4 ms·

> That could be pretty cruel. I don’t think even The Rolling Stones would want to see their songs reused by, say, neonazis. Hard disagree from me. I mean it

> That could be pretty cruel. I don’t think even The Rolling Stones would want to see their songs reused by, say, neonazis. Hard disagree from me. I mean it might hurt to see your work misused but that already happens all the time across different disciplines. The artist behind pepe the frog is not a fan of his work being adopted by white nationalists and that's terrible, but intellectual property law is not gonna stop anonymous people with photoshop on 4chan. I'm not saying I'm in favor of neonazis trying to turn music I like into their propaganda, but I can't see any reasonable way to fix this via IP law. Fundamentally the problem is not with reprehensible people remixing/reusing/appropriating culture, it's people holding reprehensible beliefs. The solution is to try and change their beliefs.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
>but intellectual property law is not gonna stop anonymous people with photoshop on 4chan. it might severely curtail their ability to make money off of it though.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  "But nazis might use it!" is an incredibly weak excuse for perpetual copyright. Creators aren't a special breed of fragile human that needs to be protected from seeing the potential future of their work. There's a compelling argument for having creators around when their work gets used for nefarious ends - they can add their voice to the condemnation, if they choose. Besides, in the age of corporate ownership of practically everything (see: TFA), what makes you think creators still have any say in how their work gets used?
- thesteamboat 6y ago
  A recent article [0] on the difficulty of controlling culture (mostly in the context of people trying to keep their brands from being associated with the alt-right) speaks to the challenges involved in this approach. The article decribes Matt Furie, the artist behind the Pepe the frog cartoon, and his struggles to control its usage. > At one point, Furie purchased $45,000 worth of Pepe T-shirts to sell, but he can’t even give them away to thrift stores because he is horrified at the prospect of white supremacists proudly wearing them. Unable to rehabilitate Pepe’s image, Furie killed the frog off in a comic—but by that point, he’d effectively lost control of Pepe’s image. Furie would go on to sue InfoWars’ Alex Jones, who had been using a Pepe image to sell posters. (Jones used the lawsuit to increase the price of the posters—eventually, InfoWars settled with Furie.) > Furie’s attorneys estimate they have issued between 75 and 100 successful legal challenges halting the unauthorized use of Pepe. But the damage remains: Despite his best efforts, Furie will forever be associated with a toxic symbol of white supremacy. It's hard to judge from a distance, but it sounds to me like there is a lot of time, effort, and money being spent trying to enforce rights, and yet it's a game of whack-a-mole where the alt-right never gets the message. [0]: https://thedispatch.com/p/alt-right-culture-rittenhouse-blackrifle-coffee https://thedispatch.com/p/alt-right-culture-rittenhouse-blac...

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

>but intellectual property law is not gonna stop anonymous people with photoshop on 4chan. it might severely curtail their ability to make money off of it though.

stickfigure 6y ago
"But nazis might use it!" is an incredibly weak excuse for perpetual copyright. Creators aren't a special breed of fragile human that needs to be protected from seeing the potential future of their work. There's a compelling argument for having creators around when their work gets used for nefarious ends - they can add their voice to the condemnation, if they choose. Besides, in the age of corporate ownership of practically everything (see: TFA), what makes you think creators still have any say in how their work gets used?
thesteamboat 6y ago
A recent article [0] on the difficulty of controlling culture (mostly in the context of people trying to keep their brands from being associated with the alt-right) speaks to the challenges involved in this approach. The article decribes Matt Furie, the artist behind the Pepe the frog cartoon, and his struggles to control its usage. > At one point, Furie purchased $45,000 worth of Pepe T-shirts to sell, but he can’t even give them away to thrift stores because he is horrified at the prospect of white supremacists proudly wearing them. Unable to rehabilitate Pepe’s image, Furie killed the frog off in a comic—but by that point, he’d effectively lost control of Pepe’s image. Furie would go on to sue InfoWars’ Alex Jones, who had been using a Pepe image to sell posters. (Jones used the lawsuit to increase the price of the posters—eventually, InfoWars settled with Furie.) > Furie’s attorneys estimate they have issued between 75 and 100 successful legal challenges halting the unauthorized use of Pepe. But the damage remains: Despite his best efforts, Furie will forever be associated with a toxic symbol of white supremacy. It's hard to judge from a distance, but it sounds to me like there is a lot of time, effort, and money being spent trying to enforce rights, and yet it's a game of whack-a-mole where the alt-right never gets the message. [0]: https://thedispatch.com/p/alt-right-culture-rittenhouse-blackrifle-coffee https://thedispatch.com/p/alt-right-culture-rittenhouse-blac...