[RD] Morals of enjoying works made by people who have done bad things

[hobbsyoyo]

I'll consume the works still, but I'll only acquire them via piracy, and I won't recommend them to anyone who I think might financially support the creator.

I think a good and just solution would be that works created by people convicted of sufficiently serious crimes immediately and irrevocably revert to the public domain upon conviction, so I operate as if that's already the case.

I agree with the sentiment behind this but often the IP and rights to it are split up between many individuals and groups who don't deserve to be punished for what one person did.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I think a good and just solution would be that works created by people convicted of sufficiently serious crimes immediately and irrevocably revert to the public domain upon conviction, so I operate as if that's already the case.

What happens if later the conviction is overturned? You can't really un-release something from the public domain.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

"intellectual property" is a capitalist scam. It needs to be abolished or have very short terms, like 5 years, so that all the humanity can benefit from arts and culture. Similarly, all knowledge should be free.

Can you imagine if Mozart's music was copyrighted?

 

[Patine]

"intellectual property" is a capitalist scam. It needs to be abolished or have very short terms, like 5 years, so that all the humanity can benefit from arts and culture. Similarly, all knowledge should be free.

Can you imagine if Mozart's music was copyrighted?

Which means, of course, that authors, musicians, artists, or innovators who don't work for, or are by backed by, big companies, will have to be content in perpetual poverty, at least as fruits from their creative endeavours, by your proposed system. But, hey, as it hits the "big guys" a little, all the "indies" will just have to take a fall...

 

[Birdjaguar]

What kind of rules was he breaking? CFC mods throw out infractions to people for calling a spade a spade, so breaking CFC rules generally doesn't make you a bad person. And breaking bad rules, in fact, makes you a good person (example: Nazi officers who disobeyed Hitler when he told them to kill Jews). You get my point.

Discussions of specific posters and their violations publicly is not allowed here so I cannot go into any details. I was making an analogy of people who do bad things and good things and how the balance can get wonky depending on the values applies and the situation at the time. Context is important.

Also, keep in mind that some people's accomplishments are overstated and overblown. One good example is Wagner. He was an antisemite, and his music was venerated by the Nazis (and today it is widely popular in the US). His music is prohibited from being performed in Israel, which I think is kinda wrong... but back to my point. And the point is that Wagner's music is objectively bad music. It's really boring, doesn't invoke any emotions, and generally shows poor composing style. He is really overrated, and his antisemitism is almost like the thing that keeps his crappy music still relevant today.

But then again, I think Wagner should just not be performed anywhere anyway because his music is trash.

Link to video.

 

[Traitorfish]

"intellectual property" is a capitalist scam. It needs to be abolished or have very short terms, like 5 years, so that all the humanity can benefit from arts and culture. Similarly, all knowledge should be free.

It's not entirely clear what abolition intellectual property rights will achieve if the whole capitalist apparatus of distribution isn't abolished along with it. I suppose it would make the pricing of streaming services a little more competitive?

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Which means, of course, that authors, musicians, artists, or innovators who don't work for, or are by backed by, big companies, will have to be content in perpetual poverty, at least as fruits from their creative endeavours, by your proposed system. But, hey, as it hits the "big guys" a little, all the "indies" will just have to take a fall...

Because of course indie musicians are already not left behind or pirated, right? Which hurts them much more than big companies who take the lion's share of profits in the first place and treat artists like cheap replaceable labor.

It's not entirely clear what abolition intellectual property rights will achieve if the whole capitalist apparatus of distribution isn't abolished along with it. I suppose it would make the pricing of streaming services a little more competitive?

I guess we will have to abolish capitalism.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I guess we will have to abolish capitalism.

You can get started as soon as you abolish greed and selfishness.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

I once heard that the optimal length of time for copyright is 10-20 years. Patents last in that range.

 

[Patine]

You can get started as soon as you abolish greed and selfishness.

The problem with both advocates of Capitalism and Communism (and hybrid economic models) is the assumption that those two are - to use a Civilization game term - the final, apex, ultimate, and only possible end advancements in economic, resource management, and fiscal ideology, and there is nothing even POSSIBLY available in the future, or to be considered at all, so such thought is futile, we MUST focus on what's already here. No further innovation in a broad, paradigm scale will happen here. Capitalism and Communism are the be-all-and-end-all for the rest of time, so make your choice. That strikes me as utter fatalistic, self-defeating, and even stupid garbage.

 

[Kyriakos]

Wagner isnt trash, though perhaps he is overhyped. I like (spelling murder pending) tannheuser (?). But he certainly isnt among my favourite composers. Tsaikofsky (spelling), prokofiev, grieg, chopin and others are imo far better.

Re hitler's paintings, i have to assume their starting price is quite high, else they would be bought by far right people/parties.

 

[Zelig]

I agree with the sentiment behind this but often the IP and rights to it are split up between many individuals and groups who don't deserve to be punished for what one person did.

I can't really think of any scenario that can't be reasonably dealt with via some combination of sensible legislation and contracts between rights holders and creators to take potential IP nullification into account.

And that's already the case anyway. Should people who would avoid supporting Bryan Singer movies due to the allegations against him feel bad that they're unfairly punishing the many other people involved in the movies?

What happens if later the conviction is overturned? You can't really un-release something from the public domain.

Monetary restitution. You can't give someone back the time they spent in prison either.

It's not entirely clear what abolition intellectual property rights will achieve if the whole capitalist apparatus of distribution isn't abolished along with it. I suppose it would make the pricing of streaming services a little more competitive?

Well free piracy works pretty well as a distribution method already, I expect the same mechanisms would work much better if they weren't continually getting their servers seized, blacklisted by advertisers and payment platforms, operators dragged into court and fined to ruination, etc. Depending on platform, streaming prices would decrease drastically, as the overwhelming majority of their costs are in royalty payments. You can also very directly measure decreased costs of physical goods once the media enters the public domain. (See Beatles CDs.)

 

[Traitorfish]

Well free piracy works pretty well as a distribution method already

Does it? I remember the Pirate Bay. Slow downloads, files with unreliable quality or content, and the less mainstream the content, the slower and more unreliable it becomes.

Streaming services aren't widely used because they've locked down the culture through abuse of copyright laws. The most popular services, Spotify and Netflix, don't even own the majority of the content they distribute. They're popular because they offer reliable access to that content, and would continue to be popular even if that content was otherwise freely available. Abolishing intellectual property would allow streaming services to bypass a lot of licensing, and thus would in the short term encourage a multiplication of streaming services offering lower subscription fees, but it's not really clear what particular good that would be expected to do in the long-term.

You can get started as soon as you abolish greed and selfishness.

Do you mean to suggest that greed and selfishness were only invented in 1760, or that our primitive ape-like ancestors also practiced capitalism?

I guess we will have to abolish capitalism.

Well, sure. But I can think of several more pressing reasons for doing so than Disney not putting their animated stuff on Netflix.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You can't die on every hill... you'd never get to live... That's my hot-take.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm not even sure that I don't enjoy people who have done bad things, much less that I would disavow other things they have done.

That's particularly profound, considering this is a Civilization forum... a game which has... for decades... outright celebrated some of the most murderous, villainous, slayers and defilers of man and beast that this world has ever known.

Alexander the Great etc., can get a pass but others can't? Why? Everyone has to decide according to their own sensibilities... life is too short to be that righteously indignant.

 

[Patine]

I can't really think of any scenario that can't be reasonably dealt with via some combination of sensible legislation and contracts between rights holders and creators to take potential IP nullification into account.

And that's already the case anyway. Should people who would avoid supporting Bryan Singer movies due to the allegations against him feel bad that they're unfairly punishing the many other people involved in the movies?



Monetary restitution. You can't give someone back the time they spent in prison either.



Well free piracy works pretty well as a distribution method already, I expect the same mechanisms would work much better if they weren't continually getting their servers seized, blacklisted by advertisers and payment platforms, operators dragged into court and fined to ruination, etc. Depending on platform, streaming prices would decrease drastically, as the overwhelming majority of their costs are in royalty payments. You can also very directly measure decreased costs of physical goods once the media enters the public domain. (See Beatles CDs.)

Does it? I remember the Pirate Bay. Slow downloads, files with unreliable quality or content, and the less mainstream the content, the slower and more unreliable it becomes.

Streaming services aren't widely used because they've locked down the culture through abuse of copyright laws. The most popular services, Spotify and Netflix, don't even own the majority of the content they distribute. They're popular because they offer reliable access to that content, and would continue to be popular even if that content was otherwise freely available. Abolishing intellectual property would allow streaming services to bypass a lot of licensing, and thus would in the short term encourage a multiplication of streaming services offering lower subscription fees, but it's not really clear what particular good that would be expected to do in the long-term.


Do you mean to suggest that greed and selfishness were only invented in 1760, or that our primitive ape-like ancestors also practiced capitalism?


Well, sure. But I can think of several more pressing reasons for doing so than Disney not putting their animated stuff on Netflix.

But you two are also ignoring the "indie" musicians, artists, authors, and innovators, who don't work for, or are not endorsed by, big media corporations, but seek to get NOTHING, and can claim no monetary reward, for their work, if IP's are abolished - whereas big media corporations will always find a way to get something out of their creations, or the creations of their employees or those they endorse. Also, IP laws help prevent someone else from just "mashing," in an unauthorized, and even aberrant way, the original creator's work into theirs and having declared, or be recognized, as "legitimate," in terms of the "integrity" and "cannon" of both works, and not just a flimsy parody.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's particularly profound, considering this is a Civilization forum... a game which has... for decades... outright celebrated some of the most murderous, villainous, slayers and defilers of man and beast that this world has ever known.

Alexander the Great etc., can get a pass but others can't? Why? Everyone has to decide according to their own sensibilities... life is too short to be that righteously indignant.

Thanks.

I'd like to add that this relates to my previous commentary on intent v outcomes. I'm sure everyone can look in their own lives and see examples where they have a bad outcome and can create, at least in their own mind, a causal link to their much better intentions. The reverse is also amply demonstrated in most people's lives; maybe they went to the bar fully intending to have a meaningless hookup, possibly involving dubious consent, but the outcome turned out to be the love of their life, or maybe they took that last hit of the pipe intending to work up the courage to rob someone and instead they fell out and wound up in the treatment program that saved their life.

Our lives go the way they go, and as we look back and try to credit ourselves with good intentions as well as being effective at having those intentions actually cause the good outcomes in our lives, so too others. It's easy to claim that the director with the casting couch is driven to evil by animal urges, and that this is totally distinct from his intentions to create a great film. But life is actually pretty messy. It's also easy to revere Gandhi for his peaceful revolution that created Indian independence without instilling the barbaric war on a dime spirit that the USian revolution left in USians, until you consider that the "ultimate" outcome there is two nuclear armed nations glaring at each other across an often contested border that may well lead to the end of human civilization. Again, life is messy.

So I am not quick to condemn anyone for their intentions, nor even for their outcomes, because the determination of cause is so difficult. We are where we are, with the good and the bad, and we owe both the good and the bad just as much to HItler and Genghis Khan as we owe it to Gandhi and Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Patine]

Thanks.

I'd like to add that this relates to my previous commentary on intent v outcomes. I'm sure everyone can look in their own lives and see examples where they have a bad outcome and can create, at least in their own mind, a causal link to their much better intentions. The reverse is also amply demonstrated in most people's lives; maybe they went to the bar fully intending to have a meaningless hookup, possibly involving dubious consent, but the outcome turned out to be the love of their life, or maybe they took that last hit of the pipe intending to work up the courage to rob someone and instead they fell out and wound up in the treatment program that saved their life.

Our lives go the way they go, and as we look back and try to credit ourselves with good intentions as well as being effective at having those intentions actually cause the good outcomes in our lives, so too others. It's easy to claim that the director with the casting couch is driven to evil by animal urges, and that this is totally distinct from his intentions to create a great film. But life is actually pretty messy. It's also easy to revere Gandhi for his peaceful revolution that created Indian independence without instilling the barbaric war on a dime spirit that the USian revolution left in USians, until you consider that the "ultimate" outcome there is two nuclear armed nations glaring at each other across an often contested border that may well lead to the end of human civilization. Again, life is messy.

So I am not quick to condemn anyone for their intentions, nor even for their outcomes, because the determination of cause is so difficult. We are where we are, with the good and the bad, and we owe both the good and the bad just as much to HItler and Genghis Khan as we owe it to Gandhi and Thomas Jefferson.

Ah, yes, Thomas Jefferson and his (probably non-consenting) African-American sex slave, which even led to a number of newspaper attacks in HIS OWN DAY!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah, yes, Thomas Jefferson and his (probably non-consenting) African-American sex slave, which even led to a number of newspaper attacks in HIS OWN DAY!

I almost opted not to use Jefferson for fear someone would totally sidestep the point in exactly this way.

 

[Patine]

I almost opted not to use Jefferson for fear someone would totally sidestep the point in exactly this way.

Well, I never liked his politics and vision anyways. I would have been more with Adams, Jay, and Hamilton had I lived in the U.S. at the tail end of the 18th Century. Or maybe I just would have moved to Canada (where I live now) with the United Empire Loyalists.