3 ms·
> expecting perpetual payment for work completed in the past (aka passive income) I'm not sure there's anything inherently wrong with this. Imagine if you made
by dataflow 3y ago
> expecting perpetual payment for work completed in the past (aka passive income)
I'm not sure there's anything inherently wrong with this. Imagine if you made a car and "sold" it to me for $100, on the condition that I pay you $30k if/when I resell it. I'd think that would be actually incredibly nice of you. I wouldn't think you're somehow a worse person for selling it under those terms rather than demanding a $30k payment today. You're lowering my initial barrier at the expense of recouping some of the payment when I resell it. That's not inherently bad.
Of course you can do this in an exploitative way too; no doubt about that. But determining this requires analyzing many more factors than just the licensing or pricing model.
- hammyhavoc 3y agoWhy something like a piece of furniture for this example? Why not the infamous Nike logo? Designed for $35 by student Carolyn Davidson. She was later compensated heavily, and so she should have been. It was the morally right thing to do, regardless of how "simple" or "meh" you think the logo may be, there's no denying how effective and recognizable it is. Would it have been "rentseeking behaviour" for her to ask to be compensated? No. It'd have been reasonable. At $35 and a student, that would have otherwise been exploitation. Artists and artisans are exploited constantly. I don't think laws like these are unreasonable. If the object still commands value, and there's only one of it, why shouldn't the artist be compensated? They can only create x works in their lifetime, at some point they must retire.