7 ms·

I remain unconvinced by the argument that without financial incentives, creative individuals will cease to create and society will be deprived of their creative

I remain unconvinced by the argument that without financial incentives, creative individuals will cease to create and society will be deprived of their creative contributions. That argument is more compelling for inventions and patents (the original context in which it was popularized) than it is for creations and copyright. If a piece of creative work would not have existed without the prospect of financial gain, it's unlikely to be very good. Society would not have missed out on much if some famous author published only their first 3 truly inspired works, which they wrote to satisfy their creative urge, but not the 20 potboilers that followed. We need to distinguish discoveries, inventions, and creations. Discoveries cannot be protected by patent/copyright. Inventions can and should (within reason). Creations might also deserve protection, but the incentives argument here is much weaker IMO than in the case of inventions. Ironically, the NYT, which prides itself on being a neutral and objective purveyor of facts, isn’t challenging OpenAI for using the factual elements of its reporting in training data. Facts, being discoveries, aren’t copyrightable. Instead, they are focused on the part where journalists exercise "creative freedom" – the specific wording, narrative, and "spin" journalists put on reported facts. Let's apply the incentives argument to this context: is it clear the world would be a worse place if NYT journalists lose the incentive to exercise creative freedom in their news reports?

ethanbond 3y ago
What do you do for work and how much do you charge? Art is a profession, not a charity.
- Calavar 3y ago
  Today, yes, but that's not universal across human history.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Yes the cave drawings were for funzies. That sort of art still happens, also for funzies. We get higher quality art via professionalization, as is readily apparent in the historical record (not many hobbyists in there).
    - Calavar 3y ago
      I'm not talking about cave paintings. When Livy wrote Ab Urbe Condita, when Chaucer wrote Centerbury Tales, who were they planning to sell the rights too? Professional/career writing didn't become the default until the middle of the 19th century, when a rise in literacy made it financially viable. Even as recently as the first half of the 19th century, most of the literary greats were not professional writers. Leo Tolstoy was a nobleman born into wealth, financially set for life, and wrote purely for the intellectual stimulation. Chekov saw himself first and foremost as a physician, continued to practice with a full patient panel even after he encountered massive success as a writer, and famously said "Medicine is my wife and writing is my mistress." Nathaniel Hawthorne was a low level government bureaucrat throughout his life. Henry David Thoreau alternated between running a pencil factory and being an indigent. And yet no matter their financial situation, no matter their day job, no matter how much or how little income they derived from writing, they all wrote, and they wrote good stuff. Professionalization of writing in the second half of the 19th century directly coincided with the rise of doggerel and dime novels. The volume of new works went up, but the average quality went down - not up as you suggest. When the financial incentive is central there is a push to optimize for quantity over quality.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        What excellent evidence to my point! Livy: Uniquely without a patron, so uniquely able to write without fear of reprisal -- he was independently wealthy Chaucer: Dependent on patronage Tolstoy: Yep, wealthy people can make art in their leisure time Chekov: Yep, wealthy people can make art in their leisure time Hawthorne: Registered his works with the copyright office. Lived with very well-off relatives throughout his youth. Had his college paid for by well-off relatives. Thoreau: Went to Harvard and was the grandson of a very wealthy Boston merchant -- had plenty of access to money. His indigence was a philosophical decision he made. I never argued that no good art is produced outside of commercial incentives, I didn't argue the "average" quality would go up or down. I believe that overall volume and diversity of art increases with commercial motivation, as artists can produce art without a direct attachment to existing wealth and power structures. There are more great pieces of art across a more diverse range of styles, perspectives, formats, etc. This is readily apparent in the historical record, and outliers like Livy are the exceptions that prove the rule. We've never had a problem producing high-quality art from the perspective of and at the whims of the rich and powerful.
- andy99 3y ago
  Copyright essentially makes it charity. If you're solely relying on copyright, you rely on some combination of the government forcing people to pay you and people ignoring the many circumvention options because of guilt. Business models like live performances, physical delivery of art, commissioned work, etc. can allow one to be a professional without the need for copyright. I reject the idea that people are owed a business model based solely on artificial scarcity.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    You’re forcing people to pay you when they utilize the product of your labor. And that’s correct, that’s a good thing obviously. You presumably don’t work for free do you?
    - andy99 3y ago
      "Work" in the sense you mean means someone wants to pay you. Exerting yourself mentally or physically is not automatically economic work that deserves payment, particularly not a recurring stream of payments.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Then don’t use their production, then you don’t need to pay anyone. No one is making you use it. If it has no economic value then you’d just make it yourself or not utilize it.
    - MacsHeadroom 3y ago
      Copies aren't the product of any creator's labor. I get paid to perform work. I don't collect rent from people who benefit from my work long after I stopped working. I definitely don't ask the government to lock people up if they benefit from my work years after I stopped working on it.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Does copying destroy some incentive to produce the original work? AFAICT, most people who create copyrightable works believe it does. Freeriding rent-seekers who wish to commercialize others’ work tend to believe it doesn’t. I’m personally more inclined to believe the former. Obviously some creators are happy to create without the additional incentives created by copyright. But here’s the thing: they’re more than welcome to produce and share their work that way already.
- Levitz 3y ago
  No. Art has turned into a profession, precisely because it yields money. It is not, by any means, intrinsically a profession. As a matter of fact, most of those who make videos, play music and write stories don't make and won't ever make a dime off it.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    And most art that people actually consume is not made by such hobbyists. It’s made by professionals because people who are able to make a living out of an activity tend to get much much better at that activity. If it’s so trivial to do as a hobby with no economic output, then do it yourself or don’t use other people’s professional output. No one is forcing you to! Artists are also welcome to publish their work directly into public domain whenever they feel like doing so for charity. You can always go visit your local schoolhouses to see hobbyist art.
    - Levitz 3y ago
      What a roundabout way to concede the point
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        “Software engineering is a profession so it’s bad to take people’s source code without a mutual agreement.” “Actually, software engineering isn’t intrinsically a profession. It’s only such because people pay software engineers to do it.” Gee thanks
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    nothing is intrinsically a profession. Even in prehistoric times there were basic economies exchanging shells and rocks for necessary goods. And that expanded to artistic ideas once humanity didn't need to spend a full time job surviving. This seems to be splitting hairs at this point. Yes, everything "turns into a profession". no, not everyone is a professional, regardless of domain.
em-bee 3y ago
i want to write. what i don't want is someone else to profit from it without me getting a cut. that would stop me, because why should i allow myself to be exploited. this works for contracted work as it is usually paid enough to live off it. and it works for FOSS to a degree as reselling that usually takes extra work (but we are getting to the limits of that too) i don't know what the best model for this is. maybe some kind of tax for the commercial reproduction like some countries have for music? i think this would still work without any exclusive copyright. or seen from the other side, open up copyright to allow unlimited non profit use and reproduction
ozim 3y ago
I think you don't understand how writing, making music, making movies or any creative endeavor works. You don't get to decide "ah now I am writing top charts song" and you write it and then you sing it and it goes to top of charts you rake in profits and swim in cash like Scrooge McDuck. You create work and then you release it to the world and world decides ... countless times it turns out great work is appreciated only after author dies.
sojuz151 3y ago
Almost all modern games, movies, and tv series would not have been created if there was no profit insentive. And even the book author needs to somehow make a living. Begin able to write books without having to work in some factory for half of your day makes writing easier.
- andy99 3y ago
  How do you explain open source?
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Enthusiasts always exists and there is a low capital requirement. Just like you get anonymous art, people volunteering for all sorts of things - not everyone does everything for money or even recognition. And even open source typically has some licenses language associated.
  - delecti 3y ago
    It would seem that the "almost all" in their comment already does.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sensanaty 3y ago
    There's lots and lots of OSS licenses out there, some more lenient than others. I personally know quite a few OSS devs that don't care if individuals and small shops use their stuff in whatever way they want to, but obviously it's much different when a nameless megacorp does it instead.
  - sojuz151 3y ago
    There are some open-source games and fan movies, but they come nowhere near the quality and quantity of the commercial titles. For every tux raacer, there are 5 Mario karts
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
tgv 3y ago
> I remain unconvinced by the argument that without financial incentives, creative individuals will cease to create and society will be deprived of their creative contributions. Except that artists well into the 20th century were continuously seeking patronage or success with the greater public. Because they had to live. Erasmus was seeking shelter at least until his 50s, and trying to keep publishers from printing his work (or work under his name) without paying him. > Society would not have missed out on much if some famous author published only their first 3 truly inspired works, which they wrote to satisfy their creative urge, but not the 20 potboilers that followed. You don't see the contradiction there?

ethanbond 3y ago

What do you do for work and how much do you charge? Art is a profession, not a charity.

Calavar 3y ago
Today, yes, but that's not universal across human history.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Yes the cave drawings were for funzies. That sort of art still happens, also for funzies. We get higher quality art via professionalization, as is readily apparent in the historical record (not many hobbyists in there).
  - Calavar 3y ago
    I'm not talking about cave paintings. When Livy wrote Ab Urbe Condita, when Chaucer wrote Centerbury Tales, who were they planning to sell the rights too? Professional/career writing didn't become the default until the middle of the 19th century, when a rise in literacy made it financially viable. Even as recently as the first half of the 19th century, most of the literary greats were not professional writers. Leo Tolstoy was a nobleman born into wealth, financially set for life, and wrote purely for the intellectual stimulation. Chekov saw himself first and foremost as a physician, continued to practice with a full patient panel even after he encountered massive success as a writer, and famously said "Medicine is my wife and writing is my mistress." Nathaniel Hawthorne was a low level government bureaucrat throughout his life. Henry David Thoreau alternated between running a pencil factory and being an indigent. And yet no matter their financial situation, no matter their day job, no matter how much or how little income they derived from writing, they all wrote, and they wrote good stuff. Professionalization of writing in the second half of the 19th century directly coincided with the rise of doggerel and dime novels. The volume of new works went up, but the average quality went down - not up as you suggest. When the financial incentive is central there is a push to optimize for quantity over quality.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      What excellent evidence to my point! Livy: Uniquely without a patron, so uniquely able to write without fear of reprisal -- he was independently wealthy Chaucer: Dependent on patronage Tolstoy: Yep, wealthy people can make art in their leisure time Chekov: Yep, wealthy people can make art in their leisure time Hawthorne: Registered his works with the copyright office. Lived with very well-off relatives throughout his youth. Had his college paid for by well-off relatives. Thoreau: Went to Harvard and was the grandson of a very wealthy Boston merchant -- had plenty of access to money. His indigence was a philosophical decision he made. I never argued that no good art is produced outside of commercial incentives, I didn't argue the "average" quality would go up or down. I believe that overall volume and diversity of art increases with commercial motivation, as artists can produce art without a direct attachment to existing wealth and power structures. There are more great pieces of art across a more diverse range of styles, perspectives, formats, etc. This is readily apparent in the historical record, and outliers like Livy are the exceptions that prove the rule. We've never had a problem producing high-quality art from the perspective of and at the whims of the rich and powerful.
andy99 3y ago
Copyright essentially makes it charity. If you're solely relying on copyright, you rely on some combination of the government forcing people to pay you and people ignoring the many circumvention options because of guilt. Business models like live performances, physical delivery of art, commissioned work, etc. can allow one to be a professional without the need for copyright. I reject the idea that people are owed a business model based solely on artificial scarcity.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  You’re forcing people to pay you when they utilize the product of your labor. And that’s correct, that’s a good thing obviously. You presumably don’t work for free do you?
  - andy99 3y ago
    "Work" in the sense you mean means someone wants to pay you. Exerting yourself mentally or physically is not automatically economic work that deserves payment, particularly not a recurring stream of payments.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Then don’t use their production, then you don’t need to pay anyone. No one is making you use it. If it has no economic value then you’d just make it yourself or not utilize it.
  - MacsHeadroom 3y ago
    Copies aren't the product of any creator's labor. I get paid to perform work. I don't collect rent from people who benefit from my work long after I stopped working. I definitely don't ask the government to lock people up if they benefit from my work years after I stopped working on it.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Does copying destroy some incentive to produce the original work? AFAICT, most people who create copyrightable works believe it does. Freeriding rent-seekers who wish to commercialize others’ work tend to believe it doesn’t. I’m personally more inclined to believe the former. Obviously some creators are happy to create without the additional incentives created by copyright. But here’s the thing: they’re more than welcome to produce and share their work that way already.
Levitz 3y ago
No. Art has turned into a profession, precisely because it yields money. It is not, by any means, intrinsically a profession. As a matter of fact, most of those who make videos, play music and write stories don't make and won't ever make a dime off it.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  And most art that people actually consume is not made by such hobbyists. It’s made by professionals because people who are able to make a living out of an activity tend to get much much better at that activity. If it’s so trivial to do as a hobby with no economic output, then do it yourself or don’t use other people’s professional output. No one is forcing you to! Artists are also welcome to publish their work directly into public domain whenever they feel like doing so for charity. You can always go visit your local schoolhouses to see hobbyist art.
  - Levitz 3y ago
    What a roundabout way to concede the point
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      “Software engineering is a profession so it’s bad to take people’s source code without a mutual agreement.” “Actually, software engineering isn’t intrinsically a profession. It’s only such because people pay software engineers to do it.” Gee thanks
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  nothing is intrinsically a profession. Even in prehistoric times there were basic economies exchanging shells and rocks for necessary goods. And that expanded to artistic ideas once humanity didn't need to spend a full time job surviving. This seems to be splitting hairs at this point. Yes, everything "turns into a profession". no, not everyone is a professional, regardless of domain.

em-bee 3y ago

i want to write. what i don't want is someone else to profit from it without me getting a cut. that would stop me, because why should i allow myself to be exploited. this works for contracted work as it is usually paid enough to live off it. and it works for FOSS to a degree as reselling that usually takes extra work (but we are getting to the limits of that too) i don't know what the best model for this is. maybe some kind of tax for the commercial reproduction like some countries have for music? i think this would still work without any exclusive copyright. or seen from the other side, open up copyright to allow unlimited non profit use and reproduction

ozim 3y ago

I think you don't understand how writing, making music, making movies or any creative endeavor works. You don't get to decide "ah now I am writing top charts song" and you write it and then you sing it and it goes to top of charts you rake in profits and swim in cash like Scrooge McDuck. You create work and then you release it to the world and world decides ... countless times it turns out great work is appreciated only after author dies.

sojuz151 3y ago

Almost all modern games, movies, and tv series would not have been created if there was no profit insentive. And even the book author needs to somehow make a living. Begin able to write books without having to work in some factory for half of your day makes writing easier.

andy99 3y ago
How do you explain open source?
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Enthusiasts always exists and there is a low capital requirement. Just like you get anonymous art, people volunteering for all sorts of things - not everyone does everything for money or even recognition. And even open source typically has some licenses language associated.
- delecti 3y ago
  It would seem that the "almost all" in their comment already does.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sensanaty 3y ago
  There's lots and lots of OSS licenses out there, some more lenient than others. I personally know quite a few OSS devs that don't care if individuals and small shops use their stuff in whatever way they want to, but obviously it's much different when a nameless megacorp does it instead.
- sojuz151 3y ago
  There are some open-source games and fan movies, but they come nowhere near the quality and quantity of the commercial titles. For every tux raacer, there are 5 Mario karts
- johnnyanmac 3y ago

tgv 3y ago

> I remain unconvinced by the argument that without financial incentives, creative individuals will cease to create and society will be deprived of their creative contributions. Except that artists well into the 20th century were continuously seeking patronage or success with the greater public. Because they had to live. Erasmus was seeking shelter at least until his 50s, and trying to keep publishers from printing his work (or work under his name) without paying him. > Society would not have missed out on much if some famous author published only their first 3 truly inspired works, which they wrote to satisfy their creative urge, but not the 20 potboilers that followed. You don't see the contradiction there?