I am thrilled to announce a new working paper co-authored with Bart Wilson, titled: “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car: Moral Intuition for Intellectual Property.”
The intriguing title of this post, “everyone take copies,” stems from discussions among participants in an experimental study conducted in our lab, which serves as the foundation for our paper. The experiment explored the dynamics of resource appropriation among individuals.
In our virtual environment, participants control avatars, as illustrated in the screenshot below.
Within this experiment, “seeds” symbolize a rivalrous resource, akin to tangible goods that can’t be shared simultaneously. When the Almond-colored player in the image claims a seed from the Blue player, the latter loses access to it, similar to the scenario of car theft.
It is hardly surprising that participants identified the act of taking seeds as “stealing,” as demonstrated by the speech bubble in the image. This outcome aligns with Bart Wilson’s earlier research on the foundations of physical property.
Our research delves into whether similar moral judgments will surface in the context of non-rivalrous goods, referred to as “discs.” Unlike seeds, discs can be utilized by multiple individuals without diminishing their value or availability. If a participant opts to take a disc, the original holder retains full access to it.
While interaction through the chat function is optional, many participants choose to engage communally, attempting to maximize their collective gains. Our findings highlight that when discussing discs, participants do not frame the act of taking them as “stealing.”
As we articulate in our paper:
Participants frequently discuss discs, revealing their conceptualization of this resource. For instance, farmer Almond concludes, “ok so disks cant be stolen so everyone take copies,” explicitly dismissing the notion of “stealing” in relation to discs.
While participants never discourage each other from copying discs, they consistently urge others to refrain from taking seeds. This objection reveals a focus on the taking away of rivalrous goods, rather than the mere act of copying. As farmer Almond succinctly puts it in noSeedPR2, “cuz if u give a disc u still keep it,” highlighting that creators can replicate discs at zero marginal cost.
We invite you to explore the manuscript for a deeper understanding of our experimental setup and exchange mechanisms. We conclude that, contrary to the messaging attempted in the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” campaign by the Motion Picture Association of America in the early 2000s, individuals do not inherently perceive digital piracy as a crime.
While people can acknowledge the illegality of digital piracy and strive to curtail it, instilling a sense of guilt akin to that of harming another person in a tangible manner proves challenging.
This disconnect has significant implications for the evolving information economy. Consider the burgeoning “subscription economy,” where consumers increasingly opt for ongoing access to products and services (think Netflix, Adobe) rather than one-time purchases. Gen Z, in particular, has voiced frustrations on TikTok about feeling ensnared by recurring payments and the absence of true ownership.
In a recent interview on a talk show called The Stream, I speculated that companies’ shift to subscription models might stem from a lack of trust in consumers managing “ownership” of digital goods. Given the opportunity, individuals are likely to share copies of music and software, jeopardizing creators’ ability to monetize their work effectively.
A notable aspect of our experimental design was ensuring that when a disc was shared, while the creator might not receive direct compensation, the attribution of the original creator remained intact. A disc produced by the Blue player is identifiable as blue, allowing all participants to recognize who contributed it. This design choice aimed to ensure that the Blue player could witness their creation being circulated.
However, the rise of large language models in information technology poses a challenge to creators, as many are not credited when their original works inform the outputs generated by tools like ChatGPT. In a recent settlement, Anthropic acknowledged its obligation to compensate for some of the written training material utilized to develop Claude. The future landscape of ideas and how creators are recognized for their contributions will be influenced by how we address these issues.
