3 ms·

I mean most of this in a devil's-advocate sense: The proper economic arrangement for those who wish to make a living with creative works is patronage. Someone

I mean most of this in a devil's-advocate sense: The proper economic arrangement for those who wish to make a living with creative works is patronage. Someone asks you to make something, you make it for them, then you get paid. You then don't get paid until you make another work. Thus content creators shouldn't have an automatic entitlement to get paid each time someone reads/listens to/watches a work. If you work once, it's only fair for you to get paid once. The idea of royalties that pay beyond the initial act of creation is unfair because you should not get paid to do nothing. Copyright is meant to be temporary scheme to encourage creative works. It is not meant to establish ownership over non-physical goods like music, art, etc. though it is definitely currently abused to be that way. I guess at some point in history we needed copyright to encourage more creativity, but honestly look around you - we are saturated with so much intellectual property. So many movies, software UIs, rehashes of rehashes. Does society really need/benefit from the incentive of copyright/royalty any longer? It seems only entrenched legacies are significantly benefiting currently.

AVTizzle 7y ago
This doesn't make economic sense. If I create a piece of art that many people can enjoy, why shouldn't I get compensated for adding that value to their lives? Same is true for software.
- tenebrisalietum 7y ago
  Expecting endless (or effectively endless) compensation, or any compensation you demand unilaterally, for adding value once, seems abusive.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    The correct solution is to fix copyright terms to 10 or 20 years, and the problems fix themselves.
tashi 7y ago
Similarly, the proper economic arrangement for those who wish to consume art is patronage. If you want to view someone's creative work, you must hire them, come to an agreement about the subject to be depicted and materials to be used, and commit to paying the full amount upon delivery. The idea of reproduction of artistic works from all over the world and from any time in the past? It makes everything too complicated to analyze in terms of what's fair!
- tomnipotent 7y ago
  > who wish to consume art is patronage You mean like paying a monthly subscription fee to access content on demand? That's still patronage.
tomnipotent 7y ago
> The proper economic arrangement for those who wish to make a living with creative works is patronage We have this in the 21st century, it's called paying for content. If you pay Netflix, you're their patron.
briandear 7y ago
> Thus content creators shouldn't have an automatic entitlement to get paid each time someone reads/listens to/watches a work. If those are the conditions for which the work was created, then they absolutely do. Regardless, downloading a work and distributing it, that’s theft. If the creator/financer made it available, then that’s their prerogative. At some point in the chain, that content left someone’s server under a license agreement that then was broken when the downloader shared it. The breaking of the license agreement is the issue here. People don’t have a right to break a valid contract unless a court says they do. Regardless if your feelings, it’s still theft. And yes, we do benefit from copyright. It protects your work from thieves who played no part in the financing or creation of the work.
- tenebrisalietum 7y ago
  If a work is truly useful, it's better for more members of a society to have it at a low cost. The other way around benefits one person at the expense of society.
  - jmastrangelo 7y ago
    Not true if the cost is too low to justify creators continuing to invest in such works.
    - tenebrisalietum 7y ago
      Creators should get or have additional sources of funding that don't depend on restricting access.
bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
> it’s only fair you get paid once It’s fair you get paid an amount commensurate with the quality of the work you produced. The quality is determined by the number of people who view it, so while in effect it’s payment per view, it’s not practically different than having an oracle who can perfectly assess quality of work pay the artist once up front.

AVTizzle 7y ago

This doesn't make economic sense. If I create a piece of art that many people can enjoy, why shouldn't I get compensated for adding that value to their lives? Same is true for software.

tenebrisalietum 7y ago
Expecting endless (or effectively endless) compensation, or any compensation you demand unilaterally, for adding value once, seems abusive.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  The correct solution is to fix copyright terms to 10 or 20 years, and the problems fix themselves.

tashi 7y ago

Similarly, the proper economic arrangement for those who wish to consume art is patronage. If you want to view someone's creative work, you must hire them, come to an agreement about the subject to be depicted and materials to be used, and commit to paying the full amount upon delivery. The idea of reproduction of artistic works from all over the world and from any time in the past? It makes everything too complicated to analyze in terms of what's fair!

tomnipotent 7y ago
> who wish to consume art is patronage You mean like paying a monthly subscription fee to access content on demand? That's still patronage.

tomnipotent 7y ago

> The proper economic arrangement for those who wish to make a living with creative works is patronage We have this in the 21st century, it's called paying for content. If you pay Netflix, you're their patron.

briandear 7y ago

> Thus content creators shouldn't have an automatic entitlement to get paid each time someone reads/listens to/watches a work. If those are the conditions for which the work was created, then they absolutely do. Regardless, downloading a work and distributing it, that’s theft. If the creator/financer made it available, then that’s their prerogative. At some point in the chain, that content left someone’s server under a license agreement that then was broken when the downloader shared it. The breaking of the license agreement is the issue here. People don’t have a right to break a valid contract unless a court says they do. Regardless if your feelings, it’s still theft. And yes, we do benefit from copyright. It protects your work from thieves who played no part in the financing or creation of the work.

tenebrisalietum 7y ago
If a work is truly useful, it's better for more members of a society to have it at a low cost. The other way around benefits one person at the expense of society.
- jmastrangelo 7y ago
  Not true if the cost is too low to justify creators continuing to invest in such works.
  - tenebrisalietum 7y ago
    Creators should get or have additional sources of funding that don't depend on restricting access.

bobbylarrybobby 7y ago

> it’s only fair you get paid once It’s fair you get paid an amount commensurate with the quality of the work you produced. The quality is determined by the number of people who view it, so while in effect it’s payment per view, it’s not practically different than having an oracle who can perfectly assess quality of work pay the artist once up front.