5 ms·

>>Everyone has right to ask and receive a compensation for their work. Nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation Last I check no one is being for

by syshum 10y ago

>>Everyone has right to ask and receive a compensation for their work. Nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation Last I check no one is being forced to create movies, music, books, software, or any other creative works. I work in software development. I have had commercial projects fail miserably, I have spent 100's of hours on projects that have earned me $0, why because while I valued them clearly no one else saw enough value in them to provide me with money for them. I have no right to compensation for that labor. I only have the right to ask people to compensate me, if they choose not to then I miscalculated the market.

falcolas 10y ago
> Last I check no one is being forced to create movies, music, books, software, or any other creative works. No, most do it because they think they can make money off it. Movies are expensive to make, and without the expectation of making that money back (or more - its an investment), why would make the movie? Books can take years to write (cough, GRRM), and the authors are frequently paid up front for the book. Would GRRM still be writing ASOIF if he wasn't able to make a living off it? Perhaps, perhaps not. Paying him makes it a lot more likely.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > Would GRRM still be writing ASOIF if he wasn't able to make a living off it? Perhaps, perhaps not. Paying him makes it a lot more likely. But copyright and DRM is about forcing people to pay - this has nothing to do with being able to make a living or not.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    > But copyright [...] is about forcing people to pay Which, in my opinion, is not an unreasonable thing. If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash).
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      > If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash). I consider doing this as a gesture of politeness, but nothing that should be enforced by violence.
      - falcolas 10y ago
        > I consider doing this as a gesture of politeness I disagree. The rights of a content creator are, after all, enshrined in the constitution. That's a bit more than "being polite". That said, the right of the public to have access after a defined period of time is also enshrined, so that does need to be taken into account. > nothing that should be enforced by violence Thats quite the jump - violence? I'm going to make the assumption that you're referring to the idea that no law should be made that you aren't willing to resort to violence to support. Even under that assumption, I am OK with this being the law of the land. I believe that a person has the right to demand compensation for access their work, regardless of the form that work takes.
        syshum 10y ago
        >> I'm going to make the assumption that you're referring to the idea that no law should be made that you aren't willing to resort to violence to support. All laws are enforced by violence, that is what makes them law. Law is force, Force is violence. Every law, from Jay Walking, to First Degree Murder is based by the threat that an armed agent from the government will enforce that rule upon you.
        falcolas 10y ago
        > Law is force Not really - a law is a codification of desired human behavior. > an armed agent from the government will enforce that rule upon you. This is definitely at the extreme end of the list of possibilities. The enforcement of those laws can take any number of forms, but most do not involve armed agents. Most involve certified letters and negotiations between lawyers in front of an (unarmed) judge. This is especially true when we're discussing copyright (with the occasional exception proving the rule). Even speeding tickets are handled more and more frequently by mail. Armed agents are typically reserved for cases where harm to either a body or a property are possible.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  First I should remind that no DRM does not mean that creative works moves into the public domain when released. I have a cabinet full of discs holding movies I could more conveniently just have downloaded. I chose not to as I believe that this is not an acceptable behaviour for me. Now lets just assume that people like me become a really small minority and the only way to use digital distribution effectively would be to implement DRM in its fullest draconian beauty. For this I'll say that if this is the only way to have a digital distribution, we should let it go. First of, we will only loose the digital distribution, that did not contain any monetary interest anyway. It would not mean that there is no money to made be in the movies. There are still cinemas. Yes, we will loose convenience, but this is in my opinion a small price for the greater good if it has to come to this. Second, the financing model assumed here is not the only option. Many movies get made, at least in Europe, based on the money from the culture funds, national or private. Perhaps the budgets of these movies are not really huge, but interesting work still gets done. There also exists the kickstarter model. Nowhere it is told that the only way to finance a big budget movie should be by to movie studios. Perhaps it would not work for all the ideas, but I can see it working for novel and promising ones. It is possible that the quality of the work will actually increase.
m_developer 10y ago
But, if people keep using your software (or, for comparison, music), then there does seem to be value in it. Why then, shouldn't you be compensated for the work it took?
- syshum 10y ago
  There are many forms of "value" outside that of currency. Further the sole reason they may use my software it because it is free, any attempt to even charge $1 for it exceeds the monetary value of the software.
  - saint_fiasco 10y ago
    I don't know why you are being downvoted. If you really are willing to change to a different software (or see/listen a different movie/music) just because you are not willing to pay a dollar, then the value of that software/song/movie really is lower than a dollar. How is that controversial?
- Ace17 10y ago
  Because when this software/music, in its final form, only consist in pure information, it's nearly impossible to guarantee your compensation without giving companies the tools to interfer with essential freedoms.
eveningcoffee 10y ago
I welcome you to reread my comment. What I essentially said was that nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation. If this compensation can not be reached, we should accept that there will be less work created, instead of enforcing this compensation at the expense of our other more important civil rights.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > What I essentially said was that nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation. I'm not aware of any penal servitude in the United States.
  - pbtflakes 10y ago
    It's right there in the 13th Amendment. Just look at FPI/UNICOR, a government-owned corporation founded in order to exploit prison labor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    Hence "we should accept that there will be less work created."

by syshum 10y ago

falcolas 10y ago

> Last I check no one is being forced to create movies, music, books, software, or any other creative works. No, most do it because they think they can make money off it. Movies are expensive to make, and without the expectation of making that money back (or more - its an investment), why would make the movie? Books can take years to write (cough, GRRM), and the authors are frequently paid up front for the book. Would GRRM still be writing ASOIF if he wasn't able to make a living off it? Perhaps, perhaps not. Paying him makes it a lot more likely.

wolfgke 10y ago
> Would GRRM still be writing ASOIF if he wasn't able to make a living off it? Perhaps, perhaps not. Paying him makes it a lot more likely. But copyright and DRM is about forcing people to pay - this has nothing to do with being able to make a living or not.
- falcolas 10y ago
  > But copyright [...] is about forcing people to pay Which, in my opinion, is not an unreasonable thing. If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash).
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash). I consider doing this as a gesture of politeness, but nothing that should be enforced by violence.
    - falcolas 10y ago
      > I consider doing this as a gesture of politeness I disagree. The rights of a content creator are, after all, enshrined in the constitution. That's a bit more than "being polite". That said, the right of the public to have access after a defined period of time is also enshrined, so that does need to be taken into account. > nothing that should be enforced by violence Thats quite the jump - violence? I'm going to make the assumption that you're referring to the idea that no law should be made that you aren't willing to resort to violence to support. Even under that assumption, I am OK with this being the law of the land. I believe that a person has the right to demand compensation for access their work, regardless of the form that work takes.
      - syshum 10y ago
        >> I'm going to make the assumption that you're referring to the idea that no law should be made that you aren't willing to resort to violence to support. All laws are enforced by violence, that is what makes them law. Law is force, Force is violence. Every law, from Jay Walking, to First Degree Murder is based by the threat that an armed agent from the government will enforce that rule upon you.
        falcolas 10y ago
        > Law is force Not really - a law is a codification of desired human behavior. > an armed agent from the government will enforce that rule upon you. This is definitely at the extreme end of the list of possibilities. The enforcement of those laws can take any number of forms, but most do not involve armed agents. Most involve certified letters and negotiations between lawyers in front of an (unarmed) judge. This is especially true when we're discussing copyright (with the occasional exception proving the rule). Even speeding tickets are handled more and more frequently by mail. Armed agents are typically reserved for cases where harm to either a body or a property are possible.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
eveningcoffee 10y ago
First I should remind that no DRM does not mean that creative works moves into the public domain when released. I have a cabinet full of discs holding movies I could more conveniently just have downloaded. I chose not to as I believe that this is not an acceptable behaviour for me. Now lets just assume that people like me become a really small minority and the only way to use digital distribution effectively would be to implement DRM in its fullest draconian beauty. For this I'll say that if this is the only way to have a digital distribution, we should let it go. First of, we will only loose the digital distribution, that did not contain any monetary interest anyway. It would not mean that there is no money to made be in the movies. There are still cinemas. Yes, we will loose convenience, but this is in my opinion a small price for the greater good if it has to come to this. Second, the financing model assumed here is not the only option. Many movies get made, at least in Europe, based on the money from the culture funds, national or private. Perhaps the budgets of these movies are not really huge, but interesting work still gets done. There also exists the kickstarter model. Nowhere it is told that the only way to finance a big budget movie should be by to movie studios. Perhaps it would not work for all the ideas, but I can see it working for novel and promising ones. It is possible that the quality of the work will actually increase.

m_developer 10y ago

But, if people keep using your software (or, for comparison, music), then there does seem to be value in it. Why then, shouldn't you be compensated for the work it took?

syshum 10y ago
There are many forms of "value" outside that of currency. Further the sole reason they may use my software it because it is free, any attempt to even charge $1 for it exceeds the monetary value of the software.
- saint_fiasco 10y ago
  I don't know why you are being downvoted. If you really are willing to change to a different software (or see/listen a different movie/music) just because you are not willing to pay a dollar, then the value of that software/song/movie really is lower than a dollar. How is that controversial?
Ace17 10y ago
Because when this software/music, in its final form, only consist in pure information, it's nearly impossible to guarantee your compensation without giving companies the tools to interfer with essential freedoms.

eveningcoffee 10y ago

I welcome you to reread my comment. What I essentially said was that nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation. If this compensation can not be reached, we should accept that there will be less work created, instead of enforcing this compensation at the expense of our other more important civil rights.

wolfgke 10y ago
> What I essentially said was that nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation. I'm not aware of any penal servitude in the United States.
- pbtflakes 10y ago
  It's right there in the 13th Amendment. Just look at FPI/UNICOR, a government-owned corporation founded in order to exploit prison labor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries
- pessimizer 10y ago
  Hence "we should accept that there will be less work created."