More Myth Debunking: File Sharing Is A Gateway Crime
from the it's-not dept
There's been plenty of coverage of Clay Shirky's recent talk at SXSW where, among other things, he discussed the impact of Napster on our culture. As per usual with Shirky, he made a bunch of fantastic points, often presenting a perspective that is unique and makes you think. I just wanted to pick up on one point, however, because I've been hearing the following argument a lot lately: file sharing needs to be "stopped" because this widespread "illegality" is teaching kids to not have respect for the rule of law. Even Larry Lessig has been known to make this point. Yet, Shirky quickly debunks it in his talk:In the Napster era, some attributed the ascent of pirated digital music to a supposedly criminal-minded nature among American youth. The argument didn't work. "It coincided with the largest fall in the rate of crime in recorded history," Shirky said.People aren't file sharing because they don't respect the rule of law. They're file sharing because that particular law doesn't make any sense to them. The idea that people jumping on the file sharing bandwagon will start breaking other laws appears to have no empirical backing whatsoever.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: clay shirky, crime, gateway, napster, sharing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Application of the 'So What?' rule.
After all, if you make bad parking a crime, people will lose respect for the rule of law. If you make it illegal to import goods (unless you're a multinational corporation) then people will lose respect for the rule of law. If you make copyright infringement a serious offense, then people will lose respect for the rule of law. Sounds like, if you value respect for the rule of law, the rule of law is going to have to improve its moral case.
Unless you think that respect for the rule of law, unique amongst all forms of respect, does not need to be earned, then all this revelation tells us is that we need better laws, and we should make that a priority! And let's be honest: no good law makes everyone a crook, so you can start with copyright reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Application of the 'So What?' rule.
We're a long way from the same tipping point with 'IP' reform but I'm hopeful that the public is going in the right direction even if the establishment isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
File Sharing Is A Gateway Crime
Draconian enforcement will change the nature of the "organised" end of the file sharing spectrum and the jolly "thumb your nose at authority" types who are currently active (eg the pirate bay founders) will be replaced by seriously nasty people - much as the early cannabis smugglers (like Howard Marks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Marks )were forced out and replaced by seriously nasty criminals when enforcement was toughened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is probably more accurate is the gateway to over enforcement. Where by law enforcement uses this over criminalize your activity. Leaving you with a sense of nothing to lose, and then at that point other laws will not seems to matter much anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The actual crime drop started about 16-17 years after abortion was made legal. That's a big controversial point from that Freakonomics book. That's a little early for the internet to be associated with crime reduction.
At any rate, the gateway crime isn't about facts either. It's simply about planting an idea that people can wonder if it's true. You want old people to think of file sharing as thievery and evil. If you can't convince people who have barely used the internet that this sort of thing is dangerous, then you can't win.
I wish the economic argument for fair use was made more often. Sell that to the public, because they are buying anything that says the government is in the way of economic recovery right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you got that backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correlation
"I think you got that backwards"
There's no backwards in correlation. Correlation just means that A and B follow each other, i.e. when A increases, so does B and when A decreases so does B. Correlation does not imply causation, i.e. whether A causes B or B causes A or both are caused by C or they're not linked by cause. However, if there's no correlation, there's no causation, so establishing correlation is a necessary first step to establish causation.
I agree that the "drop in crime" argument is pretty weak. The "gateway crime" is even weaker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course you can. If someone's argument implies a causal relationship and the correlated data does not back it up then that is evidence against a causal relationship.
"The actual crime drop started about 16-17 years after abortion was made legal. That's a big controversial point from that Freakonomics book. That's a little early for the internet to be associated with crime reduction. "
If someone were trying to prove that the internet caused crime reduction then you would have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respect for Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect for Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prediction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the real conclusion is..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sharing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sharing...
Anti-science idiots like you need to remove yourselves from the gene pool - luckily your beliefs make that quite simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sharing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree
Don't be like me. Don't share copyrighted material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I started sharing way back when "warez" sites were still popular, I quickly moved onto fencing stolen goods, from there I got into human trafficking and the sex trade.
I'm now running a drug cartel but I'm getting a bit bored and want something more corrupt to move into. I'm thinking maybe politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some obvious conclusions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
File sharing was my gateway crime to...
Now I'm far more responsible. I've embraced the open source movement, and think that curtailing our harshly over-reaching IP laws is a far more admirable goal.
I guess that in my case, file sharing was my gateway to learning more about IP issues in this country, which I'm sure some might wish were a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
beacause we all know
STUPID
easy to read through and once millions cant download freely some might pay a few bucks
thus perpetuating a want by them as well to end p2p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree Mike...
I used to file-share, but I no longer get the same adrenaline rush from the 1's and 0's flowing through my internet tubes.
Now I'm all itchy and the only way I can get my fix is if I roll through stop signs when nobody else is at the intersection. I can't help it, I have to...I need the rush.
Next thing you know I'm going to have to move on to harder crimes, like taking the tags off of mattresses and putting recyclables in the regular trash!
To be more serious for a moment, saying file-sharing is a gateway crime is like saying rolling through stop signs when nobody else is around is because you want to willfully break the law, and will eventually start robbing people at gun point. Everyone rolls through stop signs without thinking when there's nobody around, it's human nature. The laws are there to protect others, when there's no others around to protect then you unconsciously disregard it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, people who (theoretically) spend their days writing laws should not spend most of their time asking others to write them checks. That's just bad - unless you're running a business that can only survive because you write those checks.
If you're ever in doubt about any organization's true commitment to the rule of law, their support for public election finance (or lack thereof) says it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just getting started
I just finished 'Torrents for Imbeciles' and now I pwn all the music and movies I want. I'm currently working through 'Carjacking for Jackasses', so look out, I'm eyeing your Toyota. I love this crime stuff, I'm on a roll... or spree as the case may be.
ˇ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at the evident pride in any good MP3 blog -- "Look what I found, this is worth your attention!" The people who source material for file sharing are doing it for a combination of ego-points and musical evangelism.
What this means for the old-fashioned music industry: the music industry is reduced to using fear as a big part of a sales pitch for what is supposed to be a happy product. That's a huge problem. "Buy our product, it will make you happy, and it might get you in legal trouble." Talk about your mixed messages...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From this I take it that people do respect the rule of law as long as a particular law makes sense to them.
If one truly does respect the rule of law, then our system does provide lawfull avenues for instituting change, and it is these avenues that should be pursued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes the laws are criminal
I don't do those things because I consider them inherently, regardless of what the "law" says.
And a lot of the "law" is itself criminal. It is an inherently criminal act to invade someone's home, assault them, rob them, or imprison them for copying their own CD on their own computer, or for smoking vegetable matter of any kind that they grew on their own land or bought from a consenting adult. People who carry out such acts are criminals, regardless of whether their gang colors happen to be a police uniform. People who make profit by using criminal gangs in uniform to suppress free competition are themselves criminals.
As the man said, "Is there a place for the hopeless sinner who has hurt all mankind just to save his own? Believe it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wrong argument
This is not the argument. Its that laws percieved as "stupid" reduce peoples respect for law in general. This same phenominon has always been true about marijuana laws as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]