4 ms·

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 peo

by 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.
    - CaptainFever 3y ago
      Only if you rely on artificial scarcity to get paid; there are other choices that are less harmful. Copyright is not just an incentive, but also a restriction on everybody else. And of course, some people are welcome to not harm others, but the harm that comes from copyright owners restricting others still remains.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        I’m sure the art world would be more than happy to consider these alternative ways to get paid. But “here’s another option, otherwise I’m going to steal it anyway” isn’t proposing an alternative, that’s coercion. Presumably software companies should all be obligated to release their source code right? It’s free to duplicate, so the scarcity is artificial. Also it only cost labor directly once (at time of writing) which they should get paid for, but after that they’re just benefiting from artificial scarcity/government-enforced monopoly. Also obviously all model weights should be public. The labor all just went into training it, which happened once, but after that it’s just artificial scarcity.
        CaptainFever 3y ago
        > I’m sure the art world would be more than happy to consider these alternative ways to get paid. You are correct, which is why a lot of artists actually already live in a post copyright world. Commissions, patronage, live performances... these don't need copyright to function. Edit: The issue for this is that even when no copyright is needed, people do not give it up. I think at the very least, copyright should be opt-in and costs money to register, much like patents. > But “here’s another option, otherwise I’m going to steal it anyway” isn’t proposing an alternative, that’s coercion. It's not possible to steal public data. And the free culture community has proposed many over the years. > Presumably software companies should all be obligated to release their source code right? > [Snip] > [Snip] Yes.
RandomLensman 3y ago
No patents then, either, right? What about licensing regimes, be it for professions or for things like resources extraction? They also create artificial scarcity. Pretty sure there is much more business that is in one form or another related to artificial scarcity of sorts.
- andy99 3y ago
  > Pretty sure there is much more business that is in one form or another related to artificial scarcity of sorts. That doesn't make it right. At least that's closer to a logical counterargument. Artificial scarcity, as a byproduct, could make sense if it's in the service of some greater good. Certification for doctors is probably a good example. For real estate agents, maybe not. Taxi medallion quotas definitely not. There are lots of cartel-like certifications that are not helping anyone. Copyright, like government mandated certifications, is another form of scarcity, the supporting argument I'm aware of is that it spurs innovation and creativity, not the labor theory of value stuff I'm seeing discussed. I don't believe that copyright results in more creative work and so I don't see it as an acceptable tradeoff, especially given the way it gives advantages to bigger companies and wealthier people. I think it would be a valid argument to try and show that it really did result in a more creative and innovative society.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    There is a fair amount of research out there on the effects of copyright and patents. From my casual observation, it feels murky as far as causal relationships go, but then it is not a field I actively study. The effects are also not independent of the actual implementation of IP rights - it can help or hinder and there might be some optimal setup. I certainly wouldn't dismiss that there could be a copyright implementation that is net helpful for fostering creativity and innovation.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    “I think it would be a valid argument to [do impossible thing given there is no control case]” Alternatively, you can just realize that copyright exists to retain incentive to create and share creative work. AI’s entire value prop in this domain, quite explicitly, is to obviate the need for artists to be doing the art. That is incentive destruction. You can observe that artists tend not to publish work directly into public domain despite always having the ability. You can observe that most art people actually consume is made by professional artists. It’s not hard to connect the dots when one steps outside of their own ridiculous sense of entitlement to profit off others’ work. I’d respect the anti-copyright view a whole lot more if they just came out and said it: “I deserve to be able to profit off other people’s labor without paying them.”

by andy99 3y ago

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.
  - CaptainFever 3y ago
    Only if you rely on artificial scarcity to get paid; there are other choices that are less harmful. Copyright is not just an incentive, but also a restriction on everybody else. And of course, some people are welcome to not harm others, but the harm that comes from copyright owners restricting others still remains.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      I’m sure the art world would be more than happy to consider these alternative ways to get paid. But “here’s another option, otherwise I’m going to steal it anyway” isn’t proposing an alternative, that’s coercion. Presumably software companies should all be obligated to release their source code right? It’s free to duplicate, so the scarcity is artificial. Also it only cost labor directly once (at time of writing) which they should get paid for, but after that they’re just benefiting from artificial scarcity/government-enforced monopoly. Also obviously all model weights should be public. The labor all just went into training it, which happened once, but after that it’s just artificial scarcity.
      - CaptainFever 3y ago
        > I’m sure the art world would be more than happy to consider these alternative ways to get paid. You are correct, which is why a lot of artists actually already live in a post copyright world. Commissions, patronage, live performances... these don't need copyright to function. Edit: The issue for this is that even when no copyright is needed, people do not give it up. I think at the very least, copyright should be opt-in and costs money to register, much like patents. > But “here’s another option, otherwise I’m going to steal it anyway” isn’t proposing an alternative, that’s coercion. It's not possible to steal public data. And the free culture community has proposed many over the years. > Presumably software companies should all be obligated to release their source code right? > [Snip] > [Snip] Yes.

RandomLensman 3y ago

No patents then, either, right? What about licensing regimes, be it for professions or for things like resources extraction? They also create artificial scarcity. Pretty sure there is much more business that is in one form or another related to artificial scarcity of sorts.

andy99 3y ago
> Pretty sure there is much more business that is in one form or another related to artificial scarcity of sorts. That doesn't make it right. At least that's closer to a logical counterargument. Artificial scarcity, as a byproduct, could make sense if it's in the service of some greater good. Certification for doctors is probably a good example. For real estate agents, maybe not. Taxi medallion quotas definitely not. There are lots of cartel-like certifications that are not helping anyone. Copyright, like government mandated certifications, is another form of scarcity, the supporting argument I'm aware of is that it spurs innovation and creativity, not the labor theory of value stuff I'm seeing discussed. I don't believe that copyright results in more creative work and so I don't see it as an acceptable tradeoff, especially given the way it gives advantages to bigger companies and wealthier people. I think it would be a valid argument to try and show that it really did result in a more creative and innovative society.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  There is a fair amount of research out there on the effects of copyright and patents. From my casual observation, it feels murky as far as causal relationships go, but then it is not a field I actively study. The effects are also not independent of the actual implementation of IP rights - it can help or hinder and there might be some optimal setup. I certainly wouldn't dismiss that there could be a copyright implementation that is net helpful for fostering creativity and innovation.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  “I think it would be a valid argument to [do impossible thing given there is no control case]” Alternatively, you can just realize that copyright exists to retain incentive to create and share creative work. AI’s entire value prop in this domain, quite explicitly, is to obviate the need for artists to be doing the art. That is incentive destruction. You can observe that artists tend not to publish work directly into public domain despite always having the ability. You can observe that most art people actually consume is made by professional artists. It’s not hard to connect the dots when one steps outside of their own ridiculous sense of entitlement to profit off others’ work. I’d respect the anti-copyright view a whole lot more if they just came out and said it: “I deserve to be able to profit off other people’s labor without paying them.”