5 ms·

Being reduced to pure dependence on goodwill when every other player in the economic system can also depend on the force of law (e.g. shopkeepers and shopliftin

by alexqgb 14y ago

Being reduced to pure dependence on goodwill when every other player in the economic system can also depend on the force of law (e.g. shopkeepers and shoplifting) reduces the victims - and I do mean victims - to the state of fourth class citizens. I agree, fully, that the technical reasons for this shift are irreversible. I agree, too, that the analog copyright based models dating back to the 18th century have become unsuitable in the 21st. And that's why we need to think long and hard about artists rights as such, and what we're going to do to assure that they have the same level of commercial respect and dignity that accrues to those who provide goods and services with marginal costs greater than zero - especially when artist's fixed costs remain non-trivial. That starts with taking a critical look at remarks like yours. "Look at me! I'm so supportive! Aren't you grateful? You better be fucking grateful." I'm sorry, that's not respect. That's just you being a conceited prick. Moreover, your willingness to stop paying "if you're displeased" (while presumably continuing to read) indicates that it was never respect for the law or fair exchange that motivated you. If your heart were truly in the right place you'd pay because you made a copy, and for no other reason. And if you didn't want to pay - for whatever reason - then you wouldn't make the copy. I recognize that we have no way to implement an exchange that enforces this norm at the present time. And I recognize that goodwill is the only thing artists can depend on for the foreseeable future. But let's stop pretending that this isn't a very one-sided arrangement. And lets stop pretending that people can take advantage of a one-sided situation and keep their hands clean. I'm sorry, but they just can't. And unless you're actively looking for a system that both sides view as fair, you're not the mensch you think you are. Also, if you're not willing to pay for what's provided because you MUST pay, then stop calling yourself a customer. Customers pay. They pay every time. And they pay to get what they want because that's how they get what they want. They don't make payment a secondary, incidental exchange based on some extraneous factor, like whether or not the provider expressed enough slobbering gratitude for the "customer's" generosity. Unless we're discussing gifts, generosity shouldn't enter the picture. I know that when I pay for groceries, generosity isn't what motivates me. I'll clue you in. If generosity and "a desire to support artists" is what motivates you, then what you're describing is no longer a commercial transaction. It's an act of patronage. I'm not saying that patronage is necessarily bad, but be honest enough to admit that's what's happening, and stop pretending you're a customer when, in reality, you're no such thing. Like everyone else, you take what you want. Unlike most, you make a donation. That's appreciated. But it would be appreciated even more if you were honest about what it is, and what it means for people to be in a situation that is entirely dependent on goodwill. If you're really concerned with the status and well-being of artists, stop saying "your reduced status is just the way it is and you should be grateful for what little you've got left" and start asking "what would restore a measure of genuine equality to this situation?"

swift 14y ago
You say "we" as if you were speaking for all artists, but you do not speak for me. In my view, the current model of selling a copy of a work to a customer as if it were a scarce good was dubious in the past and is downright unsupportable now. It simply doesn't map very well onto the underlying reality of effortless, unlimited digital copies. What makes more sense is a patronage model - that is, have the customers fund the production of the work, rather than buy copies of it. (Think something along the lines of Kickstarter.) Once the work is produced, it is free for all to use at no further charge. (Though of course premium products could still be made - for example, signed, numbered, or customized editions.) This has a number of advantages: it eliminates the whole mess of DRM and copyright, it democratizes the process of allocating funding for artistic works, and it diffuses the risk of producing a large work among a potentially large number of people. There are, of course, downsides to this model. It will generally be necessary to produce some initial portfolio of work unpaid so that the customers can trust that you'll be able to deliver. (Though really, an analogous situation exists in the current model.) And there are legal questions to iron out over what happens when a work doesn't get completed. Still, I think that over the long term this will prove to be the right approach. It suits the reality of the products that artists are selling, and it is fair to everyone involved. It also makes it possible to cut out a whole gaggle of intermediaries and bureaucracy that stand between the artist or artists producing a work and the public. Not to mention eliminating the conflicts of interest that can make an artist the enemy of their own fans. edit: Heh, you keep editing your comment, and I see that you too have noticed that artists have patrons now rather than customers in the traditional sense. The difference is that I see it as an opportunity and a good thing, and you see it as exploitive. And indeed, it certainly can be exploitive if one doesn't use a business model that suits this reality.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  Sorry about the edits. And yes, I was trying to underscore the difference between patrons and customers. There is a profound distinction between them, just as there is a profound difference between a commercial business and an organized charity, and they relationships they have to the people who give them money. What bothered me so much about the original comment is that the poster was so sloppy about this distinction. He'd treat the exchange like it was charity when that suited him, turn around and demand the very different regard that accrues to a customer when that became preferable, only to switch the frame back to a charity when that was most beneficial to him. It had a slipperiness that is transparently self-serving and one-sided. The guy, quite frankly, comes across like a weasel. I'm not saying that people don't make money in the current environment, or that many people who would never have had opportunities in a more closed system aren't finding ways to do really great work now, or that ultimately, things can't work out for the best for artists and audiences alike. I'm just saying that this guy, in particular, has a problem with his ethics. If you recognize that you're a patron, be sensitive to the serious inequality that comes with that status, and aware of the special deference to artists that is required to maintain a modicum of balance. And if you see yourself as a mere customer, then have the decency to behave like one, and actually pay. Every time. Not just if and when you happen to feel like it. But don't cherry pick the best of both - the status of one and the detachment of the other - while dodging the kind of clear definition that leves you with anything less than the upper hand at all times, because that's just being a dick.

by alexqgb 14y ago

swift 14y ago

You say "we" as if you were speaking for all artists, but you do not speak for me. In my view, the current model of selling a copy of a work to a customer as if it were a scarce good was dubious in the past and is downright unsupportable now. It simply doesn't map very well onto the underlying reality of effortless, unlimited digital copies. What makes more sense is a patronage model - that is, have the customers fund the production of the work, rather than buy copies of it. (Think something along the lines of Kickstarter.) Once the work is produced, it is free for all to use at no further charge. (Though of course premium products could still be made - for example, signed, numbered, or customized editions.) This has a number of advantages: it eliminates the whole mess of DRM and copyright, it democratizes the process of allocating funding for artistic works, and it diffuses the risk of producing a large work among a potentially large number of people. There are, of course, downsides to this model. It will generally be necessary to produce some initial portfolio of work unpaid so that the customers can trust that you'll be able to deliver. (Though really, an analogous situation exists in the current model.) And there are legal questions to iron out over what happens when a work doesn't get completed. Still, I think that over the long term this will prove to be the right approach. It suits the reality of the products that artists are selling, and it is fair to everyone involved. It also makes it possible to cut out a whole gaggle of intermediaries and bureaucracy that stand between the artist or artists producing a work and the public. Not to mention eliminating the conflicts of interest that can make an artist the enemy of their own fans. edit: Heh, you keep editing your comment, and I see that you too have noticed that artists have patrons now rather than customers in the traditional sense. The difference is that I see it as an opportunity and a good thing, and you see it as exploitive. And indeed, it certainly can be exploitive if one doesn't use a business model that suits this reality.

alexqgb 14y ago
Sorry about the edits. And yes, I was trying to underscore the difference between patrons and customers. There is a profound distinction between them, just as there is a profound difference between a commercial business and an organized charity, and they relationships they have to the people who give them money. What bothered me so much about the original comment is that the poster was so sloppy about this distinction. He'd treat the exchange like it was charity when that suited him, turn around and demand the very different regard that accrues to a customer when that became preferable, only to switch the frame back to a charity when that was most beneficial to him. It had a slipperiness that is transparently self-serving and one-sided. The guy, quite frankly, comes across like a weasel. I'm not saying that people don't make money in the current environment, or that many people who would never have had opportunities in a more closed system aren't finding ways to do really great work now, or that ultimately, things can't work out for the best for artists and audiences alike. I'm just saying that this guy, in particular, has a problem with his ethics. If you recognize that you're a patron, be sensitive to the serious inequality that comes with that status, and aware of the special deference to artists that is required to maintain a modicum of balance. And if you see yourself as a mere customer, then have the decency to behave like one, and actually pay. Every time. Not just if and when you happen to feel like it. But don't cherry pick the best of both - the status of one and the detachment of the other - while dodging the kind of clear definition that leves you with anything less than the upper hand at all times, because that's just being a dick.