3 ms·
Right, but the owners of the RR continue to charge rent in perpetuity. The difference between straight labor and creative work is that the artist is, in theory
by alexqgb 13y ago
Right, but the owners of the RR continue to charge rent in perpetuity.
The difference between straight labor and creative work is that the artist is, in theory, building an exploitable asset. They only time they get paid directly for their labor (and labor alone) is when they're operating under a work for hire agreement (e.g. a major studio movie).
In this case, the vast armies of cast and crew are just like the RR workers. They clock in, do their day, get paid for that - and only that - then move on to the next job.
It's a rare instance where a capital-intensive creative work (which can include novels when you factor the cost of print runs, distribution, and promotion) don't involve the backers insisting on substantial control. In this sense, it's pretty similar to VCs backing startups.
If the creative talent manages to self-fund and self-distribute, it's not that they're getting paid over and over for one effort. They're commending royalties because they managed to play several roles at once.
- betterunix 13y ago"The difference between straight labor and creative work is that the artist is, in theory, building an exploitable asset." How are laborers not building an exploitable asset? When last I checked, that is exactly what they do: they build exploitable assets for others. Really, it sounds like you are arguing that Fitzgerald's publisher should be able to charge for his work in perpetuity.
- alexqgb 13y agoSorry. Perhaps I should have said the artist is "building an exploitable asset for themselves." Of course, an intelligent reader would have been able to infer that's exactly simply by reading the very next line. And because this is HN, I don't make a habit of dumbing-down the discourse to a third grade level. But hey, I'm not afraid to be servicy, so if spoon-feeding is what you need, well, there you go. And now that I've discovered that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I can understand why a subtle detail like the distinction between "rent" and "royalties" (which I was careful to make) would have sailed straight over your head. So where more diligent readers would register my acknowledgement of the differences between tangible and intangible assets and by extension, my awareness of the distinct sets of laws that pertain to each, you turned a comprehension failure on your part into an deliberate oversight on mine, before misconstruing your own error as open advocacy on my part for an end to term limits on copyrights. To which all I can say is...riiight.