Completely Deaf

Though I fear that I’m banging on the same drum too often, I’ve been following a discussion (which has even heated up enough to call it a downright “argument”) on another blog.   Here is the location of that blog, and I’ve only looked at it for this particular discussion because a reader of my own blog pointed it to me: annihilvs.blogspot.com

You may not be interested in looking, or you might be, as long as you don’t mind a bit of strong language in the exchange of ideas being tossed around there.  I’ll sum it up a bit for you…What I was looking at was a discussion that apparently sprung up because the person who runs the blog is in a band, and was responding to an encounter with another so-called “fan” who had used their own blog to give a free download link for the artist’s album.   This is rather common these days that so-called “fans” set up blogs that share free download links.   Though it is common, I needn’t put too much effort (I hope) into reinforcing the fact that it is entirely illegal to share copyrighted music that way.

What has amazed me in watching this particular discussion unfold, in which I contributed a couple of times before throwing my hands into the air and giving up, is that the person who provided the download links, and even a couple other participants, went through such huge philosophical discussions and explinations to defend their positions.   It was pointed out over and over again that for so many reasons it was just plain WRONG to share somebody’s music freely on the internet if the artist did not specifically authorize that sharing.  It’s about copyright law.  How plain and simple can it be?

The perpetrator parried every point of fact by going every possible direction, from saying that he was “doing the artist a favor” by thus promoting the music via free downloads, to making a philosophical stance on the free nature of information exchange.  He spelled out the evils of capitalism, or the lack of morality on the part of the artist for not wanting to share their work freely, or whatever.    At one point the perpetrator said that it was like a restaurant choosing to give away 100 free meals in hopes that some of those would-be customers would return again in the future to actually buy a meal.  It was instantly pointed out that a person sharing illegal download links doesn’t fit this  particular comparison because (most important of all) he is NOT the restaurant owner.  He’s simply a guy who either breaks into the restaurant after-hours and invites an unlimited number of his friends to come steal the establishment’s food, or he is somebody who is sneaking meals out the backdoor and handing them to everybody in the ally.   Sure, maybe one of those freeloaders from the ally may come back and buy a meal in the future, but that does not absolve the thief of the fact that they stole the meals in the first place! Nor does it compensate the restaurant for losses.

It was said at least a dozen times by the artists’ various defenders that, all philosophies put aside, if the artist says “please don’t share my music for free with your friends” then it SHOULD be enough if you just claim to be a gentleman, to comply.  At least say, “Oh, sorry, if it upsets you, I won’t do it.”   You know, at least respect the artist as a fellow human being!    But no, even that was argued as a silly request.  It was like this perpetrator felt perfectly justified in acting against the will of the person he was claiming to help.  “Dang it, I’m going to help you promote your music whether you want me to or not!  You should be thankful I’m sharing it!”

I don’t know why other people haven’t figured out yet that the discussion will not end because the person who was sharing the music will NEVER admit he was wrong, will NEVER change his mind, will CONTINUE to defend his actions to the point of absolute absurdity, and will BREAK THE LAW just because he wants to, and will go through any means to justify it both publicly and in his own mind.   It is like this person, and probably millions of others, are completely deaf.   They can’t hear reason, they can’t hear facts, and they are often beyond feeling when it comes to interaction with the people who they claim to admire.   I’m surprised that even today the discussion is still brewing on that blog.  Heck, today somebody even claimed that “goods and services = information exchange” in saying that you can’t fight against nor stop the free exchange of information, and that the music this artist created is part of that, even though it is “goods and services”.   If that is the case, I’m going to go pick up some groceries, new clothes, and throw in some cool electronics from Best Buy without paying, and just claim that it is part of the “free information exchange”.  Woohoo!  If I get in trouble, I’m sure I can get a lawyer to defend me for free, because his “services” are just “free information exchange” too, right?

All I can say is…wow.   This is what it has come to.   People really do try to convince themselves that black is white and white is black.  Perhaps in the process they hope to create a new shade of grey where they can be accepted or maybe just feel good about themselves in their errant actions, whatever they may be.

Why I mention it again in my own blog is to use this example (file sharing) to shed a light on a bigger problem I see in society.  I think it does society a disservice when those-who-pretend-to-be-wise take it upon themselves to philosophize in areas where there is a long-standing standard of truth– where “right” and “wrong” have long been defined and understood.    Now, I know that I’m already going to tick some people off by saying that, because it’s just not COOL these days to say that there is a right and a wrong, but there is!  It’s just a fact.   We’re not talking about an all-encompasing spiritual “truth” here (that’s another discussion), but simply talking about the moral compass that tells us that it is WRONG to do something that hurts another person, physically, emotionally, or spiritually.    Why are there cases where public debate starts to question this?   As in the example above, it is WRONG to take somebody’s property from which they may barely “hope” to gain some kind of reward, and steal it, then spread it around against that person’s will.   OH, but philosophy or interpretation of public policy somehow changes that?  No, it doesn’t.

Is that not unlike arguing that beating your wife is justified in certain cases, because ultimately it was “for her own good”?   You argue that it will make her a better person in the end if you gratify your own desires or cave in to a complete lack of self control and beat her?   To some, this may seem like a large leap, but to me, it is not.   It is the act of self-gratification, and the lack or self-control or self-restraint that is one of society’s growing problems.   It is the desire to see one’s own will enforced, rather than thinking about other people and what effect those actions may have on them. One need not look much further than the current world economic crisis to see how self gratification and greed threw an entire world economy into chaos.   A group of people and corporate entities decided to do what they wanted for their own personal gain regardless of how “wrong” or “right” it was for the larger population.  Thus, society pays the price.

Personally, I do believe in an all-knowing God, but even if you don’t and you want to set that aside as the compass that points to good or evil, just take a look at things as a member of the human race.  We are intelligent, feeling beings, and it isn’t that hard, even if you don’t believe in a God, to see when you are hurting somebody for selfish reasons.  Once a person starts to act only in self interest, they head down a destructive path, yet that is what society is telling us more and more these days– “look out for number one.”   Sorry, but I disagree with Whitney Houston, and “learning to love yourself” is NOT “the greatest love of all”.   Learning to love others and show respect even when you see things differently, it a much greater love.  That is indeed charity, which is what the world needs more these days.  And by “charity” I do not meaning giving away that which is not yours to give.  I mean giving away self gratification in the interest of others.

Do we really want to live in a world where people are so deaf– where people don’t want to hear the cries of the person they hurt and ignore the pleas for understanding, because it might challenge their own philosophical wall that has been erected to cast long enough shadows for them to hide?

Sorry for getting so gloomy there.   It is just that every once in a while, I see something like this and I start to think– there it is again, where somebody no longer cares about anybody but themselves and will defend their selfish position to the death rather than admit that they just might be wrong, or that “wrong” even exists.

-Todd