4 ms·

> why should I pay for the bits on my hard drive or something to be reconfigured into an arbitrary state Because you can't do this yourself. And it's not about

> why should I pay for the bits on my hard drive or something to be reconfigured into an arbitrary state Because you can't do this yourself. And it's not about being technically incapable, it's about you know knowing what arbitrary state to assemble them into. It's not really arbitrary. Each assemblage has purpose. Especially with creative works, there has always been two sides to the cost of production: 1. The cost of making the physical good itself (evaporating with digital goods) 2. The cost of remunerating the creator of the work. The second cost still exists. You pay people to reconfigure the bits on your hard drive to represent a TV show because you can't think of it all yourself. You pay others to reconfigure the bits on your hard drive to represent a useful program because you don't know how to assemble them in such a manner yourself. I'm very much against companies that are price-gouging and trying to maintain artificially high prices based on the obsolete first cost. But people still deserve compensation for the work they do, even is the output of that work is purely digital. Otherwise, what is the incentive for them to create anything?

Karunamon 10y ago
Otherwise, what is the incentive for them to create anything? I'm not entirely convinced that indirectly killing off art for profit as a market would be an even mostly bad thing. Those that remain would be those that do the work they love because they love the work, not because they were expecting a payoff of some kind. For a direct comparison, examine the entire open source software ecosystem.
- jdbernard 10y ago
  > Those that remain would be those that do the work they love because they love the work, not because they were expecting a payoff of some kind. Yeah, until they can no longer afford the rent and grocery bill. Then they give up their passion in order to survive. Or they spiral out of control because they can't cope with giving up the work they love and because people are withholding one of the most fundamental and powerful forms of approval and validation: remuneration. > examine the entire open source software ecosystem. And examine how often a well-loved technology stagnates when it's corporate benefactors fold (because they can't pay the bills) or de-prioritize the OSS projects (often because they can't monetize effectively). At the end of the day, creators need food, shelter, etc. The most historically reliable way to provide that is to pay them for their work.

Karunamon 10y ago

Otherwise, what is the incentive for them to create anything? I'm not entirely convinced that indirectly killing off art for profit as a market would be an even mostly bad thing. Those that remain would be those that do the work they love because they love the work, not because they were expecting a payoff of some kind. For a direct comparison, examine the entire open source software ecosystem.

jdbernard 10y ago
> Those that remain would be those that do the work they love because they love the work, not because they were expecting a payoff of some kind. Yeah, until they can no longer afford the rent and grocery bill. Then they give up their passion in order to survive. Or they spiral out of control because they can't cope with giving up the work they love and because people are withholding one of the most fundamental and powerful forms of approval and validation: remuneration. > examine the entire open source software ecosystem. And examine how often a well-loved technology stagnates when it's corporate benefactors fold (because they can't pay the bills) or de-prioritize the OSS projects (often because they can't monetize effectively). At the end of the day, creators need food, shelter, etc. The most historically reliable way to provide that is to pay them for their work.