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

[Traitorfish]

I don't really get what your point is. Obviously we can't save more resources by making something cheaper than the total amount of resources that the thing takes in the first place.

Well, that is the point. You're proposing a reform that will make life very difficult for independent and middling creators, and the only clear or indeed stated benefit is to make streaming services a bit cheaper. (I have no idea where you pilled the figure of 80% from.) It's not actually dealing with the problems presented with current IP law, it's just kicking them down the road to be dealt with in a different form.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe limited copyright to a few decades, but not the current one for (eg) books, which here is 70 years after the author dies...

 

[stinkubus]

For me, it depends on what they have done. If some great scientist, using Civ language, was drunk at a bar and started a fight, I honestly don't see it as a problem. But if he is a rapist and a serial killer? Maybe it is a problem.

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.

Without Wagner the world would have never known the joy of What's Opera, Doc?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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 can understand why you personally would not want to give these people money, but I can't see any moral justification of stripping someone of their ownership rights of something that has nothing to do with anything criminal they have been convicted of.

 

[civvver]

If you can't enjoy any entertainment but anyone who's done anything morally despicable you probably can't enjoy any entertainment except for maybe books by Buddhist monks or something.

But especially sports, all leagues have a bunch of really bad dudes, and a bunch of terrible owners.

I think it goes along the same lines of are we going to ban all products from a company cus we don't like the CEO or something. Sure if you feel strongly enough. But like will you stop eating kraft foods now cus robert kraft got caught with hookers? Doubtful and it's kind of a dumb stance to take anyway because his behavior doesn't really have anything to do with the companies actions. We can boycott companies when their company stance or policies are wrong like if walmart underpays and abuses their workers or something.

 

[stinkubus]

Robert Kraft has nothing to do with the food company.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I've never settled on the ethics of enjoying the work of people who've proven to be distasteful or despicable. I seem to let my emotional reaction guide me. At least sometimes, it seems to be a function of their proximity to the work. Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein are the two guys who've stirred feelings recently, and I've had different reactions to the question of their work: I have no emotional connection with Weinstein, and while I'm sure he's had a hand in producing movies that I enjoyed, I couldn't tell you what any of them are, and I haven't looked at his IMDb page to find out. I think I would feel gross knowingly watching anything he touched, but I also think it'd be unfair to everyone who actually made the movies to boycott them, even informally. I've kind of decided that ignorance is bliss when it comes to his work-product. Cosby is another matter entirely. I basically grew up with the guy - The Cosby Show in particular was important to me - and I don't think I could watch anything of his again without feeling sick to my stomach. I expect I'll never watch anything of his again.

 

[Kyriakos]

Didnt weinstein produce like half of recent decades major hit movies?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Didnt weinstein produce like half of recent decades major hit movies?

He hasn't produced anything I think was significant in well over a decade. Closer to two.

 

[Zelig]

Okay, things are getting weird here. Are you accusing me of wanting the families to suffer? I don't want that. That's what you seem to want, by forcing the rights/royalties to be stripped from the criminal (and therefore not usable by the innocent family who did not commit any crimes).

I'm saying that families suffering isn't a result of revoking IP rights, it's a result of any punishment by a criminal justice system. Your problem is with that.

You may or may not be aware that, in modern, First World nations, when you're sentenced to incarceration, while, indeed certain rights are suspended and certain privileges are removed for the duration of your incarceration and for the terms of such, and certain crimes may put you on certain registries thereafter upon release, you do not actually lose ALL RIGHTS and become a "non-citizen," "legal non-person," "stateless person," "declassified person," "Invisible," or "excommunicated one," irrevocably for the rest of your days. That may surprise you...

I agree, and have never advocated for or claimed otherwise.

Well, that is the point. You're proposing a reform that will make life very difficult for independent and middling creators, and the only clear or indeed stated benefit is to make streaming services a bit cheaper. (I have no idea where you pilled the figure of 80% from.) It's not actually dealing with the problems presented with current IP law, it's just kicking them down the road to be dealt with in a different form.

It fixes a problem. You seem to have a different problem. I can make you a sandwich, but I'm not going to unclog your toilet, even if that's a more pressing issue for you.

And I've only proposed a reform that would make life difficult for independent and middling creators who've been convicted of a serious crime.

I have no idea where you pilled the figure of 80% from.

Spotify pays ~80% of its revenues out in royalties, their financials are public.

I can understand why you personally would not want to give these people money, but I can't see any moral justification of stripping someone of their ownership rights of something that has nothing to do with anything criminal they have been convicted of.

If the IP has been transferred from the creator, I think allowances could be made to leave it in the hands of the new owner if there's a mechanism to claw back the pro-rated sale value of the IP from the date of the crime onwards from the original creator.

i.e. I don't want to allow a bad actor to be able to profit by selling off IP before they're caught.

But especially sports, all leagues have a bunch of really bad dudes, and a bunch of terrible owners.

Indeed, I cannot enjoy pro sports.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If the IP has been transferred from the creator, I think allowances could be made to leave it in the hands of the new owner if there's a mechanism to claw back the pro-rated sale value of the IP from the date of the crime onwards from the original creator.

i.e. I don't want to allow a bad actor to be able to profit by selling off IP before they're caught.

I don't know if you think that answers what I said, or if it's just a tangential thing you wanted to say :?:

 

[civvver]

Robert Kraft has nothing to do with the food company.

Wow I would've sworn kraft group = kraft food for the longest time lol. Probably one of those rumors you hear a long time ago and never check the validity. Either way my point is the same.

Indeed, I cannot enjoy pro sports.

Well at least you aren't hypocritical about it. Most people will say aw I could never support this guy, without realizing half the players on their own teams have done worse and the owners waaay worse.

How about Bill Cosby? Do you guys all hate his show now that he's been convicted? Or OJ Simpson? Do you have to burn your old jerseys?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Indeed, I cannot enjoy pro sports.

But is that for the reason of the terrible people, or just because you dont like it?

 

[Perfection]

He hasn't produced anything I think was significant in well over a decade. Closer to two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Weinstein_Company_films#2010s
I mean it seems to me that there are some significant films there

 

[stinkubus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Weinstein_Company_films#2010s
I mean it seems to me that there are some significant films there

TIL that winning Best Picture twice in the span of a decade counts as "releasing nothing of significance".

 

[Zelig]

I don't know if you think that answers what I said, or if it's just a tangential thing you wanted to say :?:

Oh, you meant criminals who have IP that isn't related to their crime?

I don't think we should extend privileges to criminals when those privileges infringe on the public good. Public domain is the eventual permanent state of any IP, and intentionally keeping IP out of the public domain is a temporary measure whereby the public bears a cost in the short-term to realize a long-term gain. I don't see it as moral to force the public to continue to pay this cost to criminals.

Criminal conviction clauses in contracts aren't an especially novel idea. This is essentially a criminal conviction clause in the IP contract between a creator and the public.

But is that for the reason of the terrible people, or just because you dont like it?

No, I enjoy sports and used to follow some. I made a conscious decision to stop supporting or following them specifically because it was hypocritical and I didn't feel ethical watching/following.

 

[Patine]

Didnt weinstein produce like half of recent decades major hit movies?

And funny, I thought almost all of the major releases from Hollywood in the last two decades or so, with only a few notable exceptions, were utter crap - but it had nothing to do with Weinstein being involved. They were just all crap. Modern "big blockbuster" movie-making esthetic and viewpoints REALLY disappoint me, especially coupled with thin, contrived, hole-ridden plots and cringe-worthy forced character interaction - and the rise of Manichaean, Gnostic Elect, and Chosen One themed-crap and tenor in a Hell of a lot of them which are really getting old and trite as constantly recurring themes. But, hey, now I can retrospectively add Weinstein to my arguments.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Oh, you meant criminals who have IP that isn't related to their crime?

I don't think we should extend privileges to criminals when those privileges infringe on the public good. Public domain is the eventual permanent state of any IP, and intentionally keeping IP out of the public domain is a temporary measure whereby the public bears a cost in the short-term to realize a long-term gain. I don't see it as moral to force the public to continue to pay this cost to criminals.

Criminal conviction clauses in contracts aren't an especially novel idea. This is essentially a criminal conviction clause in the IP contract between a creator and the public.

But what if there are multiple authors and only one of them gets convicted? Do the other authors, who did nothing wrong, get their IP taken away?

 

[Patine]

Oh, you meant criminals who have IP that isn't related to their crime?

I don't think we should extend privileges to criminals when those privileges infringe on the public good. Public domain is the eventual permanent state of any IP, and intentionally keeping IP out of the public domain is a temporary measure whereby the public bears a cost in the short-term to realize a long-term gain. I don't see it as moral to force the public to continue to pay this cost to criminals.

Criminal conviction clauses in contracts aren't an especially novel idea. This is essentially a criminal conviction clause in the IP contract between a creator and the public.



No, I enjoy sports and used to follow some. I made a conscious decision to stop supporting or following them specifically because it was hypocritical and I didn't feel ethical watching/following.

I think you're ideals here could easily move into Mussolini's or Stalin's lines of thinking on crime. Plus, you also obvious DON'T understand the criminal justice system of most First World Nations if you think everyone convicted and incarcerated has done of heinous, unforgivable, was given a fair trial, had a fair chance at their defense, and the rich people who did commit horrid crimes weren't given a slap on the wrist or summarily dismissed because of their social class. I think you're imagining penitentiaries full of nothing but hardened, unrepentant murders, rapists, arsonists, and gangster, and them all being definitively, without a shadow of a doubt, guilty, one and all. I assure you, that's a heavy distortion of fact, probably fueled by HBO prison dramas like "Oz" and "Orange is the New Black."

 

[Zelig]

But what if there are multiple authors and only one of them gets convicted? Do the other authors, who did nothing wrong, get their IP taken away?

No.

I think you're ideals here could easily move into Mussolini's or Stalin's lines of thinking on crime. Plus, you also obvious DON'T understand the criminal justice system of most First World Nations if you think everyone convicted and incarcerated has done of heinous, unforgivable, was given a fair trial, had a fair chance at their defense, and the rich people who did commit horrid crimes weren't given a slap on the wrist or summarily dismissed because of their social class. I think you're imagining penitentiaries full of nothing but hardened, unrepentant murders, rapists, arsonists, and gangster, and them all being definitively, without a shadow of a doubt, guilty, one and all. I assure you, that's a heavy distortion of fact, probably fueled by HBO prison dramas like "Oz" and "Orange is the New Black."

Nope, not imagining that. You should stick to things I've actually said, rather what you think I'm imagining.