The role of cognitive dissonance in the copyright debate

Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling people get when they hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The purpose of this blog post is to examine to what extent the avoidance of cognitive dissonance plays a part in the ongoing copyright reform debate.

It would be no exaggeration to state that the copyright reform debate is one of the most polarized political issues of our time. Rights holders argue that without significant copyright reform Canada’s media and technology sectors are going to wither on the vine. User rights and torrent groups, on the other hand, have argued that more strenuous copyright protections will lead to an age of information control. There are precious few resources online that take a balanced look at both sides of the divide.

Cognitive Dissonance and Rights Holder Groups

As stated, cognitive dissonance occurs when a person simultaneously holds two conflicting opinions. The prevailing theory in the social psychology literature is that humans have a drive to reduce their cognitive dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours, or by justifying or rationalizing them. Most of us implicitly hold the statement, “I am a good person” to be true. Thus, when we find ourselves engaged in morally ambiguous activities, we have a drive to diminish the cognitive dissonance that might otherwise result by justifying our actions. The attractiveness of this justification is proportional to the weight of dissonance we are experiencing.
Rights holder groups have strong incentives to make money with their products. As a result, moralistic and normative arguments that support the future production of income hold significant appeal, regardless of their inherent correctness. Some speakers, such as the late Jack Valenti, have even gone so far as to insinuate that tolerance of “piracy” will result in the breakdown of the fundamental moral fibres that hold our civilization together. (For a great discussion of some of the normative moral arguments that have been employed by user rights groups in the copyright debate, please see Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars by William Patry).

Clearly, this kind of hyperbole does little to make their cause seem a reasonable one. Yet I think it would be a mistake to discount these opinions as being a sort of cynical appeal to the public. User Rights groups have considerable incentive to make money with their products, and as such they have an equally considerable incentive to justify money-making schemes as the inherently moral choice.

Cognitive Dissonance and User Rights Groups

It is important to recognize, however, that user rights groups engage in a considerable level of cognitive dissonance diminishment as well. While the free exchange of online information can be used to enhance liberty, it is also frequently used as a method for people to acquire a product for free that they would have otherwise paid for.
James Gannon notes that the album “Hope for Haiti”, a charity album easily available online for the price of a small donation to a Haiti Relief Fund, became widely distributed on Torrent sites like IsoHunt almost the minute it hit the web. There is no moral justification for freely downloading an album that was available for a nominal cost, all of which would have gone to earthquake victims. Yet it showed up in Torrent circles almost immediately. So while the community may talk about the importance of liberty and informational freedom, in my opinion they seem to ignore the very serious moral ambiguity of the actions of a significant chunk of the community.

Similarly, arguments such as, “They’re already making a profit, so why do I have to give them more?” seem designed only to deflect the conversation away from an analysis of the substantive morality of the person’s position. Many copyright “infringements” do not follow this pattern, but it seems to me that the taking of a product that someone has put effort into producing without their consent and without compensation raises considerable ethical issues. But any discussion about “theft” or immorality among these circles is often met with vitriolic resistance.

Cognitive dissonance operates here too. The User Rights advocates are predominantly young. They grew up inundated in the burgeoning information exchange industry. Music was downloaded via Napster; games were distributed via copied CDs and diskettes. There is considerable incentive to downplay the moral consequences of these actions and retain one’s self-conception. This is an incentive that, in my opinion, must be rejected. The community must be willing to honestly and openly address the considerable ethical implications of its position.

Summary

An understanding of the debate requires an understanding of the positions of both sides. There are considerable incentives to reduce cognitive dissonance for both parties. What is important to acknowledge about this is that the normative and moral positions that each have taken are often not merely cynical or opportunistic; they are positions that are fervently and passionately believed in. It is only by cutting through some of this grandstanding and assessing each moral position honestly that both sides can begin to come to a reasonable consensus on this highly polarized issue.