4 ms·

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 f

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.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Then simply use the works from people who choose to publish that way! It’s well within their rights to do so. Hey if you really believe software companies should be obligated to release their source code, I can at least respect the coherence of your opinion. Seems extreme and like it’d kill a lot of valuable incentives, but at least it’s a coherent view someone can hold!
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >I don't collect rent from people who benefit from my work long after I stopped working. I don't either but that's because I (plan to) sell my art for a lump sum and move on when it ships. No one is forcing you to charge a subscription. >I definitely don't ask the government to lock people up if they benefit from my work years after I stopped working on it. you rarely get locked up for copyright infringement. It's a civil case, so at worst you are bankrupted. You need to be doing some violation on a massive scale to justify a crminal hearing. Someone stealing an indie artists' 3 songs and selling them isn't seeing jail time.

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.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Then simply use the works from people who choose to publish that way! It’s well within their rights to do so. Hey if you really believe software companies should be obligated to release their source code, I can at least respect the coherence of your opinion. Seems extreme and like it’d kill a lot of valuable incentives, but at least it’s a coherent view someone can hold!
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>I don't collect rent from people who benefit from my work long after I stopped working. I don't either but that's because I (plan to) sell my art for a lump sum and move on when it ships. No one is forcing you to charge a subscription. >I definitely don't ask the government to lock people up if they benefit from my work years after I stopped working on it. you rarely get locked up for copyright infringement. It's a civil case, so at worst you are bankrupted. You need to be doing some violation on a massive scale to justify a crminal hearing. Someone stealing an indie artists' 3 songs and selling them isn't seeing jail time.