Viola/Cola

this one made me happy. while i don't want to be misinterpreted as saying "all artists are morally obligated to voluntarily give up the possibility of ever getting paid" (since this wouldn't meaningfully alter the structural problems at play), i do like when stuff is public domain. if you want to release your original work for free then the creative commons license is your new best friend

real as hell and not mentioned nearly enough in these discussions, thank you for bringing it up. if copyright monopolises the distribution of educational materials for decades after publication then the only source of up-to-date knowledge is locked behind a paywall that's simply inaccessible to anyone outside of a fairly select group.

if, for example, i wanted access to the lancet medical journal then it'd run me about 22 bucks a month. certainly not nothing, but cheaper than a premium netflix subscription. a minimum wage bartender in my country could cover this in about 2-3 hours. in somewhere like india, where the minimum wage can be as low as $1.92 per day, we're talking about more than a quarter of someone's entire income for something that costs me the equivalent of a round of drinks. when every journal comes with its own pricetag, shadow libraries like sci-hub are vital for people and institutions that can't realistically pay for unlimited access.

on the other hand, profit.

shit sucks, it's horrible and it serves to maintain imperialist exploitation in a supposedly post-colonial world.

great addition, thank you again for bringing it up.

insanely funny, thanks for reminding me of it, check out the video here. it should also be mentioned that metallica's biggest hit ever is incredibly similar to a 1989 song by excel, who said at the time that even if it is stolen, they couldn't pursue a "lengthy, tiring court battle" against the biggest metal band in the world. once again small artists can't even get into the courtroom, let alone win.

grouped these ones together because they illustrate the kinda central point of all of this: every single time this conversation comes up, you have one side basing their arguments on the actual real-world effects of copyright and another which ignores them in favour of an imaginary good copyright that functions completely differently.

for example, as you said, ip law has absolutely been used to screw racialised (particularly Black) musicians out of getting paid ever since the earliest days of the record industry. it replicates and perpetuates existing wealth disparity through an unequal balance of power: when you have a kid trying to escape poverty up against professional contract lawyers, the negotiations get very one-sided and the artist comes out much worse off. the only way to win is to become one of the suits and restart the process from the other side. this is why rappers start their own labels, why diddy, dre and jay z are all billionaires, and why most of michael jackson's wealth came from buying other artists' publishing rights rather than the billions of dollars he made for sony.

just like any other capitalist legal framework, ip law was built by an exploitative, racist society and preserves the power structures of that society under the guise of free and fair exchange. it places power in the hands of those able and willing to exploit others. it is directly implicated in over a century of misery worldwide, particularly against racialised/colonised people, and i have never, ever in my life seen a pro-copyright argument that properly acknowledges this.

18 years. this is enough time for the work to grow to adulthood and begin to care for itself

“Anti-Jedi” fans try to excuse and legitimize their misinterpretation of the Jedi teaching by arguing, "attachment" has a very specific meaning in Buddhism, so once non-attachment is “taken out of its Buddhist context,” for the average English-speaking Star Wars fan, it can only be interpreted as “non-love.” By contrast, many “Pro-Jedi” fans have a tendency to simply stop at “respecting the Buddhist inspiration” of Lucas’ Jedi doctrine, and insist, what it really means is clinginess and obsession (implying, Anakin was like Joe Goldberg from You.)

Both kinds of fans are mistaken. When they hear that in Buddhist philosophy non-attachment does not mean the absence of love or connection, rather, it connotes clinging, grasping and the inability to let go, they're quickly conclude that the kind of attachment the Buddha warns against has nothing to do with their “normal attachments” or “normal love.”

This is not so.

Buddhist teachings highlight a simple fact of life we all know at some level but we don’t wish to face with: whatever we think we have, we can never truly have it. No matter how deeply we want to have a mother, a spouse, or anyone we love, who makes us feel good, we can never truly have — or own or possess — them. Everything changes; nothing lasts forever. All that brings us happiness must eventually pass beyond our reach. Any kind of love that resists this — any kind of love that has the element of the desire for someone or something to stay in our lives, to stay as they are, to not to change — is an attachment, a grasping, a clinging a Buddhist must cease. The Buddha taught that attachment is the cause of our suffering: all reality is impermanent, yet we want the things we like or love to be permanent.

“In our society,” the Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo, born Diane Perry, writes in her book, The Heroic Heart, “we believe that the more we are attached, the more loving we are. But it is simply not true. Attachment is tricky, but basically it means ‘I want you to make me happy and to make me feel good.’ Conversely love says, ‘I want you to be happy and to make you feel good.’ It doesn’t say anything about me… The important thing is that love allows us to hold things gently instead of grasping tightly. It is an important difference.” She explains, “The test of whether we are attached or not is how we feel if we lose something or someone we love. Are we holding on with both hands or are willing to let go? Inwardly, we need to be able to let go. It’s only when we grasp tightly that we have a problem.” 

“Attachment” is a sticky word. In its literal sense, it refers to a tie or a fastening. Figuratively, it denotes an emotional fastening. When gentle, it’s seen as love, liking, or connection; when strong, it’s seen as clinging. Here, we encounter the first, basic problem: what exactly do we mean by “love”? Tenzin Palmo observes: “In English, ‘love’ is a very multifaceted word. It’s very misused, as we all know. We say, ‘I love my parents, I love my children, I love my partner, I love ice-cream, I love walks in the country, I love television, I love football, I love to meditate…’ All these words for love have very different connotations. We are talking about very different emotions: romantic love, altruistic love, mere pleasure, etc.” Attachment a kind of love, but what kind of love is it? In simple terms, attachment is a kind of love that says, “you make me happy, so I care for you, I want to be close to you, I don’t want to be without you.” The English word attachment refers to the feeling that you like or love someone or something and that you would be unhappy without them – a feeling of affection or fondness that is characterized by a resistance to be without the person or the thing you like or love. Whenever feelings of loving or liking have the shadow of the fear of loss, we’re talking about attachment.

Batja Mesquita, the social psychologist and affective scientist who studied how the concept of “love” is tailored to interactions and relationships in particular cultural contexts, pointed out that in the Western/Westernized world, “for the most part love is felt for people who offer something we want, need or like; who are psychologically or physically attractive; and who need, love or appreciate us back.” In this context, “Love means giving attention to your loved one — sometimes at the expense of attention for other things — wanting to be close to them, expressing your positive feelings for them, to hug, hold, cuddle, touch, pet (if it is an animal), kiss, and, in case of romantic relationship, have sex with them.” Love “singles out and elevates one particular individual” and it’s ultimately built around the goal of “to be united in mutual admiration, attraction, or longing.” It should be easy to see, why, in this cultural landscape, the notion of not having attachments is so often and so quickly equated as not loving family, friends, pets, possessions, and decried as unhealthy, even malicious. After all, many people insist, what is love if not attachment? “I think it’s fair to say that Americans have some unhealthy concepts around the ideas of love and relationships” says Alex Kakuyo, Buddhist teacher and a former marine “For us, love is attachment-based, almost to the point of obsession.”

The real difference between Buddhists and non-Buddhists is that a Buddhist would recognize the difference between the feelings and relationships lumped into the board category of “love,” and identify attachment - the kind of love that’s characterized by a desire for the things and people we love to not to leave our lives - as grasping and clinging, an unrealistic and self-centered desire for coming and passing things to stay as they are so they can keep us happy.

In Attack of the Clones, when Padmé tells him, she thought, to love is “forbidden for a Jedi,” Anakin discerns two kinds of love: attachment, grouped together with possession, and compassion, which he says, he would define as unconditional love. Unfortunately, many viewers opted for the interpretation that Anakin tries to convince Padmé that compassion would include passionate love, with some Tumblr users even altering the quote, changing “unconditional love” to “unlimited love." Anakin’s statement, meant to convey Lucas philosophy that love is compassion and not attachment, is way too often dismissed as nonsense. Alex Kane wrote in a now-deleted article for StarWars.com:

“Anti-Jedi” fans try to excuse and legitimize their misinterpretation of the Jedi teaching by arguing, "attachment" has a very specific meaning in Buddhism, so once non-attachment is “taken out of its Buddhist context,” for the average English-speaking Star Wars fan, it can only be interpreted as “non-love.” By contrast, many “Pro-Jedi” fans have a tendency to simply stop at “respecting the Buddhist inspiration” of Lucas’ Jedi doctrine, and insist, what it really means is clinginess and obsession (implying, Anakin was like Joe Goldberg from You.)

Both kinds of fans are mistaken. When they hear that in Buddhist philosophy non-attachment does not mean the absence of love or connection, rather, it connotes clinging, grasping and the inability to let go, they're quickly conclude that the kind of attachment the Buddha warns against has nothing to do with their “normal attachments” or “normal love.”

This is not so.

Buddhist teachings highlight a simple fact of life we all know at some level but we don’t wish to face with: whatever we think we have, we can never truly have it. No matter how deeply we want to have a mother, a spouse, or anyone we love, who makes us feel good, we can never truly have — or own or possess — them. Everything changes; nothing lasts forever. All that brings us happiness must eventually pass beyond our reach. Any kind of love that resists this — any kind of love that has the element of the desire for someone or something to stay in our lives, to stay as they are, to not to change — is an attachment, a grasping, a clinging a Buddhist must cease. The Buddha taught that attachment is the cause of our suffering: all reality is impermanent, yet we want the things we like or love to be permanent.

“In our society,” the Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo, born Diane Perry, writes in her book, The Heroic Heart, “we believe that the more we are attached, the more loving we are. But it is simply not true. Attachment is tricky, but basically it means ‘I want you to make me happy and to make me feel good.’ Conversely love says, ‘I want you to be happy and to make you feel good.’ It doesn’t say anything about me… The important thing is that love allows us to hold things gently instead of grasping tightly. It is an important difference.” She explains, “The test of whether we are attached or not is how we feel if we lose something or someone we love. Are we holding on with both hands or are willing to let go? Inwardly, we need to be able to let go. It’s only when we grasp tightly that we have a problem.” 

“Attachment” is a sticky word. In its literal sense, it refers to a tie or a fastening. Figuratively, it denotes an emotional fastening. When gentle, it’s seen as love, liking, or connection; when strong, it’s seen as clinging. Here, we encounter the first, basic problem: what exactly do we mean by “love”? Tenzin Palmo observes: “In English, ‘love’ is a very multifaceted word. It’s very misused, as we all know. We say, ‘I love my parents, I love my children, I love my partner, I love ice-cream, I love walks in the country, I love television, I love football, I love to meditate…’ All these words for love have very different connotations. We are talking about very different emotions: romantic love, altruistic love, mere pleasure, etc.” Attachment a kind of love, but what kind of love is it? In simple terms, attachment is a kind of love that says, “you make me happy, so I care for you, I want to be close to you, I don’t want to be without you.” The English word attachment refers to the feeling that you like or love someone or something and that you would be unhappy without them – a feeling of affection or fondness that is characterized by a resistance to be without the person or the thing you like or love. Whenever feelings of loving or liking have the shadow of the fear of loss, we’re talking about attachment.

Batja Mesquita, the social psychologist and affective scientist who studied how the concept of “love” is tailored to interactions and relationships in particular cultural contexts, pointed out that in the Western/Westernized world, “for the most part love is felt for people who offer something we want, need or like; who are psychologically or physically attractive; and who need, love or appreciate us back.” In this context, “Love means giving attention to your loved one — sometimes at the expense of attention for other things — wanting to be close to them, expressing your positive feelings for them, to hug, hold, cuddle, touch, pet (if it is an animal), kiss, and, in case of romantic relationship, have sex with them.” Love “singles out and elevates one particular individual” and it’s ultimately built around the goal of “to be united in mutual admiration, attraction, or longing.” It should be easy to see, why, in this cultural landscape, the notion of not having attachments is so often and so quickly equated as not loving family, friends, pets, possessions, and decried as unhealthy, even malicious. After all, many people insist, what is love if not attachment? “I think it’s fair to say that Americans have some unhealthy concepts around the ideas of love and relationships” says Alex Kakuyo, Buddhist teacher and a former marine “For us, love is attachment-based, almost to the point of obsession.”

The real difference between Buddhists and non-Buddhists is that a Buddhist would recognize the difference between the feelings and relationships lumped into the board category of “love,” and identify attachment - the kind of love that’s characterized by a desire for the things and people we love to not to leave our lives - as grasping and clinging, an unrealistic and self-centered desire for coming and passing things to stay as they are so they can keep us happy.

In Attack of the Clones, when Padmé tells him, she thought, to love is “forbidden for a Jedi,” Anakin discerns two kinds of love: attachment, grouped together with possession, and compassion, which he says, he would define as unconditional love. Unfortunately, many viewers opted for the interpretation that Anakin tries to convince Padmé that compassion would include passionate love, with some Tumblr users even altering the quote, changing “unconditional love” to “unlimited love." Anakin’s statement, meant to convey Lucas philosophy that love is compassion and not attachment, is way too often dismissed as nonsense. Alex Kane wrote in a now-deleted article for StarWars.com:

“Anti-Jedi” fans try to excuse and legitimize their misinterpretation of the Jedi teaching by arguing, "attachment" has a very specific meaning in Buddhism, so once non-attachment is “taken out of its Buddhist context,” for the average English-speaking Star Wars fan, it can only be interpreted as “non-love.” By contrast, many “Pro-Jedi” fans have a tendency to simply stop at “respecting the Buddhist inspiration” of Lucas’ Jedi doctrine, and insist, what it really means is clinginess and obsession (implying, Anakin was like Joe Goldberg from You.)

Both kinds of fans are mistaken. When they hear that in Buddhist philosophy non-attachment does not mean the absence of love or connection, rather, it connotes clinging, grasping and the inability to let go, they're quickly conclude that the kind of attachment the Buddha warns against has nothing to do with their “normal attachments” or “normal love.”

This is not so.

Buddhist teachings highlight a simple fact of life we all know at some level but we don’t wish to face with: whatever we think we have, we can never truly have it. No matter how deeply we want to have a mother, a spouse, or anyone we love, who makes us feel good, we can never truly have — or own or possess — them. Everything changes; nothing lasts forever. All that brings us happiness must eventually pass beyond our reach. Any kind of love that resists this — any kind of love that has the element of the desire for someone or something to stay in our lives, to stay as they are, to not to change — is an attachment, a grasping, a clinging a Buddhist must cease. The Buddha taught that attachment is the cause of our suffering: all reality is impermanent, yet we want the things we like or love to be permanent.

“In our society,” the Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo, born Diane Perry, writes in her book, The Heroic Heart, “we believe that the more we are attached, the more loving we are. But it is simply not true. Attachment is tricky, but basically it means ‘I want you to make me happy and to make me feel good.’ Conversely love says, ‘I want you to be happy and to make you feel good.’ It doesn’t say anything about me… The important thing is that love allows us to hold things gently instead of grasping tightly. It is an important difference.” She explains, “The test of whether we are attached or not is how we feel if we lose something or someone we love. Are we holding on with both hands or are willing to let go? Inwardly, we need to be able to let go. It’s only when we grasp tightly that we have a problem.” 

“Attachment” is a sticky word. In its literal sense, it refers to a tie or a fastening. Figuratively, it denotes an emotional fastening. When gentle, it’s seen as love, liking, or connection; when strong, it’s seen as clinging. Here, we encounter the first, basic problem: what exactly do we mean by “love”? Tenzin Palmo observes: “In English, ‘love’ is a very multifaceted word. It’s very misused, as we all know. We say, ‘I love my parents, I love my children, I love my partner, I love ice-cream, I love walks in the country, I love television, I love football, I love to meditate…’ All these words for love have very different connotations. We are talking about very different emotions: romantic love, altruistic love, mere pleasure, etc.” Attachment a kind of love, but what kind of love is it? In simple terms, attachment is a kind of love that says, “you make me happy, so I care for you, I want to be close to you, I don’t want to be without you.” The English word attachment refers to the feeling that you like or love someone or something and that you would be unhappy without them – a feeling of affection or fondness that is characterized by a resistance to be without the person or the thing you like or love. Whenever feelings of loving or liking have the shadow of the fear of loss, we’re talking about attachment.

Batja Mesquita, the social psychologist and affective scientist who studied how the concept of “love” is tailored to interactions and relationships in particular cultural contexts, pointed out that in the Western/Westernized world, “for the most part love is felt for people who offer something we want, need or like; who are psychologically or physically attractive; and who need, love or appreciate us back.” In this context, “Love means giving attention to your loved one — sometimes at the expense of attention for other things — wanting to be close to them, expressing your positive feelings for them, to hug, hold, cuddle, touch, pet (if it is an animal), kiss, and, in case of romantic relationship, have sex with them.” Love “singles out and elevates one particular individual” and it’s ultimately built around the goal of “to be united in mutual admiration, attraction, or longing.” It should be easy to see, why, in this cultural landscape, the notion of not having attachments is so often and so quickly equated as not loving family, friends, pets, possessions, and decried as unhealthy, even malicious. After all, many people insist, what is love if not attachment? “I think it’s fair to say that Americans have some unhealthy concepts around the ideas of love and relationships” says Alex Kakuyo, Buddhist teacher and a former marine “For us, love is attachment-based, almost to the point of obsession.”

The real difference between Buddhists and non-Buddhists is that a Buddhist would recognize the difference between the feelings and relationships lumped into the board category of “love,” and identify attachment - the kind of love that’s characterized by a desire for the things and people we love to not to leave our lives - as grasping and clinging, an unrealistic and self-centered desire for coming and passing things to stay as they are so they can keep us happy.

In Attack of the Clones, when Padmé tells him, she thought, to love is “forbidden for a Jedi,” Anakin discerns two kinds of love: attachment, grouped together with possession, and compassion, which he says, he would define as unconditional love. Unfortunately, many viewers opted for the interpretation that Anakin tries to convince Padmé that compassion would include passionate love, with some Tumblr users even altering the quote, changing “unconditional love” to “unlimited love." Anakin’s statement, meant to convey Lucas philosophy that love is compassion and not attachment, is way too often dismissed as nonsense. Alex Kane wrote in a now-deleted article for StarWars.com:

Adams third child, Seth: What is that?

Seth:

me: Are you fucking kidding me Larius I told you to do that outside, now it's gonna smell like ass in here all day

my elf roommate: *puffs a perfect ring of smoke* What Is A Day In A Life That Lasts Centuries?

me: not everybody lives as long as you dude. put that thing away

my elf roommate: That Is Not What Thy Mother Said

me: hilarious