3 ms·

Using the phrase "artificial scarcity" to describe someone's skills is ridiculous. A voice actor or artist being paid for their skills is not rent seeking.

nurple 3y ago
Sure, their creation is held behind legal walls in order to create, by definition, an artifical scarcity from which it derives its monetary value. If it was not protected by such a wall, and was not scarce, it would have no monetary value. No, I don't think the inherent value in their talent is artificial, but I _do_ think that the monetary system we've built around such things as a necessity to survive in our modern world is abberant and bound to fail. ETA: Just to give some flavor. Do you realize how much human energy is expended in finding ways to build these walls of artificial scarcity? It's frankly sad. I was watching a showmatch that a streamer I enjoy watching was invovolved in (ShahZaM a Valorant pro). For nearly an hour in the leadup to the showmatch we got treated to a realtime negotiation between him an the player organizing his team. From comments like "no I can't use that graphic because I'm sponsored by another PC builder", to "every dollar I get I'll increase the size by 1px", and the piece de resistance "Whaaaat?! we have casters?? I'm not even getting paid for this!", followed by a streamer-initiated 10(!) count roll of twitch ads. When the match was over, Tarik, the guy who organized the allstar team, was supposed to do an interview with the casters but had accidentally kicked off his own 10-pack of ads and they had to embarrasingly stall until his viewers were done watching them so they could see the interview live. It was a repugnant view behind the curtains of the rediculuous amount of work a lot of people go to in order to profit behind the artificial scarcity put in front of their skills. This is usally hidden from the viewer behind production, but happened to leak in this instance due to the slapdash nature of the event. Frankly, we can, and we must do better.
- Tallain 3y ago
  >Sure, their creation is held behind legal walls in order to create, by definition, an artifical scarcity from which it derives its monetary value. If it was not protected by such a wall, and was not scarce, it would have no monetary value. That's... not artificial scarcity. By definition (and using your own words) it is actual scarcity. A person's performance -- which is more than just their voice reading lines -- is not held back behind some imaginary wall. It's literally limited by the hours in the day, the person's ability to get from place A to place B, etc.; it's not like David Attenborough is a Santa Claus figure and can be in California narrating a documentary and in New York providing some random dude a personal voiceover for his life simultaneously.
  - Ukv 3y ago
    > It's literally limited by the hours in the day If a textbook isn't available because it's still being written by the author, then true, that's the real scarcity of the author's time. But if a textbook is finished but isn't available because effort is put into preventing the information from being freely shared, then that's artificial scarcity. Restricting access subject to payment is currently the most common method for extracting profit to incentivize creation, but it's not the only method and for digital goods it's incredibly inefficient.
    - DeIlliad 3y ago
      None of that is relevant to this discussion. We are talking about someone who spent time growing a skill and is charging people who want him to use that skill for whatever they are hiring them for.
      - Ukv 3y ago
        nurple said: "their creation is held behind legal walls in order to create, by definition, an artifical scarcity from which it derives its monetary value" In my example "their creation" is a textbook, and "legal walls" would be copyright/DMCA. There is also Getty/Universal Music/etc. attempting to enforce artificial scarcity in an area where real scarcity existed (in addition to plenty of artificial scarcity) but is beginning to be overcome.
        DeIlliad 3y ago
        I don't see copyright or a record label as artificial scarcity. I think the artist should have every right to profit from their work.
        Ukv 3y ago
        > I don't see copyright or a record label as artificial scarcity It's allocating resources towards preventing distribution. Maybe you'd agree that it's "direct" artificial scarcity, but believe without that necessary artificial scarcity we'd soon become worse off overall? > I think the artist should have every right to profit from their work. Sure - but you see that is not inherently the same thing as the specific method of profit extraction through requiring payment per access to the book/image/music/..., right? An artist receiving donations or public funding for releasing their work to everyone under a permissive license is still profiting from their work, for example. I'm not necessarily saying you have to agree that alternative methods are currently feasible in all or most scenarios.

nurple 3y ago

Sure, their creation is held behind legal walls in order to create, by definition, an artifical scarcity from which it derives its monetary value. If it was not protected by such a wall, and was not scarce, it would have no monetary value. No, I don't think the inherent value in their talent is artificial, but I _do_ think that the monetary system we've built around such things as a necessity to survive in our modern world is abberant and bound to fail. ETA: Just to give some flavor. Do you realize how much human energy is expended in finding ways to build these walls of artificial scarcity? It's frankly sad. I was watching a showmatch that a streamer I enjoy watching was invovolved in (ShahZaM a Valorant pro). For nearly an hour in the leadup to the showmatch we got treated to a realtime negotiation between him an the player organizing his team. From comments like "no I can't use that graphic because I'm sponsored by another PC builder", to "every dollar I get I'll increase the size by 1px", and the piece de resistance "Whaaaat?! we have casters?? I'm not even getting paid for this!", followed by a streamer-initiated 10(!) count roll of twitch ads. When the match was over, Tarik, the guy who organized the allstar team, was supposed to do an interview with the casters but had accidentally kicked off his own 10-pack of ads and they had to embarrasingly stall until his viewers were done watching them so they could see the interview live. It was a repugnant view behind the curtains of the rediculuous amount of work a lot of people go to in order to profit behind the artificial scarcity put in front of their skills. This is usally hidden from the viewer behind production, but happened to leak in this instance due to the slapdash nature of the event. Frankly, we can, and we must do better.

Tallain 3y ago
>Sure, their creation is held behind legal walls in order to create, by definition, an artifical scarcity from which it derives its monetary value. If it was not protected by such a wall, and was not scarce, it would have no monetary value. That's... not artificial scarcity. By definition (and using your own words) it is actual scarcity. A person's performance -- which is more than just their voice reading lines -- is not held back behind some imaginary wall. It's literally limited by the hours in the day, the person's ability to get from place A to place B, etc.; it's not like David Attenborough is a Santa Claus figure and can be in California narrating a documentary and in New York providing some random dude a personal voiceover for his life simultaneously.
- Ukv 3y ago
  > It's literally limited by the hours in the day If a textbook isn't available because it's still being written by the author, then true, that's the real scarcity of the author's time. But if a textbook is finished but isn't available because effort is put into preventing the information from being freely shared, then that's artificial scarcity. Restricting access subject to payment is currently the most common method for extracting profit to incentivize creation, but it's not the only method and for digital goods it's incredibly inefficient.
  - DeIlliad 3y ago
    None of that is relevant to this discussion. We are talking about someone who spent time growing a skill and is charging people who want him to use that skill for whatever they are hiring them for.
    - Ukv 3y ago
      nurple said: "their creation is held behind legal walls in order to create, by definition, an artifical scarcity from which it derives its monetary value" In my example "their creation" is a textbook, and "legal walls" would be copyright/DMCA. There is also Getty/Universal Music/etc. attempting to enforce artificial scarcity in an area where real scarcity existed (in addition to plenty of artificial scarcity) but is beginning to be overcome.
      - DeIlliad 3y ago
        I don't see copyright or a record label as artificial scarcity. I think the artist should have every right to profit from their work.
        Ukv 3y ago
        > I don't see copyright or a record label as artificial scarcity It's allocating resources towards preventing distribution. Maybe you'd agree that it's "direct" artificial scarcity, but believe without that necessary artificial scarcity we'd soon become worse off overall? > I think the artist should have every right to profit from their work. Sure - but you see that is not inherently the same thing as the specific method of profit extraction through requiring payment per access to the book/image/music/..., right? An artist receiving donations or public funding for releasing their work to everyone under a permissive license is still profiting from their work, for example. I'm not necessarily saying you have to agree that alternative methods are currently feasible in all or most scenarios.