I am becoming increasingly concerned about a trend towards expecting something for nothing. This is exhibiting itself in different ways but I see it evolving towards anarchy. How do we address this?
I still maintain that theft is the ultimate in market economics; how much I am prepared to pay for this item that I admire is a slightly increased risk of incarceration, if that. So why do we pay for things? Some may pay because they think that it is right for the vendor to receive something in return. However as we move relentlessly onwards towards megalithic corporations and a few demonstrably very rich people it becomes increasingly difficult to see it that way.
"Money, so they say, is the root of all evil today" (Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon). It took me quite a while to discover that this is actually a misquote. The original Biblical reference is (variously translated) that the love of money is the root of many kinds of evil. I had always been uncomfortable with the first view; money is, to me, merely a mechanism for making concrete the abstract concept of how much one person owes another. Have you ever seen "Doc Hollywood"? That shows, in an amusing way, the problem with a simple barter system. How does a farmer with a cow use bartering to obtain a loaf of bread from a baker? The farmer cannot simply cut off a couple of hundred grams of meat from the cow. It seems very reasonable to me that the farmer gives the cow to the butcher in exchange for some form of credit and then exchanges some of that credit with the baker for the loaf of the bread. The baker then exchanges the credit with the butcher for the portion of the cow. The butcher continues to swap the bits of meat from the cow to other people who have directly or indirectly obtained credit from the farmer. Money is merely the mechanism for that credit. As we become more comfortable with online banking, where the money stops being physical coins and notes, we get closer to the abstract credit concept behind it.
We have always had an unequal distribution of "stuff". In the "old days" in many places it tended to be some form of aristocracy that had most of the money. Then it was a "nouveau riche" who made their money in the industrial revolution. Currently it seems to me that we are developing a new class of "nouveau riche" amongst entertainers (and it grates with me that sport has become an entertainment industry), and amongst financiers. It seems to me that several other factors have entered the equation in a big way. We have now twice changed who the rich are over a mere couple of centuries; this has helped evolve the (perfectly reasonable) view that it is now possible for anyone to get rich. Also in the western world in particular it has become relatively easy to get "enough"; I remember when the definition of poverty started including how many televisions a family had. (And yet the western world has a tremendous number of people in true poverty, literally unable to afford breakfast for the family). Added to that we have the increasing life expectancy that comes from our medical developments, and our move towards distributed families and care centres. This adds pressure to save; we need to develop long-term wealth during our working lives in order to support us during our retirements. And finally we have the increased communication capabilities that allow us to see all these changes.
So how does this lot all come together with the original title? Consider downloading music cds and dvds. I am sure that most of us have been tempted and many of us, it would appear, have no qualms about doing so. What would be the balance of views if pre-manufactured music CDs were available at a cost of 1 dollar? What if the online music suppliers charged only 10 cents per track? In other words what if the cost of purchasing became so low that people could make the purchase without even thinking about it? I know it would make a difference to me; as it is I have to think very carefully and only really consider buying them as presents and gifts, not as a consumable product. So why do people download music against the express wishes of the copyright holder? (Lets leave for a moment the downloading of music that the artist has explicitly provided for free download). I believe that a major factor is the interpretation of where the money for a CD goes. Of course the first part of this is the view that a fat chunk of it goes to the "nouveau riche" of the entertainment sector, especially the artists but also the supporting executives. I heard, the other day, an argument that this is why concert ticket prices have been rising; the artists are not getting their wealth from the CD royalties any longer so they need to make it up elsewhere. Part of the cost of a CD feeds back into the financial infrastructure; it supports the interest on loans etc. and thus adds to the long-term wealth of those who invested; money they are going to need in their retirement. That makes some sense to me as a middle-aged worker but is hardly likely to have any real effect on young people or those living without any RRSPs etc. So basically the problem is that many of those that download music illegally do so because they see the cost of a CD going to a few already tremendously rich people rather than to the mass of which they are a part.
So do we see this happening anywhere else? How about the computing industry? Who are the richest people in the world at the moment? A few individuals in the computing industry, especially through the route of Microsoft (and a family that made a success of Wal-Mart). So why should we, the people, add to their wealth? For me it's an easy question; because that is how I feed my family. In any industry there will be a few at the top that get very rich where the peons at the bottom make a living. And remember that so many of the rich these days are only rich because we think that the stocks they hold are actually valuable; much of their wealth disappears as soon as we revalue those stocks at 1% of their current values. But as a result of these heads that are visibly rich there has been a backlash against the computing industry out of which has arisen the Linux community and the free as in beer part of the open source community in general. I don't have any real problem with that except that it threatens my livelihood as a programmer. I put food on the table by writing software and in my spare time I do completely different things, most of which have an insignificant effect on industry. For example I don't go out and work at a store for free, or help on the farm. But the worker at a computer store who goes home in the evening and helps develop open-source software is undercutting the worker whose paying job is writing software. There are a couple of thing that make me comfortable personally with all this. I believe that it is in the world's best interest that Microsoft do not develop the total (real, not legal) monopoly that it is well on the way to. (I also have to admire, in a rueful way, what they have done in developing the PC industry.) I also recognise that there is a tremendous amount of work to be done in the software industry and there is room for both payed and free development. However I am sure that this is going to have an impact on the viability of programming over the next generation and I will be very happy if my own child goes into a totally different sphere of employment. (Mind you, my father suggested that I ought to stay clear of the computer industry but it has served me well, so we will see what we will see).
So if we accept that there is a place for free software how does that fit into the financial world? I think small donations have to be the way to go. Consider a realistic relationship with, for example, RedHat. They have gone to the trouble of putting together a Linux distribution. That has involved costs (adapting build scripts, adding patches, paying for servers and CD duplication etc.) It is possible to download the material and use it as many times as you like. Thus the incremental cost to yourself will probably be a couple of dollars for the CDs onto which to burn the downloaded images. But you haven't given them anything. However currently the smallest non-zero thing that you can easily give them is a maintenance contract that you possibly don't need, and the cost of that over several years becomes comparable with the cost of doing business with Microsoft, which is too much as far as I am concerned. I really wish that they would sell bona fide RedHat CDs for about 5 to 10 dollars, without manuals or maintenace. So maybe it's just a matter of giving them a donation. The internet is beginning to set itself up for efficient penny finance, which is a good thing.
So where does that leave us? It depends on who we are. If you are in the entertainment business then think about the message you are sending out and don't be surprised when, as a result of your glorification of money and a few stars, people choose to take from you for free instead of adding to your wealth. If you are thinking of downloading music without paying then think also of who you aren't paying. Personally I would advocate against downloading, but if you still insist on doing so then give a little charity to the old folks home, or even better, go and help out at one. If you are writing software for free then think of the programmer you are putting out of work, and make sure you program to the best of your ability (and that you develop that ability). And if you are downloading free software, think about making a finacial contribution to the teams that developed it.