 |
| This picture on illustrates important facts about online piracy. Click this link to see more. |
John Locke discusses his views on property in the Second Treatise of Government. In his discussion of property he says that God gave the world to “all men in common,” but that “every man has a property in his own person.” Throughout the text, Locke states that one’s property is themselves and whatever else they apply their labor to. This means that by removing something from the state of nature, and adding your labor to it, it makes it your property. Furthermore he says, “For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to.” Locke has a firm stance that if you applied your labor to something, it belongs to you.
 |
| It's a shame that society has these mindsets in regards to pirating music |
 |
| Images like these cause society to believe that pirating music is ok. YOU DO HURT THE ARTIST. |
Cases like Tenenbaums are part of the reason I don’t pirate music online. Why take the risk of starting my life out thousands of dollars in debt? According to Locke's views on property and social contracts in his Second Treatise, he would not condone online piracy. He believes that the music belongs to those who put labor into it, and would agree with the courts of Massachusetts in upholding the punishment because IT'S AGAINST THE LAW. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I’m going to side with Locke on this issue. If you didn’t put labor into the music, why should you get it for free? If you’re allowed to break that law, what’s the purpose of any other laws?
Saeed,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what you've said since i'm already a proponent of Locke's view on property rights. Music, film and books are the toil and sweat of creative people. Piracy would totally affect their income since the illegal sale and distribution of their works scarcely benefit them.
Furthermore, i think it is also an imperative that we acknowledge creative works and the artistes that made them. It is not so much the loss in profits due to piracy but the lack of respect and failure to recognize creative efforts that bother the artistes. I feel that it'll hurt them and destroy their creative desire and passion.
Piracy is no different from stealing since it wrongfully uses another person's ideas/product. Hence there is a great moral obligation to honor intellectual property laws. Once in a while, we get intellectual property rights violators saying that what they're doing is relatively harmless since big firms like Microsoft is earning huge profits. This is certainly invalid because it can have a huge impact on the firm when considered as an aggregate. Very often, its the combined actions of many such violators that leaves firms with huge financial losses and a disincentive to innovate.
Saeed,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post as I actually recently heard about the Tenenbaum case from a friend. While unfortunate, he absolutely deserved his punishment. Pirating music has become an epidemic and the music industry has taken major hits as a result of file sharing sites and programs like "Pirate Bay" and "Frostwire." I thought it was very interesting that you engaged with the other side of that argument that big players in the music industry who choose to sue kids who illegally steal songs don't necessarily need the money. Honestly, this is probably true, but it is a matter of principle. In n addition, i never though to think about the ripple effect that occurs within the industry as all of the stolen songs add up, such as jobs lost.
I completely agree with your opinion that Locke would not support music piracy. Locke supported the idea that to own property you must apply labor to it; only then will it be one's property. Artists, producers and music labels spend thousands of dollars and months sometimes to produce one time. They worked way to hard for someone to just come along and refuse to pay the 1.25 and instead steal it.
This is a great post because not only does it connect an epidemic to one of Locke's beliefs but also serves as a lesson, even a warning to those reading who may still pirate music. Great Job.
I thoroughly agree with your application of Locke's theory to the online piracy of music. While referring to personal freedoms, Locke himself even explicitly states "in which case he who hath received damage has... a particular right to seek reparation from his that has done it." In this instance, these record labels
ReplyDeleteI can understand to Tenenbaum however, that the fine may seem excessive considering the economic damage owners and creators of file sharing and torrent sites inflict upon professionals in the music industry. As Tenenbaum paid the equivalent of $22,000 per song illegally downloaded, he was clearly bearing some of the burden of others' piracy who were not caught or persecuted. I think for these record labels to proactively slow the rate at which the piracy of music occurs, they need to take more aggressive steps towards increasing their security and eliminating the applications and websites that these files are transmitted and shared through, rather than widely publicizing the rare and severe persecution of few individuals.
I heard about this case once before, but didn't know the ruling was upheld against Mr. Tenenbaum. The punishment did not fit the crime at all, especially considering the fact that he was only charged for 31 songs. A fine of over half a million dollars is absolutely heinous in opinion. Pirating music seems to be the new wave, as more and more sites are allowing you to download music illegally (youtube to mp3 converters, etc.). A few artists have begun to release ENTIRE albums online for consumers to listen to before they find an illegal link just so they'll buy a physical copy. As someone who has downloaded music form the internet, I find the ripple effect very interesting. It never occurred to me that downloading music online actually affects the entire economy.
ReplyDeleteYou related this case to John Locke's theory in a great way. I easily agree with your opinion that John Locke would be an opponent of music piracy. Locke believed that working on something made it yours, and once its yours no one may take it without permission. In a sense, Locke's theory lives on through today in copyrights, trademarks patents that companies and individuals use in order to signify ownership. This post was very well written, and I also enjoyed the cartoon, graph, and visual message at the end.