I think the REAL crime here is on the part of record and movie companies, quite honestly. (Not the tickling video producers, of course, because these companies are small enough that their profits, I'm assuming, go back to they people who did the work... the people who deserve it.) I'm not talking about the musicians, actors, directors, etc. I'm talking about the people who produce the CD's and movies. The ones who take the products of talented people, market them, then think that what they did makes them worthy of receiving almost all of the profit. These kinds of actions are mostly committed by those dealing with music. Record companies not only rape the customer with jacked-up prices (I have a PC Magazine around here with an article by one of those editorial writers... think his name is John Dvorak or something like that... in which it is explained that according to price studies of all other products, CD's should have dropped in price to around ten dollars over the past decade. Instead, they have remained at usually close to eighteen dollars apiece.) but they also rape the artists by, in my opinion, STEALING most of the profit for themselves when it should be the other way around. Hell, I'd gladly shell out the two or three dollars for a CD that actually go to the artists themselves.
When you think about 'crime' and 'laws', you really have to take long hard looks at what society thinks is 'right' and 'wrong' and what actually, really IS 'right' and 'wrong'. I'm not talking about religion. This isn't the "Man's law vs. God's law" argument. Religious 'law' is also riddled with flaws and inconsistencies. Let's take an example I saw recently on I believe it was CourtTV. A man was tried for brutally raping and torturing, then murdering his fionce. The jury found him not guilty and he was set free. About a decade or so later, he sold his house. The new owner found several rolls of film and things hidden in some secret spot and turned them over to the police. When confronted about the newfound evidence, the man confessed to actually doing what he had been tried for doing in the first place. However, thanks to our 'legal system', he couldn't be tried again for the same crime. "Double Jeopardy", it's called. So to argue that something is 'right' because it's 'law' is to argue that it's 'right' to let killers walk free. Now, what if someone became enraged at the horrible miscarriage of justice and decided to take it upon themselves to kill the man for what he had done. They'd be tried for murder and most likely given life in prison or execution. Is /that/ right? To be punished for keeping a watchful eye while justice sleeps? According to our 'legal system', yes. Another quick shot of anecdotal evidence, here: I had a relative whose body was riddled with a form of cancer. Eventually, her body became so frail that her bones would break when the nurses tried to turn her so she wouldn't get bedsores. They had to put her in a full body cast and sever her spinal cord. Every time her husband would come to visit her, she would beg him to kill her. He couldn't, however, because he'd be tried for murder. He wanted to... he could see the pain in her face every single day. But he couldn't. In this instance, is murder wrong? Legally, yes. But in almost all other respects, it's right. By the way, these kinds of things run deeper than mere conscience judgement.
Our 'legal system' has more faults than the Pacific coastline. One of the major faults dealing in our immediate purposes here is that it allows conditional theft. It's fine for record companies to steal from the musicians and, quite frankly, from consumers but it's not okay for consumers to do the exact same thing. Actually, what the record companies do is worse because they're actually MAKING money from what they're doing. The consumers who 'steal' music, so to speak, are merely not having to pay outrageous prices. (Of course, again this whole argument doesn't really pertain to the producers of tickling videos as they're all independently owned and operated and closely knit and their profits are therefore fair and even.)
And actually, there ARE musicians and artists who don't mind people doing this. Back during the whole Napster shitfit, there were a TON of musicians backing the side opposing the record companies. And when you REALLY get down and think about it, what IS 'stealing music'? I'm in a local band. We're nothing incredible, but all of us have talent. We can play and we can play accurately. For the most part up until recently, we've done mostly covers of other artists' songs. Apparently, according to 'the law', we're supposed to pay a fee to the original performers every time we play the songs. The fact of the matter is, people like familiar things. We wouldn't be half as popular if we didn't start out doing covers. Not only is it a good way to learn by practicing musical accuracy, but it allows the audience to run comparisons between us and the original performers, gauging our abilities and talent. Now, you tell me: with most non-professional musicians being young adults with fuckall for funding, do you really think ANY band abiding by 'the law' and paying royalties for doing covers would EVER be able to make it? Doesn't that seem a little monopolistic? And where do you draw the line? I've got a decent voice. I don't like to brag, but I really do sound good. Say I'm singing a song in my car (because my radio is broken and right now I don't have the money to fix it) and there are passengers present. Technically, I'm a 'performer' with an 'audience'. Am I expected to pay royalties for singing in my car?
I am, by no means, saying that stealing is right all the time and that everyone should pirate everything and that record companies and artists don't need to make any kinds of profits ever etc. etc. etc. But under certain circumstances, many crimes that are considered 'wrong' by our legal system should be considered 'right'. There are circumstances in which murder is acceptable. There are circumstances in which stealing is acceptable. People really do have shit for luck. You can say "you have to take opportunities where you find them" or "you just have to roll with the punches" until you hyperventilate. It doesn't eliminate the fact that there ARE people in this world who have simply been dealt bad hands their whole lives. They can't help but steal to stay alive. So is stealing wrong? For them, I think it's perfectly acceptable. I'm by no means saying that people who pirate software or bootleg music are doing it to survive, that's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying that any legal system that doesn't recognize that the acceptability of crimes is conditional isn't a very good one. And if half the musicians out there say "go ahead and download my music. I could give a rat's ass. It's perfectly fine." and the other half say "NO! STOP THAT! THAT's WRONG!" is it wrong or is it right? Or is it conditionally wrong or right? Is it acceptable to 'steal' from some and not from others?
Sure, I'd be pretty pissed off if someone were to take something I worked on and used it for their own personal entertainment. But right now, currently, as a musician, writer, artist, director, etc. I'm not getting paid for the things I do. I write for a friend's low-distribution 'zine for no pay, I perform in a band and we haven't played in a place that had a cover charge or anything... can it be hypothesized that the art I create for free would be an even trade? I mean, it's not that I'm not talented enough to make a profit. I'm a very talented person in a great many respects. I don't like bragging, but I am. The only problem is, I live in a small-town area with less job opportunity than Soviet Russia.
The point I'm trying to make is that people need to start thinking a little deeper about 'right' and 'wrong' and 'law' and 'crime'. The majority of people accept whatever is 'the law' to be 'right' when, in actuality, it isn't. Did you know that in the state of Michigan, it's technically illegal for a woman to cut her hair without obtaining her husband's permission? I'm sure it's not a law that's widely enforced, but it still is 'the law'. Does that make it right? Over the centuries, we've had many laws that have been repealed or modified. Like slavery. Was slavery right just because it was supported by 'the law'?
I'm not saying 'go ahead and rip people off because there's a chance that copyright laws may be repealed in 80 years and then we can all laugh and say 'I told you so''. I'm really not trying to advocate anything. I'm not saying "if your conscience tells you it's okay, then it must be right". I'm not trying to convey the message that if someone THINKS something is right, then it is. One's conscience can't decide what's right and wrong. People are defective. Hell, Charlie Manson's conscience told him it was okay to slaughter the Tate family.
All I was doing was laying out the ground rules... the way things are. I can't control other peoples' actions. If he wants to do it, whether he thinks he's right or wrong, there's really nothing anyone can do to stop him. Sure, he may be caught, but the chances of that happening are slim to none. Whatever he wants to do, whether 'legal' or 'illegal', that's his decision. The point I was trying to make is that if he's worried about legal repercussions, he really shouldn't be. I haven't heard of a single case in which an individual user was caught and prosecuted. Even when Napster first started having problems and Metallica started monitoring users' activity, all they did was shut down the users' Napster accounts. I'm not condoning piracy or bootlegging and I'm not trying to force people to do so. My point was that the only thing that can really stop him is his own conscience.
And pertaining to the bigger companies not wanting to take action, even if they banded together to start persecuting consumers, I still think it would be a horrible business move. Larger companies, especially the kinds of goliaths that you have in entertainment, try to avoid going after individuals (the 'little guy') because it makes them look like total assholes. People hate corporate mindsets to begin with and I think that if these companies started bending people over and directly fucking them instead of just indirectly screwing people like they normally do, the consumers will start becoming more and more aware of the power they wield. If every consumer in the world banded together and decided "We're not gonna buy X-Boxes for a year" (without, of course, disclosing the amount of time they weren't going to purchase the X-Boxes), the price of X-Boxes would drop dramatically. In the event of these corporations and giants going after the little guy, I'm sure a lot of protests and boycotts would break out, eventually causing similar results to the theoretical desperation price-drops in the X-Box that I mentioned.
"Look at me, mommy! I'm writing a book!" "Yes you are, dear. My, look at how long it is!"
Anyway, whatever. 'Right' and 'wrong' are conditional concepts when applied to crime and circumstances thereof. Dealing with KaZaA, quite frankly only your conscience can stop you. I didn't mean to convey the notion that what someone's conscience tells them makes whatever action right or wrong. Etc. I think I've basically driven my point into the ground, here, so I'll stop myself now.
