XplanaZine

It’s been more than fifteen years, but it seems like only yesterday that I was coaching the varsity soccer team of the parochial school where I taught part-time. I would hurry through my last class at the university, sprint to my car, and drive like a madman to the school on the north side of Austin. There, for a couple of hours every afternoon, I would lose myself in the competition and the task of communicating.

In my first year as a coach, my best player got into trouble with one of his teachers and I decided to suspend him for the next game. Now, my assistant coach at the time was Michael Weed, professor of ethics at Austin Graduate School of Theology, and what ensued was a lengthy discussion about whether I should suspend the player for a game or, instead, punish him by making him run and do other unpleasant things after the next practice. Weed, a competitive guy and great jogging partner, argued that by suspending the player I might actually punish all of the innocent players on the team since the player’s absence would likely result in a loss that might keep us out of the playoffs.

My argument was simpler and more visceral. I had to draw a line and let everyone know that we were serious about our team rules. I wanted to create a sense of peer pressure that might deter stupid classroom behavior in the future. Weed argued that I would demoralize the other players and, thereby, negate any chance at creating positive peer pressure.

In the end, I cut the baby in half and made a perfect mess of things. I suspended the player for 1/2 of the game and gave him some punishment after the next practice. He was still the star, he didn’t receive any punishment that could act as a deterrent, and we won the game.

It was one of those crazy situations and I see now that I didn’t have the experience to come anywhere close to making a good decision. But lately, I have taken consolation in the fact that I’m not the only one who has struggled with the balance between punishing individuals and communities.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled against Grokster and Morpheus, saying that entertainment companies (an other content companies) can file suits against technology companies that are caught encouraging customers to steal music and movies over the Internet, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

“We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties,” Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.

The justices said copying digital files such as movies, music or software programs “threatens copyright holders as never before” because it’s so easy and popular, especially among young people. Entertainment companies maintain that online thieves trade 2.6 billion songs, movies and other digital files each month.

At the heart of the Supreme Court decision are the same issues of culpability and responsibility I faced as a coach. To what extent is the community responsible for the actions of its members and to what extent should the community be punished if its members do bad things? Conversely, to what extent is the individual responsible for the actions of the community?

The entertainment industry acts as if it believes suing technology companies will curtail the activities of the community members (much in the same way I argued that hurting the team would get the players in line). Well, my guess is that this will have about as much effect as suing individual members — that is, practically none.

Personally, I’m always uncomfortable when anyone is declared guilty by association. In this instance, Morpheus and Grokster are being held accountable more for what they didn’t do as opposed to what they did wrong. That is always shaky ground.

I’m also fairly certain that this ruling will not solve the file swapping problems anytime soon. Shutting down technology companies will not curtail technological innovation and neither will it put an end to file swapping. The Internet reaches far beyond the United States and history has proven that the Web is exactly that — an archipelago of loosely-knit groups that have no real center.

What I know for sure is that file swapping is important not because the Supreme Court or the entertainment industry says it is. It is important because it is ultimately about individual rights and the relationship between those rights and the rules and responsibilities of the community. These issues transcend rights management and technology and are really at the heart of our educational mission.

As teachers, our job is to facilitate the accrual of wisdom. We are here to help our students understand their responsibilities and their power as individuals. We are the ones who help them find their voices and and to make sure that they connect those voices with others in communal conversation.

Broadcast Information

podcast feed
i-podder download