HAVE YOU ever downloaded music from the internet? Do you know anyone else who has?
Have you ever sent a copy of a song you liked to a friend? When you did, were you sharing a treasured experience and giving a gift, or were you shoplifting and passing along stolen goods?
Those are different images for the same activity, aren’t they?
Joel was 16 in 2003 when he received a letter demanding $5,250 for seven songs he had downloaded through a file sharing service on the internet. He was scared by this official and legal letter demanding payment so, with help from his parents, he sent a cheque for $500 and explained that he was a high school student and couldn’t afford anything more than that.
Read Also

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations
Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.
They offered to settle for $3,500 and his cheque was returned.
Joel graduated from high school and moved to Boston to attend university. Four years had passed when he received a notice requiring him to appear in court. He was being sued, along with some 30,000 other people, by companies like Sony Music, Warner Brothers and Arista records, all coordinated by the Record Industry Association.
Joel offered to settle for $5,000 but the record companies now wanted $10,500.
At this point a law professor offered to represent Joel. Charles Neeson holds the William F. Wed chair in law at Harvard University, where he is also the founder and co-director of the Birkman Center for Internet and Society.
Neeson believes the internet is a digital version of the old common grazing lands of the 17th century. He believes the internet was started as an open domain but has been fenced off by capital investors who want to increase their profits through new exclusive property rights.
Joel lost his court case this summer, as expected. He was found guilty of downloading 30 songs and required to pay compensation of $22,500 per song. That means $675,000. He will appeal.
Sociologists will tell you that markets are embedded in society through law, politics and morality. However, it is possible for markets to be partly embedded and partly separate.
The market for property rights in digital music is embedded in American law through the Digital Theft Deterrence Act.
However, it is not embedded in morality. Not only are there professors and academic institutes that think digital file sharing is not theft, there are artists too.
John Perry Barlow, lyricist for the famous musical group The Grateful Dead, believes that the on-line world presents us with a new form of the gift economy “where no moral blameworthiness attaches to non-commercial sharing.”
When new markets are created, morality is often contested. When public libraries were created, large publishers campaigned against them because borrowing books was going to take away their profits. It is still possible to find old paperbacks with a notice inside the front cover warning the reader that this book could not be lent or even resold.
Markets require legitimacy – political, legal and moral legitimacy. When Mahatma Gandhi marched his followers to the sea to get their own salt, he was breaking the British law by refusing to pay the salt tax.
Was he a criminal? According to the British colonial legal system, yes. Was he morally right? According to the Indian people, even more so.
You can follow Joel’s story for free at http://joelfightsback.com.
Christopher Lind has published widely in the area of ethics and economics. He is a Senior Fellow at Massey College, University of Toronto.