Friday, November 11, 2011
Nozick and the Internet
Since we've been talking about Nozick in class and entitlement I began to think of the idea of entitlement in regards to our technology today. As I am typing this, YouTube is minimized, playing The Band's cover of Bob Dylan's “I Shall Be Released.” I can go back to YouTube and listen to it as many times as I want for no cost (outside of Internet bills, power bills, the cost of the computer., etc.). I do not own the song, but I am able to listen to it whenever I want. Nozick uses the term “holding” By being able to access this song on YouTube, do I have holding? If I can forward the link to someone (Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ore6K3ESTLc) am I transferring the holding, even though I can still go and listen to the song? Nozick had no way of anticipating YouTube or the Internet when he wrote Anarchy, State, and Utopia, but that does not mean we cannot think about our technology in his terms. I guess the point I am trying to get to here is what we call Internet “piracy” and distribution. So the individual who uploaded the YouTube video, “mesna,” for this discussion, came into possession (holding) of a live performance of The Band playing “I Shall Be Released” through one of two means: by purchasing a DVD of the performance, or by downloading a file via P2P transfer, Torrents, IRC, etc. Now, if mesna purchased the DVD, and decided to rip “I Shall Be Released” from the concert and put it onto YouTube, is he is obviously not transferring a holding, because he still has a physical copy of the DVD. However, he is still allowing others to, say, enjoy the benefits of holding the concert DVD. The second tenant of the Entitlement Theory states that “A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, es entitled to the holding. Is mesna owns a copy of the DVD and then uploads a portion of that concert, he is freely transferring the performance of “I Shall Be Released” to you, making you entitled to the video yourself. And since you are entitled is it now yours to download and then redistribute as you see fit? What do you guys think, I'd love to hear from someone who has a stronger grasp on this than I do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Like you Cain, I really don't have a true grasp of the material. I truly feel that there has to be a different perspective that goes against this theory but I'm just not sure. With your example, even though a person may have purchased the DVD it would still be illegal to do anything with it so I don't know if we can apply Nozick's theory to it at that point, but I do see where you're going with this. But it's kind of similar to the stolen phone/pawn shop example mentioned in class. The injustice would be between the person that posted the music and the artist, not the person that goes to YouTube and listens to it.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that sites like youtube violate the transfer principle because it is not as though you are physically transferring ownership. A person posts a video knowingly that he/she will not receive any monetary compensation. If a video is posted illegally it can be reported and removed from youtube. However, other sites for downloading are considered illegal because the original owner is unaware of the distribution of his/her work. I think every case and situation for what you can download is different: some people are more willing to share their work for free, while others want monetary compensation.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the transfer principle really applies with youtube when you just go and listen. You don't own the song you just listen to it through youtube. It isn't really transferred to you its just kind of made available to use but not own. Obviously there are some instances in which this is not the case and you are able to download and own things illegally, but that is different. As long as you are just visiting the site to listen I don't think there is a real transfer going on.
ReplyDelete