5 ms·

I'm genuinely curious how you think artists should be compensated for their work.

by grensley 4y ago

takeda 4y ago
They always were entertainment, so: concerts, performances etc.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Sponsorship and patronage. Who knows. As long as it's not this artificial scarcity illusion.
- fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
  The scarcity isn’t in the reproducibility of intellectual property. It’s in human motivation.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Yes. People are supposed to get paid for the labor of creating. Not the finished product.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      Why would we pay people for the labor, not the product? I don't care if something took you 1 minute of 10 years, it's value to me doesn't change (except in the case where the 1 minute version is reproduced a lot by you and it's scarcity gives it value)
      - matheusmoreira 4y ago
        Because creators are scarce and finished products are not. It's simple. We're in the 21st century, the age of information and networked computers, and these people are trying to sell bits. It makes no sense. If your work is making bits, you need to figure out a way to get paid for the labor of discovering those bits, not the bits themselves. Because god knows how easy it is to copy those bits after they've been found.
        lottin 4y ago
        We've already figured out a way to compensate creators for their work—it's called copyright. You say you don't like it, but you don't propose any alternative either, which makes you sound like an entitled brat.
        jamilton 4y ago
        Copyright is not necessarily the best way for creators to get compensated. For example, for most musicians in the US it's only a small part of their income [1]. Study is from 2013, could be different in the Spotify era, but it found that on average 12% of musicians' income came from copyright-related sources. 22% if you count session recording. Top-earners made a higher percentage from copyright. It isn't terrible, but it's not exactly the main way musicians are making money. Writers make basically all of their money from copyright-related sources, but the median income from writing for full-time authors in the US is 20k [2]. My point is, copyright is a way to compensate creators for their work, but it's not the only way, and in practice for most people it doesn't do a stellar job. [1]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2199058 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2199058 [2]: https://authorsguild.org/news/authors-guild-survey-shows-drastic-42-percent-decline-in-authors-earnings-in-last-decade/ https://authorsguild.org/news/authors-guild-survey-shows-dra...
        HWR_14 4y ago
        I have issues with your interpretations of both papers. High level: The paper on authors says it's Amazons monopoly rent seeking as why writers don't get paid more Music is also famously an industry where artists rarely own the copyright for their (recorded) music, instead selling it to cover production and advertising costs. Also, the music study suffers from and the paper on musicians has a good deal of classical performers and teachers in the mix skewing the sample. These are not professionals that interact with copyright in any meaningful sense, but they are also not professionals that would be classified as creators.
        lottin 4y ago
        Of course, because music can be performed. People will pay to see a live performance, which means music performers aren't entirely reliant on selling recorded performances. Live readings, on the other hand, don't attract large crowds and therefore aren't a great source of income, making writers more dependent on IP rights. It's pretty obvious.
- Barrin92 4y ago
  So we're going back to the feudal times were artists live in servitude arrangements with the propertied classes? It's pretty funny how artificial is a pejorative in your world when it precedes 'scarcity' but not when it precedes 'intelligence'. Property rights are the basis for any society in which people have independence and autonomy. I think we should put software developers on sponsorship and donations for a year so that they understand the consequence of an economy like this.
  - boredhedgehog 4y ago
    >So we're going back to the feudal times were artists live in servitude arrangements with the propertied classes? Most of what we see today as the greatest art of all time was produced under this arrangement, so if we look purely at the outcome for society, the arrangement can't be that bad.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > So we're going back to the feudal times were artists live in servitude arrangements with the propertied classes? As if it's any different now. Wanna create something and need money to make it happen? Be prepared to enter into arrangements with rich investors and corporations and producers. The people with the money will literally get credited in your works. > It's pretty funny how artificial is a pejorative in your world when it precedes 'scarcity' but not when it precedes 'intelligence'. The "artificial" in intelligence is a technological limitation: it's not a real intelligence because we haven't been able to make one. The "artificial" in artificial scarcity is a condition humans impose on abundant resources in order to create an economy where there is none: we have the technology to copy and distribute these abundant resources but the monopolists won't have it. So you bet it's pejorative. > Property rights are the basis for any society in which people have independence and autonomy. Sure. Real property like land and physical possessions. Not this imaginary property that only exists to let people turn abundance into scarcity. > I think we should put software developers on sponsorship and donations for a year so that they understand the consequence of an economy like this. I don't even disagree. Software developers are also creators that exploit their monopolies for gain. Personally I don't even believe in copyleft licenses, they only exist to fix copyright and turn it to our advantage. There should be no copyrights to fix in the first place.
scotty79 4y ago
Universal basic income to begin with. So they can create if they feel like it instead of waiting tables to make ends meet.

I'm genuinely curious how you think artists should be compensated for their work.

takeda 4y ago

They always were entertainment, so: concerts, performances etc.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

Sponsorship and patronage. Who knows. As long as it's not this artificial scarcity illusion.

fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
The scarcity isn’t in the reproducibility of intellectual property. It’s in human motivation.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Yes. People are supposed to get paid for the labor of creating. Not the finished product.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Why would we pay people for the labor, not the product? I don't care if something took you 1 minute of 10 years, it's value to me doesn't change (except in the case where the 1 minute version is reproduced a lot by you and it's scarcity gives it value)
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      Because creators are scarce and finished products are not. It's simple. We're in the 21st century, the age of information and networked computers, and these people are trying to sell bits. It makes no sense. If your work is making bits, you need to figure out a way to get paid for the labor of discovering those bits, not the bits themselves. Because god knows how easy it is to copy those bits after they've been found.
      - lottin 4y ago
        We've already figured out a way to compensate creators for their work—it's called copyright. You say you don't like it, but you don't propose any alternative either, which makes you sound like an entitled brat.
        jamilton 4y ago
        Copyright is not necessarily the best way for creators to get compensated. For example, for most musicians in the US it's only a small part of their income [1]. Study is from 2013, could be different in the Spotify era, but it found that on average 12% of musicians' income came from copyright-related sources. 22% if you count session recording. Top-earners made a higher percentage from copyright. It isn't terrible, but it's not exactly the main way musicians are making money. Writers make basically all of their money from copyright-related sources, but the median income from writing for full-time authors in the US is 20k [2]. My point is, copyright is a way to compensate creators for their work, but it's not the only way, and in practice for most people it doesn't do a stellar job. [1]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2199058 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2199058 [2]: https://authorsguild.org/news/authors-guild-survey-shows-drastic-42-percent-decline-in-authors-earnings-in-last-decade/ https://authorsguild.org/news/authors-guild-survey-shows-dra...
        HWR_14 4y ago
        I have issues with your interpretations of both papers. High level: The paper on authors says it's Amazons monopoly rent seeking as why writers don't get paid more Music is also famously an industry where artists rarely own the copyright for their (recorded) music, instead selling it to cover production and advertising costs. Also, the music study suffers from and the paper on musicians has a good deal of classical performers and teachers in the mix skewing the sample. These are not professionals that interact with copyright in any meaningful sense, but they are also not professionals that would be classified as creators.
        lottin 4y ago
        Of course, because music can be performed. People will pay to see a live performance, which means music performers aren't entirely reliant on selling recorded performances. Live readings, on the other hand, don't attract large crowds and therefore aren't a great source of income, making writers more dependent on IP rights. It's pretty obvious.
Barrin92 4y ago
So we're going back to the feudal times were artists live in servitude arrangements with the propertied classes? It's pretty funny how artificial is a pejorative in your world when it precedes 'scarcity' but not when it precedes 'intelligence'. Property rights are the basis for any society in which people have independence and autonomy. I think we should put software developers on sponsorship and donations for a year so that they understand the consequence of an economy like this.
- boredhedgehog 4y ago
  >So we're going back to the feudal times were artists live in servitude arrangements with the propertied classes? Most of what we see today as the greatest art of all time was produced under this arrangement, so if we look purely at the outcome for society, the arrangement can't be that bad.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > So we're going back to the feudal times were artists live in servitude arrangements with the propertied classes? As if it's any different now. Wanna create something and need money to make it happen? Be prepared to enter into arrangements with rich investors and corporations and producers. The people with the money will literally get credited in your works. > It's pretty funny how artificial is a pejorative in your world when it precedes 'scarcity' but not when it precedes 'intelligence'. The "artificial" in intelligence is a technological limitation: it's not a real intelligence because we haven't been able to make one. The "artificial" in artificial scarcity is a condition humans impose on abundant resources in order to create an economy where there is none: we have the technology to copy and distribute these abundant resources but the monopolists won't have it. So you bet it's pejorative. > Property rights are the basis for any society in which people have independence and autonomy. Sure. Real property like land and physical possessions. Not this imaginary property that only exists to let people turn abundance into scarcity. > I think we should put software developers on sponsorship and donations for a year so that they understand the consequence of an economy like this. I don't even disagree. Software developers are also creators that exploit their monopolies for gain. Personally I don't even believe in copyleft licenses, they only exist to fix copyright and turn it to our advantage. There should be no copyrights to fix in the first place.

scotty79 4y ago

Universal basic income to begin with. So they can create if they feel like it instead of waiting tables to make ends meet.