First off, I think the evidence that piracy "hurts" these industries is sketchy at best
There do seem to be a lot of links to studies thrown around suggesting piracy increases sales. If this is true how does it sit with the argument that the best way to get rid of piracy is to give people what they want - substantially lower prices, worldwide availability (a substantial cost) and no DRM (a cost saving)?
Argument 1: Piracy increases sales (through exposure) Argument 2: Piracy can be reduced/eliminated by lower prices etc.>
Scenario: Producers lower their prices etc. This will reduce piracy (argument 2) which in turn will lower their sales (argument 1). Now they are selling less at a lower price! So either piracy does hurt these industries or one of these justifications/arguments has to go.
it's ridiculous to pay $25 or more for a movie when it costs maybe a dollar from factory to store.
Your head has an outdated 'property model' where you think the product is simply the piece of plastic in your hand. Surely you are aware of the actors, writers, directors, advertising, R & D into the Bluray format etc. etc. etc. that is spread across every disc?
We'll never know the true profit of Hollywood studios due to their unethical accounting practices, but it's not 2400%.
They could start by pricing DVDs and Blu-rays reasonably. Next step would be to remove all the crap that goes on between "insert disc" and "watching movie,"
What's wrong with classical market forces? If prices are too high they leave themselves open for a competitor to jump in and undercut them. If the product is too annoying they'll lose sales to producers who don't insert unskippable ads.
But no, apparently the solution is to pirate the content which coincidentally means you get it for free. Slashdot probably has a much higher set of people who do it out of principle, but the vast majority just don't want to pay. Hell, I do it to save money and I'm against piracy.
The problem is the historic business model some organizations are trying to keep alive. That has never worked in the past and will not work this time.
The difference this time is that the business model is under threat from illegal behaviour (yes I know that's debatable, it's irrelevant here, they think it is). Horsewhip manufacturers didn't go under because people were illegally manufacturing cars, nor did typewriter manufacturers go out of business because people were illegally acquiring their product.
Here are some legitimate ways in which technology has eroded the business model of music and film producers;
- New forms of entertainment (the web and computer games)
- Quality home theatre
- Cheap digital distribution (and for music the ability to distribute individual songs)
- Cheap means of artist self-production
All these combine to force the traditional producers to lower their prices* and adapt their distribution to retain customers. Unfrotunately they want to use their market dominance to block some of these advances. This is crap, but in the case of the illegal acquisition of their products it is not about business models but, well, stopping illegal behaviour that is hurting their sales.
* The first CD I ever bough cost me $30 in 1992. Two decades later I don't know of any shop selling CDs at that price.
It's called 'broadcast tv'. Yes, the movie is paid for, but not paid for by you. All you have to do is sit through the commercials.
You still pay for it, first with your time and second with increased product prices everywhere (what's the average marketing budged of a company, 20-30%?). It's like the ultimate in communism, we spread one quarter of the price of every product across the entire society:)
Not really as they don't appear to be targetting random torrents, just ones they have confirmed are copyright infringing.
Nevertheless the burglar analogy is flawed as the legality of shooting one in your house has been established by very particular court cases in the U.S. In most of the western world this is not allowed. Ignoring burglars, there are certainly good questions here about using illegal methods to stop illegal behaviour.
Authors: should university text book writers be paid only for reciting?
Movie producers (the 'artist' here is a more nebulous concept): should they be paid only for cinema screenings? This fits with your musician example on the surface but consider if cinema operators were legally allowed to screen copies.
What this shows is that we (at least you from your post, not everyone) have some notion that artists should be able to potentially profit from their creations somehow. I think the textbook example shows an example where it would be virtually impossible. Similarly, consider a future where perfect holographic recording and broadcasting is possible on your smart phone. This would threaten the viability of live music performances too.
Your argument appears to be that artists should not be able to profit from recording (or control that right) because they can profit from performance. I have to admit I'm conflicted. The question is whether an artist should have the right to control copies of their creation (and if so for how long). You've brought up the interesting notion of why. Do we grant that right to allow profit or for deeper reasons of ownership?
People who VALUE music will end up paying for it (if they want more of it).
Not really, there's a whole spectrum of value across music listeners. Fanatics are often collector-types but fanatics are a minority and they aren't always this way. Further the product is virtually or actually identical between piracy and legal sources so someone can value the 'real product' (the art that's on their screen or coming out of their speakers) without that valuation driving them to purchase.
To be fair to your argument, I know you are saying that 'true' music/film lovers will buy the legitimate product not because of quality but because they understand the market reality. First, this has to be an even smaller number of people than the collectors especially since the target audience of most of this stuff is relatively young. Second, the casual consumers are still valid consumers. Just because they consume less and appreciate the nuances of the product less does not mean they should be exempt from paying for it.
The real question is would society purchase more books/videos/music if piracy was somehow impossible. I tend to think so from my experience of friends and colleagues. Almost to a man they do it with a sort of 'guilty glee' because it's free. There seem to be a lot of people on Slashdot who pirate out of principle but I don't know any personally.
I think the issue with music is that music was always a 'dime a dozen' and kind of like how machines displaced manual labor in the industrial revolution (devalued manual labor), music has been devalued by technology.
I think technology has legitimately devalued music distribution which has illegitimately devalued music itself. It is dime-a-dozen but that's still 1/12 of a dime. Piracy is not part of an ideal free market (and neither are the monopolistic practices of the media cartels).
I think it should be about 10 (after it's released)
The 70/90/whatever years thing pisses me off, but if I stop to think about it is effectively 10. My armchair reckoning says that 95% of infringement happens with material under 5 years old. Of course that leads to the question of why media companies pushed for such extensions in the first place...
This is why I think that it is only a matter of time before non-commercial copying is legalised and an alternative creator compensation system becomes everyday reality.
You may be correct however it's a little sad that we have to change the law not because we realise it's incorrect but because it's now so easy to break it that we can't stop people.
A similar situation is speeding. It's very easy to break this law - all you have to do is move your foot a couple of centimetres. Most people agree that speeding is wrong yet most people do it.
Such is humanity, generally good and generally corrupt.
Indeed, why do you think the owners are selling now (which is what an IPO is)?
This is one possible reason, and another is that the owner(s) is bored or has other life events going on, but traditionally an IPO is to raise extra funds for the company to expand. For the case of Facebook I can't see how any expansion would require more than the massive amount of money they currently have access to so you are probably right (not that I've read the IPO).
Something as suddenly-powerful and well-known as Facebook is definitely going to be a high-risk investment.
some Lib/Lab cockjockey will end up benefitting from my vote.
This is a good thing. Preferential voting basically says "if my first choice of candidate X is not going to win, then I'd like my vote to go towards candidate Y instead of being discarded".
Non-preferential voting is partly why the U.S. is locked into a two-party system although compulsory voting probably encourages two-party systems also.
Sometimes it's about pragmatics. If an item has an almost exclusive illegal use then it can make more sense to ban it outright. This can be contextual too (e.g. guns in capital cities versus rural areas). How often this occurs depends on whether your society is more idealistic (e.g. U.S.) or more pragmatic (e.g. Europe).
Computers, though, are so amazingly useful in so many legal situations that I'm surprised anyone could argue for them to be banned.
But what people? Different people want different things, and are differently willing to leave the common ground for differently wild pastures.
For non-technical but above-average IQ people Apple is cool. For technical tinkerers Linux is cool. Both become hobbies (Linux more so) and so people tolerate different levels of 'just works'. Yes there are many shades in between all of this.
Part of me wants everyone to follow my religion and use Linux because, like all humans, I think others should value what I value, but we don't need this false competition otherwise Linux and Windows (and iOS) will turn into the same thing.
How I am even supposed to begin to recommend Linux for the average user when there are 100 different distros
You are correct but I don't think that's the point. The 100 different distros is what allows Linux to run on everything from embedded devices to TVs to distributed clusters, and yes, desktops. The downside of this is that flexibility is complicated so Linux will always have a cohesion disadvantage compared to Windows, but proponents of Linux domination need to understand the different strengths.
That said, the simple answer is Ubuntu, avoiding the term Linux altogether for your average user.
Personally I prefer to have an OS suited to me as a more technical person. If Linux were to replace Windows in popularity it would run the risk of being watered down. I'm happy to keep it as it is - an OS that encourages the user to understand the technical details going on under the hood.
Yes, there's an interesting line between re-broadcasting someone else's content and hosting a cloud DVR. I tend to favour Optus is this matter as they really are setting up an online service for, say, people who are not going to do their own MythTV box. When this sort of virtual device hosting is ubiquitous this court decision will seem dated.
Note the AFL executive's quote; "It's a great win, certainly it's more of a victory for our funding [...] common sense has prevailed." He starts off honest but then suggests it's common sense to protect their funding model.
Eventually it will be a moot point when smart phones contain their own free-to-air chips.
If the phone companies see that people want to do this and deliberately adjust their business plan to accomodate, for example by increasing the frequency bandwidth to match music quality and providing phones into which you can plug your iPod, then yes, they will fall under some law regarding profiting or aiding.
It comes down to proportion, which is why MegaUpload have legal problems and Google don't. However to my mind internet access is so crucial to modern life that it's impossible to separate the legal/illegal uses like this.
While I can see it from the point of view of copyright holders, that ISPs derive a lot of their business from infringers (probably the majority of quota in Australia), this attack was underhand.
1. They deliberately focused on a smaller ISP with less resources to defend itself.
2. They encouraged local networks to join the group to cover what it was - a test case in a smaller country by much larger conglomerates.
Maybe this is just good poltiical sense, but the heart of the matter is that internet access is a fundamental part of modern society and allowing business interests, legitimately hurt thought they may be, to get their fingers on the control button is unhealthy for political and informational freedom.
Slightly facetiously, I'd turn this around and say piracy is the result of the average bloke's broken property model. We live in a digital world, if they can fix their outdated concept of property as only being physical and not digital then piracy disappears.
But seriously, it depends if you are looking at this philosophically or practically. Practically what you say is true, much like pub brawls may be a sympton of increased alcohol consumption. Philosophically, it doesn't make violence acceptable. Yes, I'm aware you can argue that copyright is flawed and inherently unacceptable but your argument is putting the cart before the horse.
You want me to police my customers for you? Fuck you, pay me. [... etc....]
Think about what you are saying. It's a terrible idea for corporations to have their own police force that would actually have the legal right to 'police customers'.
Secondly, the government makes laws on copyright, counterfeiting and theft, and it's role is to police those laws. If you suggest that the interested party should be the one paying for it (i.e. directly, since both consumers and businesses pay taxes) then you should also add things like this;
You want me to catch the burglar who broke into your house? Fuck you, pay me.
Maybe you're a free-market purist but I suspect it's more a case of 'rich megacorp has money so doesn't deserve government services'.
Most of the items you list are abuses by these lobby groups however.
The problems arise when we conflate 'paying content producers' with 'paying to copy content'. It is creating the original content that actually involves the creator's labor and for which they should be paid.
Without copying their is no point to creating (to anyone but the artist). Almost all products involve a research-and-development cost (creation) and separate production and distribution costs (copying). Generally the total cost is averaged to end consumers. In the case of art the distribution cost, online, approaches $0 but it's clearly an insane model for 1 person to pay the cost of creating and everyone else to pay $0 for a copy.
Experiencing art always involves copying whether it's bits on a hard drive or photons bouncing off a painting at an exhibition. In this way you have to conflate copying and creation.
It is also important to note that without IP, content creators would be better able to build on each other's work.
It's hard to say what would be done without copyright, but it hardly seems like a problem now when consumers disdain derivative works long before they are so similar that they breach copyright.
Absolutely, a lot of people confuse sexuality with sexism, however talking about sexual interest in a way that minimises the overall humanity of a woman or women in general and introduces contempt (such as in the GP's example, in my opinion) then it is misogynistic (and yes, women can do the same thing).
It is unprofessional to bring personal feelings into a work environment and this includes sexuality. If a male worker continually expresses his sexual desire for various women, in front of those or other women, then he is devaluing their status as fellow workers by elevating their status as sexual objects. This indicates either misogyny or an unprofessional lack of control.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, I think the evidence that piracy "hurts" these industries is sketchy at best
There do seem to be a lot of links to studies thrown around suggesting piracy increases sales. If this is true how does it sit with the argument that the best way to get rid of piracy is to give people what they want - substantially lower prices, worldwide availability (a substantial cost) and no DRM (a cost saving)?
Argument 1: Piracy increases sales (through exposure)
Argument 2: Piracy can be reduced/eliminated by lower prices etc.>
Scenario: Producers lower their prices etc. This will reduce piracy (argument 2) which in turn will lower their sales (argument 1). Now they are selling less at a lower price! So either piracy does hurt these industries or one of these justifications/arguments has to go.
it's ridiculous to pay $25 or more for a movie when it costs maybe a dollar from factory to store.
Your head has an outdated 'property model' where you think the product is simply the piece of plastic in your hand. Surely you are aware of the actors, writers, directors, advertising, R & D into the Bluray format etc. etc. etc. that is spread across every disc?
We'll never know the true profit of Hollywood studios due to their unethical accounting practices, but it's not 2400%.
They could start by pricing DVDs and Blu-rays reasonably. Next step would be to remove all the crap that goes on between "insert disc" and "watching movie,"
What's wrong with classical market forces? If prices are too high they leave themselves open for a competitor to jump in and undercut them. If the product is too annoying they'll lose sales to producers who don't insert unskippable ads.
But no, apparently the solution is to pirate the content which coincidentally means you get it for free. Slashdot probably has a much higher set of people who do it out of principle, but the vast majority just don't want to pay. Hell, I do it to save money and I'm against piracy.
The problem is the historic business model some organizations are trying to keep alive. That has never worked in the past and will not work this time.
The difference this time is that the business model is under threat from illegal behaviour (yes I know that's debatable, it's irrelevant here, they think it is). Horsewhip manufacturers didn't go under because people were illegally manufacturing cars, nor did typewriter manufacturers go out of business because people were illegally acquiring their product.
Here are some legitimate ways in which technology has eroded the business model of music and film producers;
- New forms of entertainment (the web and computer games)
- Quality home theatre
- Cheap digital distribution (and for music the ability to distribute individual songs)
- Cheap means of artist self-production
All these combine to force the traditional producers to lower their prices* and adapt their distribution to retain customers. Unfrotunately they want to use their market dominance to block some of these advances. This is crap, but in the case of the illegal acquisition of their products it is not about business models but, well, stopping illegal behaviour that is hurting their sales.
* The first CD I ever bough cost me $30 in 1992. Two decades later I don't know of any shop selling CDs at that price.
It's called 'broadcast tv'. Yes, the movie is paid for, but not paid for by you. All you have to do is sit through the commercials.
You still pay for it, first with your time and second with increased product prices everywhere (what's the average marketing budged of a company, 20-30%?). It's like the ultimate in communism, we spread one quarter of the price of every product across the entire society :)
Not really as they don't appear to be targetting random torrents, just ones they have confirmed are copyright infringing.
Nevertheless the burglar analogy is flawed as the legality of shooting one in your house has been established by very particular court cases in the U.S. In most of the western world this is not allowed. Ignoring burglars, there are certainly good questions here about using illegal methods to stop illegal behaviour.
Here's the list not spread over 9 pages. I'm surprised there are 30 new things worth commenting on.
#1. Interactive tiles
#2. Task Manager
#3. Run ISOs and VHDs natively
#4. No new hardware requirements
#5. Airplane mode
#6. SkyDrive integration
#7. Windows Store
#8. Interactive lock screen
#9. Split-screen apps
#10. Split touch keyboard
#11. App contracts
#12. Fewer surprise restarts
#13. Cross-device synchronisation
#14. Improved 3G support
#15. Built-in antivirus
#16. Picture passwords
#17. Instant search
#18. Windows To Go
#19. Secure Boot
#20. Revamped Explorer
#21. Restore PC
#22. Thumbnail previews
#23. Metro groups
#24. Kinect for Windows
#25. AppLocker
#26. Reset PC
#27. File copy revamp
#28. Faster boot times
#29. Native USB 3 support
#30. Panoramic background images
How about other forms of IP?
Authors: should university text book writers be paid only for reciting?
Movie producers (the 'artist' here is a more nebulous concept): should they be paid only for cinema screenings? This fits with your musician example on the surface but consider if cinema operators were legally allowed to screen copies.
What this shows is that we (at least you from your post, not everyone) have some notion that artists should be able to potentially profit from their creations somehow. I think the textbook example shows an example where it would be virtually impossible. Similarly, consider a future where perfect holographic recording and broadcasting is possible on your smart phone. This would threaten the viability of live music performances too.
Your argument appears to be that artists should not be able to profit from recording (or control that right) because they can profit from performance. I have to admit I'm conflicted. The question is whether an artist should have the right to control copies of their creation (and if so for how long). You've brought up the interesting notion of why. Do we grant that right to allow profit or for deeper reasons of ownership?
People who VALUE music will end up paying for it (if they want more of it).
Not really, there's a whole spectrum of value across music listeners. Fanatics are often collector-types but fanatics are a minority and they aren't always this way. Further the product is virtually or actually identical between piracy and legal sources so someone can value the 'real product' (the art that's on their screen or coming out of their speakers) without that valuation driving them to purchase.
To be fair to your argument, I know you are saying that 'true' music/film lovers will buy the legitimate product not because of quality but because they understand the market reality. First, this has to be an even smaller number of people than the collectors especially since the target audience of most of this stuff is relatively young. Second, the casual consumers are still valid consumers. Just because they consume less and appreciate the nuances of the product less does not mean they should be exempt from paying for it.
The real question is would society purchase more books/videos/music if piracy was somehow impossible. I tend to think so from my experience of friends and colleagues. Almost to a man they do it with a sort of 'guilty glee' because it's free. There seem to be a lot of people on Slashdot who pirate out of principle but I don't know any personally.
I think the issue with music is that music was always a 'dime a dozen' and kind of like how machines displaced manual labor in the industrial revolution (devalued manual labor), music has been devalued by technology.
I think technology has legitimately devalued music distribution which has illegitimately devalued music itself. It is dime-a-dozen but that's still 1/12 of a dime. Piracy is not part of an ideal free market (and neither are the monopolistic practices of the media cartels).
I think it should be about 10 (after it's released)
The 70/90/whatever years thing pisses me off, but if I stop to think about it is effectively 10. My armchair reckoning says that 95% of infringement happens with material under 5 years old. Of course that leads to the question of why media companies pushed for such extensions in the first place...
This is why I think that it is only a matter of time before non-commercial copying is legalised and an alternative creator compensation system becomes everyday reality.
You may be correct however it's a little sad that we have to change the law not because we realise it's incorrect but because it's now so easy to break it that we can't stop people.
A similar situation is speeding. It's very easy to break this law - all you have to do is move your foot a couple of centimetres. Most people agree that speeding is wrong yet most people do it.
Such is humanity, generally good and generally corrupt.
Indeed, why do you think the owners are selling now (which is what an IPO is)?
This is one possible reason, and another is that the owner(s) is bored or has other life events going on, but traditionally an IPO is to raise extra funds for the company to expand. For the case of Facebook I can't see how any expansion would require more than the massive amount of money they currently have access to so you are probably right (not that I've read the IPO).
Something as suddenly-powerful and well-known as Facebook is definitely going to be a high-risk investment.
No no no! He didn't declare war, he declared a "police action". If the Al-Qaeda board didn't agree they could just cut off his funding.
Wrong country, it's not "Austria", it's "Austraya".
some Lib/Lab cockjockey will end up benefitting from my vote.
This is a good thing. Preferential voting basically says "if my first choice of candidate X is not going to win, then I'd like my vote to go towards candidate Y instead of being discarded".
Non-preferential voting is partly why the U.S. is locked into a two-party system although compulsory voting probably encourages two-party systems also.
Sometimes it's about pragmatics. If an item has an almost exclusive illegal use then it can make more sense to ban it outright. This can be contextual too (e.g. guns in capital cities versus rural areas). How often this occurs depends on whether your society is more idealistic (e.g. U.S.) or more pragmatic (e.g. Europe).
Computers, though, are so amazingly useful in so many legal situations that I'm surprised anyone could argue for them to be banned.
But what people? Different people want different things, and are differently willing to leave the common ground for differently wild pastures.
For non-technical but above-average IQ people Apple is cool. For technical tinkerers Linux is cool. Both become hobbies (Linux more so) and so people tolerate different levels of 'just works'. Yes there are many shades in between all of this.
Part of me wants everyone to follow my religion and use Linux because, like all humans, I think others should value what I value, but we don't need this false competition otherwise Linux and Windows (and iOS) will turn into the same thing.
How I am even supposed to begin to recommend Linux for the average user when there are 100 different distros
You are correct but I don't think that's the point. The 100 different distros is what allows Linux to run on everything from embedded devices to TVs to distributed clusters, and yes, desktops. The downside of this is that flexibility is complicated so Linux will always have a cohesion disadvantage compared to Windows, but proponents of Linux domination need to understand the different strengths.
That said, the simple answer is Ubuntu, avoiding the term Linux altogether for your average user.
Personally I prefer to have an OS suited to me as a more technical person. If Linux were to replace Windows in popularity it would run the risk of being watered down. I'm happy to keep it as it is - an OS that encourages the user to understand the technical details going on under the hood.
Yes, there's an interesting line between re-broadcasting someone else's content and hosting a cloud DVR. I tend to favour Optus is this matter as they really are setting up an online service for, say, people who are not going to do their own MythTV box. When this sort of virtual device hosting is ubiquitous this court decision will seem dated.
Note the AFL executive's quote; "It's a great win, certainly it's more of a victory for our funding [...] common sense has prevailed." He starts off honest but then suggests it's common sense to protect their funding model.
Eventually it will be a moot point when smart phones contain their own free-to-air chips.
If the phone companies see that people want to do this and deliberately adjust their business plan to accomodate, for example by increasing the frequency bandwidth to match music quality and providing phones into which you can plug your iPod, then yes, they will fall under some law regarding profiting or aiding.
It comes down to proportion, which is why MegaUpload have legal problems and Google don't. However to my mind internet access is so crucial to modern life that it's impossible to separate the legal/illegal uses like this.
While I can see it from the point of view of copyright holders, that ISPs derive a lot of their business from infringers (probably the majority of quota in Australia), this attack was underhand.
1. They deliberately focused on a smaller ISP with less resources to defend itself.
2. They encouraged local networks to join the group to cover what it was - a test case in a smaller country by much larger conglomerates.
Maybe this is just good poltiical sense, but the heart of the matter is that internet access is a fundamental part of modern society and allowing business interests, legitimately hurt thought they may be, to get their fingers on the control button is unhealthy for political and informational freedom.
Slightly facetiously, I'd turn this around and say piracy is the result of the average bloke's broken property model. We live in a digital world, if they can fix their outdated concept of property as only being physical and not digital then piracy disappears.
But seriously, it depends if you are looking at this philosophically or practically. Practically what you say is true, much like pub brawls may be a sympton of increased alcohol consumption. Philosophically, it doesn't make violence acceptable. Yes, I'm aware you can argue that copyright is flawed and inherently unacceptable but your argument is putting the cart before the horse.
You want me to police my customers for you? Fuck you, pay me. [... etc. ...]
Think about what you are saying. It's a terrible idea for corporations to have their own police force that would actually have the legal right to 'police customers'.
Secondly, the government makes laws on copyright, counterfeiting and theft, and it's role is to police those laws. If you suggest that the interested party should be the one paying for it (i.e. directly, since both consumers and businesses pay taxes) then you should also add things like this;
You want me to catch the burglar who broke into your house? Fuck you, pay me.
Maybe you're a free-market purist but I suspect it's more a case of 'rich megacorp has money so doesn't deserve government services'.
Most of the items you list are abuses by these lobby groups however.
The problems arise when we conflate 'paying content producers' with 'paying to copy content'. It is creating the original content that actually involves the creator's labor and for which they should be paid.
Without copying their is no point to creating (to anyone but the artist). Almost all products involve a research-and-development cost (creation) and separate production and distribution costs (copying). Generally the total cost is averaged to end consumers. In the case of art the distribution cost, online, approaches $0 but it's clearly an insane model for 1 person to pay the cost of creating and everyone else to pay $0 for a copy.
Experiencing art always involves copying whether it's bits on a hard drive or photons bouncing off a painting at an exhibition. In this way you have to conflate copying and creation.
It is also important to note that without IP, content creators would be better able to build on each other's work.
It's hard to say what would be done without copyright, but it hardly seems like a problem now when consumers disdain derivative works long before they are so similar that they breach copyright.
Talking about sexual interest isn't misogynistic.
Absolutely, a lot of people confuse sexuality with sexism, however talking about sexual interest in a way that minimises the overall humanity of a woman or women in general and introduces contempt (such as in the GP's example, in my opinion) then it is misogynistic (and yes, women can do the same thing).
It is unprofessional to bring personal feelings into a work environment and this includes sexuality. If a male worker continually expresses his sexual desire for various women, in front of those or other women, then he is devaluing their status as fellow workers by elevating their status as sexual objects. This indicates either misogyny or an unprofessional lack of control.