Thoughts on access to culture for everyone
Imagine the following: I am a teacher and would like to watch a certain tv-series or read
a Platonic dialogue to inspire my class and incite a good discussion between my students. However, not everyone (including myself) has access to the platform the series is streamed on, or school budgets do not allow me to purchase Plato’s book for all of my students. More than that, if I don’t touch upon this series or this novel, chances are that many of my students will never see or read them because they don’t know they exist, or don’t care and are not encouraged to try. My only option seems to download the series or get one copy of the novel and make a handout of the interesting chapters. However, if I do this, I am most definitely breaking the law…
In this essay I would like to explore if filesharing and downloading pirated versions of movies, music, e-books etc. should not be deemed illegal but rather seen as an act of beneficence to make access to arts and culture available for everyone.
Intellectual property
Intellectual property rights pertain to products of original thought, such as texts, art, music and so forth. The rights to these original thoughts protect the thinker or maker on different levels; they’ll be acknowledged as the creator and be protected from suffering (financial) loss because other people use their content without consent. In short, intellectual property rights protect the makers and thinkers from having other people unjustly profiting from their hard work.
A (philosophical) argument justifying intellectual property rights can be found in the ethical branch of Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is a branch of ethics that states that what is good is that which delivers the maximum amount of happiness (“The greatest amount of good for the greatest number”). It is the result of an action that counts, and any action should strive to increase the happiness or the good for society overall.
The Utilitarian-incentives-argument states that the protection of intellectual property is a necessary condition for ensuring that original thought is created at all. Why would people invest time and money into an idea, if afterwards anyone on the street can walk away with it and profit, leaving them with having done all the work but getting none of the rewards? Ensuring the creators get at least some compensation will, according to this argument, increase the number of awesome things and thus the amount of social utility.
However, this leaves me wondering: would people with an artistic streak truly refrain from creating things and putting them out there for fear of shady companies printing their text or images on t-shirts, canvas bags and mugs, without them knowing and sharing in the profits?
Definition of justice
I am an (aspiring) illustrator myself, and I create things and post them on Instagram and my online portfolio, not letting my lack of followers and the fact that I hardly make any money from my work stop me. I just want to do it. I like drawing, and I like making people happy with the stuff I make. Obviously, this does not mean that I would be happy to find my work being copied and sold without my knowledge, but the possibility of this happening is not stopping me doing what I love.
I might try and protect my work adding a signature or a watermark on photo’s I post of any illustration I make, and some websites even prevent people from saving your photos to their computer. However, there will always be a way of someone being able to “unjustly” take your stuff and breach your intellectual property rights.
What then, do we mean by “justice” in the cases of intellectual property?
In general, we define “just” or “unjust” in these cases mainly in terms of monetary profit or gain. Creating something other people might enjoy and having to distribute or share it for free while you’ve put your blood, sweat and tears in, seems to justify asking something in return for the fact you’re sharing. Especially in our current market-driven world, it seems you don’t get something for nothing, ever.
But this might seem like it’s just a capitalist argument made by shrew business (wo)men, while the intellectual property rights should plainly not be viewed solely in a money-making context (sometimes you make something to just cheer or help someone, not to get rich from it). So let’s define justice as follows: the maker or thinker created something that has the potential to get (widely) distributed, thus expecting a compensation or at least some recognition for their work or idea. The maker/thinker obviously has some individual needs that should be met. Thus, justice seems mean getting your deserts and needs.
If we then view intellectual property rights as a form of justice, at first glance it seems to be a fair system. However, the laws defending intellectual property can only be called just if they truly and only serve the people whose original thought needs protecting (in any form). But what if we adapt the utilitarian argument, and look at the structures of the businesses who profit most from the rights nowadays?
The dark side of intellectual property rights
In recent years, it seems that the intellectual property rights no longer exist to benefit the actual maker or thinker, but rather the companies around those people. The most part of the money of Hollywood movies does not go to the people who created the idea or the script, but to the media conglomerates, just like the profits in the music industry flow to the record companies, with many artists complaining they don’t even own the music they themselves wrote and performed (two examples are Ke$ha and Taylor Swift; Swift even started to re-record her old albums so as to actually own the rights herself).
In these and other similar examples, it appears that the intellectual property rights do not concern protecting the actual original thought, but rather serve to make certain parties the most money possible. So in these cases, it’s doubtful whether the intellectual property rights called upon when it comes to downloading pirated movies, songs etc. actually are just.
Cultural capital
Everyone probably has an anecdote from their youth concerning a fad you just had to be in on. Whether it was owning a Furby or Tamagotchi, or watching the most popular show on television to be able to join in on the conversation in the schoolyard.
Being part of something or having access to something is important for us on different levels. Pierre Bourdieu, a French sociologist, introduced us to the notions of social, cultural, and economic capital. The cultural capital is the basis on which the other two are largely dependent; the cultural capital you are given in your youth might partly determine your socio-economic position in later life (although of course things like coming from a high or low-income family have a huge impact as well). Cultural capital is a broad notion, encompassing not only access to literal culture such as museums, art, books etc., but also having some knowledge of certain social codes (how to speak, how to dress, how to present yourself etc.).
Recently, there has been a lot of interest in the inequality of opportunity between students. For a long time, the view was that if you were smart and persevering enough, you could gain more cultural capital and thus “make something of yourself”, grow and gain a place in a different (read: higher) class than the one you were born in. However, if you don’t have the “appropriate” background knowledge, even working hard might not gain you access to the higher classes. Having access to different forms of cultural capital determines where you’re going in life more often than not.
Overall, we usually feel like having access to certain “stuff” helps you develop and grow, whether it be intellectual or in your social behavior. If we want to close the inequality gap and assure everyone gets a chance to gain as much cultural capital as possible, shouldn’t everyone have the right to be able to see the new Disney movie or listen to Beyoncé’s new album, even if you or your parents can’t afford to take you to the cinema, subscribe to any and all streaming service out there or go to a museum?
Beneficence, moral duty and civil disobedience
Let’s return to utilitarianism once again. I briefly mentioned that utilitarianists deem something good when it ensures to maximize happiness or welfare, or ensures the most good for the greatest amount of people. To this utilitarian point of view, we might connect the concept of beneficence. From an ethical perspective, this principle refers to a moral obligation. We have a duty to benefit other people and further their interests.
Let’s return to the example I set in the introduction of this essay. I spoke about getting my students access to a certain tv-series or a novel, but having limited options of doing so. Still, I see the importance of increasing their cultural capital, as I have a wide range of different kids in my classroom. Yes, some have posh parents and will have access to a large bookcase, a subscription to all the different streaming services and regular visits to museums or the theater – but there are also students with parents who barely speak Dutch, or whose parents simply do not have the money to take them places. As a teacher, I feel I have a duty to introduce those students to all the stuff they might not come into contact with at home. I feel in this case, I might be committing an act of both beneficence and civil disobedience when I download a great movie or photocopy a chapter of a book. I am willfully breaching a certain law (downloading the movie instead of taking my students to the cinema, spreading pages of a published work), but I am doing this deliberately, from a feeling of principledness and conscientiousness.
So let us call upon these principles to justify the infringement of intellectual property rights and using pirated versions of any books, movies, songs or tv-series. I would do this to educate my students and make an attempt to increase their cultural capital and, hopefully, their welfare, even if it’s just the tiniest bit.
Conclusion
I realize that the example of the use of illegal downloads in the classroom might be the most justifiable example there is. We might consent to allow this, but still prohibit private individuals from obtaining illegally downloaded stuff.
However, a recent study showed that illegal downloading might not be as harmful to (at least the music) industry as the money-making bigshots claim. Getting into contact with the movie of a certain director, the songs of an awesome band or the books of a literary genius might just stimulate us to save up our money, get a ticket to the next show or pre-order their newest novel. Illegal downloading is not just theft, it is a way to discover, explore and get connected with all the awesome stuff that’s out there. And once you’ve done that, there’s always a time or an opportunity to support the makers, thinkers and creators you have learned to love in a way that is possible for you.
This blog was originally written by Isis Hazewindus for the IfThenElse Blogging Collective. It was first posted in March 2022.
Photo credit: Namroud Gorguis via Unsplash