There's this author whose work I adore. His politics are garbage, and he gives money to a church who does active harm in the world.
My solution: The public library.
That way, I get to read the book and he gets (essentially) zero dollars. If I ever feel like it's not enough zero, I'll give money to a charity for people whom his church directly harms.
YMMV, of course, but I think it a fine solution. Read who you want. Try not to give money to people who'll spend it to harm others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
JCW?
ReplyDeleteLast year I came up with a similar solution that works for me. I counter spend on someone or something polar opposite, that I do support. E.g. If I rent a Mel Gibson movie, I make an equal to or greater contribution to the ADL.
ReplyDeleteDylan Ross If that works for you, great. A concern I ghave -- especially with mega-celebrities -- is the megahorn effect. Their voice is a lot louder than mine, so dollar for dollar they have a greater impact.
ReplyDeleteClaim: Consumption of media and spending are essentially decoupled. I can spend money towards media without seeing it (popcorn at a movie theatre), and I can consume media without paying for it (youtube, library, etc).
ReplyDeleteHeck, we re-watched parts of 2001 on youtube last week -- and listened to Thus Spoke -- and neither Kubrick, Neitzche, nor Wagner will see a dime.
Yes, this example is an extreme one. So show me a counter. :-)
Counter-claim: YouTube still monetizes content so you aren't as decoupled as you might think.
ReplyDeleteCaveat Emptor.
(edit: s/deviled/decoupled)
Craig Maloney I chose those three on purpose: they are not in a position to receive money. So, wanna be more specific with your counter?
ReplyDeleteLibraries track what is taken out of them. If a piece of media by a garbage creator is taken out of the library, then the people who choose what the library buys are given an incentive to buy more media from that creator. If a large library buys a large number of copies of media from a specific creator, other libraries might see that purchase as evidence that the creator is popular and that there will be demand, and buy more copies as well. Your "decoupled" action may well produce a substantial knock-on effect that directly supports the person you're trying not to support.
ReplyDeleteWilliam, can you explain what you claim means in a way that someone who have macro-econ 101 25 years ago can understand? Because to me it just seems like the counter, really, is just that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't decoupled... so I'm not sure what it is you are getting at.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols Sure.
ReplyDeleteWagner: I think you mean Richard Strauss.
The recording for 2001 was conducted by Herbert van Karajan and released under Deutsche Grammophon. Deutsche Grammophon. On the Youtube version I looked up it had the following:
"Also sprach Zarathustra, Op. 30: IX. (attacca) Das Nachtwandlerlied" by Wiener Philharmoniker and Herbert von Karajan
Kubrick: 2001 is distributed by Warner Brothers. I'm sure that Google figures out who has the ripped copies and what-not on there and has an agreement with WB to not pull all of their content over copyright claims and what-not.
Now, your initial point that all of those folks are dead is correct. None of the original authors are receiving a dime off of watching on Youtube. But there are corporations still receiving money in their name, and I'm sure there are heirs and estates that love to be fed off of that revenue.
Again, caveat emptor. You chose a specific case but there can still be knock-on-effects.
Adam D That is sufficiently close to zero causal effect (and dollars) for me not to care. Should I, I can do what Dylan does and give money to a charity. For sure, if I gave the same amount to a charity as the book's list price and get the book from the library, the moneys more than outweigh each other.
ReplyDeleteMatt Johnson Here's a mathier version: The coorelation coefficient between spending and consumption of content is suffciently close to zero to be able to say that spending and consumption aren't meaningfully related.
ReplyDeleteCraig Maloney I did mean Wagner, yes.
ReplyDeleteThus Spoke is sufficiently old as to be in the public domain. I'm no lawyer, so I cannot speak to how that being in a copywritten work ... works.
I just looked up "2001 a space odyssey youtube" . First result I found is the "dawn of man", from "Art History" which seems to have nothing to do with any production company. It is possible that they do -- and that, somewhere in the background, money is being exchanged for me seeing this.
And, ultimately, sure, google is making money off of me for my attention. But, this only furthers the point: I am not spending a cent, and I have access to essentially unlimited content. What I spend and what content I consume have little to do with each other.