I like to think of myself as a creative person. I write reasonably well, and one day I hope to convince someone that a screenplay or three that I've written are worth paying for. Or perhaps one day I'll get a little more serious about writing some magazine articles that are percolating around my brain and convince someone to pay me for those. Who knows, perhaps my photography will progress to the point that someone will think it worth buying.
I'm a little funny in that I think that people should be compensated for their work, if its good enough, and if they offer it up for sale. A couple of comments of friends of mine lately have made me wonder if I'm the only one who thinks that. It seems that a good many people think that they should just be able to take someone's work, because, well because they can.
A week or so ago a friend and I were discussing movies, and they said they never buy, or rent movies. Never. They download what ever movie they want and watch it. When we continued on with the conversation, with me taking the tack that people should be paid for their work, they acknowledged that it was wrong… for others. People should pay, but the justification was that money was tight and they wouldn't be able to watch as many movies if they had to pay for them. Logically I suppose that could apply to any product. Money is tight, I shouldn't have to pay for my internet connection, or the carrots I'm eating right now.
Today another friend made a comment on facebook (and I suspect that there might be a blog post outlining their position in the works) that they were going to download the new Paul McCartney Live Album without paying for it.
Now it was somewhat surprising because this friend is a creative person, and I suspect that the friend hopes to sell a novel someday. The friend is a talented writer and should profit from it. Sir Paul, is a talented musician, he should also profit from it.
Now my friend's justification for this is (as I understand it): A) Sir Paul is rich; B) he is an idiot (actual phrase was "wanker" but I'm going to assume that it was not intended to mean that Sir Paul is a masturbator – but I could be wrong); C) because of his stance on sealing he has caused untold hardship and grief to sealers; and D) despite all of this the friend enjoys Sir Paul's music.
I have to admit I struggle with these ideas. That it is okay to steal (and let's face it that is what taking something of value from someone who has offered it up for sale, for nothing) simply because they are successful, or because we don't like them. I can understand it a little more as a means of revenge, for punishing someone for another stand that they've taken. I understand, but I still don't think it's right. If you want to take that stand, then don't get the music at all. Don't get the music, that is the right way to take that stand.
It is what I would expect for my work, it is how I'll treat other's.
Comments
19 responses
I admit that I have inconsistent practices and feelings on this one. I’m not very comfortable with downloading “free” music, although friends have given me pirated music and I’ve added it to my collection. And for some reason, not in any way logical, software piracy seems like a lesser evil than pirating “creative goods”… Some artists are finding new ways to fit into the cultural scene now because the fact is, when it comes to music, anyway, the old business model really doesn’t work anymore.
But you are one stand-up guy, Clare, and I knew that before you wrote this post and admire you for it.
Alla I can say is: Amen, Clare.
Without giving the matter a lot of thought earlier, I’ve never down-loaded movies or music – but I have made copies of music CD:s to use in my car. The originals are however purchased and stored by the stereo in my livingroom.
Right on Clare. People’s work is their livelihood and they deserve payment for it.And perhaps this week, all those millions of people whose X-Boxes were shut down because they were using pirated materials will begin to think about what they have done and that there are repercussions to actions.
And Happy Birthday!
People should definitely be fairly compensated for their work…although Sir Paul may very well be a wanker. 🙂
I’ve worked in a creative profession (graphic design) and had my stuff “stolen”, and I try not to get too worked up about it. I got paid for the bulk of what I did, and it’s flattering to have someone lift something you did. The people having stuff “stolen” are the ones who are getting compensated for their work, and usually pretty well too.
I see it as kind of part of the deal, and it can actually work with you to spread the popularity of your work, and in the end add to your renown and income, and not subtract from it (assuming someone’s not stealing your work or ideas to pass off as their own, that’s completely different and unforgiveable, although some pretty successful award-winning people get away with it sometimes!)
There’s an expression that I can’t remember the wording of, that says something like the goal is to be good enough that people will “steal” from you (assuming again that it’s not to pretend it’s their own work, but rather for their own enjoyment). When it happens, it’s a good thing, it means you’re good, and your income will overall be on the increase in proportion to what is being lifted without payment.
I like Nancy’s point of view – it’s true that it does help spread your reputation through word of mouth, and presumably for every person who steals it there’s another (or two) honest folk who will pay for it. You lose a bit of money in the short term, but through increased reputation you gain more money in the long term. It would be really interesting to do a study on this to get hard numbers, but I have no idea how you’d collect the data.
Generally speaking I don’t download music or movies or stuff anymore unless it’s easily accessible and promoted as free. The one thing I do tend to pirate is software, and it’s a cost thing. I would be quite happy to shell out, say, $20 or $30 or maybe even $50 for the Adobe Creative Suite, some amount that wouldn’t pain my perpetually empty wallet too badly. But to buy it costs $1800!!! That’s a month’s salary! I might be able to afford it some day when I win the lottery, but that won’t do me much good in getting my work done in the meantime. Even the “student” version of MS Office costs something like $150, and you get virtually no useful programs with the package. I think the companies argue that they price how they do to compensate for piracy, but at prices like that you’re just making the situation worse, not better.
I have to add…that the music industry is becoming so competitive (think good indie band trying to make it in big city) that bands are giving away CDs at shows AND/OR having free downloads on their websites. Kinda sad for the small guys these days, trying to make a name for themselves and living from gig to gig (the only source of income from their music)
soph
There are new business models, especially in music. But its one thing to say “Here’s my music, try it for free, tell others about it, consider buying” or something similar and another to have people just take it.
Personally I think both models are workable, depending on the artists, but it still comes down what the artist’s intention is.
And thank you.
Thanks allmycke. That is a practice that I think is perfectly acceptable. The music has been bought and there are many ways for you to play and use it.
Thanks.
He maybe, but he’s a smart rich one.
I can understand this logic Nancy, but I’m still not sure I agree. What if we were talking chocolate bars instead of music/software/movies. Should we say its acceptable for a certain amount to get stolen because it shows the chocolate is good, and therefore more people will buy it?
There seems to be a certain sense of, I don’t know, entitlement these days when it comes to stealing intellectual property. And again, its one thing to say “try it, hopefully you’ll pay for it if you like it” or what not. I guess its just not something that works for me.
But does that actually bear out. And shouldn’t the honest folk who do pay be upset? Why should they pay when other’s don’t?
I kind of understand the software issue, but only kind of. I have a hard time with how some of the prices of software are determined, but again shouldn’t that be determined by market.
I’m using a very old version of Photoshop, because I can’t afford to upgrade, and have recently purchased some other photo software that, while pricey, isn’t in the Photoshop range.
I don’t know why Photoshop is so expensive, but I do know that I only use a fraction of it, and certainly even less than the suite. Perhaps companies need to start marketing more limited versions at more reasonable prices, something that would benefit both parties.
I understand, but I don’t think software piracy is any more ethical.
You’re right, and a lot of independent bands/musicians also benefit from those schemes. Bands that may not have gotten a record deal and any following in the old model can be quite successful these days. And even in the old system there were many artists living from day to day.
I recall having a conversation with my Uncle Tom over a meal at his place about music. He was a folk singer of repute. But he had a “day job”. He said that he grew up with the idea that he worked so he could pursue music and other avocations. He then said there were many days that (insert iconic Canadian woman singer and iconic Canadian male singer, known all over the world, names here) sat at that very table because they had nothing else to eat.
I never bother upgrading once I have a particular piece of software on the computer – normally the computer needs replacing first. But the problem with replacing a computer is you have to replace all the software. I had no choice about replacing my computer last winter – the old one would no longer boot up, and I needed a computer in order to do my work. Cost of computer plus the dozen or so programs I had to re-acquire would have been about the same as a small used car. (In theory if you’d bought the program previously you could install it from CD again, unless the OS had been upgraded and the old CD no longer worked on the new OS…)
This is the biggest issue for me. I recognize that pirating software isn’t ethical, and I like to believe that if the programs were reasonably priced I’d pay for them. After all, I pay for Flickr, I pay for WordPress, both of which have free versions with more limited functionality. But consumers are left frustrated – I need this particular software to function in the business world, but I can’t afford it without taking out a second mortgage on the house. I suspect that frustration combined with the fact that piracy is so easy drives a lot of these illegal downloads. I also think it probably hasn’t been helped by all the free content that *is* available on the web these days, which makes having to pay $1800 for a program seem even more of an affront.
Incidentally, all of the Adobe programs are very complex and I use only a fraction of the features in each. In fact, I don’t even use Photoshop, preferring a Corel clone (unfortunately, not any cheaper). But I do use Illustrator and InDesign – Illustrator is what I’m drawing the maps in for the moth guide, and I will be submitting the files in that format – and there seem to be no alternatives for those programs. What’s a girl to do?
I think the folks who do pay the $1800 are established professionals and businesses, the ones who have the capital to expend and who would be writing it off their taxes anyway. Larger firms probably don’t even blink an eye at the price, and probably Adobe counts on that. It’s the individuals who get gouged. $1800 for a business, even a small business, is manageable, but $1800 for an individual is a small fortune.
This is probably true of artists of all stripes. The Avril Lavignes and Stephen Kings and Robert Batemans and Frans Lantings are all out there taking in money hand-over-fist in their respective artistic crafts, while other artists who are probably every bit as good but just not very well known struggle to get by one month to the next. Ask Julie Zickefoose about her opinions on fair compensation for artists – she has some strong ones. While discussing it with her last year I came across this Fair Pay To Play campaign in Portland, Oregon (http://www.afm99.org/news/64); it’s too bad something like that isn’t more widespread.
Ultimately all I can do is say what is right for me. Like all matters of ethics, they are complex, no easy answers. And one problem/answer branches away to more. They do make for the most interesting discussions though.
Good post, Clare. Also some thoughtful comments from your many visitors. I feel much the same way about movies, music and software – if it isn’t intended to be free, I don’t download it. Pretty much all of the software I use came bundled with my computer, wacom tablet, printer, etc…
Looking at all of this from the perspective of an artist/writer, I think that it would be nice if people would at least ask for permission before downloading, copying, etc… As you know, I have a lot of my photos up online – it’s a necessity if I want to license images. That said, I’ve done searches for certain images I have up on pbase (a particular Io moth photo being a good example, or a kind of fungus that is sold as a medicinal), and those photos have appeared in all kinds of places without anyone asking for permission – especially in the case of the fungus photo which is on all kinds of commercial websites now – none of whom asked for permission. On the other hand, I get a lot of emails from professors, university students, natural resources people, and school kids, asking if they can use such-and-such photo in their projects or powerpoint presentations. I always allow such use and try to respond to *every* email request, thanking them for asking for permission before going ahead and copying and using the images. It’s time consuming, but I think that, as artists, it’s important that we cultivate a relationship with the general community. If the general public gets the feeling that “it’s okay to do it because the artists don’t respond, so hey, they must not care,” then things will eventually become nothing more than a free-for-all. I don’t want to see it come to that as I believe a lot of creative people will suffer from having their work “stolen” or in not making sales as they fear that anything they put up in an online gallery will be ripped off.
Thanks Bev, It has been an interesting conversation. I put a creative commons licence up here, because I wanted to encourage people to ask before using. I have occasionally been guilty of posting stuff here with out asking, something I need to rectify. I always credit the author/creator and link back to where I got it. But if there isn’t any permission posted with the work I really need to ask prior. New years resolution, practice what I preach.