glass house philosopher / notebook 2
Saturday, 11th February 2006
I finally reached the 100th page of my notebook. I started this on 19th February 2004, which makes roughly a page a week. Not bad going considering all the other things I have on my desk.
I decided to sneak a peek at at the 100th page of my first notebook just to see the kinds of things that were occupying me back in April 2001. The page is rather interesting, and surprisingly relevant as you will discover in a minute.My bulk e-mailing program is sending out the latest issue of Pathways News. After a while, it gets boring watching it chug away. Twelve seconds per e-mail address, it's been going for approximately 25 minutes, lets see now, that makes...well, enough time to write a page of my notebook, at any rate.
That's one thing that's changed. Now I use the Sheffield University list server, which means that I only have to send out one email. I could have saved myself so much trouble, why didn't I think of that before? This is a case were doing something quicker isn't always what you want. Everything in this consumer culture has to be faster, bigger, quicker. But actually, the time that my bulk mailer took gave me a little extra 'space' in my day to do things which would otherwise not have gotten done. Like writing a notebook page.I should be celebrating. I've reached the hundredth page! My first attempt at an online notebook ended after just twelve pages. This time I've done well. I have to remind myself, every page could be the last. Just when you think you are doing well, the nausea strikes. Then there's nothing you can do but call it a day.
Well the nausea did strike (page 92) but I got over it. I suppose I should be grateful to so-and-so for his timely attack. It was like the slap of the Zen master's stick. You need something to wake you up occasionally.
Regular visitors to the Pathways site may have been wondering what happened to the beautiful photograph of the Everest ice fall on the Pathways Programs page. (As the page loaded, you could briefly see the words, 'The High Country of the Mind', a line taken from Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.) In its place, I put one of my own photographs, a closeup of a fern. The original photograph, taken in Kew Gardens in 1971 (I used to go there a lot) was in black and white. I added the green artificially during the image processing stage, which accounts for the slightly surreal effect.
I removed the Everest photograph because it wasn't mine and I was using it without permission. That's right, I stole it. Last week, I came across a timely reminder which pricked my conscience. I thought about it for a day or two. Then I realized there was nothing to do but remove the picture.
Ah, finally we've got to it. I have some explaining to do.
Despite what I wrote back then, the Everest picture is back. This time I have used a section of it on the Pathways Features page.
My notebook page went on to describe a story about Duane, who was arrested for stealing a toothbrush. I said the story 'tugs at your heart'. In fact, it is a skillfully constructed argument for the anarchist/ socialist view of private property. To quote again from the original article by 'Slim Righteous':
Don't bother to consult your conscience it's useless. Simple social rules work their way in deep, past your mind and into your heart. If you were raised as a strict Catholic, you might feel guilty about using a condom during sex, even though intellectually you know that it is the responsible thing to do. When Huckleberry freed Jim, he "stole" private property. Changes to the rules of ownership are always defined as stealing by the status quo. Huckleberry was racked with guilt even though today we would consider him a hero.
Let's up the ante: Duane might argue that stealing allows him to live without working, without participating in a produce-and-consume machine that enslaves humanity and that is destroying the planet. If it is immoral to work as a cog in the capitalist machine, than you are left with very few choices. Every square inch of this planet is owned by someone, so hunting and gathering are stealing. You could beg your food. In many communities, begging will get you arrested faster than shoplifting. So what would you do? Would you steal a toothbrush for Samia?
Am I finally succumbing to the anarchist tendency? or just abandoning my principles? The easy, superficial answer would be that I never had any principles in the first place. Ethical judgement according to the ethics of dialogue isn't about 'applying principles', it is about bringing your experience and judgement to each case and responding to its unique ethical challenge. But that leaves the real question unanswered. Why regard 'property' as a relevant consideration at all? what is wrong with taking what is isn't yours?
As far as the Everest photo is concerned, my attitude has become a bit more relaxed. Asking myself the same question as I asked then, I would be flattered now rather than peeved if someone used my fern photo without telling me. I am less prissy about such minor things. On the other hand, there are actions which would prompt me to seek legal advice. Theft of intellectual property can be a very serious matter.
Since Warhol's Campbells soup cans, it is now commonplace for artists to reference existing images or the work of other artists. I removed a strip from the middle of the icefall picture and stretched it to make a banner. It was an image I had become attached to. I don't think that the photographer would have minded. The laws of copyright are formulated with sufficient latitude to allow room for human judgement.
However, there are issues where it is less easy to take a relaxed view. Last week, a question came for Ask a Philosopher from Robert Schaefer which had me fuming. See how you react:
1. Is it ethical to search for illegal copies of
intellectual property over the internet on
2. If it is ethical to search for illegal copies
of intellectual property, then is it ethical
to erase that data from said computer?
3. Is it ethical to leave computer programs on
strangers computers that detect and report back
if illegal intellectual property is found?
4. Is it ethical to design into the computer processor
itself, a registry that when not set by a proper key
prevents the execution of illegal intellectual property?
If the answers to 3. and 4. are different, then why
are they different?
It took a sharp eyed security guard to arrest Duane for stealing a toothbrush. In the electronic age, surveillance will become all-pervasive. It is becoming increasingly likely that personal computers in the future will be constructed in such a way as to make it impossible to do anything without your software or hardware 'phoning home', all in the name of upholding the law against theft of intellectual property.
Let's say you are a law abiding citizen. You would never think of using a piece of software from a CD a friend lent you. You always purchase your own registered copy. You go on Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Word. No sooner have you launched your program than a signal is sent through the internet back to headquarters in Silicon Valley and potentially to security services world wide.
(In case what I have just written is regarded as legally actionable, I should add that I do not have any evidence at the present time that either of these software companies are planning to make this change.)
In fact, the evidence shows that consumers are on the whole very happy to part with their cash. All the claims about mp3 downloading hurting music companies have proven to be unfounded. The same is true about the alleged threat of software piracy. You want to have the original Eminem CD with the pretty art work. You like to have the glossy instruction booklet that came with your expensive Adobe software. Consumers will always go for a bargain, they will buy cheaper if they can, but the pride and pleasure of ownership just isn't the same with a bootleg. Far fewer people, on the whole, get a positive kick out of theft for theft's sake.
I therefore doubt whether a case can be made purely in economic terms for a hard crackdown which infringes personal liberties. But that is not why the big companies are contemplating this. The true reason is, I believe, closer to malice and revenge. Like the supermarket that proudly boasts, 'We prosecute all shop lifters', including the menopausal woman who was genuinely unaware that she had absent mindedly put a bar of soap in her pocket. The sense of outraged justice is a thin veneer which hides more primitive emotions.
I was talking about greed. Software companies are a prime example of corporate greed. It would make hardly a dent in their massive profits if they made older versions of their programs say, older than two years freely available for download. Why don't they? I don't think profits come into it. They are prisoners of an ideology, locked into the tunnel vision that sees only two kinds of people, those with ready cash and those looking for a 'free lunch'.
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!