When is Censorship Okay?

[Calum]

A topic for discussion: When is Censorship Okay?
Something recently got me thinking about this.  Do you support certain kinds of censorship? Do you tell yourself this isn't really censorship? Under what circumstances do you think censorship is not only okay but necessary or beneficial?

[Aloone_Jonez]

I support censorship of material showing children or animals being sexually abused.

[Calum]

strangely enough so do i, though i expected that i would say i don't support censorship.

I suppose my opinion about that is this: if pictures of abuse (of any sort, by anybody to anybody) are not allowed to be circulated, then maybe fewer people will abuse others in the first place.

The idea in my mind is that some people are being abused just so others can photograph (and film) them, so stopping that interest would also stop the abuse too. Like child abuse, but also happy slapping etc. That's probably over-simple though.

By the way, i've never seen any child porn thankfully, though you do hear about it on the internet (usually from people saying how depraved it is). I suppose child abuse will probably come back into fashion now the Catholic church endorses it.

[kintaro]

Censorship is never okay, even if it prevents violence.

[kintaro]

I support censorship of material showing children or animals being sexually abused.

Copyright law can protect these children who own their own image. Thus it isn't censorship but a preservation of a victims rights as a part of the justice system. These children can grow up if they wish and lift the copyright - so researchers may discover more about the motives of sex offenders.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Isn't copyright a form of censorship?

Not that you really agree with it but that's for another discussion I think is more suited to StopMicrosoft.com, see the thread I created in the lounge.

[Calum]

two things:

1) you won't see me at stop-microsoft.org anymore, it's no longer even pretending to address the purpose of the original site, and i am sick of the pointless and circular, not to mention puerile, tone of the discussion there.

2) i still support censorship, not copyright, of child pornography. This means, even if a person grows up and wants to allow pornographic photos of themselves as children to be made available (and why do such pictures exist in the first place?) i would still move that this should be blocked. There are a couple of arguments against this: firstly, that it should be the subject's choice, not the state's, though this assumes the subject is in a sound state of mind, something that it is reasonable to question since in this situation the subject has been sexually abused as a minor, and is for some unknown reason (coercion? bribery? mental confusion?) apparently willing to release pornographic material of themselves as a minor to child molesting perverts (because this is the only audience that exists for such material). The second argument against this that i can think of is: if perverts can get access to legal child pornography, they may abuse fewer children (since they would have a lesser need for raw material). This argument is spurious since surely child pornography would have stopped by now at some point, if it were possible for a saturation point to be reached.

Basically i think the causes of people becoming child abusing perverts (and i include home surfing perverts in this, because they put their money into this sordid form of child abuse) need to be addressed, not the pornography itself. Apparently pornography wasn't even interesting to people before the Victorian era so, presumably it isn't something we naturally lust for.

Also, doesn't the copyright start with the photographer, not the subject? This would still not apply though without the legal consent of the subject, thus making copyright invalid for illegal child pornography, am i right?

[kintaro]

Isn't copyright a form of censorship?

Not that you really agree with it but that's for another discussion I think is more suited to StopMicrosoft.com, see the thread I created in the lounge.

Saying copyright is censorship is like saying my door lock is an obstruction of your personal liberties. Copyright should be enforced by technology, not the Government ultimately. I have stated many times I think copyright should be enforced like any other social convention and not by Government force - but through sanctity of contract where YOU agree not to copy the work in the process of buying it - an agreement enforced by the civil court system.

People against copyright whatsoever are inadvertently also against the soverignty of individuals, the right to make contracts, and the ability of a court system to uphold them. It sets a bad prcedent in other areas of life ranging from marriage contracts to employment contracts where any agreement can be destroyed by the whims of the voters and the whims of representatives who wish to destroy individualism.

Political censorship is done directly by Governments. Copyright is done by individuals with a civil court that protects their rights. The same civil court that protects the GPL protects copyright - not the criminal court. Thus, it is not censorship in a political sense but more like Google or Facebook censorship which is really an issue of customer relations and not politics itself.

[Aloone_Jonez]

The problem with contracts is that not everyone understands them, they can be confusing to the average user who doesn't have any legal qualifications: is it reasonable to expect someone who buys a computer game to read a three page long EULA? I think not. You could make the point that if someone doesn't want to read the EULA they shouldn't buy the game in the first place but what if they're a minor who can't legally make a contract? Then there's the situation when someone buys some software without being given the opportunity to see the EULA beforehand, they disagree with it, but the vendor has a no refund policy, often I think things are set up to encourage piracy.

Copyright law has been used to censor material, for example Scientology's sacred texts are copyrighted, not only to protect their profits but also to prevent distribution to those who might give it negative publicity.

[kintaro]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse and life involves risk. I can understand the EULA perfectly, but I don't have time to read it so I take a risk and agree. I want to do that, so do many people.

As much as I hate scientology, they should be able to do that and so should I. I make sure nobody can see my password files as well.

Minors raises an interesting problem though, personally I think a person should earn all their negative rights at 21 including the right to sign contracts. It should be able to be earned earlier through literacy tests and such as well.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I'm not against copyright or contracts, I just think it's fucked up the way things are.

Before you buy a piece of software you should be allowed to see the EULA before you hand over the money. Ideally I'd like to make a law that says you should be able to return software if it doesn't suit your needs, although I realise that it wouldn't be workable as many people would buy it, pirate it and return it for a refund.

Business owners should not have to pay for a licence to have the radio on in their premises: the record companies already get royalties from the radio station and shouldn't be allowed to claim them again.

Fair dealing should be enforced more rigorously and common sense should be used when applying copyright and damage cases:

• A hip-hop artist shouldn't have to pay someone royalties because they used a five second sample of their music.
• Schools and ammeter dramatics companies should be exempt for paying royalties because they used some music for a performance.
• if someone buys software on a device such as a hard drive or flash memory which can be easily wiped or fail, they should have the right to make a back up copy.

What happens if you make a contract with someone then they die? Is it still valid?

I know it still is with copyright.

As far as contracts are concerned, there needs to be a sense of what is reasonable and what is it not and it's not reasonable to expect someone to read a 3 page licence when they've downloaded a computer game for free; if they were buying a house or a car fair enough but a fucking computer game?

[Calum]

it's a complicated issue for sure, and i'm not totally decided what i think about copyright etc, as you may have gathered from my attempts to have a proper discussion about it at the MES (which ultimately ended in a couple of people, who shall remain nameless, just slandering me like five year olds). Nonetheless, here we go for some quick replies:

• A hip-hop artist shouldn't have to pay someone royalties because they used a five second sample of their music.

why? Sorry, but if they sample *my* song (for example), and then make millions from the resulting record, then i want my share and i will damn well take them to court to get it. And anybody saying that "should" not be the case can stick it up their arse.

• Schools and ammeter dramatics companies should be exempt for paying royalties because they used some music for a performance.

this i fully agree with, why? because schools and amateur societies are NOT making millions from my work, and if they buy the right to use my song in their am-dram production then why would anybody say they couldn't do it? And having said "buy", i also mean that a copyright holder may choose not to charge at all for use of their work, and that this approach could become the norm quite easily, however i do expect that there would be conditions attached (like reading out the list of creators of the music to the audience at the end of the performance along with all the usual "thanks to the director, the producer and the sound crew" stuff). I agree the admin could be simplified for am-dram stuff, however i will still be claiming royalties any way i can under the law, because i am legally entitled to it and it gets me money (though i can't imagine the day will ever come when i will be taking a hard line against a school! I can't imagine a school ever wanting to perform or otherwise use one of my songs in fact!). In short however i would strongly oppose a government law which removes my right to decide whether to charge royalties on my own creative works. If you are suggesting that i be forced to give my music away for free to schools (who will be charging on the door, let's remember, so they should be paying a percentage in royalties like everybody else when you look at it that way) then i must strongly disagree with you. You are essentially trying to say it is okay to steal from me as a creator.

• if someone buys software on a device such as a hard drive or flash memory which can be easily wiped or fail, they should have the right to make a back up copy.

of course they should! Fair use laws are far too strict with backup copies. Why should someone pay for content and then be legally forced to risk losing that content?

What happens if you make a contract with someone then they die? Is it still valid?

depends if the contract specifies, doesn't it? Perhaps this is a clause that whoever wrote the contract should include in the first place.

[Calum]

One final point.

Creative works are not worthless. And royalties are a percentage. If somebody makes money from work i have done, i deserve a cut. They will not be losing money to me, they will be making money. The more money they make, the more i make as a partial creator involved in whatever they are making money from (radio station, theatre production, whatever). Anybody saying that the creator of original content, which is then used in a money making enterprise, should be denied compensation, is clearly misguided.

Aloone Jonez what do you create? What if you were a painter, and you were legally allowed to sell your own paintings, but there was a law saying anybody that had bought one (or better, anybody who had even heard of one of your paintings, which is more analogous to what you propose) could legally copy it, and then maybe sell it at a cheaper price, potentially making money and putting you out of business.

This clearly is unfair to the creator, and in addition it stifles creativity by putting creators out of business.

This is the same as the pro-GPL argument.

Now THINK about the issue before you brazenly state all your assertions about what "should" be happening. And this time don't devolve the conversation to the level of the kindergarten please.

[Aloone_Jonez]

why? Sorry, but if they sample *my* song (for example), and then make millions from the resulting record, then i want my share and i will damn well take them to court to get it.

Three points:

Firstly, it's only because the existing copyright regime exists that they are physically able to make millions otherwise, they would get no more or less from their music than you do.

Secondly, that's not what actually happens. In reality, if some big rap star rips off a non-mainstream artist there's fuck all they can do about it, remember, they have the big lawyers and you have no money so don't stand a chance. It's normally the other way round, some non-signed rapper makes a record which includes a five second sample of some mainstream music and releases it for free, then gets lumped with a hefty court case.

Thirdly that's too much of a simplistic argument. Don't forget that the rapper isn't physically harming you or stealing your music, he isn't taking anything away from you; quite the reverse: even if you don't receive royalties, the chances are you'll still make a fuck load of money from publicity: your song now has more money making potential because part of it is on the radio every five minutes now. 

i do expect that there would be conditions attached

You need to draw up a contract but who says those conditions are fair or not? As the way things stand at the moment, you both have to agree.

Going back to the rapper again Suppose their record is five minutes long and the five second sample is part of the chorus which is repeated six times, 30 seconds in total. Do you get 1/10th of the takings? What if you decide to be greedy and demand half of the takings, to which the hip-hop artist disagrees with, does that mean he can no longer release the record without the fear of a lawsuit? This is the current situation, which is stifling artistic expression.

Aloone Jonez what do you create?

I was an electrical engineer for a company which undertook contracts for the MoD until being made redundant - I got paid for designing solutions to problems.

What if you were a painter, and you were legally allowed to sell your own paintings, but there was a law saying anybody that had bought one (or better, anybody who had even heard of one of your paintings, which is more analogous to what you propose) could legally copy it, and then maybe sell it at a cheaper price, potentially making money and putting you out of business.

Not necessarily and it depends on what you mean by copy it. If you're talking about someone photocopying it then I don't see the problem as the copy is clearly different to the original, if they're painting it themselves then pretending it's mine then it's forgery but if they're painting it themselves and being honest about it being a copy then I don't see the problem because they would have to pay themselves much less than I get paid.

And anybody saying that "should" not be the case can stick it up their arse.

So what you're basically saying is that anyone who disagrees with me can fuck off. That's the kind of attitude that resulted in you being treated the way you were, over at the MES.

[Calum]

Secondly, that's not what actually happens. In reality, if some big rap star rips off a non-mainstream artist there's fuck all they can do about it,

i didn't say "rips off". You said these artists should be able to legally sample my music without paying for it, and then make a fortune out of the resultant work. You said it should be allowed. That's not ripping off, is it, by your estimations? You think that's morally fine.

remember, they have the big lawyers and you have no money so don't stand a chance. It's normally the other way round, some non-signed rapper makes a record which includes a five second sample of some mainstream music and releases it for free, then gets lumped with a hefty court case.

true, but this is no excuse to make a stupid law even more stupid. Further, regardless of what you say, i will still attempt to enforce the copyright i own, because it'd the right thing to do. If that rapper wrote all of their own song instead of trading on other people's work then s/he'd be entitled to to the same thing. By the same token, i don't go and pinch bits out of rap songs i like and claim them as valid parts of original songs i have written, that's part of the songwriting challenge to come up with something genuinely original. This hypothetical rapper has not only failed to do this but has missed the point of this as well.

Thirdly that's too much of a simplistic argument. Don't forget that the rapper isn't physically harming you or stealing your music, he isn't taking anything away from you; quite the reverse: even if you don't receive royalties, the chances are you'll still make a fuck load of money from publicity: your song now has more money making potential because part of it is on the radio every five minutes now. 

i hear that. This is why i am undecided about what i think, to be honest the court case i am threatening (hypothetically) might bring in more value to me in publicity than in recovered royalties, there's no hard and fast, and so i'll thank you not to call my position simplistic, especially considering the heavy handed shoulds and shouldn'ts that this topic has seen people adamantly positing both here and in the MES already from people other than myself.

Having said that, say this does happen, like some rapper samples my song What Colour Is Your Life and turns it into a serious, relevant race awareness song (or something) and makes a mint, and it gets played on the radio, and my record gets tons of sales too, what is the actual legal position? Do i retain my rights even if i choose not to prosecute the rapper? I'm fairly sure my rights don't automatically revert to the rapper.

Going back to the rapper again Suppose their record is five minutes long and the five second sample is part of the chorus which is repeated six times, 30 seconds in total. Do you get 1/10th of the takings? What if you decide to be greedy and demand half of the takings, to which the hip-hop artist disagrees with, does that mean he can no longer release the record without the fear of a lawsuit? This is the current situation, which is stifling artistic expression.

no it isn't, it encourages the rapper to actually create 100% of his song, rather than 90%, ergo 10% *more* creativity has happened, but yeah, this is up to the individuals, and so it should be. This is why i think the current situation, where people control the rights to their own works, is better than a system where the government takes a heavy and detailed hand in the affairs of creators. That is what is being proposed, and history shows us that governments suck at legislating for creative areas. Current copyright law still dates back to a time before recorded music even existed!

What if you were a painter, and you were legally allowed to sell your own paintings, but there was a law saying anybody that had bought one (or better, anybody who had even heard of one of your paintings, which is more analogous to what you propose) could legally copy it, and then maybe sell it at a cheaper price, potentially making money and putting you out of business.

Not necessarily and it depends on what you mean by copy it. If you're talking about someone photocopying it then I don't see the problem as the copy is clearly different to the original, if they're painting it themselves then pretending it's mine then it's forgery but if they're painting it themselves and being honest about it being a copy then I don't see the problem because they would have to pay themselves much less than I get paid.

good answer, i suppose this supports the put-the-rights-in-the-hands-of-the-creator viewpoint too, do you think?

And anybody saying that "should" not be the case can stick it up their arse.

So what you're basically saying is that anyone who disagrees with me can fuck off. That's the kind of attitude that resulted in you being treated the way you were, over at the MES.

no, but you have successfully exemplified exactly what happened at the MES, ie: i say something, you misinterpret it, and choose to put antagonistic views in my mouth and then you throw all your toys out of the pram. Your response here has proved you are capable of discussing this issue like an adult, so don't let yourself down now.

Whether you are truly incapable of understanding it or not, my real point is this: i own my own copyright. If you try to take it away from me i will fight you, and i have that right. This has nothing to do with agreeing with me, it's about my ownership of my own creative content. Unlike an engineer, i am not paid by a company to create, and i am not under contract to relinquish my creations. i am a freelancer when it comes to creating so i am both the employee and the company, creating the content and retaining the rights. This hypothetical rapper doesn't employ me to create on salary, so s/he doesn't have ownership of my creative rights.

I will always strongly oppose any system that removes these rights and gives them to someone who has not earned them or paid for them. If you disagree with this, then it is my opinion that you are fundamentally wrong, and until you come up with something better than childish insults to convince me otherwise, i will continue to hold this view.