyright excuses are used as a tool to squelch fair-use. Ignoring the poeple who download 12,000 songs...

Also, I disagree with the notion that you can't compete with free and immediate. It's much faster for me to go to the library and checkout a book than it is to order it on Amazon. So why do I do it? I like owning books. I like reading them more than once. It's easier to download a PDF of a scanned book than to go to the library, but I don't do that either. I like having the book. The point is, you compete with free by offering more value or some other tangible benefit. A solid book has MUCH more value to the reader than an e-book.

Another example, maybe not as good, I could download linux within 30 minutes and install it and use it completely for free, but I use Vista. Why? Can't MS compete for free (no, I did not get Vista preinstalled on a system)? Of course they can, and they have for years. again, Vista offers me value that Linux doesn't have.

All of this is regardless of legality. The law should be enforced, but no FUD over not competing with free. That's ridiculous--plenty of people do it and succeed.

[Tagris]

I have a compelling urge to say that Mindy should not be under your list of favourites.

"And then there’s Mindy, who believes it’s not a copyright violation to republish other people’s work as long as she doesn’t charge for it."

If this is just a case of misunderstanding full copy write law then it's nothing to do with Cognitive Dissonance and nether is it an absurd rationalizations. If your going to pick individual comments then at least pick ones that support your argument.

Any attempt to justify Mindy's comment being included will be taken as Cognitive Dissonance ;-)

p.s. I love this blog. Always a joy to read.

[Stomper]

I also like the rationalization that says, "I am saving the artists/publishers/recording industry from their own bad business decisions." Apparently, these people consider those executives unqualified to make their own decisions for their own companies. That's a good one.

--Stomper

[Rohit Krishnan]

Firstly, I don't think it is wrong. Well, not very wrong anyway. That's what my gut says. Now for the rationalization.
The issue here is the definition of stealing, I think. If my downloading of music, whatever does not have any negative impact, it is not wrong.
As far as giving money to the artist goes - tough luck. Was taping TV programs a crime? If it was, then fine, this is too. On the other hand, if 3000 songs were downloaded yesterday and tomorrow suddenly God put a stop to this, hardly any of those songs would be sold over the counter. The actual revenue lost is nothing close to what they claim. I doubt it's even 1 Basis point of that.
Free always wins. Especially if the product is overpriced. Like for books. If the price was half of what it is, I personally would have made a couple of bookshops unbelievably happy. But they dont. So I dont.
Only thing that can beat 'free' is 'convenient'. Thus did Apple take the market. Coz CD's and DVD's are not convenient.
Instead of comparing this to a burglar taking a TV from a home, I think RIAA or whomever is against this should come up with a better metaphor. The old one is stupid and makes people argue against the metaphor rather than against the fact.
There needs to be a way for people to listen and try out songs before they buy. Unfortunately piracy (misnomer if I've ever heard one. And oddly enticing) is the only way. If you like one song of Metallica, you'll download the entire album to try the others out.
Long story short - is it okay for people to take what artists produce without giving money? Hell no. But once it's out there, is it okay for people to copy it for personal reasons? Well....yeah! Coz like the elections, unless everybody in the world starts to pirate music with immediate effect, it really doesnt matter. And the probability of that is rather low.

[Bob]

Nice try. Perhaps you are feeling some cognitive dissonance for charging people for the privelege to view your 'art'. The rest of us are simply giving reasoned arguments.

[Bob]

Copying music is clearly stealing, but the real justification is: "everyone else is doing it, and nobody is stopping me."

By analogy: when companies register a trademark (e.g., the Nike logo), they are legally required to actively prosecute any trademark infringement; being lax in doing so can mean they lose the trademark and it becomes public domain.

If Canada doesn't actively patrol the NorthWest Passage and stop unauthorized ships from using this route through the Arctic, it will become International Waters.

If Nordstrom left their stores unlocked & unwatched every night, they would lose a lot of pants.

It's up to the owner of any given property (intellectual or otherwise) to protect it. The recording industry should have seen the problem coming, and started putting digital copy restrictions on their physical CDs 5 years before Napster came along. Once the foothold of free & easy downloading had been established, it was too late.

[zadros]

"Because you don't DESERVE to have it if you don't pay for it.

WATYF"

[Thmz]

Oops. I now see that I was being irrational.

[Stomper]

I like the dissonance in which people justify their copyright violations by comparing themselves to civil rights leaders. Rosa Parks, Ghandi, Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Jr., they all broke laws, so violating copyright would put me in a pretty good crowd, right? Um, sure, if your unlawful acts were being publicized in order to draw attention to the plight of the downtrodden and disenfranchised. Sorry, but your own greed/laziness doesn't elevate you to that plateau.

IP laws encourage creativity by rewarding it. Our society as a whole would be much poorer if we did not have those laws. Have they gone too far? Shouldn't "Steamboat Willie" be public domain by now? Certainly. But it is absurd to claim that your illegal download is a political statement about this problem, when no one knows about your activity. Come on, that is clearly nothing more than a false rationalization.

--Stomper

[Michel]

Well... a bit late sorry.

Hopefully, this will be a breath of fresh air for you, as I dont intend to defend copyright infringement as not being a crime.

However...

I will bring back your own argument Scott as brilliantly stated in "Way of the Weasel" (which I own by the way).

Have you Scott, never committed a crime?

Have you never ever stolen, broken the speed limit, cheated just a bit on your taxes, removed the tag from those pillows that say "Do not remove" etc.

If you have... you are a criminal. Just like the rest of us.

The problem with absolutes like "Thou shall not steal" is that no human can truly live up to an absolute. Lying is bad we are told. But have you ever really tried not to lie ever. If so, beware that fat person who asks you how she looks in those jeans. Saying "You look like a Beluga whale after an all night marshmallow eating binge" might be true... but it will get you a wallop upside the head.

So if you have lied, cheated or stolen...

You are a weasel...just like the rest of us.

[atheist1]

Quote: So what you're saying is that if you could murder or rape or commit otherwise violent acts against people with the assurance that you wouldn't get caught and punished, then you would??

Answer: Who said I would? Who said everybody would? Certainly if the conditions were right, then for survival purposes people would revert to violence.

Why do you think humans invented Law? Because there are individuals out there who murder, rape and commit violent acts. Judging on laws codified ages ago, human communities think it is a better survival strategy overall to control violent acts through policing than to let them run loose.

There is a huge difference of course between copyright violation (or petty theft) and murder. Petty theft is not as bad, and that makes it even the more tempting. QED.

[gr8hands]

Leushenko (and others), you're wrong when you say it is illegal to make back-ups of your DVD's, etc.

The law is clear that you can have a copy of software on your work computer and your home computer -- under the reasonable theory that you could install/uninstall it every day, and can't use the two computers simultaneously. The EULAs are showing their acknowledgement of this fact.

The problem, as has been stated, is with the proprietary copy protection bypass, which was ruled illegal, not the copying itself.

You are allowed a personal backup -- which you cannot share in any way, even to "lend" to a friend. That is illegal. If you use software to bypass the copy protection, that is illegal, even to make personal backups.

[Borjan]

My favourite rationalization is this:

1. Most downloaded songs are usually very big hits or from an established star who already has more money that they can spend.
2. People who are not famous or rich want to become that, and one way of doing that is to give the public access to the music they make so that big and rich recording companies give them contracts worth a lot of money.
3. Those who complain about stealing are always very rich assholes, unable to find happiness so they have to make do with more and more money.

Therefore, downloading music helps the new artists and doesn't really take away from the already rich artists.

The only downside would be if record companies or record stores fire people so that owners could make more money, but that happens for all sorts of reasons because they are very rich assholes, unable to find happiness so they have to make do with more and more money.

Did I throw in a bit of circular reasoning to go along with cognitive dissonance? Oh, well...

[One a Month catch up reader]

When I watch a DVD in linux I brake the law.
When I get a DVD from the libray and copy it I brake the law.
When I cross the road without a green signal I brake the law.
When I rip my CD's to mp3's on my computer at work I brake the law.
When I ........................

I don't have a problem with it.

Ironicaly
When DVD's have rootkits that install on my PC, no law is broken.
When songs that I got of I tunes won't play on my new Ipod, no law was broken.
when DVD players won't play DVD's becuase of "extra" copy protection, no law was broken.
When copyright gets yet another extension....

[Gametheory]

I just invented an engine that runs on air, is manufactured from computer dust at 15 dollars a piece, yields more power than a Hummer and has zero emissions.
I got all patents and copyrights to protect my invention, and was about to mass-produce it to end the US oil dependancy and global warming.
But then King Fahd of Saudi Arabia offered me to buy it for 1.0 billion $, and I agreed.
Thanks God for IP laws.

[ASM826]

My favorite absurd rationalization is: "I don't like guns, therefore the 2nd admendment to the Constitution must not apply to the rights of the individual."
This rationalization allows people to pretend that the writings and statements clearly made at the time by the Founders can be ignored. It also allows them to think that the other 9 amendments apply to the rights of individuals, but the 2nd somehow applies to the rights of the States.
And it meets your test. It is a clear case of cognitive dissonance, immune to intelligence. When the illogic of the position is questioned, the person becomes frustrated, then angry.

1. Individual freedoms are good.
2. The Bill of Rights outlines some of our individual freedoms.
3. I don't trust people to own firearms.
4. Since I am afraid of firearms and their owners, I think the 2nd Amendment means (insert something absurd).

[Dan]

My rationalization for Copyright violation, I am a bad person.

[Chris]

If someone does something that is breaking a law in one country but quite alright in their own are they a criminal? are they bad?
Isn't it all just a matter of morals?

[neopolitan]

There is a huge dose of cognitive dissonance, on the part of Scott Adams. In order to steal you have to have one person who owns something and another person who chooses to take that something (knowing that that something was owned is not necessary, but the intention to take is).

Without free will there is no choice, so there is no theft without free will. We are all just meat robots, dancing to silly tunes, downloaded illegally from the internet or not.

Why get upset if we have not option but to follow our programming?

cheers,

neopolitan

[NW]

I love the way you creatively bash opinions that are far different than your own. It's a subtle bashing at that.
Reminds me of the vegetarian argument.

[Foo]

You have to assume that I'm a copyright violator if you think my so-called rationalization is absurd. In fact, not only is every piece of music I have bought, I'm also a publisher. Don't jump to assumptions.

[Tormod]

"Only the non-copyright-violators will be psychologically equipped for this task."

Also known as: Will the first person without sin throw the first rock?

[Are Riksaasen]

> 1. Good people are not criminals.
> 2. Criminals break laws.
> 3. I break copyright laws.
> 4. But since I know I am a good person, my reason why
> it’s okay to violate copyright laws is (insert something
> absurd).

2a) Good people break laws too. For a student of the philosophy of logic there is no dissonance here.

[Seth]

I missed the last post.

Cognitive dissonance always cracks me up.

Anyways... good people go to jail all the time. Dallas county alone has had 13 exonerations from DNA evidence since 2001.

And lots of bad people aren't IN jail.

Ideally, if it were up to me, we'd be in a perfect libertarian state, where you're welcome to TRY taking things by force, but then other people might just bring force against you.

In any case... violating copyrights is BAD, but I don't support the current copyright laws. On principle.

I think absolute (or as close to we can get to "no consequences for your actions from a greater authority in the here and now") freedom is the highest goal we can aspire to, and the state of our country saddens me as every time someone dies a new law gets enacted.

Sure, the laws might end up letting us live longer, but we'll all be tiny, sickly vegetarians. Covered in foam rubber, to prevent broken hips. Who have to PAY to listen to Devo. Is that really the kind of world you'd like to live in?

[Kevin Carson]

Do you suppose the guy who first rubbed two sticks together to make fire claimed an exclusive right to rub two sticks together? If he'd forcibly exacted tribute from anyone else rubbing two sticks together, would that have been right? If it's not right for an individual to enrich himself by forcing other people to pay tribute for using their own sticks or other property as they see fit, then it doesn't become right just because a bunch of people throwing their weight around call it a "government." Right is right and wrong is wrong, and calling something a "law" doesn't add a jot or tittle to the inherent rightness or wrongness of a thing.

So how's this for cognitive dissonance?

1) I know it's stealing to use force to exact tribute from other people for using their own property as they see fit.

2) Copyrights and patents are a way of using force to make people pay tribute for using their own property as they see fit.

3) I make money because people are forbidden to use their own property in a way that the state has granted me an exclusive right to, unless they pay me tribute for the privilege.

4) Therefore I steal.

5) But stealing is OK when I do it, because I'm doing it with the help of a "government," under color of a "law."

I can't wait to hear what absurd rationalization you come up with to get out of this bind.

[goggles]

nice try scott. but when I realized that I was trying to make an absurd rationalization, I decided some definitions needed changing...the easiest one is self-image...

I hope you don't mind if you have just caused the enslavement of the entire human race by Mac-based robots in about 25 to 50 years? >:-]

[Nicki Lagrange]

speaking of pirates, Terry Rossio, one of the writers who created characters and stories for the Pirates of the Carribean movies, discusses the slippery nature of moral rights vs copyright.

www.wordplayer.com/forums/movies/index.cgi?read=96162

According to him, Disney claim that a talking Captain Jack Sparrow doll (using his dialog) is not 'unique enough' to warrant paying Terry et al royalties. If that is the case, he wonders what would happen if he marketed such a doll.

Disney, those fine folks who threaten to close down kindergartens foolhardy enough to decorate a wall or two with images of Mickey Mouse, would be incapable of NOT trying to prevent the marketing of such a doll. But how would they claim ownership of a unique property while denying that the co-creators (including actors, director, etc) had created anything vaguely unique.

Interesting, I'd love to see this scenario played out, but on Boston Legal, not in real life as i'd hate to see real lawyers getting fat of this.

[Matthew Rigdon]

Hi Scott, I swear that I did not read your post on Saturday before I wrote this. I just read the Saturday and Sunday posts on Monday. But all of the "music is free!" talk has actually got me a little upset.

Anyway, I call this "Portrait of an Aspiring Digital Artist as an Angry Young Man". Basically I think people should get shot for stealing music.

http://lelis.blogspot.com/2007/04/portrait-of-aspiring-digital-artist-as.html

[beano]

----------------------------------------------------------
[My favorite absurd rationalization comes from the authors.

Publisher: Yesterday I sold you a book.
Consumer: Yes, and I read it. It was good. I wanted someone else to enjoy it, so I sold it.
Publisher: You can't do that! I only licensed you to read it.
Consumer: I disagree. Once bought, it's my property.
Publisher: It's not yours to sell! I only licensed it. I created it! I own it! MINE MINE MINE! You can only do what I say!

Need I point out that at the place where someone parts from an item, it is no longer his?

Yes, I do.

Posted by: David Taylor | April 09, 2007 at 08:05 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------

Yes, this is true. But, it doesn't carry over into music. Yes, the authors/musicians are being irrational in this view. But that doesn't make it any less the law.]

But that's not even the point - the point is that if you bought a book, it is perfectly legal to sell that to someone else. If you bought a cd, it is perfectly legal to sell THAT to someone else. What isn't legal, in either case, is to MAKE A COPY and sell (or lend, or give) that to someone else. You can make ONE copy of a cd for every different type of storage that you own (ie home computer, i pod etc) for you own personal use, though. In some countries at least, the rest are still catching up...

[beano]

[People obey "moral" laws only because of the possible/probable/expected punishment.]

So what you're saying is that if you could murder or rape or commit otherwise violent acts against people with the assurance that you wouldn't get caught and punished, then you would??

You seem to have little understanding of basic human nature - you may be a sad wanker, mate, but don't tar everybody with the same brush!

[Nate]

You're absolutely right about there being some great examples of cognitive dissonance on this blog in the last couple of days. It is natural for people to try to make excuses which will entirely justify their illegal behaviour. I think a more realistic and honest approach is to simply say to oneself 'I am committing an illegal act because I would prefer to enjoy this work for free. I may be denying an artist of certain income they would have enjoyed had I purchased this work, but I don't really care since they already have a lot more money than me and their billion dollar publishing company can absorb the loss without too much pain. I'm breaking the law and technically doing the wrong thing, but I don't care because I'm gaining a lot more than some rich guy is losing.' I'd hazard a guess that most people feel a lot worse about enjoying a street performer's show without leaving a tip than they do about downloading the work of a person who is likely already quite wealthy.

I'm not comfortable however with the argument that piracy is stealing. Yes, its naughty, like public urination is naughty, but its not naughty like stealing someone's TV. Once again, the legal definition of stealing requires appropriation and asportation. Copyright infringement satisfies only the first arm and is thus an entirely different crime. Not victimless, but certainly (in most 'personal uses' cases) not as bad as 'stealing'.

[GeraldNZ]

Scott, I'm disturbed by the fact that you use such a weak argument.

The first premise (1) is false: the truth is that, sometimes, good people do break laws.

The second premise (2) is somewhat irrelevant. Yes, criminals break laws. But so do people who break laws that are not "criminal", eg those who get speeding tickets. Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that all criminals are entirely "bad people" (which I think is your implication).

The conclusion that "my reason why it's OK to violate copyright laws is shit" may be truthful, but you haven't yet supported it with a sound and valid argument.

[carl]

There is no rationalization for stealing copy righted material, but I am going to try.

TV Shows, movies, and music. I am willing to argue that downloading these as files is not only OK, but it is legal.

The reason I say this, I have a sound card that can record songs from the radio in MP3 format. As long as it is for personal use, that is OK. I have a TV tuner and Direct TV on my computer so I can record shows and movies in any digital format I want, which as long as it is for personal use, is OK.

Downloading is a shadey area, but it saves me the time of recording and editing commercials myself. I don't share my files, they are for personal use.

Where it becomes illegal is when you download and share movies and music for money, distribute to others, or use the materials in part or whole as original work for profit or credit.

[I'm Me]

There are, of course, issues in copyright law which are unfair to consumers. On the other hand, imagine no copyright management... Who would bother to create stuff and get nothing in return from it?

[I'm Me]

What's your reaction to people who say things like this: "Yes, I break copyright. I know it's not right, but I don't do it as much as everyone else, so I'm culpable, but chances are they won't get me for it. I often feel guilty and buy some stuff legally."

[Eric Mesa]

I just have one question - it's somewhat related to the heap paradox. You said it's ok for me to share your cartoon with a friend - to email them. I'm sure you have no problem with my friend emailing his friend. Eventually everyone has emailed it to everyone else, so why not allow it to be shared? (on kazaa, a blog, etc)

It's not that far fetched if you think about 6 degrees of separation. I mean - what if someone emails your cartoon to Kevin Bacon?

[alpha]

as a fellow artist and musician, high-five to scott for persuading so many people to expose their irrational thinking. now i can show people how ridiculous they sound by showing them the comments on that last blog.

[Leushenko]

Thegrossboy:

Nope. It's not under any circumstances legal to make a copy of any form of digital information for your own use or anyone else's. This is pure fiction used to give an innocent purpose to the existence of copying software. When you buy a disc, you buy the licence to use one copy. You don't buy a personal licence, so you can give the disc away, but the number of copies that may exist is determined by the number of times you paid the company. If you want a backup, you DO have to buy it again. The fact that nobody cares doesn't change the law: backups are illegal, just like sharing. This is why most companies insist you buy their software twice if you have two computers.

[Stephan]

My personnal favorite was actually yours in this very post.

You take an argument and from the beginning mention that it IS cognitive dissonance. And then, after lots of people have objected that your line of reasoning is flawed, you come back and say "haha, fooled you, see how you fell in my mighty trap". It is irrelevant to the argument at hand but for the sake of my own cognitive dissonance (to borrow your words with sarcasm), I'll answer anyway.

Copyright violation is not theft. Because:
a) the law says so
b) the dictionary says so.

Beyond that, morally, copyright violation is not always theft either (and I tend to think it is rarely theft too).
Many people who violate copyright of others wouldn't have paid for it in the first place. Let's be realistic a moment, the person who downloads 10 to 20 albums this month was NOT going to buy these (especially if said person has no revenues, such as kids).
Even among those with revenues, the vast majority would not have purchased the thing either. Several friends of mine share movies between them (20ish a month). There's no way they'd be buying these either.
Keeping on with that morality line, how wrong is it to steal from someone who's been stealing from you forever (in this particular case, I'm talking about RIAA and MPAA specifically, not cartoonists).
As far as the "I discovered X through piracy" argument goes, it benefits mainly newcomers, as in people not heavily marketed down the throats of the general population. All in all, I find this a great thing actually. There will probably be less megastars and more artists making a decent living at their trade.

Regards

[gray]

Wow, you really do hate copyright violators don't you. Of course that's natural because it makes an impact on your income.

Unfortunately I violate copyright laws frequently and I understand it's illegal and wrong, but the ineffectivity of arresting and charging average joes for copyright violation makes the whole thing seem like it's not a big deal, especially when everybody is doing it.

That in itself sounds like a wacky rationalization, but oh well.

[canadian]

Well...
here goes my rationalisation:

Me: When does it matter if I steal?
Conciense: The afterlife.
Me: I'm dead then, right?
Conciense: Right.
Me: Let's go download some new songs off the internet!
Conciense: Damn...

Is that how it's supposed to go...?

[atheist1]

Cognitive dissonance? Well said. However, one should never discuss these things in terms of equity, justice, morality ot whatever. Think survival strategies.

People violate copyright laws because a) music is fun b) it is easy to steal and c) it is hard to get caught.

People obey "moral" laws only because of the possible/probable/expected punishment.

In olden days, religious sermons and promises of punishment in the afterlife might have influenced a lot of people, but in today's modern world :-) only the threat of RIAA lawsuits will make copyright violators think twice.

If music is fun and it is easy to steal, you just need to get more cops or better cops.

Or make music less fun. Or less easy to steal. Nothing moral in all this really. Simple as apple pie.

[Corey Jason Feldman]

I haven’t gone through all of them, but based on the brief skim, I would say Mindy’s response, although some of it would be cognitive dissonance, some is probably just ignorance of the law.

“However, if you and your publisher "decided" to "postpone" the publishing of the e-book (for whatever reason seemed intelligent to you at the time) the result is that someone is going to fill the void.
I have personally purchased 3 copies of Dilbert Principle for various friends and have never laid eyes on the illegal e-copy. But had I seen it, yes, I would have downloaded it, because your publisher did not provide it. (and it's still not too late).” - cognitive dissonance

“But if he distributes it for free, there is acctually no copyright violation: he's not making any profit, darn it.” – Actually there is a copyright violation. The courts often do take into consideration whether or not the copyright violator distributed for profit, but this is done is assessing the amount of the damages, not in the determination of copyright violation.

[Kohana]

To me, this goes much deeper then what you've written, Scott. At least in the area of music. I'll leave the comics to you, as I'm not well versed in printed media.

If someone on YouTube makes a 45 second video of themselves acting goofy to a song played on a boom box in the background, that should be allowed, in my opinion. Downloading high quality versions of songs is stealing, but I can sort-of see why. The RIAA is so strong on keeping their material that they will do anything, no matter how crazy, to protect their songs, including getting videos of people acting goofy on YouTube taken down.

It's not black and white. There are indeed some uses I see as great publicity, but when the RIAA sends letters to webmasters to take down music that the label and artist want downloaded, then it's going to far. I feel that the RIAA should take a look at what is going on, and realize that once broadcast on the radio, or the CD is out, there is nothing they can do to continue to have the total control they want. They need to look at what is fair use of their product, and give in a little, if only to create the illusion that they care about their customers.

I do agree with buying what should be bought, and I do so considerably more often then not. But if it wasn't for file sharing, I would never have found some of the wonderful Japanese music I've in turned bought.

But am I a bad person? Naw. Do I buy EVERYTHING? Naw. I can't afford to. Most of that, tho, was from years ago before I really realized what I was doing.

And to anyone who reads this, I have been on the other side. I worked for a game developer, and have seen the games I've made on BitTorrent, Newsgroups and the like. Yes, I got paid for my work, and likely won't see any more money out of it. At this point, 3-4 years after the games I've worked on are forgotten by the next iteration of the series, I'm just happy to see anyone at all still enjoying them. ^_^

[MisterFweem]

How many of those who think violating copyright are also members of the DNRC? Grounds for expulsion, if you ask me. But then, Dogbert is probably guilty of multiple copyright violations, so we're in a Catch-22 here. Thanks for setting up a moral dilemma for us all, Scott.

[Imran]

LOL!! I like how people justify stealing. Every one has justification for every thing eh!

Ok here it how it goes: If you take some one else's thing, intellectual or non-intellectual, without their permission, it is STEALING. You make money or not it's not the point. Point is, do you have their permission to use it? (Islamic definition of stealing. Punishment is hand chopping. Scott would like that)

So, if you do not have permission of owner of the content, whether it's a person like Scott or some sleazy corp like recording agencies + RIAA, don't use it. If that's expensive, that does not give you right to steal it. Ferrari is expensive, I want it, can't buy it. So should I steal it?

Giving free publicity to content producer: Let them decide how they want to publicize their content?

Bottom Line: There is no curse in Elvish, Entish or Tongues of Men for justifying Copy Write Violation.

[Argenbert]

lol, my racionalization (kinda close to the thruth)

1. i know is wrong.
2. but i don't have access to it anyway. and even if could, i could never afford it, so I NEED to "steal" it.
3. hey, but that's downright wrong you axxhole!
4. yes, but it's not like im going to kill roger waters or something! (he's been stealing from barret and the public for years and scott's says nothing about it.)
5. say that to the next guy that robs you.
6. shut up! it's not the same! I'M NOT A ROBBER! I'M A GOOD PERSON!
7. whats your point?
8. good people are entitled to minor crimes!
9. riiiiight.

[badperson]

How about:

1. I am already a bad person, and one more bad deed won't change my standings in society or religion.

[Alex]

I'm not absurd. I'm happy with being a criminal. Since...

a) Criminals are bad persons
b) Bad persons are violent rapists
c) Violent rapists likes little girls

... I'd strongly suggest you to keep your child safely at home... unless file sharing becomes legal, then your daughters will be safe with me.

(btw the whole rape thing is a joke. No need to buy chastity belts for your daughters)

[John B]

Lots of folks are equating giving a book to someone else as the same as making a copy of something (music, usually) and giving that away. Giving away an mp3 of a song is not theft if you no longer have the song. In other words, if you buy an mp3 single and listen to it, then burn it onto a cd and give it to your friend, but also delete the song from your hard drive, that is not theft. You have bought the license of ONE copy for personal use.

The proper comparison would be if you photocopied the book and then gave it away, keeping the original book. You have then stolen a license.

[Borg Warrior]

One more post and then I'm done.

I get sick of idiots complaining about record companies as if the people who do the market and merchandising are parasites.

It takes FAR more talent to turn a slightly-better-than-average mall chick with minimal talent (like Britney Spears) into a pop star than it takes for Britney to squeak into a mulitplexed sound reproduction system and squiggle for a camera.

The marketing folk at record companies work hard and deserve to be compensated, too. Of course, you could argue that they're doing a disservice foisting that kind of trash on the world. But wait... you're the people downloading the trash. Never mind.

[Borg Warrior]

A comment for Eric Conrad:

1. Check the system requirements for a game before purchasing it.

2. Read game reviews to decide whether something is worth owning before you buy it.

3. If the game manufacturer offers a free trial or test version of a game, try it before you buy.

4. If you do buy a game without doing any of the above, don't whine about it.

5. If do all of the above and still get a game you don't like, sell your paid-for copy of the game on eBay(which is entirely legal, as long as you REALLY sell your copy and don't ever play the game again.)

[Borg Warrior]

Here's a quote from Jack Vance that's appropriate to this thread:

"Property and life are not incommensurable, when property is measured in terms of human toil. Essentially property is life; it is that proportion of life which an individual has expended to gain the property. When a thief steals property, he steal life. Each act of pillage thus becomes a small murder... I am tolerant of human weakness, and I would not react vigorously to the theft of a day. I would resent the theft of a week; I would kill the thief who stole a year of my life." ("The Faceless Man", 1971)

By the way, before you pinhead content thieves get your panties all in a twist, quoting small passages in this way is called "fair use" and is not a copyright violation.

[Mark]

In Australia, the government is running an ad campaign against theft of IP. Yeah, it's theft.

People steal music without really thinking it's theft. Our brains, through evolution, are not really made to deal with Intellectual property. We look at a car and think "that's a thing" but we hear music and we don't think "that's a thing", and so our minds experience significantly less emotional damage.

Say I want a car. The car is too expensive. The car companies overcharge, because I know it doesn't take that much money to make a car. So I steal the car. Obviously, that is wrong, and I think we can all agree that is theft.

Say I want a CD. The CD is too expensive. I really want the CD, but I can't get it. I know the recording companies are charging too much. So I download the music. Because I'm not actually taking something out of the store, or taking something which is a physical object, my mind does not really register it as a theft. But, regardless of how I feel, it still is a theft.

I've heard all the excuses of why people download songs. My very favorite excuse is the "I'm only trying it, I'll buy it if I like it!". This one always makes me laugh. I know several people who have used that excuse on me. They downloaded the song, and they said "I'll buy it if I like it". Two years later, they still haven't paid for the many CDs they were "trying out". And they NEVER will. They steal it, because they can. It's free, it's easy and it's almost impossible to get caught.

Musicians often don't release their songs for free. They expect you to pay for it. They expect to make a living from it. You could say that the price is too high. Big deal. The artist MADE it, GAVE the license to the record company to mass produce it. They have a RIGHT to charge whatever the heck they want. If people don't like it, spend time making your own darn music, recording it, producing it and selling it in stores. Then you'll have the right to charge whatever you want. And I can guarantee you, you'll charge a lot.

I can understand someone producing medicine illegally to save poor people because they cannot afford expensive medicine. I can really understand that, even support that. After all, people need medicine. But you cannot equate that to music. Music is not necessary for someone to live. Music is not a necessity, and so, the people who make it have a right to darn well charge and produce and sell it as they PLEASE, because THEY made it. If you think the creative process is "overrated" as one comment said, then I'd like to see you make your own music, software, artwork and then offer it free to everyone.

And think about the price. You might say it's too high because the CD medium is cheap. Yeah, Blank CD's are cheap. But imagine manufacturing hundreds of thousands of copies. Imagine shipping it. Imagine printing the CD and cover to go in the case. Imagine working out deals with lawyers to protect the product because some punk kid wants to steal it. Imagine the price it takes to put it in stores. Imagine the humongous cost of advertising the CD. Imagine the cost to produce music videos. Imagine the cost of translating the CDs to other languages. Imagine the cost of manufacturing overseas. Imagine the costs of legal battles because some factory in some other country wants to violate the IP laws (which happens very frequently). Imagine the responsibility the record company has to its shareholders to return a profit. Then you can imagine why they charge what they do.

[gr8hands]

Scott,

The reason many of your readers argue that they have no cognitive dissonance in the situation you described, is because they don't accept premise 3 or 4.

If they don't accept the legality of copyright in regards to things available over the Internet, where nothing physical has been taken, there is no dissonance. Only someone who views this differently would experience dissonance -- and no amount of explaining would be likely to change their minds. They/you would continue arguing in much the same fashion as the religious do about the existence of their personal deity.

A person who genuinely feels that there was nothing physical to steal, and all the original items still exist in the possession of their owner, so no theft occurred, isn't using sophistry or suffering from cognitive dissonance. It's just a different point of view. Whoever has the majority and the final say in court will prevail.

[Colleen]

I missed yesterday's blog post, but it's relevant to me. I pirate movies and music, and I don't even attempt to justify it. I find others' justifications transparent and inane. I'm not a good person; I'm a lazy person working minimum wage who has a very convenient, free (I don't pay for my Internet access - I don't steal it, either!) alternative to purchasing media that I want to listen to. When I have to make a choice between eating this week and buying a new album, I'll choose the former. If I can still have access to the latter without risking prosecution or social punishment, then I'll take advantage of it with very little guilt. I am an unapologetic copyright violator.

[Nathan]

----------------------------------------------------------
My favorite absurd rationalization comes from the authors.

Publisher: Yesterday I sold you a book.
Consumer: Yes, and I read it. It was good. I wanted someone else to enjoy it, so I sold it.
Publisher: You can't do that! I only licensed you to read it.
Consumer: I disagree. Once bought, it's my property.
Publisher: It's not yours to sell! I only licensed it. I created it! I own it! MINE MINE MINE! You can only do what I say!

Need I point out that at the place where someone parts from an item, it is no longer his?

Yes, I do.

Posted by: David Taylor | April 09, 2007 at 08:05 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------

Yes, this is true. But, it doesn't carry over into music. Yes, the authors/musicians are being irrational in this view. But that doesn't make it any less the law.

[Glen Raphael]

The entire problem is with that first assumption, "Good people are not criminals." Some laws are evil or morally neutral; it's possible copyright laws are in this sort of category.

Yes, there's sometimes an identifiable victim of copyright violation but in many cases the benefits of free availability of information will far outweigh the costs to that victim. That is, there are also victims of copyright. The victims of copyright are the people who would have enjoyed the work and created valuable derivative works if it were free but are prevented from doing so by the law. This is a deadweight economic loss - there's no offsetting benefit to the creators to reduce the harm done to those consumers.

For instance, fans of the TV show _WKRP in Cincinati_ are victims of copyright law. This show can't be released on DVD in its original form because it's impossible to negotiate the rights for the music. (Making it legal requires re-recording all the actors' lines over new music and destroys some of the original context.)

[black spot]

I have taken the last couple of years to copy my old LPs to my computer and convert them to CD (blessed be the lord), but I have eradicated limewire every time my heathen kids have downloaded it. But am I a hypocrite?

I have in my possession a copyright free DVD. Just because my son was the star of it (nothing to do with the actual single-he mimed), I mean, do I share it with the world or do I make it ‘friends only’. I do the later, because it makes it more precious. Having a copyright version of a pop video does not give me the right to throw it to the public; it means I was given the right to share it with my family and friends. And yet again, I have husband (Mr-One-Hit-Wonder 27 years ago), as his song is now only found on compilations, do I obey the law or pimp the song to death (because he doesn’t own the mechanical rights, just the performing rights)? Those who download, saying they would never have bought the music unless it was free, are the true hypocrites.

[thegrossboy]

I just had another thought/gripe.

Did you know that under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act it is illegal to break the encryption on a DVD?
Did you know that it is perfectly legal to create a backup copy of copyrighted material for your own personal use (i.e. to make sure the original is not damaged)
Did you know that to copy an encrypted DVD the encryption must be broken?

Now tell me how to make a (perfectly legal otherwise) backup copy of a DVD, and tell me how that law is "good."

[Josh Powell]

What about the cases of day care centers showing Disney movies they bought to the kids? Is this theft?

This is a subject that I've actually sat and thought long and hard about.

I have occassionally downloaded movies, but I have justified it to myself that when it is released on DVD I have gone out and bought the DVD.. I do think those who make the products fully deserve to be paid for their efforts. If they don't receive the rewards, then what is the incentive to keep doing it?

I do think that they need to think of a new way for movies to be released though..

All the different media's have changed in how they presented their products... Newspapers are in print and on the internet. Books are in bo