Piracy vs. Privacy: MP3, Microsoft And Real People

Pragmatic reader Crashnbur contributed the below piece, his own take on the world of fair use and software. If you've ever burned a CD of MP3s, you may find yourself in the same philosophical boat -- or you may think that increasingly narrow copy-restricting licenses are the greatest thing possible for software (and music, say) under freer alternative licenses. I'm not sure that software and music licensing are quite this parallel at all, though, or that Microsoft really doesn't mind consumers playing musical upgrades, even on their home machines.

Napster, Mp3s, & Burning CDs

I download MP3s. I burn MP3s to CD. I do not burn complete albums to CDs; I buy those, but I love to make compilation CDs. I also love the inserts and lyrics and stats on the band that come with purchasing a CD; nothing can replace that. Is that so dishonest?

I don't see what I do as so horribly wrong. I buy about three CDs per month, and I use about two BMG subscriptions per year, so I am legally purchasing between 30 and 50 CDs per year, which is a very significant portion of my income. (College income sucks, you know.) Before MP3s, I bought maybe ten CDs per year, but I made about the same amount of money.

Hmm. What's going on here? Could it be that my interests have changed? I think not. I've always loved music, and I've always had the money to buy it. The difference is, now that MP3s make it possible to hear music that horrible local radio stations would never allow me to hear, I am exposed to literally hundreds of different bands and scores of styles of music that I wasn't before. I find out about new stuff that isn't played locally, I download a few singles from the album -- and if it's worth buying, I somehow find the CD and buy it. If the album sucks, but one or two songs are good, I'll download them to my hard drive and possibly burn them to a CD of random songs that fit into that "like the song, not the album" category. Is that so wrong?

The Napster issue has been blown way out of proportion, and the music industry (read: RIAA) is only in it for money. CDs are overpriced as they are, and the price is only rising, yet people are buying more and more!

Conclusion: Napster has not only not hurt CD sales or the music industry, but I would also argue that Napster has even helped the music industry by allowing millions of users a much greater exposure to music in general, thus the increase in CD sales. Sure, CD singles sales are bound to drop, but with full albums and MP3 singles, what's so bad about that? We're not screwing them over; the music industry is screwing itself. And they're not the only ones.

The Windows milleu for real people

I never buy a brand new OS, ever. They are severely overpriced, and only businesses with their business budgets can really afford to buy them. What I do is buy Windows OSes that are a little over a year old, usually, and I get them pre-installed on a new system.

• August 1996: bought a Pentium 166 with Windows 95.
• September 1998: bought a Pentium II 300 with Windows 98.
• August 2000: bought an Athlon T'bird 800 with Windows Me.

Note that each of the above systems were fast for their time, but not the fastest, and Windows wasn't brand new (except perhaps Me) when I bought the systems, so I got great performance for decent prices.

However, when Windows 95 began to destroy my 166, I upgraded it to Windows 98 using my 300's Win98 disc. And when my dad took the 300 back in September (he let me have the fast one; yay!), he upgraded to WinMe using my system's disc. We have spent several hundreds of dollars for Windows on each computer, why should upgrading and duplicating our newer OSes be considered wrong in any way? We have paid for the products that we have. We have three Windows OSes and three systems. Let us configure them how we like. I don't think Microsoft has a problem with that.

Upgrading an OS should not cost $80, or even $40. If I buy Windows Me, and Microsoft brings out Windows Me2 [heh] a year later, a very minimal fee or no fee at all should be required to upgrade to Me2. This is already somewhat implemented through Windows Update online.)

And applications? Some applications can be priced at up to $600 for a single CD. As if someone of college age has $600 to spend on a CD. I suggest that some of these applications drop in price -- like down to $60. There we go!

Closing Arguments

WPA (Windows Product Activation) is not a bad thing. It is meant to protect Microsoft's investment in its own endeavors. Microsoft is a software developer (among other things) and has the right to implement such a feature on their own software. When we have cold, hard proof of abuse of such features, that is when we should lash out in defense. Until then, let's not get bent out of shape over hypotheticals, okay?

Comments

Not just money

[GrouchoMarx]

It's not just an issue of money. It's a question of control.

The RIAA's accountants know that their profits have increased in the past few years. The RIAA's lawyers know that their profits have increased in the past few years. But there are people out there that are not using officially sanctioned music in officially sanctioned ways at officially sanctioned times with officially sanctioned equipment. That means there are people out there who are not under the control of the company, the mythical "consumer." This cannot be tollerated.

Microsoft has been making money hand over fist for two decades. Someone installing WinME on three of their computers when they bought one copy is not doing them any harm. If anything, it means fewer copies of Win98 in use, which means less old stuff for them to support. That's good for them. But it means that there are people out there not using the product in the officially sanctioned way on the officially sanctioned number of systems. Microsoft (and Bill Gates in particular) simply cannot deal with the concept of someone not using the product on their terms.

All of that goes back to one of the fundamental flaws in the capitalist mindset: The consumer. The mythical consumer is not a person. The mythical consumer is a machine that stands on the other side of a cash register and accepts input (products) and returns output (pictures of George Washington). They can be reduced to a mathematical equation of supply and demand. They can be manipulated by marketing. They can be made to fit into nice little cells on a spreadsheet. In short, the consumer can be controlled.

It fits nicely into the whole financial theory. Passive object Consumer (C) is convinced by active object Marketing Department (M) to purchase passive object Product (P), created by passive objects Employees (E) under the employ of the active object Owner (O). Add it all up, and you get a nice tity profit (n) for the Owner.

(C + M) + P(E) = O(n)

(A very efficent method, eh?)

There's just one problem: Not all human beings are passive objects C. Humans are not a mathematical equation. The equation works when it is not possible for a person to function otherwise. You force them into playing the role of C or E, and the equation comes out nicely. Everying is predictable, profitable, and controllable.

But as soon as something comes along that threatens the stability and controllability of that equation, panic mode sets in. The printed book would be the death of learning. TV would be the death of radio. VCRs would be the death of movies. DAT would be the death of radio. Cable would be the death of movies. E-books will be the death of learning. The Internet will be the death of civilization. And so on. A little control slips away, and the end is nigh, defend the System to the last lawyer.

No one likes uncertainty (except possibly Shrodinger), and no one likes surprises (except at birthdays). It's not your money that the RIAA or the MPAA or Microsoft want. It's your passivity. They want to know that you can be controlled, not because they want power or greed or world domination but because then you are predictable, and they can wrap their minds around something predictable. Everyone likes things to be predictable. Everyone likes knowing where their next meal is coming from.

So what do we do? Don't be a consumer. Don't be passive. Don't be swayed by marketing. Don't be a part of a machine, however well intentioned and genuinely useful it is (and it is). Most importantly: Don't take your business elsewhere. That doesn't work, it only makes your life more difficult. Saying "we'll just use open source software" doesn't do anything about the continued growth of draconian attempts at regaining control with their collateral damage. Turn and take the issue head on, at its core level: The law.

--GrouchoMarx