Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Music

RMS Responds To NPR File-Sharer's Blog 634

Posted by Soulskill
from the morally-right-vs-legally-right dept.
New submitter UtucXul points out that Richard Stallman has penned a lengthy response to NPR intern Emily White for her post on the organization's site about how she failed to pay for a significant amount of recorded music, acquiring it instead through Kazaa, friends, and CDs owned by the radio station at which she was employed. (We previously discussed musician David Lowery's response; quite different from RMS's, as you might expect.) Stallman wrote, "Copying and sharing recordings was not a mistake, let alone wrong, because sharing is good. It's good to share musical recordings with friends and family; it's good for a radio station to share recordings with the staff, and it's good when strangers share through peer-to-peer networks. The wrong is in the repressive laws that try to block or punish sharing. Sharing ought to be legalized; in the mean time, please do not act ashamed of having shared — that would validate those repressive laws that claim that it is wrong. You did make a mistake when you chose Kazaa as the method of sharing. Kazaa mistreated you (and all its users) by requiring you to run a non-free program on your computer. ... However, that was in the past. It's more important to consider what you're doing now, which includes other mistakes. You're not alone — many others make them too, and that adds up to a big problem for society. The root mistake is treating a marketing buzzword, 'the cloud,' as if it meant something concrete. That term refers to so many things (different ways of using the Internet) that it really has no meaning at all. Marketing uses that term to lead people's attention away from the important questions about any given use of the network, such as, 'What companies would I depend on if I did this, and how? What trouble could they cause me, if they wanted to shaft me, or simply thought that a change in policies would gain them more money?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RMS Responds To NPR File-Sharer's Blog

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    film at 11

    • by philip.paradis (2580427) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @05:36PM (#40651169)

      RMS thinks giving other people's shit away is good

      The term "giving away" implies a situation where one party is deprived of something so another person can have it. This is not an accurate representation of Stallman's views, nor is is an accurate description of copyright infringement. When a copy is made and provided to another party, both parties now have the item in question.

      RMS believes the above described behavior is morally correct, and should be universally allowed. Furthermore, he believes software is an entity unto itself that has rights, just as a person has rights. I happen to disagree with him on these points, but regardless of your position on such matters, it is very important to describe them correctly. Much as RMS has a long history of attempting to redefine the word "freedom" to suit his sociopolitical agenda, I must disagree with those who attempt to make statements on important matters such as these without getting their definitions right.

      • by Surt (22457) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @05:57PM (#40651307) Homepage Journal

        In fairness to the GP, describing those view accurately makes it much harder to undermine them. Therefore it's actually important to the opponents to NOT describe them accurately.

      • by YesIAmAScript (886271) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @06:18PM (#40651449)

        Give away doesn't necessarily mean anyone is deprived of anything. It often does, but not always.

        If I watch your prize dog while you are on vacation, a pedigreed breeding dog and I give away his sperm to someone, I have given something of value away. But you aren't deprived of it, that sperm would have been dead by the time you got back from vacation and it would have been replaced by then with new live sperm anyway.

        You'd do well to stick to the point at hand instead of trying to put up a semantic front.

        • by murpup (576529) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @07:15PM (#40651873)

          Bad example. Actually, as the owner of the dog, I have been potentially deprived of something - the market for that dog's sperm. There may only be a handful of people in this world who would be interested in buying the dog's sperm for breeding purposes. Since you have gone and sold it to one of those people, my ability to make money off of that sperm when I return from vacation has been irreparably harmed.

          Incidentally, I do fall on the side of supporting file sharing, as long as a person does not try to resell a person's music/software/etc for monetary gain.

          • by publiclurker (952615) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @07:56PM (#40652097)
            By stealing it (and don't pretend it's anything but theft just to make yourself appear to be slightly more ethical), you are depriving the creators of money. If it's not worth buying, then don't steal it. Funny how my children managed to learn this at about the age of six.
          • by kidgenius (704962) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @10:56PM (#40652975)

            Incidentally, I do fall on the side of supporting file sharing, as long as a person does not try to resell a person's music/software/etc for monetary gain.

            So if the person watching your dog gave the sperm away for free, they didn't do it for monetary gain. So why not support the giving away of your dogs sperm? By participating in unauthorized file sharing, you are depriving the owners of that content from the market that desires what they have. There may only be a handful of people in this word interested in buying their content, but you still are affecting their ability to make money off of that content.

          • by Americano (920576) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @11:07PM (#40653013)

            Bad example. Actually, as the owner of the dog, I have been potentially deprived of something - the market for that dog's sperm.

            And by this argument, as the creator of a book, song, or film, I have been deprived of the market for my movie/film/song by your giving copies to other people for free.

            So I'm not clear - you say you support sharing as long as it's not for financial gain... but then you say that giving something away (or providing a free copy of something) is depriving the creator/original owner of that item a market for their product.

            You seem to be arguing that filesharing is okay, but you're trying to paint that the scenario above, where you're "deprived of a market for your product," is somehow injurious to you. So if someone's sharing activity is damaging to you... then how can it be morally correct? Whether they do it for a profit, or do it for free, it's simply a matter of how MUCH they've harmed you, not a question of whether or not they're harming you.

      • by raftpeople (844215) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @06:20PM (#40651461)
        The term "giving away" implies a situation where one party is deprived of something so another person can have it. This is not an accurate representation of Stallman's views, nor is is an accurate description of copyright infringement. When a copy is made and provided to another party, both parties now have the item in question.

        Wrong. The term giving away means whatever our society decides it means. There are clearly multiple scenarios in which the term can be used and trying to shoehorn a definition into just one or the other doesn't make sense. In the same way people discuss abortion and want a bright line between life and non-life...the world is more complex and there are lots of things that can't be neatly divided.

        In the case of "giving away" copyrighted material...when people use that term pretty much everyone understands that it means we have an artificial system called copyright created for economic reasons and the "giving away" violated the rules of that system.

        Trying to argue "but it's not theft" or "it's not the same as real property" misses the point...we all know that but we don't want to use a 17 word sentence to refer to the situation at hand.
        • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @07:11PM (#40651853)

          we all know that

          Do we now? I've personally seen a fair number of people who really do believe it's theft. I've also seen people who didn't know what copyright infringement was and believed that it's actually theft in the most literal sense simply because many people happen to call it that. Calling what may be a crime in some places "theft" really can confuse people.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by raftpeople (844215)
            Why isn't it "theft". The word "theft" is just a shorthand for a variety of different situations, and ALL of them (including physical property) are based on artificial rules that we made up. Taking someone's chair isn't inherently wrong anymore than illegally taking a copy of copyrighted material - both are defined as problems due to the rules society created. Saying that one is theft and one isn't theft is not a meaningful distinction - they are both illegal activities because we said so and if everyone
            • The word "theft" is just a shorthand for a variety of different situations

              I just expressed why I feel it's a bad idea to call it "theft." Because it confuses people about what's actually happening. It doesn't matter what I think, though, because it'll continue happening.

              Saying that one is theft and one isn't theft is not a meaningful distinction

              I disagree.

              they are both illegal activities because we said so and if everyone calls both "theft" what does arguing about that term actually gain?

              What does arguing about anything gain? In the end, nothing.

  • by psergiu (67614) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @04:57PM (#40650941)

    What 'the cloud' has to do with pira^H^H^H^Hsharing some MP3s ?

  • by CalRobert (2451626) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @04:58PM (#40650945)
    Even though I am sympathetic with the author, that is some of the shittiest writing I've seen in a while, which is telling considering the level of writing on the internet. "It's not bad because it's good" is hardly a compelling argument.
  • Mad, but not bad. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Loki_666 (824073) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @05:07PM (#40650969)

    The world needs people like RMS... really. I mean, he is out there on the fringe, where rational thought breaks down into fantasy, but you also have a lot of people in power who are at the other extreme and also living in a kind of fantasy bubble.... heavily subsidized by corporate players of course to ensure they see things the "right" way.

    Like so many things in life, the right way isn't always the left or the right, the blue or the red, the democrat or republican, or whatever... its the middle ground where interests from all sides are considered.

    On my way home, ill be driving down the central reservation, just to make this point. :-D

    • by Microlith (54737) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @05:16PM (#40651041)

      I mean, he is out there on the fringe, where rational thought breaks down into fantasy

      He practices what he preaches. I don't agree with him fully, but there are few espousing ideals that can claim the same.

      you also have a lot of people in power who are at the other extreme and also living in a kind of fantasy bubble.... heavily subsidized by corporate players of course to ensure they see things the "right" way.

      It's funny that people attack RMS, and fail to acknowledge that the powers-that-be are pushing in, and succeeding in getting to, the polar opposite of his stance. My guess is they just feel the need to attack someone.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        People attack RMS because routinely he says stupid shit like:

        Kazaa mistreated you (and all its users) by requiring you to run a non-free program on your computer.

        Yeah, because the makers of Kazaa giving away for free a program that she voluntarily decided to use that gave her access to tons of free music is totally mistreatment.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14, 2012 @05:32PM (#40651141)

          Yeah, because the makers of Kazaa giving away for free a program that she voluntarily decided to use that gave her access to tons of free music is totally mistreatment.

          You really have no idea who RMS is at all do you? He's saying the end (the benefits of Kazaa) aren't justified by the means (Kazaa delivered in the form of a closed source binary). This isn't some new revelation from him as he's being singing this tune for over 30 years now. You don't have to agree with Stallman but when you espouse a fundamental ignorance of his positions it doesn't give any credibility to your arguing his opposite.

      • by Waccoon (1186667)

        It's funny that people attack RMS, and fail to acknowledge that the powers-that-be are pushing in, and succeeding in getting to, the polar opposite of his stance.

        Geeks have never had compelling marketing skills. Politicians specialize in manipulation. This is why the good guys lose.

        I like the idea of FOSS and I write plenty of my own open software, but I can't help but visualize the community as a whole being a bunch of spoiled, self-entitled children. I'm rational enough to understand what RMS is actually saying, but the image of the bratty hippie still dances in my head whenever I hear him talk. There's a reason why he's so famous and yet still has relatively

      • by argStyopa (232550)

        "He practices what he preaches. I don't agree with him fully, but there are few espousing ideals that can claim the same."

        So did Stalin, and a few others but I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law.

        Let's just say that enthusiasm and failure to be a hypocrite really aren't signs of any intrinsic morality in one's position.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The only difference in the "fantasy" world that RMS lives in and the "real world" of copyright is that legislation and law enforcement have made the copyright fiction a reality.

    • Re:Mad, but not bad. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by marcello_dl (667940) on Sunday July 15, 2012 @06:33AM (#40654535) Homepage Journal

      > where rational thought breaks down into fantasy

      Let's make examples. I'm interested.
      When RMS tells Linus "Bitkeeper is a bad idea", he turns out right.
      When RMS talks about windows as a virus/spyware, he turns out right, you let your PC be owned in the friggin' TOS.
      When he dreams up a world of free software, which was the frigging NORM in the real world of early computers, the dream gets real, albeit for a very limited set of hardware.

      RMS is an idealist? of course. But the effects of his position is, practically, useful to return control in the hand of the user. And that is pragmatically good for the user in the long run.

      If you want to hear pure unadulterated fantasy, listen to CEOs and politicians. Elop and his "nokia is betting all on winphones", anyone?

      And I say all this while deeply disagreeing on him on this issue.

      A guy wants to give his intellectual creation only to those who pay? LET HIM, DO NOT COPY THOSE DAMN FILES. YOU ARE NOT STEALING BUT YOU ARE NOT RESPECTING THE OWNER'S WISH.

      But also: HE MUST BE PREVENTED FROM MAKING PEOPLE LISTEN TO HIS STUFF FOR FREE. Because that is akin to the first free hit a crack dealer GIVES OUT. IT IS NOT FAIR TO LET ME LISTEN FOR FREE AND THEN ASKING ME TO PAY CAUSE I WANT THE SONG WHO GOT STUCK IN MY HEAD.
      And also: WHENEVER HIS CREATION IS FOUND TO BE PARTIALLY UNORIGINAL HE MUST GIVE PEOPLE BACK THE MONEY THEY SPENT ON IT IN THE PROPORTION OF UNORIGINAL VS ORIGINAL CONTENT.

      Now, THIS is ideal justice. Not RMS's and especially not MAFIAA's.

  • Le sigh. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    When asked about how musicians and others can earn a living when their products are treated as having no value, he reminded her that everybody eats free at the foot cafe.

    I don't even know what that means.

    • maybe RMS is a socialist! After having extensively studied economics, I have come to the same conclusions that he has, based on the this reasoning.

      1. Social justice is maximizing the minimum gain
      2. Information has the most utility when its free
      3. Wealth inequality causes less efficient economies
      4. Media is a form of non productive consumption.

  • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @05:19PM (#40651049)

    I agree with Stallman that 110 year copyrights are repressive. But so too is complete abolishment of copyrights. People like to get paid for their creations, and put food on the table. A reasonable compromise would be 10 or 20 years... just long enough to cover the audio engineer/artist/musicians' labor on the song. But short enough that it becomes part of society's shared culture.

    BTW ever notice that no Roman or Greek music has survived til today? We have all their other literature but not their songs. Perhaps because there was no monetary incentive for musicians to share their work.

    • by yuhong (1378501)

      Stallman has some suggestions at the end of the article.

    • by Exrio (2646817) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @05:34PM (#40651157)

      If people want to get paid for their creations, then why do they bloody insist on giving it away for free on a $10 CD or $2 of Internet bandwidth?

      Musicians just don't seem to be able to understand that they're not CD manufacturers, and they're not Internet Service Providers, they can't charge for CDs, and they can't charge for Internet copying. What they can charge for is only their music... which they're stupidly giving away. People is already being generous when they buy plastic or bandwidth from them (being able to buy it from cheaper stores) just so they get their cut and try to recover their creation costs, but that's the wrong way to go about it.

      Artist, does it cost you $60,000 to make your work (include your own salary)?... Pro-tip: Sell it for $60,000, not for $0.99. If your work is really worth that, people will pay the cost. Set up a kickstarter and watch it happen. If your work isn't worth what it costs, then there's no market for you. Tough. But please stop all this lunacy, we need it to stop freaking yesterday.

      -Sincerely, an audio engineer who understands what is wrong with the businesss

      • I think I understand what you're saying, though you say it in a silly way. A song isn't bandwidth, it's the manifestation of a creative work.

        People still desire particular songs, and we're in a golden age where the music industry has responded to that desire by making nearly every song available in an unrestricted quality format worldwide at an exceptionally reasonable price! Saying artists insist on this or calling it "lunacy" is a bizarre twisting of history, this is exactly what consumers said they wante

    • BTW ever notice that no Roman or Greek music has survived til today? We have all their other literature but not their songs. Perhaps because there was no monetary incentive for musicians to share their work.

      I have recreations of both Greek and Roman works. See http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/beginlst/ancient.html [medieval.org] for a good summary of available recordings.

    • Or it might be because those cultures didn't have a means of writing musical notation. They passed their music on through memorisation.
  • RMS needs a competent proofreader for the articles he posts to his site. Why do people persist in publishing text whose intended audience is the entire fucking world without bothering to make damned certain that at least grammar and spelling are correct?

  • I have a series of blog posts on artificial scarcity and digital bits:
    http://yuhongbao.blogspot.com/2010/06/artificial-scarcity-intro.html [blogspot.com]

  • by Ostracus (1354233) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @05:29PM (#40651119) Journal

    Hmmm, a black and white opinion in a world of gray. How refreshing.

  • by david.emery (127135) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @05:48PM (#40651245)

    I respect RMS' position on software, even if I don't fully agree with it. As I understand it, he says that a software developer should be able to make money by selling services, e.g. maintaining/customizing software, and there are people out there who do just that.

    But I think the argument falls down for music. Sure, following the 'services' argument, performers can make a living (in theory) by performing the music. But not all song-writers are also performers. So in this case, how would RMS propose that a songwriter get reimbursed? What about the people involved in the production of music, e.g. sound engineers.

    I think the "music is like software and should be just as free" analogy does no't work.

    (This is not to support the RIAA's unacceptable use of the the courts to prosecute the token file-sharing user with outrageous and probably unconstitutional damage judgements.)

  • Unjust laws (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @05:55PM (#40651293)

    RMS seems to be embracing a self-contradictory position.

    He's all for ignoring the unjust copyright laws when they don't suit his position.

    But the FSF goes after people for violation of their license which is based on the same unjust copyright laws.

    http://www.fsf.org/news/2008-12-cisco-suit/ [fsf.org]

    • Re:Unjust laws (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ThatsMyNick (2004126) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @06:10PM (#40651401)

      GPL itself is a protest of copyright laws, that depends on copyright laws for its existence. If there was no copyright law, GPL would not exists, and RMS would be happy about it (Well EULA should go too, but that is a different topic). But until copyright law exists, RMS would like to defend the free rights of GPL using copyright laws.
       
      This has been repeated on every RMS and GPL post, and still someone has to write this. Sigh.

      • So, with the GPL 3 license it goes well beyond copyright, and into "restricting" the usage of said work. IF RMS was truly about "open source" he'd go with Berkley style license.

        RMS is a hypocrite. He want to control his work, while at the same time criticizing others for doing the same. But he is too myopic to see how.

      • Re:Unjust laws (Score:4, Informative)

        by shutdown -p now (807394) on Sunday July 15, 2012 @04:07AM (#40654093) Journal

        If there was no copyright law, GPL would not exists, and RMS would be happy about it

        That is not so, and RMS himself was very explicit about it. He would only agree to copyright going away if there was some other arrangement in the laws that would let him enforce copyleft - ideally, he wants copyleft to be universally legally enforced. Quote [computerworlduk.com]:

        "I would be glad to see the abolition of copyright on software if it were done in such a way as to ensure that software is free. After all, the point of copyleft is to achieve that goal for derivatives of certain programs. If all software were free, copyleft would not be needed for software. However, abolishing copyright could also be done in a misguided way that would have no effect on typical proprietary software (which is restricted by EULAs and source code secrecy rather than copyright), and only undermines the practice of copyleft. Naturally I would be against that. In other words, I am more concerned with how the law affects users' freedom than with what happens to copyright as such.

        It would be necessary to eliminate copyright on software, declare EULAs legally void, and adopt consumer protection measures that require distribution of source code to the user and forbid tivoization."

        This has been repeated on every RMS and GPL post, and still someone has to write this. Sigh.

        Indeed; and every time someone replies the way you did, I have to link to that article to show why you're wrong.

      • If there was no copyright law, GPL would not exists, and RMS would be happy about it

        Think about this: if there was no copyright law, it would be as if all software was implicitly licensed with a BSD-style license. I doubt RMS would be really happy with that, because nobody would be forced to share.

  • by Altrag (195300) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @05:58PM (#40651309)

    Emily: Discussing CD sales is pointless because nobody uses CDs anymore!

    RMS: You should be using free software!

    Sure, while technically using free software instead of closed alternatives would have been better, its a completely irrelevant point in the context of Emily's post (never mind the fact that free alternatives to some of the software she used simply didn't exist at the time she needed them, or had so few peers comparatively as to be useless.)

  • by spage (73271) <spage.skierpage@com> on Saturday July 14, 2012 @07:24PM (#40651923)

    Emily White violated the copyrights on the music she acquired ("I've swapped hundreds of mix CDs with friends. My senior prom date took my iPod home once and returned it to me with 15 gigs of Big Star, The Velvet Underground and Yo La Tengo"). You'd think RMS would be against that, since the GPL expresses (admirable IMO) restrictions on what you can do with it under those same copyright laws. His arguments why Emily "did nothing wrong" are mostly the lame tired shit piracy apologists have trotted out for decades now

    After all, how can we support musicians? Buying recordings from record companies won't do it. For nearly all records, the musicians get none of that money; the record companies keep it. See this article [informatio...utiful.net] and this article [techdirt.com].

    Untrue. Artist royalties are often ~20% of the sales price; this chart [informatio...utiful.net] says $.09 for an iTunes download, and artists self-releasing through CD Baby keep 75%. The meme that artists don't get money seems to be a deliberate misunderstanding of the money record companies advance against royalties so artists can make a quality record (The Trichordist explains this well). Regardless of the percentage it is not the consumer's right or job to decide if that's a reasonable or obscene deal from the record company and online store. FFS, if you don't like a song enough to pay $0.99 for an unprotected DRM-free legal copy of it so the artist gets some money in exchange for your enjoyment of her creative endeavor:

    1. Skip it and enjoy the zillions of free songs out there — under CC share licenses, out-of-copyright, in the public domain, live performances from trade-friendly artists on Internet Archive [archive.org], etc.! As RMS knows from software, there are great free alternatives to restricted paid works, so go support those!

    2. If you whine "Waahhh, this song I want ought to be free like all those others" so you pirate it anyway, your parents raised you badly.

    RMS goes on

    Practically speaking, the only effective and ethical way you could support musicians was through concerts.

    Not true. Paying for the copyrighted recordings you want and love works great and delivers money to artists so they can make more! It's insulting to suggest artists should instead try to collect money for something completely different — "touring and T-shirts&quot. (No Sgt. Pepper for you, John Paul George and Ringo are going deaf on another tour that only their teenybopper fans attend.) The idea that artists should not charge for a quality studio recording has been immensely damaging to "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in the area of recorded music, it's a big reason why today's songs are made on laptops instead of with crack session musicians. And as RMS later acknowledges, touring doesn't even work for those bands that do perform live, because they can't afford to travel to all their fans, then on any night only a fraction of fans in an area make it to the show.

    RMS is on better ground with the first of his two ways to support artists

    Put a tax on Internet connectivity, and divide the money among artists.

    Great idea, let's hope it happens. But his second is a fantasy:

    Give each player device a button to send 50 cents anonymously to the artists.

    It's been tried, the Fairtunes service [wired.com] during Napster's golden era. I ponied up money for a song I shared, but in several y

  • by 7-Vodka (195504) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @08:58PM (#40652441) Journal

    Every time RMS speaks, it's like he's expressing the way my soul feels.

    It's like a beautiful piece of classical music, it just resonates with the way I feel.

    Don't ever stop RMS.

  • by petsounds (593538) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @09:10PM (#40652505)

    RMS is typically strident and way off-course from the meat of Emily White's post and David Lowery's response. His ridiculous solution for compensating artists is to tax internet access and distribute the profits to artists in a scaled manner via some sort of popularity poll. RMS should've stayed out of this debate.

    When music was imprinted on a physical good, the music itself was physical. It was part of something you bought, touched. The cover art, liner notes, it was part of the experience of the music. Paying for the music was as much a certainty as paying for a magazine or cup of coffee. No one debated that owning music meant you paid for it.

    When you transfer the concept of music to a digital realm, that breaks down. I think that humans by and large have trouble with the concept of digital goods. They see it as theoretical. The experience is no longer tangible. And so by proxy, the artist itself becomes theoretical, intangible. And when that happens, the moral imperative that the artist be compensated goes out the window. And you can see that in Emily's post. She states that she doesn't think she and her peers "will ever pay for albums." She drive to a coffee shop to spend money on her organic, fair trade latte to make sure workers in Columbia are fairly compensated for their labor, but she won't pay for music because it's too inconvenient.

    So why is it she and her generation will pay extra for fair trade coffee, but not pay an artist for their work? I can only conclude that her brain cannot process that the music streaming in to her iPhone and her laptop was actually created by people who labored equally. It's just something that exists intangibly, but still something that she desires be omnipresent in her life.

    The lack of attachment to a physical good is one part of it, but there is a wider social shift at work here. We have seen a shift from pre-war craftsman trades to post-war industrialized society, and now to a western society that format-shifted to only create ideas, not products. The average person in western countries no longer associates products with the people who create them. Why should they, when most things are mass-produced in Chinese, Taiwanese, and Indian factories? So when even tangible products become detached from the human context in which they were created, younger generations that grew up after this shift to globalized production will not imagine or care that digital goods were products produced by real people who are struggling to get by. This is a much tougher nut to crack than the immediate issues of digital music.

It is not for me to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence. -- The Earl of Birkenhead

Working...