This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I’d like to solicit themotte’s thoughts on the ethics of piracy. Specificlly movies, software, and music.
Sharing copyrighted data has been a part of the internet landscape for as long as there has been networked computers. I know it traces back to the bbs days and likely even earlier than that.
Back in the early aughts I was involved in a forum where we would scan for unsecured FTP servers and then fill them with the latest movie music and software releases straight from the groups who actually created and distributed the files. The beauty of this is that you were transferring between commercial networks so the speeds were ludicrous.
This was not long after Napster popularized file sharing and typical online user was very much of the opinion that copying data and sharing it was not equivalent to stealing. Maybe it was the circles I traveled in and my age at the time, but nearly everyone was ethically fine with downloading media. The only reason one wouldn’t do it was that there you needed some minimal level of technical know how to find more than just music on p2p networks. The only folks opposed to it were media corporations, some artists, and a small amount of corporate shills.
Once iTunes, steam, Netflix’s, Spotify, and other commercial options became available, most people stopped file sharing and simply bought media. It was a common to hear the refrain that piracy was a result of lack of access to media online. If there was ease of access and a fair price, most people would be happy to purchase software. This sentiment is still common but I sense it’s become less prominent over the last few years. The streaming environment has become quite fracutured and has impaired both the ease of access and price point for legally consuming media online.
The point of this post is to suggest that people’s opinion on the ethics of media piracy is diametrically opposed to where it was for most of the internets history. The median online opinion that I see is that piracy = theft. Many of these people are young and have been thought from an early age that piracy is not ethical. I suspect that many have also changed their opinion as they age and perhaps are not working at software/medi companies where piracy not affects them directly.
From a personal perspective, I stopped pirating media when iTunes and steam hit the market because it was in fact easier to obtain things legally and I was happy to pay.
That changed about 4 years ago when I realized that I could not in good conscience pay money to Hollywood and leftist game developers. I am happy to pirate their software and steal their movies because the alternative is so distasteful to me. I will occasionally really enjoy something and find the creators to be acceptable enough to support. In those cases I will purchase something after the fact to support people that I agree with. I encourage everyone to do the same. Enforcement of file sharing these days is non-existent. You can pretty much use the the pirate bay without worry and ignore the occasional email from you isp asking you to stop. Though there are many other alternatives out there that don’t take long to find.
Personally, I don't really think of piracy as an ethical issue at all. Intellectual property is a legal fiction that exists for the purpose of incentivizing people to create more and better works of art and inventions, for the betterment of society. This is accomplished by restricting most people's right to speech - their right to transmit certain strings of 0s and 1s to others (which are usually representations of certain strings of letters or certain grid-arrangements of pixels) - while granting other people (i.e. the rights holders) the privilege to express that speech. Like all rights, the right to free speech isn't absolute, and this, like true threats or slander, is one of those exceptions that exist as a compromise to make society more functional and generally better for everyone. But I don't believe there's some sort of natural right that is ethically granted to creators and rights holders to restrict the types of 0s and 1s that 3rd parties are allowed to tell each other.
I do think there are more general ethical issues about simply following along with the prevailing legal norms in society; breaking those, no matter what they are, involve some level of unethical behavior, due to its degradation of the structure that keeps society running. But most people do agree that laws and ethics aren't the exact same thing, and sometimes breaking the law can be ethical; I think most times, piracy doesn't have a sufficient counterbalance to make it, on net, ethical, but sometimes it could. But either way, I don't think the ethical right for rights holders to restrict how 3rd parties transmit 0s and 1s to each other is part of it.
I do think the mainstreaming of digital media over the past couple decades has made it so that the younger generations of today take intellectual property rights as a sort of default correct thing more than younger generations of before. Of course, books, cassettes, and CDs were all real and all copy-able before the 90s, but they were still generally considered physical objects that needed physical action to copy. But the internet has caused the concept of entertainment media to be almost completely decoupled from physical material, and so kids have grown up in an environment where "intellectual property" exists as a concept and is enforced through restricting how 3rd parties communicate to each other is the norm. It'd be natural for them to come to believe in the ethical right to that in such an environment.
For my personal behavior, I used to pirate heavily 10+ years ago for basically all of my digital entertainment. The advent of Steam and more specifically its improved ease-of-use with its central marketplace and library, along with its cloud saving, made it so that I basically don't pirate video games anymore. I also personally get a little value out of knowing that I helped, even in some minor near-imperceptible way, incentivize the creation of more video games similar to the one I purchased. For films and TV shows, I still primarily pirate through torrents, though I try to watch through my Netflix subscription when it's available that way; it's usually just more convenient, and I keep my Netflix subscription primarily due to momentum. For music, I don't listen to music for the most part anyway, and the advent of YouTube as a near limitless free music resource has meant that the few times I do want to listen to music, I can freely access whatever I want. I do think the bit about convenience being the solution to piracy has a lot of truth to it in my behavior.
Something else to add: If by "piracy" you mean "things involving intellectual property that are against the law", remember that the list of things that are illegal is far beyond just "copying a video" and includes such things as derivative works (fanfiction is illegal), and breaking technological protection measures. Many intellectual property laws are hard to defend from any point of view other than just maximizing profits. We're at the point where "you should obey the law, so don't pirate" is a dead letter and at most you can try to figure out for yourself which laws you should violate and which ones you shouldn't.
The Organization for Transformative Works would disagree. That's the non-profit that runs AO3 and was pretty explicitly created to make sure AO3 can be run as a non-profit legally. The community is pretty aggressive about making sure fanfic they host is not even getting close to edge of "not for profit" (e.g. I see posts telling people to not mention on AO3 if a particular piece was commissioned and not to explicitly mention accepting donations), but they're pretty sure fanfic is legal even if charging for fanfic is not. Of course, there's plenty of sites that host derivative works that have ads that haven't gotten sued, so who knows where the courts would actually draw the line.
I think with the legal concept of derivative works, they're clearly in the wrong. I also don't agree with modern copyright law on derivative works.
I'm fine with a regime where, say, "Star Wars" is a trademark, and where the specific, fixed form of the movies and books is intellectual property of Lucas Films or Disney or whoever. But I believe very strongly that someone who writes a 500 page book with Han Solo should be legally able to profit from their creation. The world doesn't benefit at all if a 500 page Star Wars fan fiction, becomes a 501 page work where all references to Star Wars IP have been scrubbed, and one page of boilerplate has been added trying to establish who San Holo our completely unique main character is.
The problem there is that you end up with a bunch of competing products that dilute the brand. Star Wars wouldn't be Star Wars if the film's initial success spurred the creation of 500 "Star Wars" films ranging from big studio productions to low-budget garbage. Studios already try to leech of of other projects by putting out similar movies as other studios to beat them to the box office (Volcano and Dante's Peak, the two Capote movies, etc.); could you imagine what would have happened if Columbia put out a different Episode 5 in 1979 without George Lucas's involvement? Do you think audiences at the time (who were mostly children) would have cared that the film wasn't an "official" release? Your scenario probably wouldn't happen without copyright protection because Star Wars would have been a successful film from 1977 that spurred a number of cash-ins and was quickly forgotten after Fox couldn't make any money off of it due to the brisk competition in Star Wars products, not to mention the oversaturation of inferior media. The idea of Star Wars fan fiction existing today would be akin to the idea of Ice Station Zebra fan fiction existing today.
Eh, Lucas Films would still be the only ones with the Star Wars trademark - and thus the only ones with a movie called "Star Wars", and if they had the right contracts with their actors they would be the only ones with Luke Skywalker played by Mark Hamill, Han Solo played by Harrison Ford, etc. While my proposed copyright regime would allow for unauthorized sequels, I think they would tend to do about as well as those cheap knock offs like "The Little Panda Fighter" and "Ratatoing" do already, or all the Star Wars knock offs of the 70's and 80's. Do you think any of those would have magically been better if they had been able to use the name "Luke Skywalker" for their characters?
Plus, I think people are naturally snobby enough that people would look down on knock-offs. Look at what happened with Pokemon and Digimon in the 90's and 2000's. They're actually very different franchises with different origins (Pokemon started as a video game, Digimon started as a tamagotchi-like virtual pet), but kids on playgrounds got into endless arguments about whether Pokemon or Digimon was better, with many sticking up their noses because Digimon was supposedly a cheap Pokemon rip off. The same would happen with Columbia's Star Wars knock off, which couldn't even be called "Star Wars" due to trademark issues.
I just don't think the risk of a rival studio "scooping" a rival studio's block buster movie is a very big risk of my proposed copyright regime. I think the bigger risk would be how my proposed regime affects the "little people" of the entertainment world. Imagine a big movie studio learning about popular web fiction like Worm or Unsong, and deciding to make their own unauthorized movie version of these works. While I do think social disapproval can be a slight salve for this kind of anti-social behavior - as it is in our copyright regime with cases like the creators of Superman being given good will "royalties" by DC decades after they had sold the rights for pennies, because DC wanted to maintain the good will of the fans - and it might be the case that some companies will cut deals with small creators even when they're not strictly, legally required to. There's also the possibility that an unauthorized Worm or Unsong movie would give the authors of those works the ability to leverage the copyright they do have, and make money from the original product. However, I think it's not unlikely that at least some of the time under my proposed regime small creators would put a ton of work into something only for the big players to use their idea without any payment, and they'd never be compensated by any other means.
Except they wouldn't have had a trademark in 1977 because titles aren't eligible for trademark unless they're part of a series, and Lucasfilms couldn't have demonstrated that they were part of a series because they weren't. So when Columbia gives Mark Hamill a boatload of money in 1978 to star in their Star Wars sequel, they'd have no problem using the title (and all the various ripoffs would have no problem, either). By the time Empire gets made in 1980 trademark protection is off the table because by that time Star Wars is in such common use that it isn't eligible.
Alright, then they make it "Lucas Film'sTM Star Wars", and people would know the genuine article is Lucas Film's until the franchise got off the ground.
And a lot of this is solved by actor contracts with a clause that says, "You agree to give us first choice for sequels involving you playing this character for the next 10 years", or whatever the closest legally enforceable version of that is.
There would still be possible loopholes, I'm sure. Like Mark Hamill playing an unnamed character who is suspiciously like Luke Skywalker in every detail, but that would have been possible in our world with current copyright laws, and that didn't happen.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link