5 ms·

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 judg

by 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.

adamlett 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? If we have an agreement which states that I should get paid it follows that I can reasonably expect to get paid. If on the other hand I do work for someone without an agreement, say spontaneously sweep the leaves off some corporation's parking lot or make them a website, then obviously I can only hope but not really expect to get paid. By the way, I think that was exactly the point Mike Monteiro was trying to make in his "Fuck you, pay me" talk. > When you make a non fair-use copy that, by law, triggers a financial obligation to the author This is not correct and is exactly what i meant by backwards. The way it works is that I pay the rights-holder agreed upon sum and THEN am awarded the right to make a copy. It is NOT the case that by making a(n illegitimate) copy I 'trigger' a financial obligation. Of course the rights-holder may sue me for damages, but that's not really how he is supposed to make money. > Without the stick to back up the carrot farming operation... I do not agree with what seems to be your underlying assumption that it is piracy that is to blame for the artists not being able to sell their work. In fact I think the piracy issue is a red herring. Rather, I believe that it is simply the march of progress that has rendered a lot of formerly lucrative business models obsolete. Do you for instance believe that copyright infringement is to blame for the decline of newspapers? Comparing a producer of tangible goods of which there is a real scarcity with one who of intangible works which are only artificially scarce, is in my opinion a fallacy that does little to illuminate the issue. But if you insist, I would say that a better comparison would be with a carrot farmer who insists on selling his carrots at $100/kg and then insisting with no evidence to back it up that the reason he can't sell any must be because everyone is stealing from him. > 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. Someone who enjoys a monopoly in any market and is used to being able to control the prices, might say the same thing in the face of sudden low-price competition. In fact it seems like they always do.
- alexqgb 13y ago

by alexqgb 13y ago

adamlett 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? If we have an agreement which states that I should get paid it follows that I can reasonably expect to get paid. If on the other hand I do work for someone without an agreement, say spontaneously sweep the leaves off some corporation's parking lot or make them a website, then obviously I can only hope but not really expect to get paid. By the way, I think that was exactly the point Mike Monteiro was trying to make in his "Fuck you, pay me" talk. > When you make a non fair-use copy that, by law, triggers a financial obligation to the author This is not correct and is exactly what i meant by backwards. The way it works is that I pay the rights-holder agreed upon sum and THEN am awarded the right to make a copy. It is NOT the case that by making a(n illegitimate) copy I 'trigger' a financial obligation. Of course the rights-holder may sue me for damages, but that's not really how he is supposed to make money. > Without the stick to back up the carrot farming operation... I do not agree with what seems to be your underlying assumption that it is piracy that is to blame for the artists not being able to sell their work. In fact I think the piracy issue is a red herring. Rather, I believe that it is simply the march of progress that has rendered a lot of formerly lucrative business models obsolete. Do you for instance believe that copyright infringement is to blame for the decline of newspapers? Comparing a producer of tangible goods of which there is a real scarcity with one who of intangible works which are only artificially scarce, is in my opinion a fallacy that does little to illuminate the issue. But if you insist, I would say that a better comparison would be with a carrot farmer who insists on selling his carrots at $100/kg and then insisting with no evidence to back it up that the reason he can't sell any must be because everyone is stealing from him. > 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. Someone who enjoys a monopoly in any market and is used to being able to control the prices, might say the same thing in the face of sudden low-price competition. In fact it seems like they always do.

alexqgb 13y ago