Summary: Our incentives and motivation massively impact the lenses through which we understand reality....and....don't ever let anyone give up believing in themselves. LOVE IT!!!
There's a False Equivalency between walking from a restaurant without paying and illegally downloading music. They would be the same only if the chef could take the meal and duplicate it as many times as he wants for little cost but then still demand the same amount of payment for each one. The matter isn't that people are pirating, it's that the supply of music has become infinite and therefore it's economic value has dropped to zero in the eyes of the consumer.
That is only because we choose to rationalize it in that way. It is still technically stealing but you don't feel bad about it because you rationalize in such a way that you don't feel like you're hurting anybody
Alex Dombrower well actually saying that something has a certain market value when actually it does not is also cheating and also a rationalization . Many commodities used to have one value and after sometime they became obsolete and so lost their market price. At some point music and movies where exceptional works of art and then the whole thing became an industry . People were willing to pay a lot of money . Now the industry has shifted . People don't buy music but they buy fast internet. I never spend 25€ per month for music but now everyone is doing it spending for Internet. Also royalties are not treated the same way in every situation. A music producer feels entitled to be payed for someone enjoying their music but a scientist will not get royalties even if his work is used in another paper as long as he in mentioned in the references. Also why should a singer be whealthy, why do performers feel,they should be living in huge mansions spending on women and drugs. At some point in history performers where just amusing the kings and that was all. Anyway it is just the way things go , things change
But your rationalization is still there. You claim that it has no market value, but somehow you want to download it for some reason, so it does have some value to YOU. If you don't agree with the price that is one thing, but claiming that it has no value but still wanting it doesn't really stand any proof either. If it has no value, there is nothing lost in not bothering to download it.
True it has some value. I am just saying the value is to keep consumers buying fast internet. It is like coffee machines with coffee capsules. They sell the machines very cheap or even free to ensure you buy capsules. As I said people in the old days didn't spend 25 euros or more per month for video tapes or CDs.
I love these RSA videos. They are very interesting to watch, plus they are very visual. The person who does all the white board drawing deserves an award. Dan Ariely is one of my favourties.
Interesting. I worked for a bank for 10 years. We were encouraged to misrepresent a product to the customers to make more money for the bank and the insurance company. I refused to do it,but was the only one who refused. I stated at a meeting that this was dishonest, and the man in charge told me to "Just do it." Still, I refused. They sent secret shoppers each month and wrote me up for not doing it. They tried to take away my yearly raise and I wouldn't do it. It's called having integrity.
In the days before Internet, people would borrow books, music cassettes, video cassettes from one another and no one raised so much hue and cry about stealing or copying of intellectual property. We were just sharing what we owned with our friends and people known to us. Often the books, music etc would go beyond our immediate friend's circle. Now, in the age of Internet, the sharing is on a much larger scale. I upload to share and thousands download. One maybe the lender or the borrower. How does the example of dishonesty shown above fit in this scenario? Most religions encourage to share what we own with those who are not so lucky.
Each and every one of us has to deal with spiritual battles on a daily basis, no matter what our belief system is or is not. Your facts, observations and views are very refreshing, thought-provoking and enlightening. Well done!
+RainAngel111 I want to know the name of the drawing artist that made this drawings. .some of the drawings like the whale and the turtle are exactelly like a book that I read as a kid .i don't know if the guy was copying the style or if it was him that made the ilustrations ..pretty good style.
I'm pretty sure downloading data illegally is piracy and not theft. it is not the same as literally taking something tangible from another person which does cause direct harm to the other person who is losing something. if I made an exact copy of your car without doing anything to your car, I wouldn't be stealing your car
Rationalization right there mate...the creator of the stuff you downloaded deserves money...its called copyright!..your rationalization holds true in a world were intellectual property rights and copyrights don't exist
yazin azad you are right, but piracy doesn't cause the same harm as depriving something from another person is all I mean. theft and piracy are both illegal but at different levels on the spectrum
drewnut Theft does not require harm. Also, as explained in the video, that $1 song you stole times the 20,000+ other people who stole the same song is a lot of money. This is harm. If everyone had paid for the music then then artist could have more than enough money to replace the car you say you didn't steal.
Vicki Langer I didn't say piracy caused no harm but it is not the same harm. theft and piracy are not the same. it is like stealing an idea vs stealing a tangible object. one is piracy for stealing the idea or making an illegal copy of data whereas stealing an object directly deprives the other person of that object. we are arguing about definitions. stealing and piracy are two separate things
....fffffffuuuuuucccckkkkkkk yeah! This dude totally rocks! My head hurts 'cause it was tough keeping up with this auctioneer, but I totally dig the form and content of this message. This video is like what happens to a two hour lecture, after snorting like three eight-balls of speed. Maximum compression of silent moments in which to digest and reflect -- in fact, there seem to be few, if any at all. Well done, brilliant form and content! F.
Two Cold war nations compete for dominance, both view the other as evil because of the many geopolitical boundaries between them. Both share the same motives, both logically should feel empathy for one another. But, motivated not by greed, but by fear of the other, they constantly take action against one another. Escalating.... Developing weapons for their nation's defense, spying on their enemy, learning of their enemies new weapons development project, targeting spies in their ranks leaking intel on their own weapons development project, assassinating agents, and even staff members who may be associated with said project. Instigating political instability, Sanctions, threats, bribes, breaking every rule in the book, crushing insurrection, arresting rebels, exploiting corruption, while being exploited, execution, interrogation, torture... All in an attempt to preserve peace. They are not evil, they are fighting for survival in a cruel world. But what they don't realize is that is the only motivation their enemy has to fight them in the first place. This video looks at greed and morality, but fear is also a motivation. Our failures haunt us, and our inadequacy drives us to desperation. It instigates conflicts. Greed is not the only source for dishonesty or sin.
It all boils down to a good person is someone who wants to share, but also needs to be able to survive, his or herself, and how to achieve this balance.
it seems weird to apply a capitalist value to a limitless resource such as music? There is an unlimited supply so how does the logic of supply and demand pertain to it?
I feel very upset after watching this video. I think there are some dangerous beliefs inherent to it that are not intelligently questioned and scrutinized. For one, that the rules for transaction in our society (most prominently, one must have money to buy things) are fair and that to break these rules is morally reprehensible, "cheating" if you will. Two, that following conventional morality equates to "honesty" and acting with integrity. Three, that confession is the way to clear a slate, leaving out making amends to the people you've harmed. Four, that changing the way incentives work and kicking people out are somehow mutually exclusive (certainly not mutually reinforcing) actions. Five, ownership is a black and white concept - what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine. I feel very disappointed and discouraged thinking that this is what RSA Animate will continue to put out. I do not feel that this goes deep enough to pull out the real meat of what's happening. Maybe the book does, but this video does not leave me wanting to reach for it, mostly because I fear that there is some kind of agenda behind this, beyond intelligent discourse. It seems to me to have a bit of a bias toward keeping the Wall Street bankers in power running throughout.
I wish more people would listen to this little lecture and understand it is not the banks that are bad or evil, it is not the people or the human emotion of "greed" but rather it is the government which acts as a mechanism that allows for this bad behavior to take place. When the bankers don't have to worry about losing their jobs due to government funded bailouts, their motivation shifts from preserving their businesses, to trying more risky activities which lead to catastrophes.
Thanks for this great video! I completely agree with it, and I think more people should see it!! My parents curse bankers for being 'evil', and 'bad people', saying 'they would do it better', but I bloody well KNOW they would! It's in our nature! And THAT is maybe even more frightening and painful than having one or two 'rotten apples' or 'a bunch of greedy lunatics' screwing it up for everybody. As we can kick those out, blame them, etc. but as it's in our nature, in EVERYBODY, it's alot harder
Piracy cannot be compared to walking out on a bill. This is the first video I've seen from this channel, and I love your animation, but I'd appreciate it if you did a little more research on piracy. Other than that, awesome video!
I'm replying to an 11 yo comment so this mostly doesn't matter, but all the speakers in RSA animate videos are unaffiliated people speaking at a conference, for example, and RSA Animate creates the drawings to their speeches. So while your point is still valid, it's not "necessarily" the views of the channel or the channel making the points. They're just making these speeches "youtube friendly" by giving them a video. Otherwise none of us would likely ever hear these.
thank you, for the good reminder. In this video you said that people cheat less when they have to confess about it. if confessing in catholic church makes cheating rate goes down. good for them. but Muslims pray 5 times a day. praying is like talking to God. just because i have to talk to God every few hours. it have stopped me for doing many bad things. you reminded me of a very good aspect of our 5 times daily prayers. the more i know about my religion. it increases my belief. thanks you again
I didn't like the video at all. It's interesting how he defines "theft" and "cheating". And based on that definition he spouts some "moralistic" rhetorics. There is nothing more to this video.
Communication is as well key to counter the seemingly increasing amount of dishonesty. If a person finds an environment that shall allow him/her to disclose his/her doing and still accept him/her, then that person shall have a push to introspect upon his/her actions and work to create changes towards the better. The presence of a non-judgmental environment will as well allow people to point at people's dishonesty without fearing a backfire. Many factors come into play but I think these are key as well, and as the speaker concluded that we all have the potential to be dishonest, and by that, I think that altering the surrounding to keep this dishonesty dormant and not allow it to unleash is the best way to counter it.
+Andrei Simionescu, Agreed, and MPAA/RIAA are very likely part of the funding for this research. IN addition the focus on everyday working people reflects the clearly neo-liberal slant, he downright excuses Enron Executives and the rest of our ruling class... "NO, the problem is the little people, we download music... and don't feel bad?" Woking class people have no duty to be held to moral standards the capitalists themselves reject. Does the ruling class feel revulsion from their own brutality? Of coarse not, f*ck them, no democracy means we never even agreed to their definitions of what is property. They are totally illegitimate.
+Andrei Simionescu I think the point of the argument is not the degree of damage that the act ultimately yielded to the party that was violated (the music industry) but rather the inherent ethics of the act itself (is it wrong for an individual to perform the act or not).
Don Goddard , Agreed, which is exactly what my critique was attempting to challenge. In contrast to the video, which implicitly assumes that the act in question is unethical. This is false, we never consented to those assumed definitions of what is property. We don't even go to the deeper level, which is about copying itself, we don’t even have a democratic framework on which to resolve that question. Hence, when the video asks, why we don't feel bad. The answer is simple, because we never agreed we should. capitalists just pretended we did. called the result democracy, and moved on to the question posed in the video... which as far as I can tell, is about forcing the public into accepting neo-liberal definitions of ethics.
This has been a phenomenal look into how the mind works, I deeply enjoyed this and how the speaker used real world examples to -pardon the pun- illustrate the idea, oddly enough I feel this might change where I'm at as I recently went passed the "What the hell" stage and I am currently in the confession stage, if I understood the idea, it's that confession holds ourselves accountable, while still helping us feel good enough about ourselves, to do 'good' in life. Highly interesting.
Thank you for your honesty Robert. I also appreciated the time you took to share your praise and reflections. I think you summarised the video's point well. But I would like to clarify one thing. Confession does not merely 'make ourselves feel better about ourselves', but there is a real change to our state after confessing. What you experience isn't some neat psychological trick, but a spiritual reality. We know that God calls us to repent and believe. The reason this works, is because He has paid the price of our sins for us. When we confess and turn from them, He is able to justify us, for our punishment has already been paid by Christ on the cross. Enjoy the peace and freedom that comes with walking with the Lord, doing what is right, and turning from what is wrong. God bless you
How can you even compare stealing food with downloading music? Why does this guy talk as if obeying laws and being morally correct are the same thing in the beginning? I do agree with the fact that banks have made things overly complicated so that it is easier to rationalize what they are doing. Also, little cheaters are worse than big cheaters? So the millions big corporations avoid in taxes isn't as bad as .. what?
***** I believe his point was that the little cheaters had more of an net impact in their study. Not that they were worse individually, but that the cumulative consequences of lots of small cheats had a worse effect on the economy than the more egregiously large cheats. But I also believe he wasn't taking into account the fact that some Big Cheaters encourage the Small Cheaters to exacerbate the situation further. But yes, I think he's absolutely right that some people can commit pretty horrendous crimes and feel perfectly justified in that it makes sense for them to do it. Like, say for instance some of the financial racketeers, who have realized that they can cheat millions of people out of a few bucks each, and net themselves millions of dollars in the process. The cost to each of their victims individually is relatively inconsequential, while they benefit to themselves is massive. So, someone might feel justified in doing this. And these are largely the kinds of scams that you see politicians, and other white collar criminals participating it. What they don't realize, is by doing this they make cheating the standard policy among everyone in that same position. So, the few dollars here or there are multiplied by all the other cheaters they encourage in their peer groups, and all the long lines of professional cheaters who succeed them as they retire and move on. They've set a precedent, and it's a very destructive precedent.
Balgan Hyrede I understand what you're saying, but the way he was talking, he was making big cheaters sound insignificant to the accumulation of little cheaters. I would classify those racketeers as large scale cheaters, and I really don't have much to say about that. Except, just don't click that flashy ad on the sketchy web site and you'll be fine! I agree that it's a problem, but I think cheating that is legal is a bigger problem. Anyway, here's a few points I'd like to make: -every cheater justifies his actions to himself in one way or another -biggest cheaters distance themselves through statistics and numbers and never even realize what they're doing (it's all just business after all) -problem is, it's a lot easier for big guys to cheat, and with how successful lobbying is these days it's usually legal -little cheaters usually do it cause they need it, where big cheaters are basically just doing it cause they're greedy or at that point that's all they know Sidenote - do you watch John Oliver's Last Week Tonight maybe?
***** First off, no I didn't watch John Oliver. But to back up your claim about the Big Cheaters, or perhaps just to amend it, there is evidence that people in positions of power or authority, even imagined authority, tend to adopt more psychotic/sociopathic tendencies. People in positions of authority often believe they have exceptional or above average ability at skills that they have no experience with, that they are exempt from laws others must follow, and are more frequently dishonest in general. They even exhibit a higher tendency towards magical thinking, in believing that they can personally affect the outcomes of random events. So, some Big Cheaters might be cheating because they think they somehow have the ability to steer the outcome towards an eventuality that's more favorable for *everyone.* And that even if they don't, they believe they're just too important to hold accountable for their violations of the law. Any of this sound familiar?
Despite bankers seeming like large scale cheaters, I think he may have been saying that bankers who sell subprime-mortgage-backed-securities are the "little cheaters" of the financial world who cause more damage than the smaller number of "big cheaters" at Enron.
tifforo1 I still don't see the point in the statement. Analyzing who's more to blame in a system like we have today doesn't seem to me like it leads anywhere. The only conclusion I could ever make is that we need to radically rethink the system itself.
Greed is the incentive for corruption and what promotes it in society, Change the incentive, and corruption will be affected as well. Greed is the desire to benefit oneself over and above anyone else. It's selfishness in its pure form, and an expression of being anti-social. Greed can only be overcome when the individuals mature to an understanding we as individuals live to pursue happiness, and this state of being is the result of a balanced set of circumstances where everyone in the community has enough to satisfy their basic needs, and have the time and wealth to pursue any other spiritual needs they may have. In other words, in the true sense of achieving the happiness humans are naturally designed to pursue. In the ultimate balance, a conscious being can only get it when she/he knows everyone in the community has achieved the minimum level of material and spiritual satisfaction. This is called CONSCIOUSNESS and unless we attain it, we could never be completely satisfied and happy in a sustainable way. This is why Democracy and Capitalism can never truly complement each other, because capitalism inherently produces a large sector of materially insecure people, while democracy demands CONSCIOUSNESS from every member of society to function properly. Members of society who are conscious of the social disparities can't be truly happy while knowing a great number of fellow community members are in distress.
this is wonderfully drawn and well written and a fine presentation of a good message. I bet it makes most of us that watch it and I bet a lot of people can't watch it because it burns like fire. Thanks, I enjoyed it while I cringed.
a musician and a chef are not the same thing. A musician is an artist, a chef isn't. Music is a means to express our feelings, food is a biological need. Therefore, downloading music instead of paying 20 euros (dollars or whatever) isn't immoral. On the other hand, it is immoral to ask from potential customers to spend 20 (blah blah) in order to buy a CD that contains 2-3 nice songs and the rest are mediocre or garbage. Also, if a musician sells ZERO CD's but millions download his music, how many people do you think will spend money to see him performing live? How much money is that? Have you seen how rich the musicians get? Why aren't they considered greedy bastards, when they earn millions of $$ and want more money... and we are considered immoral people for download their music? Last but not least, as for bankers, SCREW you man! A banker chose to work in a place where it can take your house and let you live in the streets. If Internet and "Free Downloading" wasn't around, no one would know you and the existence of your precious book, you would need money for advertising campaigns etc... So, I like your video but not everything that you're saying...
"A musician is an artist, a chef isn't." But a chef can also create new dishes or create their own version of an existing dish. And we tend to treat some chefs as a celebrity. Also, food can be a form of expression as they reflect on our own tastes. "Music is a means to express our feelings, food is a biological need. Therefore, downloading music instead of paying 20 euros (dollars or whatever) isn't immoral." What? Wouldn't that logic not apply to food instead because it is a necessity while the other is purely a luxury? We have enough food to feed everybody on this planet and yet it's kept away from those that need it because they don't have the cash for it. Why aren't you crying about that injustice? "On the other hand, it is immoral to ask from potential customers to spend 20 (blah blah) in order to buy a CD that contains 2-3 nice songs and the rest are mediocre or garbage." That makes no sense as this is based on your own subjective taste. How is anyone supposes to know what you might like or not? Also, there are ways to legally download the songs at a cheap price. "Also, if a musician sells ZERO CD's but millions download his music, how many people do you think will spend money to see him performing live? How much money is that? Have you seen how rich the musicians get? Why aren't they considered greedy bastards, when they earn millions of $$ and want more money... and we are considered immoral people for download their music?" That's only "if" through. A musician might not still be so lucky to gain the large fanbase, so having this revenue stream can at least keep them going. "Last but not least, as for bankers, SCREW you man! A banker chose to work in a place where it can take your house and let you live in the streets." I doubt that was their intention when they joined the bank. In fact, they don't want to do this to you because they lose the income they would make back from the loan. And you ignore the many positives things that banks have done by lending money to people to start their own businesses. "If Internet and "Free Downloading" wasn't around, no one would know you and the existence of your precious book, you would need money for advertising campaigns etc... So, I like your video but not everything that you're saying..." But he still right through. You yourself are displaying that rationalisation he was talking about.You wouldn't go to a bookstore and steal the actual physical copy of the book itself and make that same rationalization.
I would have recognized aspects of these characteristics about myself, although never comfortably throughout my life, and even then quite rare. A few years ago I first came across Objectivism (hadn't heard of it before my 40's). And unlike the dismissive nature of the vast majority, I studied it intensely. I have found it is a philosophy that clarifies values that I mostly had but couldn't integrate with the values that I have been immersed in (collectivist values). It comes down to a clear and correct philosophy. I have no doubts about living a completely honest life now, because it's clear why I do it and why it's necessary. The result is, I've become very unpopular, often and most regularly asked/told to, compromise by others. I don't, and won't. It's served as a true friend filter, leaving me with a handful of good friends. That's all I need. When you know why you do something, and refuse to accept irrationality, it's easy.
Ryan Acumen That's exactly the misunderstanding of Objectivsm that is banded around and repeated ad infinitum. The trouble is, it's a complete myth and is utterly rejected by the philosophy. For starters Objectivism does not recognize that any man is superior or inferior than another man. That's in line with Nietzsche, also rejected by Objectivism but some people continue to parallel the two.
Avidcomp Objectivism sounds interesting, and you seem like you've researched the merits of different philosophies very thoroughly. I just did a quick wiki search the central tenets of objectivism, and I'm already really looking forward to learning more about it.
MrYeshi412 Good for you. It is a credit to your own mind. Try the Ayn Rand Institute for links to books, podcasts, lectures etc. Nothing to do with the philosophy per se, but have a listen to Burt Folsom lecture, The Myth of the Robber Baron. th-cam.com/video/4Vw6uF2LdZw/w-d-xo.html
So sorry you've become "very unpopular". Perhaps others, who are equally intelligent and ethical recognize that selfishness, is not a virtue. Just say'n...
The question i'm asking is Arielly makes the observation that appealing to whatever spirits you believe in can give you a fresh start, SO If I wish to do this in regards to "cheating on a diet" whom do I appeal to if I do not have spirits which I believe in? How do I achieve that refresh moment if my beliefs only extend to indifferent reality?
It's hard to understand how to connect between rationalization and the money, bank thing which came out at the end of the story but there were some interesting example in this video
This is way overly simplistic. There is no moral equivalent between somebody who takes a few pens from their office or download a movie and bankers who game the system. You cannot strip away the context of the structure of power in our society and make sound moral judgements on people behavior. The father at the beginning of the story knows the difference in between stealing from a peer and stealing from a faceless entity like a corporation which sole purpose is profit. Most people are sophisticated enough to see the difference between somebody stealing to feed his kids and a CEO running away with his employee pension fund to buy house number 7 in the Hampton. That is the whole point of folk heros like Robin Hood or as in the Gospel of Mark 3: Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2 Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.” 4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
The video showed the way in which actions which cause great harm but in a very abstract way or to an unseen person (such as subprime mortgages) don't FEEL worse to the perpetrator than smaller acts that are directly and immediately wrong against a seen person in a seen way.
I don't know whether it's the best, but it's a very good one; I have thought of this as well as long-range (e.g. ballistic) weapons and such as the top ones, but can't for sure say which, technically, should be IT.
I'm tired of attempts to make an analogy between physical property and intellectual "property". With physical property you are taking something away from another person.
Something I've been saying for over 15 years is; "Truth will conquer corruption."... There is no time frame associated with the statement, but it will happen eventually. :-) ♡ ☆
These are the kind of things that should be commonly promoted in the class room. In my opinion our culture and the world of capitalism that is dragging us down is rooted in many ideas that The RSA is preaching to us. There is no one solution that will ever be spoken and change is a constant. How to change and for what reason is a question we need to ask ourselves. Eliminating dishonesty in the way this video explains is a good starting place for us all.
first off, thank you for addressing the point I was making and giving me a realistic argument second, you would agree that in order to do that, you would have to accuire the book for a certin amount of time and accertain the parchment used to copy the information from the book (not to mention the time taken to copy each and every page) ... but still, you did make a good point
The break-in example is reductio ad absurdum. It's a demonstration that right/wrong is distinct from getting the charge correct; that unauthorized access doesn't mean theft. Theft necessarily implies deprivation of others. When I copy something, nothing is consumed, nobody is deprived (except of potential income or of control). Oh and: I'm not perfectly innocent, my actions in life aren't 100% completely just. I never implied that. But this has no bearing on the logic of the argument.
further more, I would think that people that pirate might do so because they dont have the means to legaly purchase the content (in the case of i-tunes it might be regional restrictions imposed by i-tunes or the recording studios), torrents have no such limitations
partially agree. On the one hand, His analysis is very interresting. On the other, he doesn't interrogate the system itself on how does it works (assuming that if we have no cheaters, it would work well), but only on the rewarding and penalty the systems uses to work... which, even if it is interresting, is not the earth of the problem.
That was a cool video. I like how he pointed out that different actions lend themselves more to rationalization. I also like the concept of the "WTH Effect." -Jade
I see your point and I agree with. The thing is, radio stations and TV stations pay for the rights to broadcast that stuff. About that book thing: Nowadays you can just listen to the songs on TH-cam.and "check if it is woth buying". With movies and games it's something different though (in my opinion). You can't tell, if a 2 hour movie is good just by the trailer and you can't tell, if a game is good in the long run just by playing the demo which captures the first 30 minutes of the game.
I know the focus of the comments on this video will be on the rationalization of illegal downloads, but can we appreciate for a second the amazing illustrator's use of fairy tales as allegories? It's not even mentioned in the talk, yet it blended seamlessly for almost every example!
That's actually very relevant. Since in common law, and how the idea of stealing is taught to children, deprivation is still there. Face it, we're dealing with something new - and as such, we have to treat it as something new - no matter how much you try to re frame the discussion as justifying anything. Noting two things are different is not justifying something. You can think murder is wrong, and know that literally it is different than rape for example.
I understand that people make almost all of their money via live shows and merchandise, what I am trying to argue is that this does not mean we have a right to own the product of someone elses work. Essentially, that this is a rationalisation, that the idea of stealing from the rich (the record companies) is morally acceptable, even though it is still stealing. We are thieves, even if we do not wish to see ourselves as such. Props to you, though, for putting out your music for free :)
Interesting and very imaginative presentation. I agree that the position that people like bankers were in was tempting them to buy the idea that what they were doing was ´not so bad´ however to change the circumstances that led to it is very hard for those not involved. Also, I think that in this case 12 people could easily steal a lot more than the 36000 because they have ability to rob entire wealth of 36000 which would be worth more than petty thefts.
Concerning sharing a lawnmower, I think the difference is that there is a built in limit on how widely it can be shared, basically neighbors or friends. And, because they are objects that can break and wear out, you are unlikely to share them with complete strangers. And even with your friends you will say "ok, enough, time to buy your own." With a file sharing website there is no limit to the number of copies that can be distributed. Such sites can do serious damage to an author's income.
I just interviewed for a position instituting rewards at a major bank. One of the main reasons that I believe that I will not get the position is because I mentioned a current misalignment of incentives for bankers
Ok I can change streaming format a bit: instead of streaming dvd I convert it into digital form and destroy original then one who wants to watch, takes it to his computer and deletes all data from server, when he is done he puts it back and deletes from his computer at same time. In result no 2 copies exist at same time anywhere and only one user can use it at same time.
7:16 “expriment conducted in Be’er Sheva, southern Israel”... this begs the question of the cultural environment and attitudes towards cheating. It is no secret that Mediterranean people have much more “flexible morals” around cheating that Northern European people.. just look at attitude towards not paying taxes or national corruption. In short: How do you explain that Scandinavian countries are much less corrupt than Mediterranean countries?
But there could be a depreciation cost. Maybe goods sold with the virtual good will suffer, maybe getting the cd will mean the concert tickets are skipped. Its maybe not tangible but it could mean basically the same thing.
strangely,I believe your 2nd paragraph actually supports the talk.People in general cheat if they can rationalize it,if they think that cheating brings more good than harm than they will cheat. however if you can't rationalize it,stealing pencils seem like "stealing is bad so I shouldn't do it." but if you can it will seem like "They're putting those pencils to good use,might as well take them." Cheating and stealing is still 'bad' but I believe that sometimes 'necessary evil' is required.
Sorry, didn't notice your reply. The ethics of taxation itself doesn't justify violence, however the principle of using force to support laws is a major part of the legal system (though I'm not aware of your views of having police, I will assume you support it in general cases, but not this specific). The issue therefore becomes "should taxation be legally required" which I believe it should on the basis of public goods etc, and thus it falls into the category of "under threat of force".
I'm the owner of an independent record label called Blondfox Records. 50% of all profit is given back to the artists, 40% is spent on advertising, and the other 10% is on Expenses. Not all record labels are Evil. And a lot of underground artists struggle to get off of the ground because of people that think like you. Thank you for contributing to the Demise of the Music Industry.
That is part definition part opinion. I believe it will lead to people being more focused on things to "steal" than things to invent. Products with large R&D costs will either develop very slow - or not at all.
But it is exactly same as my situation with digital content. If I buy CD, It is object just like lawnmower, it has function to display some movie on TV, It does its job just like lawnmower and can be transferred to someone else. No copies are made here. Why I can share lawnmower but I cant share CD?
The question is related to what are you buying? If you're paying for ownership of an object (e.g. a lawnmower), then you are free to do what you wish with it. Whereas if you are paying for an ebook or software, you are not paying for ownership, you are paying for a license to use the software. That license has usage conditions which may not permit you to share it with others. That's the difference.
So were the first individual owners of property being "honest" or "dishonest" when the staked claim to tracts of land against those with no muscle power? Similarly for the first owners of intellectual property? Was the demarcation of "property" just something that was convenient for a particular type of agricultural practice and social organisation at eh expense of others? Who decides what is honesty? Is the speaker viewing this questioning as "rationalisation of dishonesty"?
A better question would be, if I played a song(file) in the open and you recorded it and shared it with others, would THAT be illegal? Would you have to get permission to record or duplicate sounds that are in the public sphere? Now that's a question to ask.
Some styles of music was never meant to be played live, and many composers/musicians aren't interested in playing live (one famous example would be XTC's Andy Partridge)--they prefer recording as the main focus. So how would he be compensated fairly for all of his hard work?
Good point. Although as the discussion progresses I'm starting to wonder if the word "theft" even applies to all this. Let us remember this is digital content, which as Nick said from the start, follows VERY different rules than stealing food. Overall, I think that we're stuck with the morality framework of trading physical objects, which does not apply well to digital. Perhaps we should stop thinking of music/videogames as THE product? Maybe it's more about how to "buy" the artist behind it?
As for bankers, I would add that practice of "gentle art of extrapolation" mixed with hoard opinion resulted in such a skewed system. You can always try different method, different premises, remove "bad" data, until you get result that is in line with your own view.
KPIs aren't new and are usually tied to bonuses, not base salary. So fair compensation is not an issue. All organizations have it, so it's not a new layer of complexity. All it takes is to change KPIs to incentivize good behavior. E.g. Instead of rewarding based on hitting a quarterly sales quota, reward based on both on quota and percentage of return customers (long term).
I agree with that. I'm not saying that medieval European society was determined by religion but wondering asking if anyone has actually measured the level of cheating within societies informed by religious ritual. It may be that deception takes other forms outside of a moral code and that the null hypothesis is that deception is consistent across societies, regardless of ritual. From that point one would be free to explore any number of ways societies reduce cheating.
but did you watch the piece i mentioned, "the right kind of monster"? he uses sandusky's imprisonment as a teachable moment. i just thought it was a great example of this guy's principle in motion. i just think its very telling because it takes a certain degree of mental maturity to see things how these guys see them, ya know?
This also apply to criticize as well. When you scold other, rather than admitting they they are at fault, the other party usually rationalize their own action and blame anyone except themselves.
It has to do with simultaneous use. If he has loaned it out, he cannot enjoy the economic benefit of owning it until the borrower returns it. In that sense, it is the same as most software licenses that are structured that allow installaton on multiple machines, but prohibit the simultaneous use of multiple installations at the same time.
That was not meant to disregard any of your claims. It is a completely tangential comment suggesting that there is independent value in being as respectful as you can be simply because people are emotional and complex and easily become defensive or condescending etc. We need to check ourselves and try to maintain friendly discourse, and I'm not saying I'm immune and perfect. Asking others to word things more respectfully is not a personal attack.
I like the ideas presented. I would only add one thing. Sometimes we look for a civic (government) solution to a religious (moral) problem. That type of thinking doesn't have a very good track record. If we are growing less religious (moral) as a society, I would suggest that only a religious (moral) solution can help reverse the problem.
what a fascinating philosophical debate we are having, the biggest problem is that in the internet age it is near impossible for you to not be able to find a copy of music on the internet, this makes it impossible to enforce copyright in this day and age.
(lost track of the thread) Possible workarounds for your road asphalting scenario: The people who paid for it turn it into a toll road, and charge for usage. Or, just let the other people drive on it. If it was my neighborhood and I chipped in to resurface the road, I'd just let the other people drive on it because I enjoy helping people out. Just notice that scenario is the opposite of the freeloaders passing a law requiring me to pay for a road or service for their use.
"I´m not downloading stuff...I´m fighting for FREEDOM!"
gotta remember that one
Equilibrium
Summary: Our incentives and motivation massively impact the lenses through which we understand reality....and....don't ever let anyone give up believing in themselves. LOVE IT!!!
There's a False Equivalency between walking from a restaurant without paying and illegally downloading music.
They would be the same only if the chef could take the meal and duplicate it as many times as he wants for little cost but then still demand the same amount of payment for each one. The matter isn't that people are pirating, it's that the supply of music has become infinite and therefore it's economic value has dropped to zero in the eyes of the consumer.
That is only because we choose to rationalize it in that way. It is still technically stealing but you don't feel bad about it because you rationalize in such a way that you don't feel like you're hurting anybody
Alex Dombrower well actually saying that something has a certain market value when actually it does not is also cheating and also a rationalization . Many commodities used to have one value and after sometime they became obsolete and so lost their market price. At some point music and movies where exceptional works of art and then the whole thing became an industry . People were willing to pay a lot of money . Now the industry has shifted . People don't buy music but they buy fast internet. I never spend 25€ per month for music but now everyone is doing it spending for Internet. Also royalties are not treated the same way in every situation. A music producer feels entitled to be payed for someone enjoying their music but a scientist will not get royalties even if his work is used in another paper as long as he in mentioned in the references. Also why should a singer be whealthy, why do performers feel,they should be living in huge mansions spending on women and drugs. At some point in history performers where just amusing the kings and that was all. Anyway it is just the way things go , things change
But your rationalization is still there. You claim that it has no market value, but somehow you want to download it for some reason, so it does have some value to YOU. If you don't agree with the price that is one thing, but claiming that it has no value but still wanting it doesn't really stand any proof either. If it has no value, there is nothing lost in not bothering to download it.
True it has some value. I am just saying the value is to keep consumers buying fast internet. It is like coffee machines with coffee capsules. They sell the machines very cheap or even free to ensure you buy capsules. As I said people in the old days didn't spend 25 euros or more per month for video tapes or CDs.
Rationalizing right there
I love these RSA videos. They are very interesting to watch, plus they are very visual. The person who does all the white board drawing deserves an award. Dan Ariely is one of my favourties.
Interesting. I worked for a bank for 10 years. We were encouraged to misrepresent a product to the customers to make more money for the bank and the insurance company. I refused to do it,but was the only one who refused. I stated at a meeting that this was dishonest, and the man in charge told me to "Just do it." Still, I refused. They sent secret shoppers each month and wrote me up for not doing it. They tried to take away my yearly raise and I wouldn't do it. It's called having integrity.
God bless you Robyn. The world needs more people like you who are willing to jeopardize their life/living for the good of others.
These shorts really grab peoples attention! This particular one speaks to my dissertation in a fun and engaging manner. THANK YOU!!
In the days before Internet, people would borrow books, music cassettes, video cassettes from one another and no one raised so much hue and cry about stealing or copying of intellectual property. We were just sharing what we owned with our friends and people known to us. Often the books, music etc would go beyond our immediate friend's circle.
Now, in the age of Internet, the sharing is on a much larger scale. I upload to share and thousands download. One maybe the lender or the borrower. How does the example of dishonesty shown above fit in this scenario? Most religions encourage to share what we own with those who are not so lucky.
Sharing a book is legal. Photocopying a thousand copies of the book and sharing them is illegal.
Each and every one of us has to deal with spiritual battles on a daily basis, no matter what our belief system is or is not. Your facts, observations and views are very refreshing, thought-provoking and enlightening. Well done!
are we ever going to get RSA animates ever again? There are tons of small RSA talks but I find them kind of boring without any images.
+RainAngel111 RSA Animates are making a return! Follow us on Instagram for all the latest instagram.com/p/-RGCSQj0op/?taken-by=rsa_events
+RainAngel111 I want to know the name of the drawing artist that made this drawings. .some of the drawings like the whale and the turtle are exactelly like a book that I read as a kid .i don't know if the guy was copying the style or if it was him that made the ilustrations ..pretty good style.
I wish to congratulate the speaker on having come out with a wonderful analysis of modern behaviour.. He is absolutely on the dot with his reasoning..
I'm pretty sure downloading data illegally is piracy and not theft. it is not the same as literally taking something tangible from another person which does cause direct harm to the other person who is losing something. if I made an exact copy of your car without doing anything to your car, I wouldn't be stealing your car
Rationalization right there mate...the creator of the stuff you downloaded deserves money...its called copyright!..your rationalization holds true in a world were intellectual property rights and copyrights don't exist
yazin azad if copy your friends ford car..I am pretty sure Ford Motor Corporation will find a way to sue you based on some IPR
yazin azad you are right, but piracy doesn't cause the same harm as depriving something from another person is all I mean. theft and piracy are both illegal but at different levels on the spectrum
drewnut Theft does not require harm. Also, as explained in the video, that $1 song you stole times the 20,000+ other people who stole the same song is a lot of money. This is harm. If everyone had paid for the music then then artist could have more than enough money to replace the car you say you didn't steal.
Vicki Langer I didn't say piracy caused no harm but it is not the same harm. theft and piracy are not the same. it is like stealing an idea vs stealing a tangible object. one is piracy for stealing the idea or making an illegal copy of data whereas stealing an object directly deprives the other person of that object. we are arguing about definitions. stealing and piracy are two separate things
....fffffffuuuuuucccckkkkkkk yeah! This dude totally rocks! My head hurts 'cause it was tough keeping up with this auctioneer, but I totally dig the form and content of this message. This video is like what happens to a two hour lecture, after snorting like three eight-balls of speed. Maximum compression of silent moments in which to digest and reflect -- in fact, there seem to be few, if any at all. Well done, brilliant form and content! F.
Two Cold war nations compete for dominance, both view the other as evil because of the many geopolitical boundaries between them. Both share the same motives, both logically should feel empathy for one another.
But, motivated not by greed, but by fear of the other, they constantly take action against one another. Escalating....
Developing weapons for their nation's defense, spying on their enemy, learning of their enemies new weapons development project, targeting spies in their ranks leaking intel on their own weapons development project, assassinating agents, and even staff members who may be associated with said project. Instigating political instability, Sanctions, threats, bribes, breaking every rule in the book, crushing insurrection, arresting rebels, exploiting corruption, while being exploited, execution, interrogation, torture... All in an attempt to preserve peace.
They are not evil, they are fighting for survival in a cruel world. But what they don't realize is that is the only motivation their enemy has to fight them in the first place.
This video looks at greed and morality, but fear is also a motivation. Our failures haunt us, and our inadequacy drives us to desperation. It instigates conflicts. Greed is not the only source for dishonesty or sin.
It all boils down to a good person is someone who wants to share, but also needs to be able to survive, his or herself, and how to achieve this balance.
Does a song's value decrease every time someone listens to it? And how would someone objectively determine the "value" of a work of art anyway?
But Mitko Georgiev, think of the children!
it seems weird to apply a capitalist value to a limitless resource such as music? There is an unlimited supply so how does the logic of supply and demand pertain to it?
I don't understand these videos, but they are brilliantly animated so I watch and like them.
I feel very upset after watching this video. I think there are some dangerous beliefs inherent to it that are not intelligently questioned and scrutinized. For one, that the rules for transaction in our society (most prominently, one must have money to buy things) are fair and that to break these rules is morally reprehensible, "cheating" if you will. Two, that following conventional morality equates to "honesty" and acting with integrity. Three, that confession is the way to clear a slate, leaving out making amends to the people you've harmed. Four, that changing the way incentives work and kicking people out are somehow mutually exclusive (certainly not mutually reinforcing) actions. Five, ownership is a black and white concept - what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine. I feel very disappointed and discouraged thinking that this is what RSA Animate will continue to put out. I do not feel that this goes deep enough to pull out the real meat of what's happening. Maybe the book does, but this video does not leave me wanting to reach for it, mostly because I fear that there is some kind of agenda behind this, beyond intelligent discourse. It seems to me to have a bit of a bias toward keeping the Wall Street bankers in power running throughout.
Yeah, it's a neoliberal discourse that he puts out there, and a very conservative notion of "cheating".
I wish more people would listen to this little lecture and understand it is not the banks that are bad or evil, it is not the people or the human emotion of "greed" but rather it is the government which acts as a mechanism that allows for this bad behavior to take place. When the bankers don't have to worry about losing their jobs due to government funded bailouts, their motivation shifts from preserving their businesses, to trying more risky activities which lead to catastrophes.
Okay, okay! It's time I owned up and changed my life ... I was the one who downloaded Dan's book 20,000 times : |
I love these videos. As a visual learner this information is presented in an interesting and fun way. Great job and please keep uploading new videos.
Talk about "RATIONALISING" it appears this video does exactly that for the Wall Street lot!
Thanks for this great video! I completely agree with it, and I think more people should see it!! My parents curse bankers for being 'evil', and 'bad people', saying 'they would do it better', but I bloody well KNOW they would! It's in our nature! And THAT is maybe even more frightening and painful than having one or two 'rotten apples' or 'a bunch of greedy lunatics' screwing it up for everybody. As we can kick those out, blame them, etc. but as it's in our nature, in EVERYBODY, it's alot harder
Piracy cannot be compared to walking out on a bill. This is the first video I've seen from this channel, and I love your animation, but I'd appreciate it if you did a little more research on piracy. Other than that, awesome video!
I'm replying to an 11 yo comment so this mostly doesn't matter, but all the speakers in RSA animate videos are unaffiliated people speaking at a conference, for example, and RSA Animate creates the drawings to their speeches. So while your point is still valid, it's not "necessarily" the views of the channel or the channel making the points. They're just making these speeches "youtube friendly" by giving them a video. Otherwise none of us would likely ever hear these.
thank you, for the good reminder. In this video you said that people cheat less when they have to confess about it. if confessing in catholic church makes cheating rate goes down. good for them. but Muslims pray 5 times a day. praying is like talking to God. just because i have to talk to God every few hours. it have stopped me for doing many bad things. you reminded me of a very good aspect of our 5 times daily prayers. the more i know about my religion. it increases my belief. thanks you again
I loved the video, but I disagree with the intellectual property example - unlike the product of a chef's labor, art is not lost upon consumption.
I didn't like the video at all. It's interesting how he defines "theft" and "cheating". And based on that definition he spouts some "moralistic" rhetorics. There is nothing more to this video.
art is an experience, it is part of the memory.
Communication is as well key to counter the seemingly increasing amount of dishonesty. If a person finds an environment that shall allow him/her to disclose his/her doing and still accept him/her, then that person shall have a push to introspect upon his/her actions and work to create changes towards the better.
The presence of a non-judgmental environment will as well allow people to point at people's dishonesty without fearing a backfire. Many factors come into play but I think these are key as well, and as the speaker concluded that we all have the potential to be dishonest, and by that, I think that altering the surrounding to keep this dishonesty dormant and not allow it to unleash is the best way to counter it.
The music download argument is especially inane as it's been proved over and over again that music piracy doesn't hurt sales.
+Andrei Simionescu, Agreed, and MPAA/RIAA are very likely part of the funding for this research. IN addition the focus on everyday working people reflects the clearly neo-liberal slant, he downright excuses Enron Executives and the rest of our ruling class... "NO, the problem is the little people, we download music... and don't feel bad?" Woking class people have no duty to be held to moral standards the capitalists themselves reject. Does the ruling class feel revulsion from their own brutality? Of coarse not, f*ck them, no democracy means we never even agreed to their definitions of what is property. They are totally illegitimate.
+Andrei Simionescu I think the point of the argument is not the degree of damage that the act ultimately yielded to the party that was violated (the music industry) but rather the inherent ethics of the act itself (is it wrong for an individual to perform the act or not).
Don Goddard , Agreed, which is exactly what my critique was attempting to challenge. In contrast to the video, which implicitly assumes that the act in question is unethical. This is false, we never consented to those assumed definitions of what is property. We don't even go to the deeper level, which is about copying itself, we don’t even have a democratic framework on which to resolve that question. Hence, when the video asks, why we don't feel bad. The answer is simple, because we never agreed we should. capitalists just pretended we did. called the result democracy, and moved on to the question posed in the video... which as far as I can tell, is about forcing the public into accepting neo-liberal definitions of ethics.
This has been a phenomenal look into how the mind works, I deeply enjoyed this and how the speaker used real world examples to -pardon the pun- illustrate the idea, oddly enough I feel this might change where I'm at as I recently went passed the "What the hell" stage and I am currently in the confession stage, if I understood the idea, it's that confession holds ourselves accountable, while still helping us feel good enough about ourselves, to do 'good' in life. Highly interesting.
Thank you for your honesty Robert. I also appreciated the time you took to share your praise and reflections.
I think you summarised the video's point well. But I would like to clarify one thing. Confession does not merely 'make ourselves feel better about ourselves', but there is a real change to our state after confessing.
What you experience isn't some neat psychological trick, but a spiritual reality. We know that God calls us to repent and believe. The reason this works, is because He has paid the price of our sins for us. When we confess and turn from them, He is able to justify us, for our punishment has already been paid by Christ on the cross.
Enjoy the peace and freedom that comes with walking with the Lord, doing what is right, and turning from what is wrong. God bless you
How can you even compare stealing food with downloading music? Why does this guy talk as if obeying laws and being morally correct are the same thing in the beginning? I do agree with the fact that banks have made things overly complicated so that it is easier to rationalize what they are doing. Also, little cheaters are worse than big cheaters? So the millions big corporations avoid in taxes isn't as bad as .. what?
***** I believe his point was that the little cheaters had more of an net impact in their study. Not that they were worse individually, but that the cumulative consequences of lots of small cheats had a worse effect on the economy than the more egregiously large cheats. But I also believe he wasn't taking into account the fact that some Big Cheaters encourage the Small Cheaters to exacerbate the situation further.
But yes, I think he's absolutely right that some people can commit pretty horrendous crimes and feel perfectly justified in that it makes sense for them to do it. Like, say for instance some of the financial racketeers, who have realized that they can cheat millions of people out of a few bucks each, and net themselves millions of dollars in the process. The cost to each of their victims individually is relatively inconsequential, while they benefit to themselves is massive. So, someone might feel justified in doing this. And these are largely the kinds of scams that you see politicians, and other white collar criminals participating it. What they don't realize, is by doing this they make cheating the standard policy among everyone in that same position. So, the few dollars here or there are multiplied by all the other cheaters they encourage in their peer groups, and all the long lines of professional cheaters who succeed them as they retire and move on. They've set a precedent, and it's a very destructive precedent.
Balgan Hyrede I understand what you're saying, but the way he was talking, he was making big cheaters sound insignificant to the accumulation of little cheaters.
I would classify those racketeers as large scale cheaters, and I really don't have much to say about that. Except, just don't click that flashy ad on the sketchy web site and you'll be fine! I agree that it's a problem, but I think cheating that is legal is a bigger problem.
Anyway, here's a few points I'd like to make:
-every cheater justifies his actions to himself in one way or another
-biggest cheaters distance themselves through statistics and numbers and never even realize what they're doing (it's all just business after all)
-problem is, it's a lot easier for big guys to cheat, and with how successful lobbying is these days it's usually legal
-little cheaters usually do it cause they need it, where big cheaters are basically just doing it cause they're greedy or at that point that's all they know
Sidenote - do you watch John Oliver's Last Week Tonight maybe?
***** First off, no I didn't watch John Oliver.
But to back up your claim about the Big Cheaters, or perhaps just to amend it, there is evidence that people in positions of power or authority, even imagined authority, tend to adopt more psychotic/sociopathic tendencies. People in positions of authority often believe they have exceptional or above average ability at skills that they have no experience with, that they are exempt from laws others must follow, and are more frequently dishonest in general. They even exhibit a higher tendency towards magical thinking, in believing that they can personally affect the outcomes of random events.
So, some Big Cheaters might be cheating because they think they somehow have the ability to steer the outcome towards an eventuality that's more favorable for *everyone.* And that even if they don't, they believe they're just too important to hold accountable for their violations of the law.
Any of this sound familiar?
Despite bankers seeming like large scale cheaters, I think he may have been saying that bankers who sell subprime-mortgage-backed-securities are the "little cheaters" of the financial world who cause more damage than the smaller number of "big cheaters" at Enron.
tifforo1 I still don't see the point in the statement. Analyzing who's more to blame in a system like we have today doesn't seem to me like it leads anywhere. The only conclusion I could ever make is that we need to radically rethink the system itself.
Dishonesty is only prevalent in a society that rewards it.
Greed is the incentive for corruption and what promotes it in society, Change the incentive, and corruption will be affected as well. Greed is the desire to benefit oneself over and above anyone else. It's selfishness in its pure form, and an expression of being anti-social.
Greed can only be overcome when the individuals mature to an understanding we as individuals live to pursue happiness, and this state of being is the result of a balanced set of circumstances where everyone in the community has enough to satisfy their basic needs, and have the time and wealth to pursue any other spiritual needs they may have. In other words, in the true sense of achieving the happiness humans are naturally designed to pursue. In the ultimate balance, a conscious being can only get it when she/he knows everyone in the community has achieved the minimum level of material and spiritual satisfaction. This is called CONSCIOUSNESS and unless we attain it, we could never be completely satisfied and happy in a sustainable way.
This is why Democracy and Capitalism can never truly complement each other, because capitalism inherently produces a large sector of materially insecure people, while democracy demands CONSCIOUSNESS from every member of society to function properly. Members of society who are conscious of the social disparities can't be truly happy while knowing a great number of fellow community members are in distress.
this is wonderfully drawn and well written and a fine presentation of a good message. I bet it makes most of us that watch it and I bet a lot of people can't watch it because it burns like fire. Thanks, I enjoyed it while I cringed.
a musician and a chef are not the same thing. A musician is an artist, a chef isn't. Music is a means to express our feelings, food is a biological need. Therefore, downloading music instead of paying 20 euros (dollars or whatever) isn't immoral. On the other hand, it is immoral to ask from potential customers to spend 20 (blah blah) in order to buy a CD that contains 2-3 nice songs and the rest are mediocre or garbage. Also, if a musician sells ZERO CD's but millions download his music, how many people do you think will spend money to see him performing live? How much money is that? Have you seen how rich the musicians get? Why aren't they considered greedy bastards, when they earn millions of $$ and want more money... and we are considered immoral people for download their music?
Last but not least, as for bankers, SCREW you man! A banker chose to work in a place where it can take your house and let you live in the streets. If Internet and "Free Downloading" wasn't around, no one would know you and the existence of your precious book, you would need money for advertising campaigns etc... So, I like your video but not everything that you're saying...
I agree. Everything about piracy in this video was bullshit.
"A musician is an artist, a chef isn't."
But a chef can also create new dishes or create their own version of an existing dish. And we tend to treat some chefs as a celebrity. Also, food can be a form of expression as they reflect on our own tastes.
"Music is a means to express our feelings, food is a biological need. Therefore, downloading music instead of paying 20 euros (dollars or whatever) isn't immoral."
What? Wouldn't that logic not apply to food instead because it is a necessity while the other is purely a luxury? We have enough food to feed everybody on this planet and yet it's kept away from those that need it because they don't have the cash for it. Why aren't you crying about that injustice?
"On the other hand, it is immoral to ask from potential customers to spend 20 (blah blah) in order to buy a CD that contains 2-3 nice songs and the rest are mediocre or garbage."
That makes no sense as this is based on your own subjective taste. How is anyone supposes to know what you might like or not? Also, there are ways to legally download the songs at a cheap price.
"Also, if a musician sells ZERO CD's but millions download his music, how many people do you think will spend money to see him performing live? How much money is that? Have you seen how rich the musicians get? Why aren't they considered greedy bastards, when they earn millions of $$ and want more money... and we are considered immoral people for download their music?"
That's only "if" through. A musician might not still be so lucky to gain the large fanbase, so having this revenue stream can at least keep them going.
"Last but not least, as for bankers, SCREW you man! A banker chose to work in a place where it can take your house and let you live in the streets."
I doubt that was their intention when they joined the bank. In fact, they don't want to do this to you because they lose the income they would make back from the loan. And you ignore the many positives things that banks have done by lending money to people to start their own businesses.
"If Internet and "Free Downloading" wasn't around, no one would know you and the existence of your precious book, you would need money for advertising campaigns etc... So, I like your video but not everything that you're saying..."
But he still right through. You yourself are displaying that rationalisation he was talking about.You wouldn't go to a bookstore and steal the actual physical copy of the book itself and make that same rationalization.
Is there any way to download the drawings from the video?
I would have recognized aspects of these characteristics about myself, although never comfortably throughout my life, and even then quite rare. A few years ago I first came across Objectivism (hadn't heard of it before my 40's). And unlike the dismissive nature of the vast majority, I studied it intensely. I have found it is a philosophy that clarifies values that I mostly had but couldn't integrate with the values that I have been immersed in (collectivist values).
It comes down to a clear and correct philosophy. I have no doubts about living a completely honest life now, because it's clear why I do it and why it's necessary.
The result is, I've become very unpopular, often and most regularly asked/told to, compromise by others. I don't, and won't. It's served as a true friend filter, leaving me with a handful of good friends. That's all I need.
When you know why you do something, and refuse to accept irrationality, it's easy.
Ryan Acumen That's exactly the misunderstanding of Objectivsm that is banded around and repeated ad infinitum.
The trouble is, it's a complete myth and is utterly rejected by the philosophy. For starters Objectivism does not recognize that any man is superior or inferior than another man. That's in line with Nietzsche, also rejected by Objectivism but some people continue to parallel the two.
Avidcomp Objectivism sounds interesting, and you seem like you've researched the merits of different philosophies very thoroughly. I just did a quick wiki search the central tenets of objectivism, and I'm already really looking forward to learning more about it.
MrYeshi412 Good for you. It is a credit to your own mind.
Try the Ayn Rand Institute for links to books, podcasts, lectures etc.
Nothing to do with the philosophy per se, but have a listen to Burt Folsom lecture, The Myth of the Robber Baron.
th-cam.com/video/4Vw6uF2LdZw/w-d-xo.html
Avidcomp
_"Try the Ayn Rand Institute for links to books, podcasts, lectures etc."_
Or achieve the same result by simply having a lobotomy.
So sorry you've become "very unpopular". Perhaps others, who are equally intelligent and ethical recognize that selfishness, is not a virtue. Just say'n...
The question i'm asking is Arielly makes the observation that appealing to whatever spirits you believe in can give you a fresh start, SO If I wish to do this in regards to "cheating on a diet" whom do I appeal to if I do not have spirits which I believe in? How do I achieve that refresh moment if my beliefs only extend to indifferent reality?
Not much time left to sign up for Dr. Ariely's free class www.coursera.org/course/behavioralecon
It's hard to understand how to connect between rationalization and the money, bank thing which came out at the end of the story but there were some interesting example in this video
This is way overly simplistic. There is no moral equivalent between somebody who takes a few pens from their office or download a movie and bankers who game the system. You cannot strip away the context of the structure of power in our society and make sound moral judgements on people behavior. The father at the beginning of the story knows the difference in between stealing from a peer and stealing from a faceless entity like a corporation which sole purpose is profit. Most people are sophisticated enough to see the difference between somebody stealing to feed his kids and a CEO running away with his employee pension fund to buy house number 7 in the Hampton. That is the whole point of folk heros like Robin Hood or as in the Gospel of Mark 3: Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2 Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”
4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
fucking Christian fanatic
The video showed the way in which actions which cause great harm but in a very abstract way or to an unseen person (such as subprime mortgages) don't FEEL worse to the perpetrator than smaller acts that are directly and immediately wrong against a seen person in a seen way.
the essence of humor is a dash or a tablespoon full of truth coupled with the element of surprise! Thanks for this fun yet a tad bit true...
.. the base of the issue is false!
I don't know whether it's the best, but it's a very good one; I have thought of this as well as long-range (e.g. ballistic) weapons and such as the top ones, but can't for sure say which, technically, should be IT.
I'm tired of attempts to make an analogy between physical property and intellectual "property". With physical property you are taking something away from another person.
Are you rationalizing theft?
Brilliant way of taking abstract ideas and making them concrete - well done!
How would you proposed to change the incentive structure?
Very strong presentation, much appreciated
Something I've been saying for over 15 years is; "Truth will conquer corruption."... There is no time frame associated with the statement, but it will happen eventually. :-) ♡ ☆
PinballDave72 You hope so. How about doing something about it?
allrighttt I do, each & every day. :-)
Ariely's reasoning and sketches. Quite the unison. Subscribed.
Love Dan Airely; can't recommend his Cousera course highly enough.
this is wonderful and thought provoking,....thank you
These are the kind of things that should be commonly promoted in the class room. In my opinion our culture and the world of capitalism that is dragging us down is rooted in many ideas that The RSA is preaching to us. There is no one solution that will ever be spoken and change is a constant. How to change and for what reason is a question we need to ask ourselves. Eliminating dishonesty in the way this video explains is a good starting place for us all.
first off, thank you for addressing the point I was making and giving me a realistic argument
second, you would agree that in order to do that, you would have to accuire the book for a certin amount of time and accertain the parchment used to copy the information from the book (not to mention the time taken to copy each and every page) ...
but still, you did make a good point
The break-in example is reductio ad absurdum. It's a demonstration that right/wrong is distinct from getting the charge correct; that unauthorized access doesn't mean theft. Theft necessarily implies deprivation of others. When I copy something, nothing is consumed, nobody is deprived (except of potential income or of control).
Oh and: I'm not perfectly innocent, my actions in life aren't 100% completely just. I never implied that. But this has no bearing on the logic of the argument.
further more, I would think that people that pirate might do so because they dont have the means to legaly purchase the content (in the case of i-tunes it might be regional restrictions imposed by i-tunes or the recording studios), torrents have no such limitations
Such a simplistic view concerning human phenomenas...
partially agree. On the one hand, His analysis is very interresting. On the other, he doesn't interrogate the system itself on how does it works (assuming that if we have no cheaters, it would work well), but only on the rewarding and penalty the systems uses to work... which, even if it is interresting, is not the earth of the problem.
That was a cool video. I like how he pointed out that different actions lend themselves more to rationalization. I also like the concept of the "WTH Effect."
-Jade
I see your point and I agree with. The thing is, radio stations and TV stations pay for the rights to broadcast that stuff. About that book thing: Nowadays you can just listen to the songs on TH-cam.and "check if it is woth buying". With movies and games it's something different though (in my opinion). You can't tell, if a 2 hour movie is good just by the trailer and you can't tell, if a game is good in the long run just by playing the demo which captures the first 30 minutes of the game.
I know the focus of the comments on this video will be on the rationalization of illegal downloads, but can we appreciate for a second the amazing illustrator's use of fairy tales as allegories? It's not even mentioned in the talk, yet it blended seamlessly for almost every example!
That's actually very relevant.
Since in common law, and how the idea of stealing is taught to children, deprivation is still there.
Face it, we're dealing with something new - and as such, we have to treat it as something new - no matter how much you try to re frame the discussion as justifying anything.
Noting two things are different is not justifying something. You can think murder is wrong, and know that literally it is different than rape for example.
I understand that people make almost all of their money via live shows and merchandise, what I am trying to argue is that this does not mean we have a right to own the product of someone elses work. Essentially, that this is a rationalisation, that the idea of stealing from the rich (the record companies) is morally acceptable, even though it is still stealing. We are thieves, even if we do not wish to see ourselves as such.
Props to you, though, for putting out your music for free :)
RSA I love you. I wish all online training programs had your clever animation!
FANTASTIC animation lmao! First time seeing this channel, frackin great.
Interesting and very imaginative presentation. I agree that the position that people like bankers were in was tempting them to buy the idea that what they were doing was ´not so bad´ however to change the circumstances that led to it is very hard for those not involved. Also, I think that in this case 12 people could easily steal a lot more than the 36000 because they have ability to rob entire wealth of 36000 which would be worth more than petty thefts.
Concerning sharing a lawnmower, I think the difference is that there is a built in limit on how widely it can be shared, basically neighbors or friends. And, because they are objects that can break and wear out, you are unlikely to share them with complete strangers. And even with your friends you will say "ok, enough, time to buy your own." With a file sharing website there is no limit to the number of copies that can be distributed. Such sites can do serious damage to an author's income.
but their record is still in the same state and place it was before you downloaded it... isn't it?
how can I contact the artist who does these illustrative drawings to give ideas as to what to do?
everything kinda make sense while I was watching the video. but didn't get anything when the video is done.
I just interviewed for a position instituting rewards at a major bank. One of the main reasons that I believe that I will not get the position is because I mentioned a current misalignment of incentives for bankers
Give the brilliant illustrator a raise!
Ok I can change streaming format a bit:
instead of streaming dvd I convert it into digital form and destroy original then one who wants to watch, takes it to his computer and deletes all data from server, when he is done he puts it back and deletes from his computer at same time. In result no 2 copies exist at same time anywhere and only one user can use it at same time.
Thank you. This was a very useful video and presentation.
7:16 “expriment conducted in Be’er Sheva, southern Israel”... this begs the question of the cultural environment and attitudes towards cheating.
It is no secret that Mediterranean people have much more “flexible morals” around cheating that Northern European people.. just look at attitude towards not paying taxes or national corruption.
In short: How do you explain that Scandinavian countries are much less corrupt than Mediterranean countries?
But there could be a depreciation cost. Maybe goods sold with the virtual good will suffer, maybe getting the cd will mean the concert tickets are skipped. Its maybe not tangible but it could mean basically the same thing.
strangely,I believe your 2nd paragraph actually supports the talk.People in general cheat if they can rationalize it,if they think that cheating brings more good than harm than they will cheat.
however if you can't rationalize it,stealing pencils seem like "stealing is bad so I shouldn't do it." but if you can it will seem like "They're putting those pencils to good use,might as well take them."
Cheating and stealing is still 'bad' but I believe that sometimes 'necessary evil' is required.
I never thought of it that way. Thank you.
Sorry, didn't notice your reply.
The ethics of taxation itself doesn't justify violence, however the principle of using force to support laws is a major part of the legal system (though I'm not aware of your views of having police, I will assume you support it in general cases, but not this specific).
The issue therefore becomes "should taxation be legally required" which I believe it should on the basis of public goods etc, and thus it falls into the category of "under threat of force".
I'm the owner of an independent record label called Blondfox Records. 50% of all profit is given back to the artists, 40% is spent on advertising, and the other 10% is on Expenses. Not all record labels are Evil. And a lot of underground artists struggle to get off of the ground because of people that think like you. Thank you for contributing to the Demise of the Music Industry.
That is part definition part opinion. I believe it will lead to people being more focused on things to "steal" than things to invent. Products with large R&D costs will either develop very slow - or not at all.
Keep up the great work. You guys are among a few shining candles in the dark abyss of TH-cam ignorance.
Hmm... I think Durkheim explained why individual behavior can't be generalized to the group? It's a good theorie but i don't know if it is valuable.
But it is exactly same as my situation with digital content.
If I buy CD, It is object just like lawnmower, it has function to display some movie on TV, It does its job just like lawnmower and can be transferred to someone else. No copies are made here.
Why I can share lawnmower but I cant share CD?
The question is related to what are you buying? If you're paying for ownership of an object (e.g. a lawnmower), then you are free to do what you wish with it. Whereas if you are paying for an ebook or software, you are not paying for ownership, you are paying for a license to use the software. That license has usage conditions which may not permit you to share it with others. That's the difference.
So were the first individual owners of property being "honest" or "dishonest" when the staked claim to tracts of land against those with no muscle power? Similarly for the first owners of intellectual property? Was the demarcation of "property" just something that was convenient for a particular type of agricultural practice and social organisation at eh expense of others? Who decides what is honesty? Is the speaker viewing this questioning as "rationalisation of dishonesty"?
A better question would be, if I played a song(file) in the open and you recorded it and shared it with others, would THAT be illegal? Would you have to get permission to record or duplicate sounds that are in the public sphere? Now that's a question to ask.
wonderful perspective! thanks!
Some styles of music was never meant to be played live, and many composers/musicians aren't interested in playing live (one famous example would be XTC's Andy Partridge)--they prefer recording as the main focus. So how would he be compensated fairly for all of his hard work?
So do we outlaw banking and lending, and peer to peer file sharing? I think not.
Good point. Although as the discussion progresses I'm starting to wonder if the word "theft" even applies to all this. Let us remember this is digital content, which as Nick said from the start, follows VERY different rules than stealing food.
Overall, I think that we're stuck with the morality framework of trading physical objects, which does not apply well to digital. Perhaps we should stop thinking of music/videogames as THE product? Maybe it's more about how to "buy" the artist behind it?
As for bankers, I would add that practice of "gentle art of extrapolation" mixed with hoard opinion resulted in such a skewed system. You can always try different method, different premises, remove "bad" data, until you get result that is in line with your own view.
KPIs aren't new and are usually tied to bonuses, not base salary. So fair compensation is not an issue. All organizations have it, so it's not a new layer of complexity. All it takes is to change KPIs to incentivize good behavior. E.g. Instead of rewarding based on hitting a quarterly sales quota, reward based on both on quota and percentage of return customers (long term).
I agree with that. I'm not saying that medieval European society was determined by religion but wondering asking if anyone has actually measured the level of cheating within societies informed by religious ritual. It may be that deception takes other forms outside of a moral code and that the null hypothesis is that deception is consistent across societies, regardless of ritual. From that point one would be free to explore any number of ways societies reduce cheating.
but did you watch the piece i mentioned, "the right kind of monster"? he uses sandusky's imprisonment as a teachable moment. i just thought it was a great example of this guy's principle in motion. i just think its very telling because it takes a certain degree of mental maturity to see things how these guys see them, ya know?
This also apply to criticize as well. When you scold other, rather than admitting they they are at fault, the other party usually rationalize their own action and blame anyone except themselves.
It has to do with simultaneous use. If he has loaned it out, he cannot enjoy the economic benefit of owning it until the borrower returns it. In that sense, it is the same as most software licenses that are structured that allow installaton on multiple machines, but prohibit the simultaneous use of multiple installations at the same time.
That was not meant to disregard any of your claims. It is a completely tangential comment suggesting that there is independent value in being as respectful as you can be simply because people are emotional and complex and easily become defensive or condescending etc. We need to check ourselves and try to maintain friendly discourse, and I'm not saying I'm immune and perfect. Asking others to word things more respectfully is not a personal attack.
Yes. One cannot own information itself, only the specific material its imprinted upon.
I like the ideas presented. I would only add one thing. Sometimes we look for a civic (government) solution to a religious (moral) problem. That type of thinking doesn't have a very good track record. If we are growing less religious (moral) as a society, I would suggest that only a religious (moral) solution can help reverse the problem.
what a fascinating philosophical debate we are having, the biggest problem is that in the internet age it is near impossible for you to not be able to find a copy of music on the internet, this makes it impossible to enforce copyright in this day and age.
(lost track of the thread)
Possible workarounds for your road asphalting scenario: The people who paid for it turn it into a toll road, and charge for usage.
Or, just let the other people drive on it. If it was my neighborhood and I chipped in to resurface the road, I'd just let the other people drive on it because I enjoy helping people out.
Just notice that scenario is the opposite of the freeloaders passing a law requiring me to pay for a road or service for their use.