2 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 ju

> 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
Copyright is a pre-existing arrangement that binds you whether you personally consent to it or not. That is to say, it is the law. Your obligation to respect it does not depend on any additional commercial agreements we may or may not make. It is there, in full force, a priori. Indeed, its unavoidable existence provides the reason WHY you'd consider making a deal in the first place, since without the force of law to consider, you'd be free to satisfy your wants without making any recompense to those who carry the costs of the thing you desired. For artists, legitimate competition (of which there is no shortage) comes from other artists offering different works that are either better or cheaper. Piracy is a different beast altogether. And for the record, there are no monopolies in the creative world, only exclusive rights to individual properties, an that's a very different thing. To put it in perspective, it's the difference between owning and renting one apartment and owning and renting every apartment building in an entire city. My question to you is this: are you truly unaware of how the law and limited property rights work? Or are you just inventing warped definitions to justify a one-sided, self-serving, and abusive relationship with authors and artists that you know, deep down, is wrong?
- adamlett 13y ago
  You seem to be arguing against points I did not make. I did not argue against copyright. I pay for both Netflix, HBO Nordic and Spotify subscriptions. I used to be a paying member of Last.fm when it was available in my country. I have a paid subscription to Ars Technica, I subscribe to a printed newspaper, I pay the mandatory public broadcast license and I regularly pay for books and apps. Is that what you call my abusive relationship with authors and artists? The point that I keep restating is simply that nobody who produces anything, tangible or intangible, can expect to get paid a priori. After you've produced something, you have to also have to sell it to get paid. Consumer's have a right to not buy, and if they don't, you don't get paid. Simple as that. Your talk about big sticks and the law is missing the point. In places like the music industry that used to be a license to print money (80s and early 90s), it's easy to understand why there seemed to arise the idea that there was in fact such a thing as "the right to get paid". And that it was that right that was infringed upon when suddenly they lost the competition for the consumer's entertainment dollar. You like they were, seem to be fixated on piracy as the cause, but that is missing the forrest for trees. The internet was what happened, the cause of the disruption of the music industry. The internet is also what is happening to print media these days, and soon will happen to cable tv. These businesses don't have a right to get paid either.

alexqgb 13y ago

Copyright is a pre-existing arrangement that binds you whether you personally consent to it or not. That is to say, it is the law. Your obligation to respect it does not depend on any additional commercial agreements we may or may not make. It is there, in full force, a priori. Indeed, its unavoidable existence provides the reason WHY you'd consider making a deal in the first place, since without the force of law to consider, you'd be free to satisfy your wants without making any recompense to those who carry the costs of the thing you desired. For artists, legitimate competition (of which there is no shortage) comes from other artists offering different works that are either better or cheaper. Piracy is a different beast altogether. And for the record, there are no monopolies in the creative world, only exclusive rights to individual properties, an that's a very different thing. To put it in perspective, it's the difference between owning and renting one apartment and owning and renting every apartment building in an entire city. My question to you is this: are you truly unaware of how the law and limited property rights work? Or are you just inventing warped definitions to justify a one-sided, self-serving, and abusive relationship with authors and artists that you know, deep down, is wrong?

adamlett 13y ago
You seem to be arguing against points I did not make. I did not argue against copyright. I pay for both Netflix, HBO Nordic and Spotify subscriptions. I used to be a paying member of Last.fm when it was available in my country. I have a paid subscription to Ars Technica, I subscribe to a printed newspaper, I pay the mandatory public broadcast license and I regularly pay for books and apps. Is that what you call my abusive relationship with authors and artists? The point that I keep restating is simply that nobody who produces anything, tangible or intangible, can expect to get paid a priori. After you've produced something, you have to also have to sell it to get paid. Consumer's have a right to not buy, and if they don't, you don't get paid. Simple as that. Your talk about big sticks and the law is missing the point. In places like the music industry that used to be a license to print money (80s and early 90s), it's easy to understand why there seemed to arise the idea that there was in fact such a thing as "the right to get paid". And that it was that right that was infringed upon when suddenly they lost the competition for the consumer's entertainment dollar. You like they were, seem to be fixated on piracy as the cause, but that is missing the forrest for trees. The internet was what happened, the cause of the disruption of the music industry. The internet is also what is happening to print media these days, and soon will happen to cable tv. These businesses don't have a right to get paid either.