5 ms·

No one is entitled to a particular form of revenue. We live in an attention-based economy. Talented and savvy authors can find any number of ways to derive reve

by xtian 4y ago

No one is entitled to a particular form of revenue. We live in an attention-based economy. Talented and savvy authors can find any number of ways to derive revenue from the attention their work attracts apart from charging IP tolls. If not, they can always get a job where they have no ownership stake in the fruits of their labor, like almost every other job and 99.9% of people writing code for money.

misnome 4y ago
This exact argument can be used to justify both POV. No one is entitled to have any particular piece of media available to them for free, either? Talented and savvy consumers can find any number of ways to make money to pay for media, like 99.9% of other consumers.
- xtian 4y ago
  Except that making a living as an author or via another creative pursuit is a luxury and privilege premised upon the hard labor performed by countless others which actually reproduces our society. It’s also not really a matter of entitlement. It’s just an objective fact that trying to gatekeep knowledge behind IP toll bridges is a losing battle which only serves to hinder the development of many realms of human endeavor.
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    You want to kill the goose so you can consume the eggs. You want to steal their products but condemn the creators. You must not know creative types and how much most of them sacrifice to try and create from the passion inside them.
    - xtian 4y ago
      Actually I do. Their passion doesn’t entitle them to anything, and their sacrifices pale in comparison to those made by people who do hard labor for a living. IP laws don’t protect small creators anyway, most of whom will fail regardless. They protect the big conglomerates from multitudes of potential creators who might otherwise find education and success outside of the established institutions.
dredmorbius 4y ago
Whilst I've some sympathies with this argument, it dismisses the larger question of how to provide societal benefits of information and entertainment creation. It's quite possible that the size of such sectors today is excessive, though there's a strong argument that information is under-incentivised whilst entertainment is excessively incentivised, to say nothing of various forms of manipulation and propaganda, or the negative impacts of surveillance and fraud that are intrinsic to the adtech field. So the question of incentives, compensation, financing, and revenue collection do deserve addressing. I do agree that the present model is addressing those specific elements quite poorly.

by xtian 4y ago

misnome 4y ago

This exact argument can be used to justify both POV. No one is entitled to have any particular piece of media available to them for free, either? Talented and savvy consumers can find any number of ways to make money to pay for media, like 99.9% of other consumers.

xtian 4y ago
Except that making a living as an author or via another creative pursuit is a luxury and privilege premised upon the hard labor performed by countless others which actually reproduces our society. It’s also not really a matter of entitlement. It’s just an objective fact that trying to gatekeep knowledge behind IP toll bridges is a losing battle which only serves to hinder the development of many realms of human endeavor.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  You want to kill the goose so you can consume the eggs. You want to steal their products but condemn the creators. You must not know creative types and how much most of them sacrifice to try and create from the passion inside them.
  - xtian 4y ago
    Actually I do. Their passion doesn’t entitle them to anything, and their sacrifices pale in comparison to those made by people who do hard labor for a living. IP laws don’t protect small creators anyway, most of whom will fail regardless. They protect the big conglomerates from multitudes of potential creators who might otherwise find education and success outside of the established institutions.

dredmorbius 4y ago

Whilst I've some sympathies with this argument, it dismisses the larger question of how to provide societal benefits of information and entertainment creation. It's quite possible that the size of such sectors today is excessive, though there's a strong argument that information is under-incentivised whilst entertainment is excessively incentivised, to say nothing of various forms of manipulation and propaganda, or the negative impacts of surveillance and fraud that are intrinsic to the adtech field. So the question of incentives, compensation, financing, and revenue collection do deserve addressing. I do agree that the present model is addressing those specific elements quite poorly.