Mashable reports to day on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences asking YouTube to remove clips of their Oscars telecast. Understood; they spend millions of dollars to create this content, which is then supported by sponsors and licensed by a network, and then seen by millions of interested people for free. There is a simple economy there that works fine for that type of product. But then Mashable breaks my heart:

“This is bad for consumers and ultimately bad for the Oscars, which is, after all, a brand. Lock the clips away, and nobody will bother talking about the brand anymore…Here’s the problem for you, content providers: you’re no longer in charge. The consumer is. And they’ll watch your content where and when they want, or they won’t bother watching it at all.”

What?!? You mean if I work really hard to make my product, and I decide how I want this product to be presented (protected by copyright law, LAW!), to gain value for my labor (because we have to eat), and a handful of folks want to steal it (against my law-protected wishes), I should succumb to the sway of a few thieves? Then let’s go steal bread and share it with our friends. Why pay for anything?

If people want to share their copyright protected items they can choose to do so as they see a value in that trade. If people don’t want to, then we “consumers” have to respect their rights. Otherwise you’re siphoning off the juice that supports all creative ideas (and all economies); that we will receive value in return for our labor. I admire the socialist take on the negation of capital implied in the “consumer is in charge”, but you can’t just make an argument for creative property without providing a viable solution. So the trade for the Oscars is if they allow their clips to be borrowed it will increase the value they receive in exchange for their labor? What if they don’t believe in that theory?