4 ms·

>> Those that love making music will find real jobs and do it on an amateur basis, quite possibly achieving better results. Those who were only in it for the mo

>> Those that love making music will find real jobs and do it on an amateur basis, quite possibly achieving better results. Those who were only in it for the money will quit. What's wrong with wanting to get paid for your time and talent? >> That's a big win for culture, albeit not necessarily for the in-it-for-the-money indies. There's music and then there's music. For example, you can go to your friend's house and sing along or to a Rolling Stones concert. Different tastes for different folks.

mike_esspe 13y ago
It's wrong to get paid by force, not by voluntary exchange.
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  Anecdote: No musician has come to my house and put a gun to my head. Now if I downloaded a song that they spent their time, money and (used their) talent to create it, why shouldn't they get paid for it? No one forced me to download their song.
  - netcan 13y ago
    No one forced them to make it either. The reality of recording and distributing music in 2013 did make it available to anyone for free. They recorded it anyway.
    - bsullivan01 13y ago
      No one forced them to make the software program either. The reality of making and distributing software in 2013 did make it available to anyone for free. They made it anyway.
      - splawn 13y ago
        Yes, and so what? Thats been a "problem" with software decades before the same applied to music. Im sure its debatable, but I don't think its had much negative impact.
      - netcan 13y ago
        true.
  - ds9 13y ago
    It's hard to tell whether this was intended seriously, but if so you totally missed the point of the parent post. No, musicians don't enforce the rights that some of them claim. Those who do believe in copyright rely on a third party. Uncle Sam, let's say, has a preponderance of coercive force and demands payments according to the terms set by copyright holders. (Note: the copyright holders, for many generations now, have been mostly not the creators, but a middle-man industry that has hijacked copyright law to exploit other people's creations.) The GP post is pointing out that this situation is inconsistent with libertarian/free-market principles. For intellectual property to be consistent with such principles, a musician would have to a contract with each customer, like "I'll sell you this copy if you agree not to give a copy to anyone else". Even then, a deal-breaker might transfer a copy to an innocent third party and that person might not have any obligation to refrain from sharing. There's no reason that creators "shouldn't get paid for" their efforts, but to show that they are entitled to enforce such a claim, with the force of government, you have to show that the laws providing for such an arrangement are legitimate. And to show that, you have to argue either (a) that intellectual property is a natural right or (b) that everyone is obligated to obey whatever laws the government chooses to make, regardless of their content.
    - bsullivan01 13y ago
      >> There's no reason that creators "shouldn't get paid for" their efforts, but to show that they are entitled to enforce such a claim, with the force of government, you have to show that the laws providing for such an arrangement are legitimate. And to show that, you have to argue either (a) that intellectual property is a natural right or (b) that everyone is obligated to obey whatever laws the government chooses to make, regardless of their content. The same way FBI goes after software pirates? http://www.fbi.gov/buffalo/press-releases/2013/former-sutherland-global-services-employee-sentenced-in-mail-fraud-conspiracy http://www.fbi.gov/buffalo/press-releases/2013/former-suther... Or is this different and deserving since it hits closer to home?
  - coldpie 13y ago
    It's possible to argue the moralities and causes and effects of piracy all day, but the simple fact is that you can't stop piracy. You (the record labels, etc) can tilt against that windmill until your coffers run dry, and the only result will be your bankruptcy. The better option would be to recognize that fact and rearrange your business model to be profitable in a world where reproduction and distribution costs are zero. If you can't do that, perhaps you belong with the buggy whip manufacturers.
lmm 13y ago
>What's wrong with wanting to get paid for your time and talent? It's wrong to assume you're entitled to be paid for something just because it took time and talent. If you're making something people want to pay for, great - but if they stop wanting to pay for it, that's your problem.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  > but if they stop wanting to pay for it, that's your problem So if your boss could get away with not paying your at the end of each month he feels like you didn't perform up to standard, you would be OK with that yes?
  - chii 13y ago
    if you agreed to such terms and conditions at the beginning of your employment, then yes, that would be "OK" - as in, you have to accept it since you agreed to it as part of your employment.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      The artist didn't agree to you taking his product without paying for it.
- tptacek 13y ago
  No, that's not wrong at all. The point you've raised has no grounding in ethics or economics. When people don't want to pay for something, they aren't usually entitled to simply use it for free over the objection of its creator.
  - mdpopescu 13y ago
    Is objection required? Does it have to be explicit - say, I can use Disney's movies without paying for them unless they explicitly tell me to stop?
hipsters_unite 13y ago
There's a lot of stigma in music around making money, it's pretty weird. I remember a pretty successful alternative musician once telling me that you couldn't survive these days if you divorced being creative and being entrepreneurial.
PeterisP 13y ago
There's nothing wrong with that, but it's simply acknowledging the facts that: a) it looks like the money won't be there in the long run, at least not for most artists; b) those who want or need to get paid will quit if they won't get paid; c) even if all of those people quit, there will still be an overabundance of new, great music, not a scarcity of it. The vast majority of great current artists don't suffer from piracy, they suffer from obscurity. They don't have any sufficient income from music, but they still produce it. For every Justin Bieber there are thousands or more really talented singers, guitarists and songwriters who desire an audience, not a job. Remove 10% or 50% or 90% of the current artists, and still no genre will 'dry up', we'll still have a [slightly smaller] abundance of new good records that you don't have enough time to listen to.

mike_esspe 13y ago

It's wrong to get paid by force, not by voluntary exchange.

bsullivan01 13y ago
Anecdote: No musician has come to my house and put a gun to my head. Now if I downloaded a song that they spent their time, money and (used their) talent to create it, why shouldn't they get paid for it? No one forced me to download their song.
- netcan 13y ago
  No one forced them to make it either. The reality of recording and distributing music in 2013 did make it available to anyone for free. They recorded it anyway.
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    No one forced them to make the software program either. The reality of making and distributing software in 2013 did make it available to anyone for free. They made it anyway.
    - splawn 13y ago
      Yes, and so what? Thats been a "problem" with software decades before the same applied to music. Im sure its debatable, but I don't think its had much negative impact.
    - netcan 13y ago
      true.
- ds9 13y ago
  It's hard to tell whether this was intended seriously, but if so you totally missed the point of the parent post. No, musicians don't enforce the rights that some of them claim. Those who do believe in copyright rely on a third party. Uncle Sam, let's say, has a preponderance of coercive force and demands payments according to the terms set by copyright holders. (Note: the copyright holders, for many generations now, have been mostly not the creators, but a middle-man industry that has hijacked copyright law to exploit other people's creations.) The GP post is pointing out that this situation is inconsistent with libertarian/free-market principles. For intellectual property to be consistent with such principles, a musician would have to a contract with each customer, like "I'll sell you this copy if you agree not to give a copy to anyone else". Even then, a deal-breaker might transfer a copy to an innocent third party and that person might not have any obligation to refrain from sharing. There's no reason that creators "shouldn't get paid for" their efforts, but to show that they are entitled to enforce such a claim, with the force of government, you have to show that the laws providing for such an arrangement are legitimate. And to show that, you have to argue either (a) that intellectual property is a natural right or (b) that everyone is obligated to obey whatever laws the government chooses to make, regardless of their content.
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    >> There's no reason that creators "shouldn't get paid for" their efforts, but to show that they are entitled to enforce such a claim, with the force of government, you have to show that the laws providing for such an arrangement are legitimate. And to show that, you have to argue either (a) that intellectual property is a natural right or (b) that everyone is obligated to obey whatever laws the government chooses to make, regardless of their content. The same way FBI goes after software pirates? http://www.fbi.gov/buffalo/press-releases/2013/former-sutherland-global-services-employee-sentenced-in-mail-fraud-conspiracy http://www.fbi.gov/buffalo/press-releases/2013/former-suther... Or is this different and deserving since it hits closer to home?
- coldpie 13y ago
  It's possible to argue the moralities and causes and effects of piracy all day, but the simple fact is that you can't stop piracy. You (the record labels, etc) can tilt against that windmill until your coffers run dry, and the only result will be your bankruptcy. The better option would be to recognize that fact and rearrange your business model to be profitable in a world where reproduction and distribution costs are zero. If you can't do that, perhaps you belong with the buggy whip manufacturers.

lmm 13y ago

>What's wrong with wanting to get paid for your time and talent? It's wrong to assume you're entitled to be paid for something just because it took time and talent. If you're making something people want to pay for, great - but if they stop wanting to pay for it, that's your problem.

res0nat0r 13y ago
> but if they stop wanting to pay for it, that's your problem So if your boss could get away with not paying your at the end of each month he feels like you didn't perform up to standard, you would be OK with that yes?
- chii 13y ago
  if you agreed to such terms and conditions at the beginning of your employment, then yes, that would be "OK" - as in, you have to accept it since you agreed to it as part of your employment.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    The artist didn't agree to you taking his product without paying for it.
tptacek 13y ago
No, that's not wrong at all. The point you've raised has no grounding in ethics or economics. When people don't want to pay for something, they aren't usually entitled to simply use it for free over the objection of its creator.
- mdpopescu 13y ago
  Is objection required? Does it have to be explicit - say, I can use Disney's movies without paying for them unless they explicitly tell me to stop?

hipsters_unite 13y ago

There's a lot of stigma in music around making money, it's pretty weird. I remember a pretty successful alternative musician once telling me that you couldn't survive these days if you divorced being creative and being entrepreneurial.

PeterisP 13y ago

There's nothing wrong with that, but it's simply acknowledging the facts that: a) it looks like the money won't be there in the long run, at least not for most artists; b) those who want or need to get paid will quit if they won't get paid; c) even if all of those people quit, there will still be an overabundance of new, great music, not a scarcity of it. The vast majority of great current artists don't suffer from piracy, they suffer from obscurity. They don't have any sufficient income from music, but they still produce it. For every Justin Bieber there are thousands or more really talented singers, guitarists and songwriters who desire an audience, not a job. Remove 10% or 50% or 90% of the current artists, and still no genre will 'dry up', we'll still have a [slightly smaller] abundance of new good records that you don't have enough time to listen to.