Is it ethical to buy used books and music instead of new copies that will financially reward the author or artist? What do consumers owe to producers of art? — Gerald Barker
From the Ethicist:
There’s actually a lot to be said for buying used and sustaining the low-cost democracy of art’s second life. For one thing, there are environmental advantages in the practice: Physical media are designed to endure and be shared beyond the first owner. And artists can benefit from secondary markets in real, if less tangible, ways. Works that circulate widely can enhance the artist’s reputation, whether it’s a book read and passed along, a record rediscovered in a thrift shop or a painting resold at auction. Enthusiastic new audiences, prominent displays and word-of-mouth appreciation can all contribute to a creator’s stature. (Notice that this situation is very different from music-streaming platforms, where artists are basically meant to be paid for each listen, but the recompense is often a pittance.)
What artists, especially the good ones, are owed is not a cut of every encounter we have with their work but a system that gives them a real opportunity to sell their work, to build a career, to find a public. After that, their creations rightly become part of the wider cultural world, as with books in a library or paintings in a museum, where countless people can enjoy them freely across the generations.
Used-book stores or vintage-record shops, where hidden gems lurk like geodes waiting to be split open, play a role, too. Such venues don’t just preserve art; they bring enthusiasts together, spark conversations and cultivate new audiences. In Michael Chabon’s novel “Telegraph Avenue,” a vintage-record shop is both a community hub and a battlefront for cultural preservation; in Helene Hanff’s book “84, Charing Cross Road,” treasured titles help sustain a human connection across an ocean. Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure I stumbled across both in used-book stores, providing their authors no royalties but plenty of affection. This setup isn’t a failure of fairness; it’s part of how creative work gains cultural traction.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a reader who reneged on buying a home after discovering a potential neighbor on the sex-offender registry, who wrote: “I feel some compulsion to spread the word to others who might be interested in purchasing this property, as knowing a sex offender lives next door could affect what a prospective buyer might be willing to offer. And I feel uncomfortable telling my friends the truth about why I dropped out of the contract that I had entered for this house, because I feel I have discovered private information that I should keep secret.”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “Sex-offender registries in the United States were created for the reason you’d expect: to protect the vulnerable by informing the public. … But what began as a law-enforcement tool has, over time, evolved into a system of prolonged public punishment, treating vastly different cases as if they were the same. Some people are on the registry for horrifying, predatory acts. Others wind up on a registry for nonviolent conduct committed when they were children or teenagers, including a 10-year-old girl who ‘pantsed’ a classmate.
A concern for evidence-based policy has led the American Law Institute to recommend eliminating public notification and limiting registry access to law enforcement. Public registries don’t reduce recidivism or protect people, researchers have concluded. The old ‘once a sex offender, always a sex offender’ wisdom is a discredited generalization. Yet policies built on that assumption remain, despite a growing belief among experts that the registries do more harm than good.
As a third party who came across the information independently, you were obviously free to act on it. But others have the same access you did and can reach their own conclusions.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
The answer is: Yes! Share the information with anyone you want to. It is public information. That’s why there are sex-offender registries. And why voters repeatedly pass ballot measures to create the lists and keep them public. — Teresa
⬥
You are indeed correct that while these registries may have been originally established for laudable reasons, they have been misused to include people who committed minor offenses who currently pose no threat to society. Moreover, inclusion on these lists can function like an albatross for many, precluding them from employment, housing and other vital aspects of life. The original goal behind these registries, making communities safer, has not come to fruition. — Ron
⬥
The Ethicist is focused on the wrong part of the question. I think we can assume that the letter writer has the good sense to use a valid registry. Information like this is meant to be public and meant to be shared. It is not the letter writer’s job to keep it a secret nor control how friends might make their own assessment of the danger or lack thereof. Share freely, I say. — Jennifer
⬥
Many offenders have done their time and will not reoffend; others are still at risk. How to know the difference? What to do if, for example, your next-door neighbor is a registered sex offender? Obtain good consultation with an expert to assess their likelihood of reoffending, and/or investigate further with the police. These crimes are public record. — Joanie
⬥
The registry is an imperfect tool since the range of situations is so broad. Offenders have been punished and often served time. Most of them have worked hard toward rehabilitation. We don’t continue to ostracize other offenders as they go on with their lives. It isn’t your business to target these people or create standards for others. — Veronica
⬥
The biggest danger to children is not the stranger down the street — it is the child’s family and extended family, friends of the family and trusted adults who have authority over the child. It is rare for any of those people to be on the registry. The registry demonizes people who present no danger and does not allow the ones who have paid their debt to develop a life. Personally, I might do a tiny bit of research to discover why the person was on the registry before I even considered telling others. — Ann
Kwame Anthony Appiah is The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist and teaches philosophy at N.Y.U. To submit a query, send an email to [email protected].
The post Is It Ethical to Buy Used Books and Music? appeared first on New York Times.
