5 ms·

You should be paid the accurate value of the labor. The pay should not scale more when no additional labor takes place. This is how art worked for millenia; so

You should be paid the accurate value of the labor. The pay should not scale more when no additional labor takes place. This is how art worked for millenia; someone commissions a chapel roof painting, someone commissions a concerto, someone commissions a statue, someone buys a chair, etc. Artists still do this today, and there is no issue determining value beforehand. Artists list their commission prices, or their hourly costs, etc. This is a perfectly normal thing that happens everyday.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>You should be paid the accurate value of the labor. that's gone out the door in the digital age. Compaies at this point have spent centuries trying to enfoce this model while witholding stuff like stock and royalties to take a part of what the company enjoys by protifting for decades off of a single (underpaid) piece of labor. I don't exactly sympathize with a robot now trying to do the same. Pay your labor.
Vicinity9635 3y ago
Exactly. Somehow this idea that you keep getting paid for literally the same thing over and over again for work you did once is the absurdity. And ridiculously greedy. It seems to have been invented by laywers, for lawyers. Nobody else really benefits as much as they do. The whole entirety of society vs. a single profession of dubious morality.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >Somehow this idea that you keep getting paid for literally the same thing over and over again for work you did once is the absurdity meanwhile, most tech is moving towards subscriptions? Art is getting paid "non-greedily". People buy a song or art piece, and then people 10 years later buy a song or art piece. That's not one person paying twice for the same song, it's two people buying the same thing. If people still value that art for that price later, I don't see how this is a "greedy" thing. is art magically supposed to turn open source CC0 after 5 years? Tech sure doesnt work like that.
blehn 3y ago
You didn't answer my questions at all. But ok so I'm a young musician. Nobody's heard of me and nobody wants to commission a concert or album. What do I do? Quit? @Vicinity9635 It's not just lawyer greed, it creates economic fairness by preventing others from profiting from your creative work.
- mrdatawolf 3y ago
  You do other things to make money and continue to make art for it's own sake. If you get to the point that others want your art you get commissions. Just like most artists in the current system.
  - blehn 3y ago
    Alright, so then you're NOT going to pay artists for their labor? In the current system, artists might work for many years on a single work, or work many years perfecting their craft before anyone wants to pay for their work. Copyright gives them a way to earn money in the future that compensates them for the work they did in the past. It incentivizes creativity. Don't get me wrong, I don't think copyright is perfect, but you really ought to think more about the system you're proposing, because it's not making much sense.
    - dinvlad 3y ago
      Unfortunately, it’s hard to explain these things to techies who only see the world in their one-sided startupy way. The fact that there’re starving creatives who have already been massively marginalized by the likes of Spotify of this world, means nothing to these tech workers who only see everything as numbers, or a “business model” to “validate”. (full disclosure, I’m a techie who’s gradually woken up to the idea that the tech might just be the most abused way to exploit people)
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        I'm in games, where art and tech crossroad. I 1000% empathize for the fact that art exploits, abuses, and underpays even if they at times may be doing more work than a junior web dev. It's a bit ironic, because a lot of tech offers partial compensation in stock. Something else that really doesn't happen in games unless you work for like, the 3-4 largest studios. So they should at least understand that your compensation is not all based on labor for time worked.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>You should be paid the accurate value of the labor. that's gone out the door in the digital age. Compaies at this point have spent centuries trying to enfoce this model while witholding stuff like stock and royalties to take a part of what the company enjoys by protifting for decades off of a single (underpaid) piece of labor. I don't exactly sympathize with a robot now trying to do the same. Pay your labor.

Vicinity9635 3y ago

Exactly. Somehow this idea that you keep getting paid for literally the same thing over and over again for work you did once is the absurdity. And ridiculously greedy. It seems to have been invented by laywers, for lawyers. Nobody else really benefits as much as they do. The whole entirety of society vs. a single profession of dubious morality.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>Somehow this idea that you keep getting paid for literally the same thing over and over again for work you did once is the absurdity meanwhile, most tech is moving towards subscriptions? Art is getting paid "non-greedily". People buy a song or art piece, and then people 10 years later buy a song or art piece. That's not one person paying twice for the same song, it's two people buying the same thing. If people still value that art for that price later, I don't see how this is a "greedy" thing. is art magically supposed to turn open source CC0 after 5 years? Tech sure doesnt work like that.

blehn 3y ago

You didn't answer my questions at all. But ok so I'm a young musician. Nobody's heard of me and nobody wants to commission a concert or album. What do I do? Quit? @Vicinity9635 It's not just lawyer greed, it creates economic fairness by preventing others from profiting from your creative work.

mrdatawolf 3y ago
You do other things to make money and continue to make art for it's own sake. If you get to the point that others want your art you get commissions. Just like most artists in the current system.
- blehn 3y ago
  Alright, so then you're NOT going to pay artists for their labor? In the current system, artists might work for many years on a single work, or work many years perfecting their craft before anyone wants to pay for their work. Copyright gives them a way to earn money in the future that compensates them for the work they did in the past. It incentivizes creativity. Don't get me wrong, I don't think copyright is perfect, but you really ought to think more about the system you're proposing, because it's not making much sense.
  - dinvlad 3y ago
    Unfortunately, it’s hard to explain these things to techies who only see the world in their one-sided startupy way. The fact that there’re starving creatives who have already been massively marginalized by the likes of Spotify of this world, means nothing to these tech workers who only see everything as numbers, or a “business model” to “validate”. (full disclosure, I’m a techie who’s gradually woken up to the idea that the tech might just be the most abused way to exploit people)
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      I'm in games, where art and tech crossroad. I 1000% empathize for the fact that art exploits, abuses, and underpays even if they at times may be doing more work than a junior web dev. It's a bit ironic, because a lot of tech offers partial compensation in stock. Something else that really doesn't happen in games unless you work for like, the 3-4 largest studios. So they should at least understand that your compensation is not all based on labor for time worked.