Entitlement Frenzy

I have never heard of this guy, nor of any of his works, but he has an ego that just won't quit. He also is a master of straw man fallacy. The irony is that it his complete lack of a grip on reality, not his talent, that is currently contributing to a boost in public awareness of him, thanks to a tweet by Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame.

While I have nothing but respect for Adam Savage, I have to strongly disagree with him on this one point. Not only is Jason Robert Brown not articulate on this matter, he is neither reasonable nor cogent on the matter. He is only parroting the RIAA's party line. Here's an explanation of why his "analogies" don't work:

First Story: Where did the screwdriver come from in the first place? In this "analogy", Mr. Brown did not create the screwdriver, which dooms his straw man from the start. The problems don't stop there, though. In his example, in order for it to be accurate he would still have to have his screwdriver after giving his friend a copy, at which point his argument loses all possible weight. But other problems include the fact that the duplicate screwdriver would have to be totally free, with no time, effort or materials having been contributed by Mr. Brown, and the further issue that in order to be an accurate analogue the duplicate screwdriver would have to both be missing certain significant qualities and that it would generate further revenue to the original creator of the screwdriver in the form of actual sales of officially manufactured screwdrivers to friends and acquaintances of the recipient of the copy who observed the copy and decided they wanted the real thing for themselves. There is also a very pointed omission of the fact that in the real life case, proper attribution would be given, which amounts to free advertising for the arrogant Mr. Brown.

Second Story: Once again, his position in the example is completely different than the real life case, and the scenario he posits is analogous to neither his nor the student's in the real life case. Basically you can just plug the arguments above into this slot, changing only the specific nouns. It really is exactly the same invalid and baseless "analogue" as the "First Story".

Third Story: Once again utterly invalid. The biggest problem with this scenario is that the DMCA invalidates the doctrine of fair use, and DRM in many cases makes fair use impossible. The problem with the DMCA is that in many cases it is impossible to obtain most types of fair use without removing copy protection, and the DMCA prohibits the removal of copy protection whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. (General copyright info, look for "Fair use and fair dealing" a little more than halfway down.)

It never ceases to amaze me how little the greedy, small-minded people who are in any way connected with the art and entertainment industries understand about human nature and economics. They continually insist on self-defeating policies and waste prodigious amounts of resources on technology that has no hope of anything but abject failure in its professed aims but costs honest consumers billions in not only pointless hardware but in wasted time and frustration when they can't properly enjoy what they have legally bought and for which they have followed all the rules.

There are several points that these people deliberately ignore.
1. It is not possible to deter pirates by preventing copying or reproducing media of any sort. If it can in any way be viewed, displayed or used, then it can be (usually quite easily) copied and redistributed. Period. End of Discussion.
2. The only way to eliminate piracy is to eliminate the profit the pirates make. The only way to do that is to reduce the cost of your product to consumers to a reasonable price, meaning to the point that everyone has no aversion to paying you for your product rather than the pirates. And if the pirates can make a profit at their prices, then so can you, in spite of the prevaricating propaganda that you are so fond of disseminating.
3. No one who goes to the effort necessary to obtain your product for free (or from a pirate) would ever pay you for it anyway, so you have lost nothing. You have not lost profit, nor have you lost goods or materials of any sort, since what they have obtained is a copy and not original media.
4. Contrary to the overbearing propaganda, the distribution of free media not only does not cut into profit, it generates profit. Remember the days when the only significant distribution media was vinyl and the radio? What happened? People heard songs - repeatedly - for free, and yet they still went out and bought albums. How about later, when high-quality cassettes and recorders were commonly and cheaply available and high-quality FM stereo radio was the rule? Even though people did record songs off the radio, they still continued to buy the official recordings on cassette and vinyl. The reasons are obvious. Even though the technology has changed, the exact same principles still apply and always will. When a person finds something they like, they want their own copy, but they want the official version, with the original packaging, notes, storage media, etc. The one and only scenario where they don't eventually replace their "unofficial" copy with the official version is when they never would have bought the official version anyway, and probably don't even use the copy they have.

The other issue that disturbs me is the amazingly overblown sense of entitlement that Mr. Brown exhibits, which is shared by all too many people in all too many different walks of life. If you believe him, "making a living" consists of a steady income of ungodly sums of money, not to mention all kinds of celebrity perks and benefits of which most of us can only dream. Bear in mind this is for doing something that he truly loves, as opposed to the overwhelming majority of humanity who simply do whatevery they have to survive, frequently doing things to which Mr. Brown wouldn't get within miles, never mind consider doing for a "living". If you are free, know where you're going to sleep tonight, have enough food to eat and enjoy what you're doing, you should consider yourself lucky and not worry about what anybody else is doing.

Unfortunately, this attitude is rampant in many people in the world today, who somehow believe that all their success and money is solely due to their own personal hard work and has nothing whatsoever to do with all the other people who have been involved. They somehow believe that their outlandish income is because they are smarter, have worked harder, and have contributed more to society than all the people who have an infinitesimal fraction of their income. This is of course the ultimate hubris, and the actual fact is that most corporations and organizations would get along just fine without CEOs, COOs and other figureheads and that there would be no chair or head positions without the many people who make up the bottom positions in the organization. It is the people who actually produce the organization's primary output who are indispensable, not the figureheads, and everyone is capable of ideas, not just an elite few. As for the attitude that "they should be grateful I gave them their jobs", the truth is that they could as easily be working for someone else. You are not giving them anything that they couldn't get elsewhere. On the other hand, your organization cannot function without their positions being filled.

This is all to say that there should be no variation in salaries whatsoever. The "level" of the work is irrelevant, because each and every one of the functions done by every position in an organization is just as critical as any other (with the notable exception of the figurehead), and if any of those functions were permanently stopped, the organization could not function and would grind to a halt. You can eliminate a position and redistribute the functions, but you cannot eliminate the functions.

Bottom Line: If it were possible to have absolute iron control over who, when, where and how your "intellectual property" is used, you would have a very nasty surprise in store in that your celebrity and income would drop drastically.

The Real Dope: No artistic "intellectual property" is so unique or important that it or you are irreplaceable, and in fact there are thousands ready to take your place the instant you falter. Get over yourself and do what you love because you love it, not because you want to get rich.

Update It's neither piracy nor theft that is cutting into profits. What is cutting into profits is boycott. Not the organized variety, but the individual kind. Many people are so pissed off and/or frustrated about all the new copy protection schemes that make it difficult or impossible to obtain fair and reasonable use of legally bought media that they've stopped buying. I myself have not bought a CD in over 5 years, and probably will never again buy any new music. Nor do I download or "share" anything. The few new files I have are offered free directly from the artist (which makes me want to buy their stuff and give them money). But I have an extensive and eclectic CD collection that I amassed before the RIAA got into the rip-off game, and am perfectly happy listening to my old tunes.