Powerful Statements and Statistics on Piracy and Internet Morality

A growing popular subject is that of the “$8 billion iPod case.” Rob Reid presents a TedTalk on this subject. He brings up the debate over copyright laws and quantitative reasoning, proposing that “we employ and enlist the cutting edge field of copyright math whenever we approach this subject.” Reid’s TedTalk does just that. He approaches the topic of copyright and piracy by presenting quantitative examples that, at first, show the astounding effects piracy has on media content but then show that it’s not what people make it seem. His first example, for instance, was that, recently (2011), the Motion Picture Association of America released a statement saying that “more than $58 billion is lost to the U.S. economy annually due to content theft.” The rest of Reid’s TedTalk is about how copyright mathematicians will analyze this number rather than argue it. For example, he says this $58 billion economic loss is the equivalent to the entire American corn crop failing along with all of our fruit cops as well as wheat, cotton, tobacco, rice, and sorghum. He brings a humorous viewpoint about this topic; in fact, at times, he seems to be making fun of the people who get so uptight about piracy, saying, along with analysis, that we are not actually losing $58 billion annually because big content markets are growing along with historic norms. He begins to finish his TedTalk by claiming that piracy has not prevented additional growth but copyright math tells us that piracy has caused foregone growth in a market that has no historic norms. Reid’s TedTalk brings an interesting, humorous, and opposing view to my topic. While he never directly states his opinion on whether or not he thinks piracy is theft, he brings up statistics and facts that could help one form their opinion on the subject. What’s at stake is really up to the viewer and could be whether or not they take a mathematical approach or a realistic approach to the topic of copyright laws and quantitative reasoning. Rob Reid is the creator of Rhapsody, where you pay $10 a month for unlimited songs. Of course his opinion on piracy is going to be one that supports the fact he is the creator of a service that, in some ways, allows piracy. While you may be paying for the service you are not paying for individual songs. After you have downloaded or listened to 10 songs then you are technically pirating the rest. I believe Reid’s frame and what he is trying to convey is the fact that our copyright laws do not comply with our society today and that the mathematical numbers are not accurate because of our society today. This could bring up an entire discussion on copyright laws and I am actually interested in further researching our copyright laws to see if they are applicable to today’s society or not. However, he is so persistent on his views of piracy and copyright laws that I feel like he is trying to make me believe something that I don’t know if I want to believe or not.

NPR has a great piece written by Lulu Miller and Alix Spiegel called, “Can a Computer Change the Essence of Who You Are?” Their focus was on whether or not having access to background information on people changed the way people responded to you. For example, with background information one might be able to find out that “Kenji’s” daughter was in college. With this one piece of information a person would be able to ask Kenji how her daughter is doing, what she’s majoring in, where she is going to college, etc., making the conversation a lot more personable. The point that Miller and Spiegel make is that by being personable it conveys to others that you care and the response by those whom you “care” about is way different. They suddenly become interested and accepting. This subject applies to my topic because it discusses how online interaction may or may not change us as humans. What’s at stake is how far we take our involvement with social media and how we let it change us. I don’t believe that Miller and Spiegel have a direct frame they are writing in because they bring up at least three different viewpoints on this topic. I personally enjoy this because it gives me three different perspective to look at instead of feeling like I am being told to believe one thing. This topic allows me to explore how involved a person has to be with social media in order to be changed as a person. A person could be benefited or damaged by their involvement with social media. Social media could help people have more confidence which could either provide them with the confidence they need for social relationships or it could provide them with too much confidence, turning them into a person who says whatever comes to mind, which is not always good.

The focus of an article called, “The Internet, Cyberethics, and Virtual Morality,” written by Robert Hauptman and Susan Motin is trying to stop the influence of the internet on the way we act. Hauptman and Motin say, “Computers have changed the way we create. The Internet is changing the way we communicate. We should make certain that these things do not change the way we act.” I could not agree more with this statement. Something else they say that I really like, and believe is the main issue they present is, “They [cyberethics and virtual morality] are particularly harmful if they allow us to confuse reality with a nonexistent universe where unethical actions are permitted.” I believe the issue that Hauptman and Motin bring up relate to my inquiry because it discusses how internet can change a person but also how we can prevent being changed by the internet, which is something that most articles I have come across do not address. I believe the frame that Hauptman and Motin are writing in is that the internet is powerful enough to change who we are as a person and how we act in reality. I don’t think they are trying to make us believe their opinion; however, they are elaborating on something that is very true and needs to be brought to people’s attention. I think I could use this article to take my inquiry to places beyond the basics. It will raise questions about how to prevent being changed by the internet.

In an article written by Tamara Conniff, a point is brought up which I have addressed but have not found any written material on yet. The article is titled, “Artists, Execs, and Lawmakers Address Effects on Piracy.” The issue is clearly the effects that piracy has on these people. Conniff specifically focuses on reports from a legislative hearing at the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media in the California Legislature. I believe this issue applies to my topic because it brings up a valid point spoken from the artists and creators themselves about how piracy hurts the media (music, movies, etc.) industry. I think that it could be a powerful point to help persuade people to buy their content instead of pirate it. An example, and something that stood out to me, is when producer/songwriter, Glen Ballard, said that if “downloading continued to run rampant, fewer and fewer songwriters would be able to support themselves in their craft.” Coming from a songwriter himself, this is a powerful and troubling statement. I believe the frame that Conniff is writing in is that of trying to get people to understand the harmful effects piracy has on the actual artists themselves. It helps tremendously that the statements made and brought up are coming from the artists, creators, producers, songwriters, etc. This source will help me further form my opinion on piracy as well as bring in views from the people being affected by the problem rather than views from people who simply have opinions on the problem.

My Opinion on Piracy and Online Accountability Revised

I.

My first inquiry question asks why, in a society where stealing is unacceptable, does piracy not raise more concerns. My opinions of the subject of piracy stem from personal experiences. Whenever I started this project I knew for certain that I was completely against piracy. Mainly because my dad is in the music industry and I have seen and heard of the affects that piracy can have on artists, record companies, creators, and even stores. However, I began to realize that I have pirated songs before, not even realizing it at the time because the act was so innocent. After thinking back on my personal experiences, I think it is easy to say why piracy is not viewed as stealing in the minds of so many people. I honestly believe people see pirating as an act of copying, not stealing. For example, I’ve had my friends make me copies of CD’s before and I’ve had someone give me a memory stick loaded with nearly a thousand songs by The Beatles; if I were to have bought all of those songs from iTunes it would have resulted in me spending hundreds of dollars, but that fact never even crossed my mind at the time. From the experiences that I have had it was clear in my mind that I was copying something, not stealing it. Then I formed the view that every “copied” item is a lost sale, which I strongly believe. I really don’t see how anyone could not see that statement as being true. Taking my experience for example, if I wouldn’t have had those copies of my favorite songs, I would have had to purchase a CD or record from the store. In doing so, I would have not only given the artist the money that they deserve, but I would have given the store profit as well. By copying these songs it is taking away money from those who have earned it. I see that it is insanely easy to get away with pirating and it doesn’t leave people feeling guilty when they do it, unlike stealing from a store. I still consider it stealing though, as do many others. While I know I could get away with pirating, I would personally rather just buy the songs or movies. First of all, it is way easier to simply purchase the media rather than go through the hassle of downloading software that accommodates the “stolen” media and then wait for everything to download and have to convert files and so on and so forth. Not to mention, a lot of the websites that you can pirate movies from come with viruses that can take over your computer. You might as well just buy the movie if you’re going to have to pay for someone to clean the virus from your computer anyway. I’ve learned this through experience, for instance, I bought a CD and made a copy of it for my friend, however, the CD would only play on my computer and not hers so she had no use for it… see, it’s too much of a hassle!

My second inquiry question asks, in what ways are people more or less accountable for in digital spaces? My opinions for this come pretty easily. The simplest answer I could give as to how people are less accountable for is that people are literally hidden behind a computer screen. If they choose to be anonymous then no one would know who they were and they could do whatever they desired because there is no one there to stop them. I can guarantee you that the majority of people who insult and bully others online would never dare say those same things if they were speaking face to face. There’s something about anonymity that change who we are. It’s not just anonymity either, when people are behind a screen they feel more powerful. I don’t know all of the reasons for this but I think that being behind a screen gives people the time they need to type out exactly how they feel and they can make it sound as mean or as nice as possible. When you are face to face with a person, time goes out the window and fear sometimes kicks in because you don’t want to see the reactions of the other person when you say something rude. However, in some cases, people are more accountable for in digital spaces. I believe that in these cases the person wants other people to know who they are either to gain popularity or so others can actually hold them accountable for something. For example, I know people who are dieting, trying to lose weight, or trying to exercise more who post their goals and progress on social media so that their peers can hold them accountable for it. In this way, being in the public eye is helpful for them. Digital spaces can definitely have it’s advantages and disadvantages.

II.

The first statement I take a second glance at, regarding my first inquiry question about piracy, is found in a blog post by Mike LaBossiere. He says, “If someone merely copies software, then they have not deprived me of my copy and hence I am unharmed by this.” My “yeah, but” reaction to this statement is, “Yeah, but the problem with piracy is the fact that, by copying, the original producers of the media are losing money. Of course no one minds making a copy of a movie or album for their friend and giving it to them. That isn’t the problem with piracy.”

A phrase that I found in regards to my first inquiry question about piracy that I have a “Yeah, but” response to is one found in the same blog post by Mike LaBossiere. He uses the phrase, “copying your identity” to make a connection between piracy and having your identity stolen. My “Yeah, but” statement to this phrase is, “Yeah, but no one ever refers to having their social security number or credit card number taken as having it copied. People always refer to it as someone having stole their identity. Why would you compare nicely copying a CD for a friend to stealing someone’s identity? There should be no relation there whatsoever. First of all, no one voluntarily gives someone their social security number for them to use. Yes, people give other people copies of a CD, movie, video game, etc. You are comparing an actual crime to something you are arguing is not a crime (yet it is). If you’re saying that piracy is like stealing someone’s identity, does this mean I can pirate someone credit card number or social security number and not think twice about it and most likely have no one question me?”

In a blog post titled, “Piracy is Not Theft: Problems of a Nonsense Metaphor,” writer Ernesto states, “A few years ago best-selling author Paulo Coelho made a Russian Translation of The Alchemist available without permission from his publisher. As a result the sales in Russia skyrocketed from 1,000 books a year to over 1,000,000.” Ernesto opens his blog post with this statement and uses it as an example to show how there are positive sides to the act of “copying.” My “Yeah, but” statement is, “Yeah, but Ernesto gives absolutely no other details about this example/incident. What other things played into the increase in sales? It does not even make sense to me that because someone made a copy of a book available that sales increased. Wouldn’t people just use the copies available instead of buying the book? Maybe I am confused but then again no details at all were given about this incident so confusion would be natural.”

Ernesto brings up phrases that Stefan Larsson, a researcher in Sweden, says over and over again in his argument. Larsson often uses the phrase, “public norms,” when talking about how public norms and law coincide with each other when it comes to deciding whether or not piracy is theft. In response to this phrase I have to say, “Yeah, but what do you consider public norms? How do they relate to piracy? Each person/state/country have different public norms so does that mean each person/state/country have different views on piracy? If the law says piracy is illegal, how do public norms change that? Should public norms be changed because of the law or should the law be changed because of public norms? And how does all of this affect piracy and people’s views on it?”

Another statement I found myself questioning was one Holly Lipschultz says in her blog post, “Piracy IS Theft, No Matter What People Say.” She says, “Piracy applies to printed matter, too.” This got me thinking, “Yeah, but what about when teachers make copies of documents or pages of a book to pass out to their students, is this piracy? Technically it is if the creators did not give permission to make copies of their work but where do you draw the line? You can’t expect 100 students to buy a book just to read an excerpt from it. Is displaying the page of a book on a projector considered piracy too? Eventually you have to do what you have to do in order to teach and progress in a class without spending money of books/articles/documents you will use one time.”

While there are very few statements and phrases that I have a “Yeah, but” response to regarding my second inquiry question, one that I found was on bullying.about.com. The writer said, “Cyberbullying is a growing problem that impacts kids nationwide every day.” While I completely agree with this statement my, “Yeah, but” response is, “Yeah, but cyberbullying does not only affect kids. In fact, some of the harsher insults come from older teenagers and people in their early twenties. Also, there’s no way we could leave out the people whose jobs are to criticize celebrities and models. Those people are paparazzi and magazine companies where the employees are probably older than 18. So, while I would agree with the original statement, I would not limit it to just kids.”

To be honest it is somewhat difficult to find phrases that I have a “Yeah, but” response to just because the topic of online accountability is fairly general and most people have the same opinions about it. However, Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray talks about possible reasons for why people are less accountable for online. She makes a connection between online bullying and problematic behavior. She says, “Adolescent cyberbullies have been found to engage in other problematic behaviors as well.” “Problematic behaviors” is an extremely broad term so my “Yeah, but” response to that is, “Yeah, but how would you define problematic behaviors? What makes one behavior more problematic than another? What makes an ‘adolescent problematic behavior?’ Are all types of problematic behavior associated with cyberbullying or are there specific ones?” Like I said, this is not very disputable because I think we all have a general idea of problematic behaviors but it is hard to dispute something that a lot of people agree on.

In Britney Fitzgerald’s article on The Huffington Post, she brings up an experiment that two professors performed that illustrated the effects of social media on people. The two professors stated that because of the positive view that is presented to others online, there is an increase in self-esteem and a decrease in self-control. To that I say, “Yeah, but there are multiple factors that play into both self-esteem and self-control. Yes, the two can be linked, but do a few experiments actually prove that just because there is an increase in self-esteem there is a decrease in self-control? And in the cases where that is true, what are the other factors that come into play here because there are a lot of different reasons for a person’s level of self-esteem and of self-control.”

From this same article, in referral to a study performed at Utah Valley University, Fitzgerald says, “The information from Utah found that users who didn’t personally know their Facebook “friends” very well believed that “others had better lives, leading to lower self-esteem.” My problem with this comes from the word “friends” and the word “others.” My “Yeah, but” response would have to be, “Yeah, but who are these “friends” or “other” people? They could be celebrities who have luxurious lifestyles, personal trainers who have fit bodies, makeup artists who look beautiful or athletes who are extremely talented. It is natural for humans to be intimidated by strong, powerful people and along with that personal struggles could form but inspiration could form as well. And that’s why it is difficult to say that being friends with people on Facebook who you do not know well is the only factor to low self-esteem. What do these “friends” offer that make their lives appear to be so much better than yours?”

III.

Something that could easily complicate my inquiry question about piracy is what people consider to be “stealing.” Obviously we know that stealing is taking away something from another person. I mean some people could think that taking a candy bar from the convenient store without paying is stealing but picking up a dollar off the ground outside from someone they saw drop it is not. While the majority of people agree on what stealing is, there definitely are a select few whose views are twisted and morphed into what they want stealing to be. I mean just think about the phrase “finder’s keepers.” For example, I know people at my school who would take items from the lost and found table, knowing it belonged to someone else, and not consider it stealing. I think a problem for those who pirate are the fact they do not consider piracy to be stealing. Another problem is they do think about piracy as stealing but since they most likely won’t be punished for it they have no problem doing it anyway, especially since they won’t carry around a guilty conscious.

Something that might complicate my second inquiry question about online accountability is the simple question, “How far is too far?” Everyone has different standards, morals, values, and have all been taught differently. One person may have a different view on what online bullying is compared to another person just because of what they were taught. For example, one kid may be making fun of someone online but mean it as a joke in the most harmless way possible but the kid he was making fun of could take it seriously. This could be an effect of how those children were raised. Clearly the first kid was taught that lightly joking is no problem but the other kid was taught that he should never make fun of anyone even if it is a joke or not. This seems like a simple concept but as people get older the “how far is too far?” question becomes more serious as teens and adolescents can be dealing with more serious issues like depression, anxiety, stress, and self-confidence. Not to mention, the older people get the more opinions they have on things. I think this can play a huge role into how someone is more or less accountable for online.

My Opinion on Piracy and Online Accountability

I.

My first inquiry question asks why, in a society where stealing is unacceptable, does piracy not raise more concerns. My opinions of the subject of piracy stem from personal experiences. Whenever I started this project I knew for certain that I was completely against piracy. Mainly because my dad is in the music industry and I have seen and heard of the affects that piracy can have on artists, record companies, creators, and even stores. However, I began to realize that I have pirated songs before, not even realizing it at the time because the act was so innocent. After thinking back on my personal experiences, I think it is easy to say why piracy is not viewed as stealing in the minds of so many people. I honestly believe people see pirating as an act of copying, not stealing. For example, I’ve had my friends make me copies of CD’s before and I’ve had someone give me a memory stick loaded with nearly a thousand songs by The Beatles; if I were to have bought all of those songs from iTunes it would have resulted in me spending hundreds of dollars, but that fact never even crossed my mind at the time. From the experiences that I have had it was clear in my mind that I was copying something, not stealing it. Then I formed the view that every “copied” item is a lost sale, which I strongly believe. I really don’t see how anyone could not see that statement as being true. Taking my experience for example, if I wouldn’t have had those copies of my favorite songs, I would have had to purchase a CD or record from the store. In doing so, I would have not only given the artist the money that they deserve, but I would have given the store profit as well. By copying these songs it is taking away money from those who have earned it. I see that it is insanely easy to get away with pirating and it doesn’t leave people feeling guilty when they do it, unlike stealing from a store. I still consider it stealing though, as do many others. While I know I could get away with pirating, I would personally rather just buy the songs or movies. First of all, it is way easier to simply purchase the media rather than go through the hassle of downloading software that accommodates the “stolen” media and then wait for everything to download and have to convert files and so on and so forth. Not to mention, a lot of the websites that you can pirate movies from come with viruses that can take over your computer. You might as well just buy the movie if you’re going to have to pay for someone to clean the virus from your computer anyway. I’ve learned this through experience, for instance, I bought a CD and made a copy of it for my friend, however, the CD would only play on my computer and not hers so she had no use for it… see, it’s too much of a hassle!

My second inquiry question asks, in what ways are people more or less accountable for in digital spaces? My opinions for this come pretty easily. The simplest answer I could give as to how people are less accountable for is that people are literally hidden behind a computer screen. If they choose to be anonymous then no one would know who they were and they could do whatever they desired because there is no one there to stop them. I can guarantee you that the majority of people who insult and bully others online would never dare say those same things if they were speaking face to face. There’s something about anonymity that change who we are. It’s not just anonymity either, when people are behind a screen they feel more powerful. I don’t know all of the reasons for this but I think that being behind a screen gives people the time they need to type out exactly how they feel and they can make it sound as mean or as nice as possible. When you are face to face with a person, time goes out the window and fear sometimes kicks in because you don’t want to see the reactions of the other person when you say something rude. However, in some cases, people are more accountable for in digital spaces. I believe that in these cases the person wants other people to know who they are either to gain popularity or so others can actually hold them accountable for something. For example, I know people who are dieting, trying to lose weight, or trying to exercise more who post their goals and progress on social media so that their peers can hold them accountable for it. In this way, being in the public eye is helpful for them. Digital spaces can definitely have it’s advantages and disadvantages.

II.

The first statement I take a second glance at, regarding my first inquiry question about piracy, is found in a blog post by Mike LaBossiere. He says, “If someone merely copies software, then they have not deprived me of my copy and hence I am unharmed by this.” My “yeah, but” reaction to this statement is, “Yeah, but the problem with piracy is the fact that, by copying, the original producers of the media are losing money. Of course no one minds making a copy of a movie or album for their friend and giving it to them. That isn’t the problem with piracy.”

A phrase that I found in regards to my first inquiry question about piracy that I have a “Yeah, but” response to is one found in the same blog post by Mike LaBossiere. He uses the phrase, “copying your identity” to make a connection between piracy and having your identity stolen. My “Yeah, but” statement to this phrase is, “Yeah, but no one ever refers to having their social security number or credit card number taken as having it copied. People always refer to it as someone having stole their identity. Why would you compare nicely copying a CD for a friend to stealing someone’s identity? There should be no relation there whatsoever. First of all, no one voluntarily gives someone their social security number for them to use. Yes, people give other people copies of a CD, movie, video game, etc. You are comparing an actual crime to something you are arguing is not a crime (yet it is). If you’re saying that piracy is like stealing someone’s identity, does this mean I can pirate someone credit card number or social security number and not think twice about it and most likely have no one question me?”

While there are very few statements and phrases that I have a “Yeah, but” response to regarding my second inquiry question, one that I found was on bullying.about.com. The writer said, “Cyberbullying is a growing problem that impacts kids nationwide every day.” While I completely agree with this statement my, “Yeah, but” response is, “Yeah, but cyberbullying does not only affect kids. In fact, some of the harsher insults come from older teenagers and people in their early twenties. Also, there’s no way we could leave out the people whose jobs are to criticize celebrities and models. Those people are paparazzi and magazine companies where the employees are probably older than 18. So, while I would agree with the original statement, I would not limit it to just kids.”

To be honest it is somewhat difficult to find phrases that I have a “Yeah, but” response to just because the topic of online accountability is fairly general and most people have the same opinions about it. However, Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray talks about possible reasons for why people are less accountable for online. She makes a connection between online bullying and problematic behavior. She says, “Adolescent cyberbullies have been found to engage in other problematic behaviors as well.” “Problematic bheaviors” is an extremely broad term so my “Yeah, but” response to that is, “Yeah, but how would you define problematic behaviors? What makes one behavior more problematic than another? What makes an ‘adolescent problematic behavior?’ Are all types of problematic behavior associated with cyberbullying or are there specific ones?” Like I said, this is not very disputable because I think we all have a general idea of problematic behaviors but it is hard to dispute something that a lot of people agree on.

III.

Something that could easily complicate my inquiry question about piracy is what people consider to be “stealing.” Obviously we know that stealing is taking away something from another person. I mean some people could think that taking a candy bar from the convenient store without paying is stealing but picking up a dollar off the ground outside from someone they saw drop it is not. While the majority of people agree on what stealing is, there definitely are a select few whose views are twisted and morphed into what they want stealing to be. I mean just think about the phrase “finder’s keepers.” For example, I know people at my school who would take items from the lost and found table, knowing it belonged to someone else, and not consider it stealing. I think a problem for those who pirate are the fact they do not consider piracy to be stealing. Another problem is they do think about piracy as stealing but since they most likely won’t be punished for it they have no problem doing it anyway, especially since they won’t carry around a guilty conscious.

Something that might complicate my second inquiry question about online accountability is the simple question, “How far is too far?” Everyone has different standards, morals, values, and have all been taught differently. One person may have a different view on what online bullying is compared to another person just because of what they were taught. For example, one kid may be making fun of someone online but mean it as a joke in the most harmless way possible but the kid he was making fun of could take it seriously. This could be an effect of how those children were raised. Clearly the first kid was taught that lightly joking is no problem but the other kid was taught that he should never make fun of anyone even if it is a joke or not. This seems like a simple concept but as people get older the “how far is too far?” question becomes more serious as teens and adolescents can be dealing with more serious issues like depression, anxiety, stress, and self-confidence. Not to mention, the older people get the more opinions they have on things. I think this can play a huge role into how someone is more or less accountable for online.

Aspects of Internet Morality

I was most interested in focusing on the piracy aspect of internet morality and, more specifically, in a society where stealing is not an acceptable act, why does piracy not raise more concerns? Or does it? I started looking around on google searching for things such as, “Is piracy stealing?” I have read some interesting opinions. Some people say that piracy is stealing, no matter what. Others say things like, piracy is not theft it is “copying.” I found the latter quite intriguing. Swedish sociologist of law Stefan Larsson believes that using the word “theft” to talk about piracy is a huge problem. Larsson argues this because of an increase in sales after author Paulo Coelho made a Russian translation of The Alchemist available. Sales of the book went from 1,000 per year to over 1,000,000. Larsson believes that examples like this one prove that the act of piracy, or “copying,” is more beneficial. He did not give details on this example but I would definitely be interested in researching to find out the full story. Larsson’s main argument is that in theft, the one being stolen from loses the object. He says that this is not the case with piracy because nothing is lost, only copied. The first thing that comes to mind whenever I read his opinion is that while no one “loses” a song, book, movie, etc., the copies being made are almost equivalent to the number of sales the song, book, or movie would be making if a free copy were not available. Larsson briefly brings this up and basically ends his argument by saying that our copyright laws today are not in line with our current digital age. ( https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-not-theft-111104/ )

On the opposite side of this opinion, there is the argument that no matter who says it isn’t, piracy IS stealing. I found this blog that argues just that. Holly Lipschultz brings up this picture that is floating around on the internet (included at the top of my blog post). She says that the picture portrays such a simple idea and completely ignores the copyright laws we have. Lipschultz brings up the point that I completely agree with: while we need to share things, such as books in a library, we also need to balance sharing with the creator’s rights. The creators of movies, music, and books have put time, effort, and money into creating them and they need a way to make that money back. A sidenote is that there is an option for creators to use a Creative Commons license which allows the free copying and sharing of their content. This is where Lipschultz brings piracy into the argument. She says exactly the point that I said earlier, while piracy does not affect the original copy, it takes away the sale from the creator. Lipschultz says that this is why piracy IS theft. She goes into detail on all of the aspects of how piracy is theft and I am excited to dive in and learn about the reasons for why it is theft. I also plan on looking into the copyright laws that we do have so I can understand where the argument for and against piracy are coming from. (http://hollythelibrarian.com/2013/05/piracy-is-theft-no-matter-what-people-say/ )

The second inquiry question I will be asking is, “In what ways are people more or less accountable for in digital spaces?” While almost anyone can answer this question with some basic answers, I am interested in digging deeper and finding the reasons why people feel as if they can become a different person online. I feel like there is a lot of different views behind this question, some being positive and some being negative. When most people hear this topic/question, they probably first think of the many people online who are bullies and judgmental. However, not many people think of the people who feel so shy and hidden in reality that they take to the internet in order to really express themselves and who they are. In this way, a positive light is shone on the topic of internet morality. To start answering my second inquiry question I looked on Huffington Post. I looked at an article called, “Facebook Psychology: 7 Reasons Why We Act Differently Online.” I am going to highlight a few of these reasons that stuck out at me and ones that I believe will start helping me answer my inquiry question. Keith Wilcox and Andrew T. Stephen did a series of experiments to come up with these 7 reasons. The first reason that stood out to me was that, “When we feel comfortable online, we sometimes go overboard.” Wilcox and Stephen say that along with an increase in our self-confidence when we are online comes a loss of self-control, providing people a reason to participate in online bullying. A second reason Wilcox and Stephen come up with is that, “It’s easier to hate online personas than it is to hate people in real life.” They say that since people have less of an ability to tailor their messages online, other people may not perceive them the same way as they would in person. I am interested in researching further into these reasons as well as the other reasons that Wilcox and Stephen give. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/facebook-psychology-7-reasons_n_1951856.html )