Admittedly I got a bit ahead of myself when
I had said that Studio Trigger starting a
patreon would be the first step to animator
liberation. I was perhaps a bit too eager
to see Trigger become the face of change in
the industry and as a result, I have suffered
the embarrassing fate of making Crunchyroll
fans seem remotely intelligent. Even those
who believe in “free markets” have done
a better job critiquing the company and changing
the material condition of animators(1). But
an error only becomes a mistake when you refuse
to correct it. So I will demonstrate the research
I’ve done since then and hopefully come
out with even more solid arguments for why
Crunchyroll is Garbagio.
I’m going to discuss what art is and how
I believe we should relate to it and those
who create it.
I wish to focus the conversation on
the goal of ending exploitation. It’s a
goal I think is not only possible but necessary,
and it’s something I think ordinary people
can help within a very short time should the
political will to do so be created. Many of
the material changes I will be suggesting
will also apply to things beyond the art world
as demonstrated by Paul Cockshott in his lectures
However, something Cockshott didn’t touch
on in-depth with his video specifically about
ending exploitation (3) is the right to copy
aka copyright abolition, which I now will.
Art is War
It’s not just Cockshott who sleeps on talking
about copyright abolition.
No one is having this conversation. Art is near
and dear to me and likely you as well. As
such the political dimensions of art cannot
be ignored, and certainly not it’s liberation.
However, first, we must ask what is art before
we can discuss the philosophy of it being
free.
In their book “The Mnemonic Imagination:
Remembering as Creative Practice“(4) Emily
Keightley and Michael Pickering speak about
reconciling memory and imagination. They speak
about how imagination requires memory as a
resource and how memories require imagination
to exist within our heads. Remembering then
becomes a creative process, and it could be
said that fundamentally art is the process
of giving you a memory of something that never
happened to you, to paraphrase Samuel R. Delany(5).
What does this mean in practice? It means
that, like consciousness, art is an event
that happens as a result of certain sensory
perceptions and responses. Art is not something
that physically exists in the world. However,
it is not mere communication despite how book
titles like “the art of speaking” may
unintentionally mislead you. All communication
is collaborative, but the difference between
art and regular communication is this: Art
is an argument.
Just like you can use the scientific method
and the results from science in your argument,
so to can you use such things in art. But
persuasion is far removed from pure logic
and the scientific method. Art has an unquantifiability
to it because it is a conversation, and conversations
don’t always have objective measurable ends.
Humans don’t always argue or debate to see
to the completion of a task. This is why you
see movements and sentiments focused around
the idea of “art for art’s sake” which
see art as a deeply personal conversation
between the artist and themselves. This is
not to say that art will not be utilized as
a political force. Indeed many genius thinkers
like Walter Benjamin and Ernest Fischer argue
that it always does(6). I agree with thinkers,
and as such I’m going to present a quick
summation of their arguments to you, after
which I will move on to why this means that
we should abolish copyright.
For Walter Benjamin modernity was about mass.
Mass democracy, media, transport, warfare,
and culture. As such mass reproduction of
works changed what art was. In the beginning,
art was for ritual, it was akin to a magic
spell. From the cave paintings which depicted
animals that tribes subsisted on to exalting
local rulers any work of art had a certain
aura around it because it existed in a certain
time and place, under unique circumstances.
But now millions
of copy of any form of art can be made that
are all for the most part exactly the same.
Art has become less dependent on ritual and
more dependent on politics. No longer is it
about the singular figure at the center, but
the whole of the world which can witness it.
This is not to say that there aren’t those
who wish to reject this, but looking at it
as an overall trend it’s irreversible. Art
which is made to appeal to masses is here
to stay, there is no going back. As such for
the people who rule society art becomes even
more of a tool for promoting themselves and
their ideas not just in their local area but
across the world(7). Both Benjamin and Ernest
Fisher rejected such unjustified hierarchies
bolstered by propaganda and thought thusly
“In a decaying society, art if it is truthful,
must also reflect decay. And unless it wants
to break faith with its social function, art
must show the world as changeable. And help
to change it.”
Thus we can see the fundamental problem with
copyright: It is Political Censorship, guided
by and for the interest of the capitalist
class(8). And this is where we can begin to
look at examples in the realm of anime and
manga. Copyright is the idea that for a certain
(read: ever-increasing) period of time all
artistic works would fall under the complete
control of the “people” who made them.
I put people in quotes because all though
it can apply to actual flesh and blood individuals
more often than not the “people” who own
the Intellectual Property Rights or IP’s
are corporations who can fire the people who
have actually made art products whenever they
want, as we see often with gaming companies,
or otherwise work them to actual death with
no compensation to family members as can sometimes
be the case with animation companies. Even
economists from Washington University in St.Louis
admit that the term “intellectual property”
is merely a phrase created to establish monopolies
and restrict free trade(9). But more than
the economic argument we must again look at
the moral implications of such a policy.
Censorship then is a denial of an argument,
a restriction on free speech. Now I’m not
one to say speech should absolutely never
be restricted, but it should never be restricted
unnecessarily or to serve capitalist interest.
Youtube is the perfect example of the latter
as covered excellently by The Closer Look(10).
My only problem is his solution doesn’t
go far enough, as it doesn’t address the
core issue of censorship at its root (although
he gets close). With copyright, the accusing
corporation has the most power because even
if you sue them and WIN they still have discouraged
millions from even touching “their” and
you’ve lost millions fighting them through
legal means. Conservatives who believe that
there is always a bigger fish and that we
should all just either accept our place or
create our own product not only ignore the
immorality of claiming ideas in the philosophical
sense but fail to understand how these practices
hurt us all on the material basis as well.
We end up with the worst products and restricted
access to what should by all rights be an
inexhaustible resource like the air we breathe.
The anime Terraformars is a good example of
both explicit censorship and covert censorship
strengthen by copyright. When the manga was
adapted to anime during the first season the
blackout the grotesque violence which is a
staple of the series. Most find things like
this egregious enough, but what’s much worst,
in my opinion, is how in season 2 they completely
changed the art style and thus the tone of
the series. Along with changes in music and
other minor alterations it could be said that
the product that resulted from Gonzo studios
work is a complete departure of what true
people to the original manga in the first
place. You will find plenty of horror stories
like this if you look. I just spoke about
this example because I have personal knowledge
of it and was affected by it, and to me, it
symbolizes perfectly why anyone should have
a shot of adapting any piece of art, as being
stuck with only one version of this story
in the animated medium is a disgrace.
A less extreme example is what Toei has down
to the One Piece anime (or just to their adaptions
in general). Just because it’s less immediately
offensive doesn’t mean censorship still
isn’t occurring. It is common knowledge
that the One Piece anime can be terribly paced.
Why can’t we let other people have a shot
at tackling this giant of a series? Critics
might counter that this would result in everything
becoming derivative. However, this both completely
ignores that everything is a remix(11) and
the fact that copyright law hasn’t existed
for most of human history and people still
made great unique art. I’d rather be efficient
instead of trying and failing to teach a lesson
that doesn’t need to be learned.
The New Face of Copyright Abolition
With the recent passing of Article 13 and
Article 11 as of writing this(12), the question
of intellectual property and what should be
done about it is only going to become more
relevant. As it relates to my favorite mediums
I’m forced to bear witness as record-breaking
profits are made for stakeholders thanks to
western companies like Crunchyroll while the
availability of jobs and healthy work environments
decrease. There are guardians of this system
like Mother’s Basement, Liberal detractors
with liberal solutions like Digibro, and an
honorable vanguard filled with people like
Armita Ventura of Shingetsu News Agency who
wrote an article on the need to support unions,
cooperatives, and pro-labor parties in the
country of Japan and outside of it(13). For
me, however, it’s not enough to slowly poison
the giant with strategic purposes, or kill
it over time with a thousand cuts of better
conditions in each studio one by one. Where
it’s possible I like my strikes to be at
the legs to knock this diseased monster to
its knees. And we have the chance at such
a strike. Pushing for votes against copyright,
a referendum against intellectual property
around the world could deliver such a blow
should the will be manifested as by all rights
it should.
Let’s look at some of the immediate benefits
of such an action taking place. For one that’s
one less area of useless competitive thinking
in the world that leads to bigotry. Art will
once again become an even more communal and
collaborative experience. The chance for quality
adaptions of works, over even different types
of adaptions which will appeal to different
audiences. Artist will actually make more
money as they can focus on selling whatever
their labor produces and they gain more cult
status based on their skill and style, a true
meritocracy, preemptive prevention of the
fiasco that would come when designer babies
become a common i.e no companies owning genetic
code to your children like their Monsanto
seeds. A reduction in brain damage caused
by copyright existing (14). Youtube being
able to focus on actually fixing the site.
The possibilities are endless and they’re
clearly more winners than losers.
It is my most sincere hope that the new face
of copyright abolition can, in fact, be a
cute anime girl.
