On Sunday night I found myself in my room looking for something
to do. I had already watched all the movies that I brought with me to college
and I do not own a Netflix account. After discussing Sherlock Holmes in my
English class, I had a sudden urge to watch the Robert Downey Jr. version, but
did not possess the DVD. On a whim I decided to Google “watch Sherlock Holmes
online” just to see what would come up. To my surprise, hundreds of thousands
of links came up that would allow me to watch the movie for free. I do not
possess the movie and didn’t even have to view any advertisements before
watching.
 |
| 55,000,000 results for "watch sherlock holmes" |
After streaming the movie online it got me thinking, am I guilty
of I crime for watching what is already put on the Internet? I did not feel
like I did anything wrong by streaming the movie, but society might disagree
with me. In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, he discusses his views
of property in chapter 5 that help me get a better grasp of who owns the movie.
One of his most compelling arguments was “every man has a property in his own
person.” This statement is saying that if someone removes something from the
state of nature, it becomes one’s property. Therefor according to Locke, I was
not a fault at watching the movie because it became my property.
But how does Locke’s theories also apply to all other content
that can be stolen on the Internet. Music, most notably has seen the greatest
increase in theft as a result of the Internet. According to hothardware.com, in
2008 95% of music downloads were done illegally. In my own iTunes Library, I
have obtained all my music through various websites that did not charge me.
Websites such as Limewire and Napster have been shut down in the last decade
for copyright infringement and the “stealing and distribution” of music. In the
case of MGM vs Grokster, Limewire creator Mark Gorton was forced to pay $105
million to 13 record companies that he stole from.
I believe that Locke would have disagreed with how these
websites were handled. While Locke stresses the protection of property, he
would not have had the websites payout a settlement. The websites did not claim
the songs to be their own; they just distributed the music to users. The
artists were all accredited for their work on the song but did not receive any
compensation for it. Locke states “For he that leaves as much as another can
make use of does as good as take nothing at all.” By applying the beliefs of
Locke downloading music of movies on the Internet is not stealing of property
it is just using what is already out of nature. Downloading music and movies
that are already on the Internet does not make you a thief if you do not claim
them to be your own and therefor I am innocent.
I personally believe Lock would have an issue with illegally downloading music. While it is true that a given artist, not itunes, was the one who put their LABOR into the song. However, they consent to Itunes right to sell their music so they can profit from their labor. Regardless of whether or not one believes they are claiming the music as their own in a philosophical sense, one is in a way depriving an artist of the fruit of their labor.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn this new generation I would have to say that it would be hard to convince someone that downloading music from the internet is stealing. I think that Locke would still consider it stealing to an extent just because they are putting their labor into it. However, I don't see how downloading it from someone else would be steeling because that person could have bought it and I don't see why it would be a problem if they simply decided to share what they bought to everyone for free. Another way of thinking about it is that they aren't putting their labor into a song every time it is downloaded by someone. They simply put their labor into producing the song once in a studio and then it is simply reproduced without their labor when someone downloads it.
ReplyDeleteThe basis of your argument on this post is that the internet is equivalent to the state of nature. Illegally downloading music is wrong, and I think Locke would agree. The internet is not (or at least it should not be) a lawless place in which property regulation does not exist. Just as you still own your car when you put it in your garage, you own a song you made when you put it on the internet. The argument that you mix with your labor with a song when you download it thereby making it yours, is invalid because you are mixing your labor with something that is out of the state of nature. You can't mix your labor with my phone and make it yours because its already mine. Illegally downloading music is stealing. Sites like itunes gain the right to sell songs by paying the artists who made them, I definitely agree with that. However, this is fundamentally different from sites that essentially allow people to steal: the person responsible for taking the song out of the state of nature by creating it, owns it and is compensated for it. In the complex world of intellectual property, it may seem like there's nothing wrong with downloading music from someone who legally downloaded it, in that they are simply sharing what they rightfully own. However, in this case, you are still cheating the artist out of his or her due right to be compensated for the labor. You receive the benefit of the music without paying for the cost of its production. By downloading songs illegally you choose not to compensate the people responsible for that production, and that fact doesnt change when you download a song from someone who legally bought it.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is interesting. Locke does believe in a certain right of property in the state of nature. The things is, from his state of nature comes this idea that people need government in order to regulate property. From these government regulations come the concepts of copy-write and intellectual property. So therefore, I disagree and think Locke would be against downloading illegal music/movies because it is one person taking someone's personal labor/property without compensation. Though Locke couldn't possibly have seen this future of downloading and computers, I think this would be his stance. The counter argument to this is, since a song can be downloaded an infinite amount of time does the song have any sort of value? Is it considered property? The US Government says yes, but I view it as a gray area because if a song is readily available and doesn't have value(besides the one society puts on it) is it stealing to download? I think this issue will become more popular as technology gets more advanced. But overall nice post!
ReplyDelete