Unfortunately, while starting your own tech company might mitigate peer perception problems in the workplace, you instantly are dealing with a far, far greater problem - the perceptions of your customers and your financiers, be they banks, VCs, or friends and relatives.
In fact, you get second order effects, where VCs won't invest, even when they believe you're completely capable, because they know that customers will question the competency of women founders. Since they're in it to make money, they completely rationally discriminate.
But it's still discrimination.
The other thing is that women like to claim they're paid less than men which begs the question why would companies hire men if they could pay women less?
(1) "women like to claim"? Come on, the statistics are iron-clad. How about "women are paid less than men for the same job". Period. Now, sure you can have lots of arguments about *why*, but don't even try to pretend the stats aren't clear. What's next "scientists like to claim evolution is real"?
(2) Companies are made of people. And those people have the same tics (especially where things don't have a perfect metric to make comparison easy) as the rest of us.
(3) Also, people like to hire like. I'm a techie, and I enjoy geek culture. But none of the women I work with, all of whom are exceedingly competent, are geeks, especially enjoy geek culture, or love tech for its own sake. Nor do they need to in order to be exceptionally valuable programmers. However, I've seen them occasionally overlooked because they lack all the "tells" of geek prowess. Certainly, if I was hiring, I could easily pass them over for someone who "speaks my language".
So, no, I don't expect a revolution in hiring any time soon.
So, the solution to this is to get people to stop worrying what society thinks, and not worry so much about being 'questioned.'
Oh please. (1) Your promotions, raises and job security depend upon what other people think and remember of you. (2) Human beings *do* care about what other human beings think about them. For the vast majority of human beings, this is about as useful as telling a child "stop being in pain when the bully hits you".
I'd say that part of being mature is recognizing that just because you aren't actively unjust doesn't mean that you aren't benefiting from an injustice.
One major problem is that human beings over-generalize. It's very easy for a field where there might be a "natural" split on the basis of ability and inclination of 60-40, that quickly becomes 90-10. Why? Because every member of the minority is subject to far higher scrutiny (see the famous "you suck at math", "women suck at math" (XKCD comic). Their errors are remembered, their abilities questioned.
Now, this is *not* deliberate discrimination. This is how the human brain works. We see a pattern and we over-generalize from it.
However, in the end, it does mean that a substantial social injustice is done. People who have both ability and inclination are driven out of the profession (who wants to be in a profession where every mistake you make will count for 5 times everybody else's in the opinion of your peers).
So, I see no great leap that we consider changing the the "natural" outcomes of a system to compensate for certain defects in human reasoning systems by building in certain other compensating elements.
To make a *rough* analogy, in a "natural" setting, the physically strong dominate the physically weaker. As a society, we've decided this domination is not ideal, and we've passed laws to restrain the natural interactions between people. At this point, this unnatural intervention is so all encompassing, we don't even blink at the idea that physically strong individuals are denied their natural dominance. (And indeed, lose the culture among the strong that they would otherwise enjoy.)
Obviously male dominance in the executive suite (or tech) is a far more subtle matter calling for far more subtle compensations, but lets not fool ourselves. Pretty much every reader here is already the recipient of interventions on their behalf. And no surprise, the world is a lot better for it.
Obviously, as this gets finer and finer, and eventually it becomes trivial. You'll have to decide for yourself where that occurs.
As an analogy, most people would say that going 100 miles over the speed limit in a residential zone is dangerous and immoral. So is going 50 mph over. Well, going 10 mph *is* more dangerous, just not a lot. Maybe it's a little immoral to raise the danger to adults and children in the neighborhood just so you can get somewhere a little faster. Then what about 5 mph? 2 mph? 1 mph?
We're adults here. We can use our judgement. (But I reserve the right to criticize the guy who's fine with going 25mph over the speed limit when they're kids about.)
If you're in the top 1%, you're probably earning 20-30K a year. Not millions. Don't mistake the top 0.0001% with the top 1%.
But perhaps earning tens of thousands a year is so much money that you find it acceptable that the publishers can now stop paying him, and companies that wish to use his work no longer need compensate him.
But I don't believe it's so. (So, not a matter of morality, just my preference.)
I would disagree with "no reason". I have enough respect for the artistic process and for artists to understand what having your music involuntarily turned into advertisement jingles would do to many artists. The involuntary commercialization of what is often part of one's soul is troubling enough, that I would say it balances others' natural rights.
But I don't claim this as grand truth, just preference.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the idea that one's work can be selling well, but you are living in poverty just strikes me as wrong enough that I prefer the artist at least own their work for the duration of their lifetime. After all, *very* few artists are successful for more than a few years, and I consider the body of an artists work to be their pension.
Also, can you imagine what it would be like to have your song suddenly appearing in all sorts of ads for products you hate? For publishers to start paying hacks to write new stories for the characters that you breathed life into?
I know too many artists that would be shattered by the experience. However, I'd not argue it as a matter of morality. Just a matter of preference.
However, if you want to actually make a living, popularity isn't important *unless* it results in revenue. It's a nice ego-boo, but if you want to put a roof over your kids' heads and food on their table, you can't put popularity in the bank.
(I always laugh at the "I love his work so much, I've pirated everything he's ever done." It's usually done with such sincerity.)
Don't think there's much to disagree with there. The idea that the RIAA enjoys special protections in law seems absurd. It is also likely to be short-lived. The cost of having terrible contracts is that it makes going one's own way, which is becoming more practical (although still very difficult), very attractive.
I won't mourn the loss of the big labels, but given that I am aware of most of the music I buy *because* of the label's efforts, it would be rather hypocritical of me to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but refuse to compensate them for it.
Indeed, there are dozens of people who are making enough to live on off of YouTube! No wonder it's a replacement for an industry that allows tens of thousands to make a living!
Look, I'm obviously exaggerating, but not by a whole lot. Google isn't distributing a whole lot of money compared to the entire music industry. To be honest, your attitude smacks of having the car industry collapse, and telling the workers they should make hand-crafted bicycles instead. It's simply condescending.
Now maybe that's the way the industry is going, and many will suffer. But pretending YouTube is an adequate replacement is just a kick in the teeth to those actually trying to earn a living in the industry. (Or you're very young and have no concept of economics, in which case, my apologies for getting annoyed.)
The idea of an reasonably successful artist (say top 1% earning 20-30K a year) facing poverty even when the works of his youth are still selling well strikes me as unpleasant enough that I'd push for artist lifetime. Likewise, losing important income while you're trying to put your kids through college, etc. If an artist is *extremely* lucky, their work is their pension. Depriving them of it just seems cruel.
But I wouldn't claim a big moral division on either side. It's a matter of trade-offs for society.
Actually, I'm fine with copyright of max(28 years, artist's life).
I have to say that I really have contempt for people who use something that is pretty artistically outrageous (lengthening of copyrights) as their excuse for stealing from contemporary artists. Disgraceful.
Yes. But so what? That makes the *AA pretty unpleasant. But it in no way justifies ripping off everybody from the artist on up who made it possible for you to listen to the music.
Actually, no, I'm *not* concerned about the legal repercussions or legal definition. I am concerned about the moral, not legal justification for copyright theft.
I don't care whether people pirate or not. I do care that that they understand that it's a moral wrong. Not necessarily a huge wrong, but that it *is* a wrong, and they're doing it.
It's loss of opportunity to economically exploit one's work in both cases. The difference is a matter of (significant) scale.
Or take a lower stakes example - my 10 year old friend plagiarizes my essay without permission and submits it. Now I will get an "F" if I submit mine. I still have my essay, but I've lost the ability to exploit it.
And of course, let's takes what *really* happens if copyright disappears. Corporations troll for artistic content that looks promising, copy it and put their name on it. They promote the hell out of it and sell it (albeit at bargain basement prices) as their own.
Get over it. When I was a kid, I pirated as well. I wanted lots of stuff, and I couldn't afford it all, so I stole it because I could get away with it with no danger to myself, and I could do it in my own home. But at least I wasn't a sad enough case to try to morally justify ripping off the publishers and artists with various garbage excuses about how I couldn't have afforded it all, so obviously I wasn't stealing.
Okay, given the deficit of imagination here, let me spell it out. My client tells me he will purchase program X for $Y.
Except my client takes the program and doesn't pay because he doesn't believe in copyright, and I've still got the original program, so he hasn't stolen anything (according to many pirates). I haven't lost the program - all I've lost is the ability to economically exploit it. And yet almost all of us will acknowledge I've had my work stolen.
Look, a 6-year old knows that someone who copies your work without your permission is stealing. It's only adults who try and dress it up so they don't have to feel bad about ripping people off so they can get free stuff. I don't care if people pirate, but if they are going to, at least they can be honest that they're stealing because they can get away with it, rather than dress it up in some self-righteous garbage.
Another irregular verb: I pirate his work, he steals my work.
And if I was a lawyer, I wouldn't be talking about piracy either.
I am not a lawyer, and the semantics of law are immaterial to this discussion.
But taking what does not belong to you is generally understood by almost every English speaker as theft - whether the theft is of a tangible item, the opportunity to economically exploit something you created, or even a person's freedom.
As I've said elsewhere, I'd be okay with max(28 years, artist's lifetime).
I don't think artists who are lucky enough to be successful should be denied what is essentially their only pension - the fruits of a lifetime worth of labor. While I can understand artists wanting to provide for their children, I think 28 years is probably sufficient to cover that end.
> But who is going to want to intentionally install DRM on a new release that's known to have been completely ineffective for years?
I find the Apple system works well. It's can be easily circumvented if necessary, but for most people, it's just easier to operate within the ecosystem.
I have to defer to your correctness of you nuance. You are absolutely correct on all points.
And just to be clear, I do find the copyright extensions are ridiculous. I'd be in favor of max(28 years, artists life), as I don't think longer than that causes much more art to be created.
> all those people pay to MAFIAA. MAFIAA pays the actual artists and makes all the decisions about what new art will get funded.
Okay, let's get a few things straight. Going with the labels or the studios is a *voluntary* decision. The option has always been there to go outside, and very few artists chose that route, mostly because the chance of success without a label or studio backing you was even smaller. One of the really interesting things is that technology has improved so that it's actually possible to do without them, which I think is a good thing. (I like artists to have the choice.)
However, if copyright is practically destroyed, then short of going to the patron model (which Kickstarter tends to devolve into where artists are concerned - it's easier to find the one fanatic $1,000 donor than find 100 $10 dollar supporters), the artist is screwed if they go it alone. No just selling it on the open market (well, you can, but at that point you're depending on charity).
First, no artist was *ever* forced to go through the big labels. Until recently, they provide better access to the market place than anything else (and I think we're all better off because of it), but that is a *choice*. Big difference. Having your work pirated is *not* your choice.
Second, in the last 100 years, we've seen a huge increase in the variety of music, books and art that is generally available to the public that puts any other era in human history to shame. If the *IAA have successfully stifled creativity, it's pretty hard to tell. (Remember, the era of real RIAA power is 1960-1995, often considered the "golden age").
And lastly, the idea that pirating artist's music is justified because you don't like the RIAA makes about as much sense as piloting jet planes into buildings because you don't like American foreign policy. There's a massive logical disconnect between the action and the target of hatred.
Honestly, I find hatred of the RIAA pretty thin moral justification for stealing from artists. Honestly, I don't care if you're stealing. Maybe you can't afford the media (but can afford several hundred dollars for a computer to post here). But let's not pretend it isn't stealing, even if it's pretty low level.
Slashdot Mirror
1-5 channels $80
6-10 channels $90
11-15 channels $100
16-20 channels $120
21+ channels $150
The average bill goes up, people get less variety, and everyone is happy that we're not paying for stuff we rarely watch.
Unfortunately, while starting your own tech company might mitigate peer perception problems in the workplace, you instantly are dealing with a far, far greater problem - the perceptions of your customers and your financiers, be they banks, VCs, or friends and relatives.
In fact, you get second order effects, where VCs won't invest, even when they believe you're completely capable, because they know that customers will question the competency of women founders. Since they're in it to make money, they completely rationally discriminate.
But it's still discrimination.
The other thing is that women like to claim they're paid less than men which begs the question why would companies hire men if they could pay women less?
(1) "women like to claim"? Come on, the statistics are iron-clad. How about "women are paid less than men for the same job". Period. Now, sure you can have lots of arguments about *why*, but don't even try to pretend the stats aren't clear. What's next "scientists like to claim evolution is real"?
(2) Companies are made of people. And those people have the same tics (especially where things don't have a perfect metric to make comparison easy) as the rest of us.
(3) Also, people like to hire like. I'm a techie, and I enjoy geek culture. But none of the women I work with, all of whom are exceedingly competent, are geeks, especially enjoy geek culture, or love tech for its own sake. Nor do they need to in order to be exceptionally valuable programmers. However, I've seen them occasionally overlooked because they lack all the "tells" of geek prowess. Certainly, if I was hiring, I could easily pass them over for someone who "speaks my language".
So, no, I don't expect a revolution in hiring any time soon.
So, the solution to this is to get people to stop worrying what society thinks, and not worry so much about being 'questioned.'
Oh please.
(1) Your promotions, raises and job security depend upon what other people think and remember of you.
(2) Human beings *do* care about what other human beings think about them. For the vast majority of human beings, this is about as useful as telling a child "stop being in pain when the bully hits you".
I'd say that part of being mature is recognizing that just because you aren't actively unjust doesn't mean that you aren't benefiting from an injustice.
One major problem is that human beings over-generalize. It's very easy for a field where there might be a "natural" split on the basis of ability and inclination of 60-40, that quickly becomes 90-10. Why? Because every member of the minority is subject to far higher scrutiny (see the famous "you suck at math", "women suck at math" (XKCD comic). Their errors are remembered, their abilities questioned.
Now, this is *not* deliberate discrimination. This is how the human brain works. We see a pattern and we over-generalize from it.
However, in the end, it does mean that a substantial social injustice is done. People who have both ability and inclination are driven out of the profession (who wants to be in a profession where every mistake you make will count for 5 times everybody else's in the opinion of your peers).
So, I see no great leap that we consider changing the the "natural" outcomes of a system to compensate for certain defects in human reasoning systems by building in certain other compensating elements.
To make a *rough* analogy, in a "natural" setting, the physically strong dominate the physically weaker. As a society, we've decided this domination is not ideal, and we've passed laws to restrain the natural interactions between people. At this point, this unnatural intervention is so all encompassing, we don't even blink at the idea that physically strong individuals are denied their natural dominance. (And indeed, lose the culture among the strong that they would otherwise enjoy.)
Obviously male dominance in the executive suite (or tech) is a far more subtle matter calling for far more subtle compensations, but lets not fool ourselves. Pretty much every reader here is already the recipient of interventions on their behalf. And no surprise, the world is a lot better for it.
Obviously, as this gets finer and finer, and eventually it becomes trivial. You'll have to decide for yourself where that occurs.
As an analogy, most people would say that going 100 miles over the speed limit in a residential zone is dangerous and immoral. So is going 50 mph over. Well, going 10 mph *is* more dangerous, just not a lot. Maybe it's a little immoral to raise the danger to adults and children in the neighborhood just so you can get somewhere a little faster. Then what about 5 mph? 2 mph? 1 mph?
We're adults here. We can use our judgement. (But I reserve the right to criticize the guy who's fine with going 25mph over the speed limit when they're kids about.)
If you're in the top 1%, you're probably earning 20-30K a year. Not millions. Don't mistake the top 0.0001% with the top 1%.
But perhaps earning tens of thousands a year is so much money that you find it acceptable that the publishers can now stop paying him, and companies that wish to use his work no longer need compensate him.
But I don't believe it's so. (So, not a matter of morality, just my preference.)
I would disagree with "no reason". I have enough respect for the artistic process and for artists to understand what having your music involuntarily turned into advertisement jingles would do to many artists. The involuntary commercialization of what is often part of one's soul is troubling enough, that I would say it balances others' natural rights.
But I don't claim this as grand truth, just preference.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the idea that one's work can be selling well, but you are living in poverty just strikes me as wrong enough that I prefer the artist at least own their work for the duration of their lifetime. After all, *very* few artists are successful for more than a few years, and I consider the body of an artists work to be their pension.
Also, can you imagine what it would be like to have your song suddenly appearing in all sorts of ads for products you hate? For publishers to start paying hacks to write new stories for the characters that you breathed life into?
I know too many artists that would be shattered by the experience. However, I'd not argue it as a matter of morality. Just a matter of preference.
However, if you want to actually make a living, popularity isn't important *unless* it results in revenue. It's a nice ego-boo, but if you want to put a roof over your kids' heads and food on their table, you can't put popularity in the bank.
(I always laugh at the "I love his work so much, I've pirated everything he's ever done." It's usually done with such sincerity.)
Don't think there's much to disagree with there. The idea that the RIAA enjoys special protections in law seems absurd. It is also likely to be short-lived. The cost of having terrible contracts is that it makes going one's own way, which is becoming more practical (although still very difficult), very attractive.
I won't mourn the loss of the big labels, but given that I am aware of most of the music I buy *because* of the label's efforts, it would be rather hypocritical of me to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but refuse to compensate them for it.
Actually that's an interesting point. I'll have to be careful about equating the two. It's the manner of competition that matters.
Yet, somehow they still make plenty of money.
Indeed, there are dozens of people who are making enough to live on off of YouTube! No wonder it's a replacement for an industry that allows tens of thousands to make a living!
Look, I'm obviously exaggerating, but not by a whole lot. Google isn't distributing a whole lot of money compared to the entire music industry. To be honest, your attitude smacks of having the car industry collapse, and telling the workers they should make hand-crafted bicycles instead. It's simply condescending.
Now maybe that's the way the industry is going, and many will suffer. But pretending YouTube is an adequate replacement is just a kick in the teeth to those actually trying to earn a living in the industry. (Or you're very young and have no concept of economics, in which case, my apologies for getting annoyed.)
The idea of an reasonably successful artist (say top 1% earning 20-30K a year) facing poverty even when the works of his youth are still selling well strikes me as unpleasant enough that I'd push for artist lifetime. Likewise, losing important income while you're trying to put your kids through college, etc. If an artist is *extremely* lucky, their work is their pension. Depriving them of it just seems cruel.
But I wouldn't claim a big moral division on either side. It's a matter of trade-offs for society.
I suspect that would take optimism pretty close to the physics equivalent of the speed of light :-). But point taken.
Actually, I'm fine with copyright of max(28 years, artist's life).
I have to say that I really have contempt for people who use something that is pretty artistically outrageous (lengthening of copyrights) as their excuse for stealing from contemporary artists. Disgraceful.
Yes. But so what? That makes the *AA pretty unpleasant. But it in no way justifies ripping off everybody from the artist on up who made it possible for you to listen to the music.
Actually, no, I'm *not* concerned about the legal repercussions or legal definition. I am concerned about the moral, not legal justification for copyright theft.
I don't care whether people pirate or not. I do care that that they understand that it's a moral wrong. Not necessarily a huge wrong, but that it *is* a wrong, and they're doing it.
It's loss of opportunity to economically exploit one's work in both cases. The difference is a matter of (significant) scale.
Or take a lower stakes example - my 10 year old friend plagiarizes my essay without permission and submits it. Now I will get an "F" if I submit mine. I still have my essay, but I've lost the ability to exploit it.
And of course, let's takes what *really* happens if copyright disappears. Corporations troll for artistic content that looks promising, copy it and put their name on it. They promote the hell out of it and sell it (albeit at bargain basement prices) as their own.
Get over it. When I was a kid, I pirated as well. I wanted lots of stuff, and I couldn't afford it all, so I stole it because I could get away with it with no danger to myself, and I could do it in my own home. But at least I wasn't a sad enough case to try to morally justify ripping off the publishers and artists with various garbage excuses about how I couldn't have afforded it all, so obviously I wasn't stealing.
Okay, given the deficit of imagination here, let me spell it out. My client tells me he will purchase program X for $Y.
Except my client takes the program and doesn't pay because he doesn't believe in copyright, and I've still got the original program, so he hasn't stolen anything (according to many pirates). I haven't lost the program - all I've lost is the ability to economically exploit it. And yet almost all of us will acknowledge I've had my work stolen.
Look, a 6-year old knows that someone who copies your work without your permission is stealing. It's only adults who try and dress it up so they don't have to feel bad about ripping people off so they can get free stuff. I don't care if people pirate, but if they are going to, at least they can be honest that they're stealing because they can get away with it, rather than dress it up in some self-righteous garbage.
Another irregular verb: I pirate his work, he steals my work.
And if I was a lawyer, I wouldn't be talking about piracy either.
I am not a lawyer, and the semantics of law are immaterial to this discussion.
But taking what does not belong to you is generally understood by almost every English speaker as theft - whether the theft is of a tangible item, the opportunity to economically exploit something you created, or even a person's freedom.
As I've said elsewhere, I'd be okay with max(28 years, artist's lifetime).
I don't think artists who are lucky enough to be successful should be denied what is essentially their only pension - the fruits of a lifetime worth of labor. While I can understand artists wanting to provide for their children, I think 28 years is probably sufficient to cover that end.
> But who is going to want to intentionally install DRM on a new release that's known to have been completely ineffective for years?
I find the Apple system works well. It's can be easily circumvented if necessary, but for most people, it's just easier to operate within the ecosystem.
I have to defer to your correctness of you nuance. You are absolutely correct on all points.
And just to be clear, I do find the copyright extensions are ridiculous. I'd be in favor of max(28 years, artists life), as I don't think longer than that causes much more art to be created.
> all those people pay to MAFIAA. MAFIAA pays the actual artists and makes all the decisions about what new art will get funded.
Okay, let's get a few things straight. Going with the labels or the studios is a *voluntary* decision. The option has always been there to go outside, and very few artists chose that route, mostly because the chance of success without a label or studio backing you was even smaller. One of the really interesting things is that technology has improved so that it's actually possible to do without them, which I think is a good thing. (I like artists to have the choice.)
However, if copyright is practically destroyed, then short of going to the patron model (which Kickstarter tends to devolve into where artists are concerned - it's easier to find the one fanatic $1,000 donor than find 100 $10 dollar supporters), the artist is screwed if they go it alone. No just selling it on the open market (well, you can, but at that point you're depending on charity).
First, no artist was *ever* forced to go through the big labels. Until recently, they provide better access to the market place than anything else (and I think we're all better off because of it), but that is a *choice*. Big difference. Having your work pirated is *not* your choice.
Second, in the last 100 years, we've seen a huge increase in the variety of music, books and art that is generally available to the public that puts any other era in human history to shame. If the *IAA have successfully stifled creativity, it's pretty hard to tell. (Remember, the era of real RIAA power is 1960-1995, often considered the "golden age").
And lastly, the idea that pirating artist's music is justified because you don't like the RIAA makes about as much sense as piloting jet planes into buildings because you don't like American foreign policy. There's a massive logical disconnect between the action and the target of hatred.
Honestly, I find hatred of the RIAA pretty thin moral justification for stealing from artists. Honestly, I don't care if you're stealing. Maybe you can't afford the media (but can afford several hundred dollars for a computer to post here). But let's not pretend it isn't stealing, even if it's pretty low level.