3 ms·

You can't eat self-actualization, nor can you build houses from it. Sunshine and enjoyment of your work is not sufficient to sustain your body, not to speak of

by adwn 6y ago

You can't eat self-actualization, nor can you build houses from it. Sunshine and enjoyment of your work is not sufficient to sustain your body, not to speak of all the other needs that effectively require money to be fulfilled.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Sunshine and enjoyment of your work is not sufficient to sustain your body, not to speak of all the other needs that effectively require money to be fulfilled. You've neglected to argue as to why these needs should be artificially subsidized by the issuance of state-enforced monopolies for certain concepts.
- adwn 6y ago
  > You've neglected to argue as to why these needs should be artificially subsidized by the issuance of state-enforced monopolies for certain concepts. ... What? Avicebron argued that "financial reciprocation" should not be a priority of a creator, I countered that idealism won't keep you alive for long, and that creators need to make money to be able to create. Your post is completely beside the point.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Why do they need special laws to subsidize their creation? People can pay them to make their work, that's historically how things were done. Now suddenly they need special laws so its illegal to take a photograph in public without permission? Of course they need to get paid in order to live and to work, so do I, so does everyone else. Can we now discuss why creators are so special that they get an entire class of quasi-property rights where enforcement is subsidized by the state?
    - adwn 6y ago
      > People can pay them to make their work, that's historically how things were done. So who's going to pay them? Their employer? That raises two problems: 1) Creators can't be independent and self-employed anymore, and 2) how is their employer going to make enough money? A rich patron? That's hardly a better system.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > So who's going to pay them? Their employer? Whoever wants artwork, obviously. > 1) Creators can't be independent and self-employed anymore, Actually, there are plenty of independent creators who are either self-employed or work at a job. > 2) how is their employer going to make enough money? Presumably the reason they are an employer is their ability to run a successful enterprise. > A rich patron? That's hardly a better system. Why not?
      - jeegsy 6y ago
        > A rich patron? That's hardly a better system. Many great works of art have come to us via this system. In our time, isnt that what Patreon is?
boomlinde 6y ago
Then again, I work all week with little entitlement to the "intellectual property" I generate, but I still receive income for my work. Making a livelihood by getting paid for the work I do and its value on the market, and the time I spend doing it and its value to me is the situation most people are in. Being able to extract substantial rent in effective perpetuity from e.g. some copyright you own is a luxury only afforded to a relatively small minority, and ideally I think only productive work should be awarded, not rent. That will incentivize productive work rather than rent seeking.
- adwn 6y ago
  > Making a livelihood by getting paid for the work I do and its value on the market [...] You're only getting paid because people have to pay you the market rate for your work. If a musician creates and records a song [1], releases it at market rates (say, 2 USD), and everyone can just copy it without repercussions, he won't be able to make a living, no matter how productive he is. [1] Which entails many hours of work, plus equipment costs.
  - boomlinde 6y ago
    It shouldn't be surprising that an economy will grow to depend on copyright if it exists and is enforceable. It's really a strange, indirect way to go about it, though. It doesn't in itself incentivize further work (a lot of the music I still regularly pay for was recorded by dead artists in defunct studios, so no incentive short of Frankenstein will compel them to make more) and it may or may not cover the investment the artist/studio made in terms of actual work and equipment costs. The up front costs is in creating and recording the music, which consumers could pay for instead of copies. A lot of creative artists are already taking this approach with crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter and Patreon. Even now, it's probably true for most musicians that sales of copies isn't particularly lucrative compared to concerts/work for hire/project contracts, while recordings have an ever increasing number of pockets to line before the artists get their take. It's a potentially infinite revenue source, so why not?
  - breck 6y ago
    I've talked to a thousand people like this and generally they seem immune to logical conversations. If you are in the 1% who gets a nice fat check thanks to IP laws, hurray for you. I've been there too, it's a nice comfortable life. You can promote the Big Lie all you want, but any smart honest person will figure out eventually that IP is evil from every angle.

by adwn 6y ago

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Sunshine and enjoyment of your work is not sufficient to sustain your body, not to speak of all the other needs that effectively require money to be fulfilled. You've neglected to argue as to why these needs should be artificially subsidized by the issuance of state-enforced monopolies for certain concepts.

adwn 6y ago
> You've neglected to argue as to why these needs should be artificially subsidized by the issuance of state-enforced monopolies for certain concepts. ... What? Avicebron argued that "financial reciprocation" should not be a priority of a creator, I countered that idealism won't keep you alive for long, and that creators need to make money to be able to create. Your post is completely beside the point.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Why do they need special laws to subsidize their creation? People can pay them to make their work, that's historically how things were done. Now suddenly they need special laws so its illegal to take a photograph in public without permission? Of course they need to get paid in order to live and to work, so do I, so does everyone else. Can we now discuss why creators are so special that they get an entire class of quasi-property rights where enforcement is subsidized by the state?
  - adwn 6y ago
    > People can pay them to make their work, that's historically how things were done. So who's going to pay them? Their employer? That raises two problems: 1) Creators can't be independent and self-employed anymore, and 2) how is their employer going to make enough money? A rich patron? That's hardly a better system.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > So who's going to pay them? Their employer? Whoever wants artwork, obviously. > 1) Creators can't be independent and self-employed anymore, Actually, there are plenty of independent creators who are either self-employed or work at a job. > 2) how is their employer going to make enough money? Presumably the reason they are an employer is their ability to run a successful enterprise. > A rich patron? That's hardly a better system. Why not?
    - jeegsy 6y ago
      > A rich patron? That's hardly a better system. Many great works of art have come to us via this system. In our time, isnt that what Patreon is?

boomlinde 6y ago

Then again, I work all week with little entitlement to the "intellectual property" I generate, but I still receive income for my work. Making a livelihood by getting paid for the work I do and its value on the market, and the time I spend doing it and its value to me is the situation most people are in. Being able to extract substantial rent in effective perpetuity from e.g. some copyright you own is a luxury only afforded to a relatively small minority, and ideally I think only productive work should be awarded, not rent. That will incentivize productive work rather than rent seeking.

adwn 6y ago
> Making a livelihood by getting paid for the work I do and its value on the market [...] You're only getting paid because people have to pay you the market rate for your work. If a musician creates and records a song [1], releases it at market rates (say, 2 USD), and everyone can just copy it without repercussions, he won't be able to make a living, no matter how productive he is. [1] Which entails many hours of work, plus equipment costs.
- boomlinde 6y ago
  It shouldn't be surprising that an economy will grow to depend on copyright if it exists and is enforceable. It's really a strange, indirect way to go about it, though. It doesn't in itself incentivize further work (a lot of the music I still regularly pay for was recorded by dead artists in defunct studios, so no incentive short of Frankenstein will compel them to make more) and it may or may not cover the investment the artist/studio made in terms of actual work and equipment costs. The up front costs is in creating and recording the music, which consumers could pay for instead of copies. A lot of creative artists are already taking this approach with crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter and Patreon. Even now, it's probably true for most musicians that sales of copies isn't particularly lucrative compared to concerts/work for hire/project contracts, while recordings have an ever increasing number of pockets to line before the artists get their take. It's a potentially infinite revenue source, so why not?
- breck 6y ago
  I've talked to a thousand people like this and generally they seem immune to logical conversations. If you are in the 1% who gets a nice fat check thanks to IP laws, hurray for you. I've been there too, it's a nice comfortable life. You can promote the Big Lie all you want, but any smart honest person will figure out eventually that IP is evil from every angle.