Selectively Utopian (Or... Small Content Creators Are The Redshirts Of The 21st Century)

I finally figured it out... People that share files and have this moral attitude that they are doing nothing wrong are not just misguided or using the technology to justify a arguably questionable act, They are just Star Trek fans!

They are trying to force the first steps of a Roddenberrien vision of the future where there is no money, there is no work other than what you do to better yourself and here is the good part... Technology has advanced to the point were all basic human needs are met at zero cost. 

Relevant Utopian Points of a Star Trek future:

1. Energy is essentially free
2. Food can be "replicated" using the free energy
3. Living space and shelter is free (somehow)
4. People create art because they can, not out of a need to earn a living from their talent
5. All human knowledge, entertainment and information, is freely accessible to anyone

So, we have the beginnings of point 5... without any of the other points to support it! What I think people who share files are basically doing is putting the IDEA of intangible media having no monetary value before the needs of the real people that still depend on the income from that content!

The file Sharing community is fond of repeating mantra like "Information wants to be free" well I think I have coined the perfect response by saying that what they are are proposing is a "Selective Utopia"!

They want certain obtainable elements of a futuristic utopia without other supporting elements that make it all plausible to a working society, and they are willing to sacrifice the well being and rights of other human beings in order to get those first elements.

They want the parts of the "perfect future" that they can have now even if that will cause hardship and difficulty to the very people trying to create interesting, unique, or simply new content for them because the other parts of the "perfect human utopia" are impossible with our current technology. I honestly think some of them understand this but instead of being sympathetic or trying to find a interim solution, it is simpler to blame large media companies and and ignore the very existence of small, independent content creators because that causes a moral dilemma for them.

In other words, they see us as expendable, much like a poor guy who made the poor choice to wear red on the day he got picked to beam down with the lading party. Problem is, I don't think this will be a reversible trend and I don't think these attitudes will be "undone" once the war with "big media" is over. How will new art be supported in the future? Good question. Its one that doesn't seem to be getting asked... let alone answered.

I have never had a problem with file sharing really,  I do have a problem with the growing lack of respect for the talent of the people that create content. It seems to get worse as time goes by. I am fearful that recorded music, photography, programing and other inherently digital skills will just be seen as valueless in the future, and thats sickening if you understand how much effort can go into becoming good at those things. I don't want file sharing to end... I just want it to grow with a healthy respect for the content being shared and to find ways to support new and unique artist... I realize this is likely a pipe dream at this point but I keep trying.

There is apparently a movement going on to grow file sharing, to legitimize it. The idea being that if enough people do it then it become the legal standard. That makes sense, I am betting it will happen in some form, but I am afraid the people pushing for this haven't really thought it out, at least from the viewpoint of a small independent content creator.

If enough people buy into the idea that they should not have to pay for intangible media, many people stand to loose their livelihood. This goes for photographers, musicians, illustrators, programers, writers, filmmakers, painters, anyone whose work starts out or can eventually be converted into ones and zeroes. 

Sometimes its only a portion of their livelihood, but it could be the difference between being able to continue to create art or not being able to continue to afford the costs associated with it. In any case, taking income away from hard working people that may need it to survive or to continue making the art that others enjoy.

We are not just talking about huge record labels and movie studios here... The same technology that has given rise to file sharing has also empowered artist and programers worldwide to take charge of their own destiny.

The concept of "Pro" and "amateur" is as outdated as the CD and SoundWarehouse. If a person can make $1000 a year off their photography then by god they should $1000 a year off if and don't let ANYONE call them a hobbyist. When was the last time any of us had a job for more than 2-5 years? If Someone can make music for the rest of their life and sell a few thousand downloads a year then its likely that music may end up being the single highest grossing job they will ever have regardless if they never have a "HIT".

That is of course if people continue to apply any value to recorded music...

We may all just end up living in a selectively utopian world and such a person just ends up working extra shifts at the Sack-N-Save because they can't yet heat their house with free power or replicate free food to feed their kids.

Art takes time and effort, it has value. If it is eventually delivered in a digital form... that dosen't mater! If you make a copy you still are receiving the VALUE when you enjoy the work that was done. If the Content creator offers a digital file for free. GREAT! I do, and I will continue to. But if you are asked to support the art by paying a licence... well, until the time that we have invented dilithium reactors, food replicators, and transporters, you have an obligation, especially to independent content creators.

You could say that the way the file sharing community is currently implementing the progression of the march towards their Selective Utopia, Will end up possibly  permanently denying any hope of a Artists Utopia in the foreseeable future.

(Note about the art: The image of The Mona Lisa in a red Star Trek uniform that you see at the top of this post was created especially for this article. I then uploaded it in its basic form to see if it would spread across the internet and to see for myself how often I was credited, linked to, or to see how often the watermark was removed. "Red Shirt Mona Lisa" or "Star Trek Mona Lisa" has traveled far and wide, so far, I haven't come across anyone selling T-shirts made from the art or anything like that, and mostly I have been happy that people leave the watermark. Every once and a while someone will link back to the original or even spends a few moments to find me and ask before using it... So it has been interesting. And, trust me the fact that it is a modest manipulation of one of the worlds most famous paintings is not lost on me. I don't usually do mash-ups, I strive to be as original as I can. So, I find the fact that it has caught on amusing, hopefully others do also).

Why Maurice Sendak Puts Kid Characters in Danger

I am so glad I was not off base with the thinking of this wonderful creative man. He pretty much is every bit as cool as I have always imagined him to be.

Get to know him through his own words.

Why Maurice Sendak Puts Kid Characters in Danger : NPR

A Conversation with Maurice Sendak : NPR

I few things I found interesting...

He says that he doesn't write for children. 

He called the "current" Mickey Mouse a fat whore.

He works at night... like me. : )

Child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim warned that parents should not allow children to read Where the Wild Things Are because it would frighten them too much.

"Childhood is a tricky business," Sendak says. "Usually, something goes wrong."That theme got him into trouble with adult critics in the past, but he’s not worried about how his younger readers will react."Kids," he explains, "are so shrewd."

My already massive respect for this him just grew even more.

Where the Wild Things Is As Dark As You Are... or were.

On message boards around the globe the battle rages on about a mature minded movie involving what its like to be a child, made from a children's book containing adult concepts like the balance of love against anger and being in control of ones own destiny.

Many people seem to want this to be an all around "happy" film with no challenging content or themes. The way I read their comments, I think they would be happy if it was along the lines of Garfield or Spongebob Squaqrepants. They clearly don't see the book the same way I always have. I have even read many people complain that the Wild Things in the leaked test (now gone from the internet) were not smiling like they are in the book!

Holy crap! They think the beasts in the book are smiling! Grinning would be more like it large toothy grins, but mostly they are barring their teeth. Sometimes cracking what might be called a smirk. I mean, they threaten to eat him because they love him so much. : P

Some others in these threads try to point out that the actual words found in the book are not exactly "nice". But people seem to insist that the Wild Things are the 1960's equivalent of Mike and Skully from Monsters Inc. (I love Monsters Inc. btw but Its a different "beast") They call them "cute" and "cuddly". Good God are they missing the mark. I hope they didn't ruin those great characters for their kids by reading the book to them in a "baby talk voice"

I Imagine the parental censorship going something like this...
"They woared their terrwible woars, wolled their terrwible eyes, mooshed their terrwible teeffhies, and showed their terrwible softy-wofty paws."

"They cried, Oh please don't go, we love you so! We'll eat...er kiss you on your belly welly!"

Ugh.

Anyone really looking at the art and reading the content should see that it is not a "cute" story. Its supposed to be a bit on the edge, without crossing the line. Max is an angry boy. He is frustrated, a bit out of control, and he is trying to deal with his anger at being punished. When he "runs away" what he is doing is working through his problems with his imagination. The wild things ARE his dark side! At least that is my take on it... It seems so clear to me and It's quite brilliant really.

In addition to its simple and elegant story, Maurice Sendak's art in the book is stunning and I can say with no hesitation that it was one of the things that influenced me to pursue my creative abilities. I am a bit subversive, dark, and spooky myself... coincidence? Only somewhat, I am sure I was drawn to the book because of those budding aesthetics in me, but all kids NEED influences that cover a full spectrum of tone. Spooky, joyful, wondrous, dire, playful. Just giving them one "flavor" of life is cheating them and not giving them the tools to deal with the dark uncomfortable feelings they may already have. Children can understand a lot, we just don't give them credit for it. Maybe the fact that I got my hands on a dark and creepy little book about a bad little boy that imagined being the king of the Wild Things helped me work through some of my problems.

Maybe some kids out there need a equally powerful film about that same boy to help them with their problems.

So I guess what I am saying is if you had a happy go lucky childhood, or choose to deny yourself access to those dark feelings you had as a child, then the monsters were smiling... for the rest of us, they were "gnashing their terrible teeth" in an attempt to keep the rage under control. If you grew up like I did, constantly feeling under attack and in danger, you may be more interested in the Spike Jones version... in the same way that the original work by Maurice Sendak was more than just a cute little book to me when I was a kid.

Mr. Sendak gave me a tremendous gift back then... he showed me how to escape.