3 ms·

> It's just shocking — absolutly SHOCKING — to see how many artists expect to get paid for their work This is so backwards. Getting paid -- as in getting compe

> It's just shocking — absolutly SHOCKING — to see how many artists expect to get paid for their work This is so backwards. Getting paid -- as in getting compensated for work -- is usually something you have agreed upon _before_ you do the work.

alexqgb 13y ago
Uh, that's exactly what copyright is: a pre-existing social and legal agreement about the terms on which people can expect to get paid, which they can reliably use to determine the scope of investment required by the work itself. Moreover, its current form (more or less) has been in place for well over a century, while its original form dates back more than three centuries. I'm not sure how much further in advance you were expecting. Also, people getting paid royalties aren't being paid directly for their labor. They're charging rent on property they own. Copyright law is similar to tangible property law in the sense that people make investments based on how well protected they think those investment are likely to be. No reasonable protection, no reasonable investment. To the extent that the law is enforceable, people making these investments fully — and reasonably — expect it to be enforced.
- adamlett 13y ago
  Copyright is what the word implies: The (exclusive) right to make copies of something. No more, no less. Whether someone can turn that into something you can make money doing, is not and should not be concern for the law. People make works all the time that they can't sell. Does copyright give them the right to expect to be paid anyway? If artists insist on grossly overpricing their work, does copyright protect them from consumers choosing not to buy?
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    There's obviously no right to get paid for copies that don't get made. And that's not what people are insisting on when they talk about their right to get paid for their work. What they're talking about are the copies that do get made without any payment in return. That the real bone of contention. And really, it's not even the copies that artists and publishers care about. What concerns them is the money legally owed but illegally withheld. See the problem? If you - personally - feel something is overpriced, leave it on the shelf. That's how you send signals in market economies. I mean, do you honestly think your rights are being infringed upon if someone refuses to sell you something at a price you're unable or unwilling to pay? As an aside, copyright protection isn't limited to the making of copies. It also covers the creation of derivative works (i.e. adaptations) and the sale and / or distribution of copies and derivatives. FYI.
    - adamlett 13y ago
      > that's not what people are insisting on when they talk about their right to get paid for their work. What they're talking about are the copies that do get made without any payment in return Getting paid for work and getting paid for selling a copy are not the same thing. The former usually requires some kind of agreement to be made beforehand, the latter requires salesmanship. The problem with conflating the two is when the sense of entitlement it brings to artists who are unable to sell their work. That sense of entitlement is what makes them equate an illegitimate copy with a lost sale (the way you also seem to do), when everybody knows that is almost never the case.
      - alexqgb 13y ago
        So let's say your boss refuses to pay you. And when you complain, he berates you for your "sense of entitlement". Would you consider this to be an accurate judgement, or would you consider this to be insult added to injury? Here's the thing about entitlement. Sometimes it refers to things to which you are well and truly entitled. When you make a non fair-use copy that, by law, triggers a financial obligation to the author, the author actually is entitled to payment. You can be as asshole about it, forcing him to insist on payment then disparaging him when he presses the case by telling him he's "being uncool" (or some similar bullshit) by expecting to get paid. And the most likely response? "Fuck you, pay me." Obviously, you may not have the money to pay. And even I you did, there's no guarantee that you'd spend it if spending were your only option. For that reason, it's wrong to equate every uncompensated copy with a lost sale. I get that. But that doesn't change the fact that you're still in debt to the artist, and that berating him for a "sense of entitlement" is an unmitigated dick move. To survive, every business needs to things. The first is a product or service that people want at a price they're willing to pay. The second is means to inflict serious damage on those who would satisfy their wants while refusing to pay (try shoplifting if you're curious about what counts as "serious damage"). And here's the critical concept that is absolutly central to this entire debate: Without the stick to back up the carrot farming operation, the price people are willing to pay rapidly drops to zero, at which point it's game over for the business. When people casually say "just find a different business model" they never mean "find another stick." But without a stick, the model can't be considered a business. This is free-market economics 101. Unless both parties are free to reject a transaction at a given price, the market cannot function as a market (i.e. as the optimal frame for price discovery). Without reliable enforcement mechanisms, sellers have no way to set prices. In this scenario, buyers evaporate and get replaced by takers. That closes the market. Unless the sellers set up private enforcement (e.g. the mafia), the market stays closed, and they stay out of business. In this scenario, the only people with a truly contemptible sense of entitlement are those who think they should be free to satisfy their wants at the price they name, regardless of the sellers consent. If that sounds a bit like rape, you're beginning to see the basic injustice in the position you're defending.

alexqgb 13y ago

Uh, that's exactly what copyright is: a pre-existing social and legal agreement about the terms on which people can expect to get paid, which they can reliably use to determine the scope of investment required by the work itself. Moreover, its current form (more or less) has been in place for well over a century, while its original form dates back more than three centuries. I'm not sure how much further in advance you were expecting. Also, people getting paid royalties aren't being paid directly for their labor. They're charging rent on property they own. Copyright law is similar to tangible property law in the sense that people make investments based on how well protected they think those investment are likely to be. No reasonable protection, no reasonable investment. To the extent that the law is enforceable, people making these investments fully — and reasonably — expect it to be enforced.

adamlett 13y ago
Copyright is what the word implies: The (exclusive) right to make copies of something. No more, no less. Whether someone can turn that into something you can make money doing, is not and should not be concern for the law. People make works all the time that they can't sell. Does copyright give them the right to expect to be paid anyway? If artists insist on grossly overpricing their work, does copyright protect them from consumers choosing not to buy?
- alexqgb 13y ago
  There's obviously no right to get paid for copies that don't get made. And that's not what people are insisting on when they talk about their right to get paid for their work. What they're talking about are the copies that do get made without any payment in return. That the real bone of contention. And really, it's not even the copies that artists and publishers care about. What concerns them is the money legally owed but illegally withheld. See the problem? If you - personally - feel something is overpriced, leave it on the shelf. That's how you send signals in market economies. I mean, do you honestly think your rights are being infringed upon if someone refuses to sell you something at a price you're unable or unwilling to pay? As an aside, copyright protection isn't limited to the making of copies. It also covers the creation of derivative works (i.e. adaptations) and the sale and / or distribution of copies and derivatives. FYI.
  - adamlett 13y ago
    > that's not what people are insisting on when they talk about their right to get paid for their work. What they're talking about are the copies that do get made without any payment in return Getting paid for work and getting paid for selling a copy are not the same thing. The former usually requires some kind of agreement to be made beforehand, the latter requires salesmanship. The problem with conflating the two is when the sense of entitlement it brings to artists who are unable to sell their work. That sense of entitlement is what makes them equate an illegitimate copy with a lost sale (the way you also seem to do), when everybody knows that is almost never the case.
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      So let's say your boss refuses to pay you. And when you complain, he berates you for your "sense of entitlement". Would you consider this to be an accurate judgement, or would you consider this to be insult added to injury? Here's the thing about entitlement. Sometimes it refers to things to which you are well and truly entitled. When you make a non fair-use copy that, by law, triggers a financial obligation to the author, the author actually is entitled to payment. You can be as asshole about it, forcing him to insist on payment then disparaging him when he presses the case by telling him he's "being uncool" (or some similar bullshit) by expecting to get paid. And the most likely response? "Fuck you, pay me." Obviously, you may not have the money to pay. And even I you did, there's no guarantee that you'd spend it if spending were your only option. For that reason, it's wrong to equate every uncompensated copy with a lost sale. I get that. But that doesn't change the fact that you're still in debt to the artist, and that berating him for a "sense of entitlement" is an unmitigated dick move. To survive, every business needs to things. The first is a product or service that people want at a price they're willing to pay. The second is means to inflict serious damage on those who would satisfy their wants while refusing to pay (try shoplifting if you're curious about what counts as "serious damage"). And here's the critical concept that is absolutly central to this entire debate: Without the stick to back up the carrot farming operation, the price people are willing to pay rapidly drops to zero, at which point it's game over for the business. When people casually say "just find a different business model" they never mean "find another stick." But without a stick, the model can't be considered a business. This is free-market economics 101. Unless both parties are free to reject a transaction at a given price, the market cannot function as a market (i.e. as the optimal frame for price discovery). Without reliable enforcement mechanisms, sellers have no way to set prices. In this scenario, buyers evaporate and get replaced by takers. That closes the market. Unless the sellers set up private enforcement (e.g. the mafia), the market stays closed, and they stay out of business. In this scenario, the only people with a truly contemptible sense of entitlement are those who think they should be free to satisfy their wants at the price they name, regardless of the sellers consent. If that sounds a bit like rape, you're beginning to see the basic injustice in the position you're defending.