It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.

Commoditization and the Law

-- By KateVershov - 14 Feb 2008

Introduction: Holmes and Legal Terminology

One of Holmes’ most resonating remarks warns the reader not to confound morality with law. He proposes banishing all words of moral significance from the law altogether, while urging lawyers to partake in economic analysis. However, Holmes offers no answers when economics itself becomes confounded with morality. In a society suffused with Lockean precepts of ownership, labor, and property it is unsurprising that instead of turning to oracles, we turn to economists for answers. The increasing rhetoric of commoditization of is one of the greatest challenges to any copyright reform.

Subsection A

Subsub 1

Subsection B

Subsub 1

Subsub 2

University of Chicago Enlightenment

After a full day of intense (and often inane) textual interpretation of the fair use doctrine, Randal Picker, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, postured himself as the practical breath of fresh air at the Fair Use Symposium. He energetically ran up and down the stairs of the auditorium while flashing PowerPoint? at the audience. The emphasis of his presentation was that digital rights management was beneficial to the consumer. According to Picker, the consumer will pay less for a song that only plays on his stereo, but will not play on his computer, and if he so chooses, he can pay more for the upgrade. In the same vein, DVDs that will only play in certain regions minimize consumer costs because their distributors will be able to gauge market demand and adjust promotion plans accordingly for subsequent regions. When questioned about the wisdom of treating creative works like real property, he quickly asserted the tragedy of the commons.

The problem with Picker’s assessment is that music is not simply an object of commerce to be bartered and traded to the highest bidder. Music’s value transcends any economic framework. People seek solace, hope, and inspiration in music. Music becomes embedded in an individual’s identity. Try saying the Beatles were “just a band” in a crowded room or trying to quantify the consumer surplus from owning Revolver. New research has even been published about how the ability to have music on-the-go has altered the way people interact with public spaces and mentally reshape their landscapes. This is to say nothing of the fact that unlike traditional commodities, music is a non-rival good whose scarcity is artificially created through legal fiction. Hardin, an ecologist who spent his life warning about human overpopulation, would have scratched his head if he were listening to Picker.

Picker really expected that his presentation would yield a moment of epiphany for the audience and that suddenly, consumers would believe that their “utility” would be increased if they could no longer buy a song, but could buy “a right to play a song on a stereo.” If one were to purchase a refrigerator with a sales agreement that read “I will only put food purchased at Safeway inside this refrigerator,” everyone would laugh. Why was no one laughing at Picker

What Property-Talk Has Wrought

Whirlpool positions its products as lifestyle amenities. They try to make refrigerators more than commodities – they’re selling convenience, flexibility, a style statement, customization, etc. The RIAA does the opposite. The language of commoditization is pervasive in the RIAA’s communications. They claim that anti-piracy enforcement allows the industry to “invest in new bands;” “illegal downloading of music is just as wrong as shoplifting;” “music has value and there are right and wrong ways to acquire it.” When the RIAA sues college students, they call them “thieves” and “pirates” with the same moral indignation as if the students were stealing bread out of the mouths of children. Their tactic is “if we say it often and loud enough, maybe someone will believe it.” It works. Consider Michael Hegg, a juror in the Jammie Thomas’s copyright infringement case. Hegg, who admits to having never been online, said that the jury was convinced that Thomas was a “pirate” to whom they “wanted to send a message.” He stated that “I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naïve. We’re not that stupid up here.”

Artists should certainly be compensated for their work. However, copyright law was designed “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” not just to pad anyone’s pockets. In considering copyright reform, the economic analysis must be just one of many frameworks employed in order to fulfill the Framers’ goal for copyright law. A consilient understanding of copyright law must begin by laying aside economic rhetoric and giving room for other approaches. Failing to do so, considerations like free speech, information access, and egalitarianism will find no forum in this debate. Without breaking free of a single framework, there will be no radical vision for a better future.

The Dangers of Economic Rhetoric

The problem is that the RIAA is not just seeking restitution and damages for the artists they represent. Frighteningly, it is insidiously propagating a particular world view where the distinction between commodity and culture becomes blurred. Marx’s commodity fetishism conceptualized workers’ alienation from social interaction, identity, and their own activity as the result of producing objects that became market commodities. Communism aside, Marx’s fears have been borne. Consider Richard Posner, who concludes that “’the prevention of rape is essential to protect the marriage market…and more generally to secure property rights in women’s persons’” as if bodily integrity were a fungible object.

Conclusion

Without acknowledging a framework beyond economics, the rhetoric of the music industry will prevail and copyright reform will be stalled indefinitely.

---

Margaret Jane Radin, Market-Inalienability, 100 Harv. L. Rev. 1849 (1987).

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KateVershov

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list