On the subject of Theatre being sacrosanct

[samvara]

I’ve been gently following the kerfuffle about an illicit audio recording of A Few Good Men which quickly made it onto the megawebnet.

In an age of rampant television piracy, movie piracy and bootleg concert recordings I'm surprised it made the splash in fannish circles that it has. I suspect this is partly due to timing and if this had happened pre-Asylum (must protect the Ackles), pre-FanLib (must protect the Fandom) and pre-Strikthrough07 (must protect the World from the Fandom) then people would be a darn sight less twitchy.

Not that I'm complaining; these events have spurred an incredible surge in highly articulate, ethical, intelligent discussion of any number of important issues. I am awestruck, I am impressed. To my mind, 'now' is always a good time to talk about ethical behaviour.

On the subject of Theatre being sacrosanct I do have a few thoughts.

There seems to be a strong trend towards privileging live theatre over television. A fair chunk of fandom seems to be of the opinion that it's not acceptable (for any number of stated reasons) to record and redistribute bootleg recordings of live theatre performances. This can be contrasted to the vast amount of television which is being cheerfully downloaded. I'm not going to go into the ethics of downloading [EDIT: television shows, movies and bootleg concert recordings], we're all pretty clear on this being an illegal activity.

Fair enough. niannah proposes, in her extremely, articulate essay that the dynamic is a conflict between 'high culture' (theatre, authority and legitimacy - please insert posh accent of choice) and 'low culture' (television, fannishness and fans). I'm conflating here for convenience and please don't think for a second that I want to diminish the issue of fandom's self-esteem - it's just not the focus of this essay.

I'd like to suggest there is another dynamic present and it's not the division of high and low culture that triggers this knee-jerk defense of theatre.

Television is distributed by broadcasting companies that purchase shows based on their appeal to advertisers. We, the consumers, are not interested in either of these stakeholders; our relationship is distanced and at worst, antagonistic.

• Broadcasting companies fail to understand the shows we love, show episodes out of order, cancel unpopular shows, screen them at odd hours, insist on replacing them with sport and generally fail to be lovable. They have no faces and are both symbolically (it comes to you through the air and appears in little boxes) and physically (we never meet humans who represent them) removed from us.
• Advertisers have nothing to do with our show(s) of choice and are often a rude intruder to be viewed as the enemy of serious television watching. They don't care about the shows themselves, which are valued for their market share and dumped as soon the ratings slide.
• An important point to note is that neither of these stakeholders are involved in creating the show - they are merely vehicles for distribution.

It's a lot easier to steal from someone if you don't like them, value them, or recognise them as the legitimate owner.

Theatre is distributed by theatre companies that hire producers/directors and actors based on their ability to attract ticket sales (by being good at what they do). We, the consumers, are often deeply interested in the producer/director and actors and may even have a strong relationship with the theatre company or the venue itself.

• The producers/directors are recognised as being directly connected to the process of delivering the performance.
• The actors are often the subjects of warm respect and affection and the effort they expend to entertain is tangible.
• The advertising, in this instance, is welcomed as it relates directly to the show.

The consumer has a far more intimate relationship and is able to experience being part of the process. It's incredibly satisfying to applaud actors at the end of a performance, you want them to know you appreciate their skill and dedication.

In both cases making an copy and redistributing, or recording then distributing is subject to copyright.

This is not consumers distinguishing between legal and illegal activities, or even consumers distinguishing between high and low culture. This is consumers choosing to treat people / companies / producers / actors well if they like them and choosing not to when they don't.

I think live theatre is being privileged over television shows because we are more likely to behave ethically when we are able to make an emotional connection.

I struggle with this on the ethics of downloading television front, I console myself that buying DVDs sends the $ where I want them to go and await iTunes and Amazon Unbox opening up distribution to Australia with hopeful enthusiasm. In the meantime I'm watching Sanctuary for All (a foray into internet only television distribution) and encouraging people to support it.
We're all 'us' you know; just some of 'us' don't like 'us' very much.

responsible fanfic by heatherly
Will You Rat Me Out If You Don't Like What I Write? by stewardess
Fannish Policing: When To Bring In The "Authorities"* by morgandawn

Comments

[mynxii.livejournal.com]

Well said. 'nuff said :)

[karathephantom.livejournal.com]

You're... The first other fan I've met who seems to struggle, on any level, with illegal downloading of TV shows. (I can't convince myself to be okay with doing it.)

Thanks for writing this, it was really good, and... Yeah.

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

Thank you ;-)

I admit my problem with downloading arises largely because I want to support the creators of my shows. Downloading separates me from feedback loops (no contribution to ratings) and there's no relationship between my use of/enjoyment of their product and them having an incentive to keep making it.

As a consumer it's in my interest to find a way to participate economically. Hence the DVD buying. Of course that's no darn good if I want them to renew my show - it just means I might get 1/3 of a movie trilogy three years later *cough* Serenity *cough*.

I'm keen on the internet distribution model because it allows us to send money directly to the producers and cut out the middlemen (distributors/advertisers) - who no one seems to like or consider 'worthy' of payment anyway.

[karathephantom.livejournal.com]

Oh, I whole-heartedly agree. My personal struggle was that I had one side telling me that I needed to keep things legit, for the sake of... Well, my TV shows. And the other side said that I wanted to watch them all, now or later, or whenever I wanted.

I love feeling significant. I've bought hundreds of dollars worth of DVDs of shows I love. That and buying swag... I feel like I'm doing something, even if it's a little something.

I'll admit, I'm loving that NBC has all the full episodes of Heroes online, with only a few banner ads on the side. It's really cut down on my desire to download, which is good.

[thedorkygirl.livejournal.com]

Well. I'd never watch Doctor Who if I didn't, and I wouldn't have spent the money to see Wicked twice if I hadn't.

That's not to say that there isn't guilt, of course, but I really don't know if five different performances with a mix of casts is going to hurt them more than it's awesome for me. In fact, Wicked is probably the show I felt the least guilt downloading -- it certainly spurred me on to see it performed live!

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

I think we need to look for ways to balance those conflicting desires so that we have a way forward that is ethically satisfying.

The current distribution methods are clearly not working and we're kind of waiting for distributors to catch up and take advantage of what's already happening on the internet.

Mmm Heroes, how do I love thee.

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

Same, and I don't want to miss out on the fabulous online squee that happens when a new episode is aired somewhere in the world.

It's important to be aware of what exactly we're doing (pirating) and to look for ways to address it that satisfy the needs of both consumers and producers.

I think we, as a demographic, are very vulnerable to marketing and we are an audience that buys things. Lots of things. All the time. People should cater to our preferred method of distribution!

In my most optimistic vision of the future, online distribution would enable low budget shows to survive without being at the mercy of what angriest called rich, stupid men in suits.

[thedorkygirl.livejournal.com]

I buy -- I'm the right generation, I live at home, I've got money to spend on me. That said, I'm picky on what I buy -- series DVDs are for shows I'd watch more than once, blah blah. Aside from putting it up, they need to do something to entice me to spend money to download an episode -- an extra scene, a season-long puzzle (okay, I'm thinking Lost there), a selected song from the episode packaged with the download.

Doesn't it work for iTunes that they can't upload it to a fileshare or p2p? Why couldn't they put the same into episode downloads? Is there a tech that could stop ripping/copying of the files?

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

I also buy based on re-watching and my collection is somewhat eclectic. I'm just making this up as I go along but what I'm hoping for in the future is a situation where the quality and availability of downloads would inspire consumers to pay for them.

• What if buying a season's pass meant you also got the DVDs at the end of the season?
• What if buying say, 80% of the episodes got you downloads of 'bonus' material?
• What if downloading got you a high quality, high res, legitimate file on a fast link at the same time it screens for the first time?

Seriously the last one would be a kicker for me, torrents invariably lose you a day where you can't go near the internet for fear of spoilers and then you don't know what the quality is going to be like. I'd pay for a legit source - especially if I knew the proceeds were going directly to the producers.

I'm envisioning something like $3 per episode or even less - you could follow 5 shows per week and still spend less than you would going to the movies.

[bluevsgrey.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to go into the ethics of downloading, we're all pretty clear on this being an illegal activity.

You lost me here. Your not going to talk about ethics, your just going to make incredibly unsubtle hints about it?

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

What I'm trying to say is that downloading is illegal; we don't have to discuss whether or not this is true.

If you want to talk about whether or not it *should* be illegal, that is a different conversation.

[bluevsgrey.livejournal.com]

Not all downloading is not illegal.

I do not understand where you get the impression that it is.

So to say downloading is illegal, sounds very much like an ethical stance.

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

Ah, I am specifically referring to television piracy, movie piracy and bootleg concert recordings here. Does that help?

[bluevsgrey.livejournal.com]

Yes that helps a lot. Thanks

[morganmuffle]

This is not consumers distinguishing between legal and illegal activities, or even consumers distinguishing between high and low culture. This is consumers choosing to treat people / companies / producers / actors well if they like them and choosing not to when they don't.
That's a very interesting point and one which probably explains why I have a feeling that there's soemthing more wrong with recording theatre despite the fact that I have sat down and thought my own internal rules on the subject out and decided it's alright.

Of course the problem is that isn't how people are articulating the argument at the moment and the points that are being raised have a lot less legitimacy (within, as you say, the framework that this is all illegal) because theatre is not somehow "better" and it's no more or less stealing.

To be honest, and I've posted about this, I think the problem is the assumption that recording a play or musical to share with others is going to somehow harm the play, cast, crew or director. Hearing an audi clip of an actor in a performance is going to make me want to/wish I had see that performance more not think "oh well I don't need to now" and I'm certainly not going to judge the play on the quality of the clip as I know it's amateur recording.

[niennah.livejournal.com]

I think this is another very interesting and accurate angle in terms of the discussion linked in my post. It is so much easier to forget the rules when dealing with corporations with which we as fans sometimes have an antagonistic relationship, a relationship in which they wield the power and we take control where we can, such as in refusing to allow worldwide TV schedules to dictate when we watch a TV show. It's like illegal worldwide TiVo. Such is not the case with theatre.

It seems to me that we have both identified levels upon which the debate took place. And I think you're right that we are all a bit twitchier since the recent Events that Shook Fandom. However, as I said elsewhere, it's a shame the anxieties raised by those tremors have not succeeded in bringing fandom together. I've seen a lot of great people trying to encourage cohesion within fandom in the face of our ever-growing visibility in the world, and it is disappointing to see that this minor thing can cause yet another division.

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

Thanks for commenting – I appreciate hearing what you have to say. And yes, I think some very different questions are being asked and answered in this discussion.

• Is theatre inherently more valuable and worthy of respect than television?
• Does piracy/bootlegging harm the show/actors/producers?
• Is this activity legal?

I don't think bootleg theatre recordings harm the play, cast, crew or directors either - in the same way I don't think fannish television show pirating harms television profits. I think doing away with the 'legal' argument is a good starting point because then we can talk about whether harm is done and whether we want to support it.

I do think that these are issues that need to be talked about and that we need to be clear on what we're doing and the potential impact. I love my shows and love going to the theatre. I don't want to damage them, I want to support them.

There are many things I like about the fannish pirating culture.

It arises often out of a profound enthusiasm and passion for the material being pirated and a genuine desire to experience, re-experience and share that experience with others. I think this is great, and I want to celebrate the kind of people who care so passionately.

There is a thriving for-profit industry that prints and sells crap quality DVDs and *does* set itself up in direct competition with the primary producers and legal owners of the intellectual property. It worries me that our non-profit activities may inadvertently support these activities and divert funds away from people I want to be encouraged, rewarded and above all paid.

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

I loved your post and almost left massive, massive comments all over it before realising I'd better sit down, breathe and work out what I thought. Thank you for writing it by the way ;-)

To my view, given pirating/bootlegging *is* illegal (whether we think it does harm or not) means that we should be having these kinds of discussions and working out where we stand and what that means in terms of what we’re going to do about it.

I’m twitchy about some of the fallout from Recent Events (sounds like a post-war HP fic…) especially in the wake of stewardess’s post about offended people having a big stick (http://stewardess.livejournal.com/265086.html) to beat offensive people with. It looks like the power dynamic has been clarified between LJ users and LJ owners and that it has shifted unequally between individual LJ users. Ouch.

I’m also reminded that there is a vast pool of creative, intelligent, powerful people who stop and ask very real questions when confronted with issues. It’s true these questions range from the profound to the profoundly silly but *cough* so am I and I suspect I’m not alone.

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

This was a fascinating post, particularly about how we, as fans, assign value to the owner or creator of content. I have a similar downloading philosophy - I'm in rural Australia, and would get my fannish content only through Austar satellite TV, meaning that I have ABC and SBS, and everything else (apart from bloody reality TV) is at least 2 years behind the US. Weirdly, I'm two hours drive away from a cinema, so rarely go, and almost never feel the need to download a movie!

I support the shows with DVD purchases - in fact, I suspect that this is *more* important than my TV habits. Sadly, we simply cannot access fan culture without downloading, and I look forward to the day when everything is available online - I would happily pay, if I had the opportunity.

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

Thank you. This is a topic I've been thinking about for a while and Recent Events kinda kicked me into writing about it as well.

If you google "most isolated capital city" you get my beloved home - I hear you on the isolation issue - less so for television but still achingly so for big name live bands and popular theatre.

I think we assign value in this way to everyone. How we choose to treat people is connected to whether or not we believe they are 'us' and I'm pretty sure we're all 'us'.

[lizziesilver.livejournal.com]

I was linked here by a friend, so I haven't followed the debate. I hope this comment isn't redundant.

I think you're correct that our relationship with producers and distributors influences how willing we are to steal from them. I also think that financial investment - i.e., how much we would have paid for the content in the first place - plays a role.

When we go to see a play, we pay for a ticket. So there's a fairly straightforward investment: we pay this much money to see this particular content.

In most European countries, including the UK, people have to pay for a TV license in order to watch TV. That's the equivalent of getting a season pass to the theatre, I suppose. You directly invest money, but have little control over what content you get in return.

In the USA and Australia, there are no TV licenses. TV is supported solely by advertisers (and for some channels, government subsidies). So you invest no money (unless you choose to buy cable), and again have little control over the content. I'm not sure how ratings are measured, but I'm under the impression that only a small proportion of the total audience is measured. If you're not one of those people, you have no control over content, and don't contribute to keeping the show afloat.

So I'm guessing that Australians and Americans probably worry less about downloading TV shows than Europeans do, because we wouldn't otherwise invest money in the shows. And in general there's more incentive to download TV than theatre, because we control exactly what theatre content we invest in. Not so for TV.

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

Oh brilliant! I did consider about talking about Australian television being free to air and wondered if one feels more invested if one pays a license fee. The only Aussies I know living in the UK don't watch television and laugh at the thought of paying for a license.

The method for measuring ratings in Australia appears to be a combination of a diary system and a meter system (the 'little black box'). If you aren't one of the random samples then you are effectively invisible.

I like that you brought up how little control television watchers have over television programming. As a consumer and a fan I want more of a voice and I want to be able to engage with my chosen fandoms in a far more intimate way.

Maybe television downloading is also a symptom of just how unsatisfactory the relationship between consumers and distributors is right now. We're not even writing to each other :-p

Out of curiosity - how much would you pay for a high quality, timely, high speed download from a legitimate source if you knew the money was going straight to the producers?

[morgandawn.livejournal.com]

Hey there. here via metafandom. I think that for me the issue is not what can we/should we download or share, but to what extent are we willing to tolerate fans reporting fellow fans to the IP owners for downloading/sharing. Since we all have different comfort levels with pirated materials, this makes it harder for us to engage in fannish sharing. I have no problem with people debating the issues or engaging in self policing - I do struggle with the idea of fans reporting other fans.

Of course having said this I can think of a few examples where I might be swayed to report a fan - ex. someone who was hacking into servers or sites to gain access to the materials? someone who was selling the content for profit to other fans? I would think I would try to 'let's talk them out of it first" before taking the last irrevocable step. Must ponder more.

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

I think for me, the distinction won't be 'are you pirating?' but rather 'what damage are you doing through your actions?'

Piracy alone won't cause me to take any actions.

I like this interpretation is because it means there is room for discussion and decision making. We can talk about perceived harm, about ways to measure and evaluate and maybe reach a consensus.

Hacking - is destructive and invasive as well as violating copyright.
Selling - is a problem to me if this means diverting income that would otherwise go to the holders of the IP.

[morgandawn.livejournal.com]

on the issue of using the level of harm to determine when to report. Ex. selling - I've now come across fans who actively report charity efforts using fan fiction. their argument = money is passing through hands (so this makes it worse than fans just tapping IP for their own use). and secondly harm is being done because you could be associating the IP with charity that the IP owners would find objectionable.

To me - this theoretical harm pales in comparison to the fans who share but do not buy. it weakens even further when it involves fan fiction which - so far - does not have market to steal from.

so the harm (to me) is so small compared to other behavior.

I stand corrected - the harm to the charity is greater than the harm to the IP holder.

And I still cannot shake the feeling that fans who report other fans for trying to raise money for charity are somehow inherently flawed in their thinking. I don't have any solid evidence of this - just an automatic reaction on my part.

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

Forgive me for echoing, I’m not sure I’ve understood so I’m paraphrasing liek woah;

People have argued that charity fundraising through fan fiction is harmful because
• Someone who is not the IP holder benefits financially
• The charity may not wish to be associated with the IP holder
• The IP holder may not wish to be associated with the charity

”Money is passing through hands”. Money is not inherently evil. Copyright was originally intended to stop someone exploiting someone else’s creativity to make money. In the case of fan works, fans are clearly leapfrogging off someone else’s creativity but I think you’d have a hard time demonstrating exploitation or profiteering. Not because it’s cleverly hidden but because it isn’t happening.

On the charity thing – since donations to charity are often to do with publicity and visibility I can see why the IP holder would want to pick its own charities; especially since the IP holder can’t condone fan activities. However, fan fundraisers donate on behalf on themselves, not the IP holders. I don’t see this as a problem; I see it as an issue that calls for very clear communication between fannish fundraisers and charities.

You think pirating is a far greater source of harm as it directly affects the IP holder financially.

I think so too, I think the current method of distribution where Producer sells to Distributor who effectively sells to Advertiser and the Audience hangs about to see what’s on is flawed, flawed, flawed.

The internet has provided a great big shortcut and enabled the Audience to cut in and jump over a number of the more irritating drawbacks of the above process. It’s not a legal shortcut, but it’s not going to go away and I think it’s in the interests of us as the Audience to act as ethically as possible so as not to disrespect, financially starve or kill off the very thing that we love.

I always want to talk about how behaving unethically doesn't just do damage to others, being unethical damages us too. Do we want that kind of community? Do we want to be those people?

[morgandawn.livejournal.com]

I think so much of the illegality of sharing can be fixed by the content owners offering content more freely, quickly, universally and at lower entry cost. making money in quantity instead of creating artificially high demand for new releases and region releases. until then I try to share responsibly - if it is aired TV (not HBO) and it is not on DVD = OK to share because it is like timeshifting/placeshifting. (I already have an HBO/SHO subscription so I don;t feel like I am depriving them from revenue if I choose to time/placeshift my personal viewing by dling. No movies and no soundtracks (indiv mp3s are fine). Like most I do slip from time to time but these are my personal ethical guidelines.

but back to the charities ...I had proposed that fans offer their photo manips/icons/fan fiction with a link to charities (if you like this, then donate) and was told by several fans that they would report us. In fact if you look at my poll you will see a small number of fans who are saying just that.... so to me this (the need to report others) feels just as damaging ethically to the community as pirating....

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

I agree; feed money back to the IP owners through the means available, make sure you try to find means and don't sweat the small stuff.

I like your suggestion about the link to a charity - it provides a degree of separation. Of course if you think it's inherently wrong to use a fan work to raise funds (for any purpose) then it won't help.

I don't think the issue of exploitation can be raised, I don't think there’s a chance of thinking the IP owner is endorsing the charity.

There seems to be a strong link between the IP existing, someone getting money and someone getting upset.

I'm reminded of something creative and alas, illegal I did for fun late one night over 10 years ago which I took a photo of. An ex took a copy of the photo, had it put on their ID card and enjoyed showing it to people. It pissed me off – ex wasn't there, ex didn't contribute, it was my idea etc. I eventually came to the conclusion that it was the same knee-jerk reaction I have to people who believe that if they wear designer sunglasses they are inherently cooler and that I'm a snob.

Do you think it's possible this is a similar dynamic?

If, alternatively, you think I'm unbelievably tactless I've heard that before too and won't be offended ;-)

[morgandawn.livejournal.com]

"Do you think it's possible this is a similar dynamic [when it comes to reporting charit fan efforts?]

when rationale arguments fail, look for the emotions driving the irrational behavior. They usually fall into: fear, anger, lust/love, greed and envy.

once you've mastered that, people become very simple and predictable.

Oh my, am I cynical tonight...

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm wondering if it's a matter of over-identifying with the IP owners and perhaps feeling things on their behalf that aren't actually 'real' as such.

I tend to assume fear and ignorance ;-)

[hug]