3 ms·

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

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
I realize that a lot of very dishonest people deliberately misinterpret people saying they have a right to get paid for their work. They do what you've done here: mischaracterize it as an unreasonable assertion that they get paid for work, even in the absence of any buyers. As noted very explicitly, that is NOT what "the right to get paid" means. What it really means is that you don't have the right to opt out of paying. If you want something YOU MUST negotiate with the rights holder. You're free to reject any and all offers, of course. And if everyone rejects a seller's offer and / or price, the seller is s.o.l. But what you CANNOT do is say "I don't like the price you're asking, so fuck it, I'm going to set my own - which could be $0 if I feel like it." I'm sorry, but that is NOT a right you have. What "The right to be paid for my work" really means is "I have the power to set the price for my work". You can accept that price or you can reject that price. But you cannot unilaterally change that price. You seem like an intelligent person, so I don't think this I beyond your comprehension. That's why I don't hesitate to call you dishonest because clearly, you should know better. And I'm glad to hear you pay for media. But let's be clear, acting like you're doing anyone a favor is a dick move, for the same reason that a boss who treat your paycheck as a favor is being an asshole. "Yes, but the Internet...". But no. The fact that technology made being as asshole exponentially easier does not change the underlying ethics one iota. If what we're talking about is something people actually want, the people who created it retain the right to get paid. They don't have a right to a business model (e.g. newspapers can't shut down Craigslist for offering better, cheaper classifieds). That's competition, fair and square. However, that's not the same as saying "I still want (x), but instead of paying, I'll just not pay." Whatever else you're doing in that situation, you are not acting within your rights.

alexqgb 13y ago

I realize that a lot of very dishonest people deliberately misinterpret people saying they have a right to get paid for their work. They do what you've done here: mischaracterize it as an unreasonable assertion that they get paid for work, even in the absence of any buyers. As noted very explicitly, that is NOT what "the right to get paid" means. What it really means is that you don't have the right to opt out of paying. If you want something YOU MUST negotiate with the rights holder. You're free to reject any and all offers, of course. And if everyone rejects a seller's offer and / or price, the seller is s.o.l. But what you CANNOT do is say "I don't like the price you're asking, so fuck it, I'm going to set my own - which could be $0 if I feel like it." I'm sorry, but that is NOT a right you have. What "The right to be paid for my work" really means is "I have the power to set the price for my work". You can accept that price or you can reject that price. But you cannot unilaterally change that price. You seem like an intelligent person, so I don't think this I beyond your comprehension. That's why I don't hesitate to call you dishonest because clearly, you should know better. And I'm glad to hear you pay for media. But let's be clear, acting like you're doing anyone a favor is a dick move, for the same reason that a boss who treat your paycheck as a favor is being an asshole. "Yes, but the Internet...". But no. The fact that technology made being as asshole exponentially easier does not change the underlying ethics one iota. If what we're talking about is something people actually want, the people who created it retain the right to get paid. They don't have a right to a business model (e.g. newspapers can't shut down Craigslist for offering better, cheaper classifieds). That's competition, fair and square. However, that's not the same as saying "I still want (x), but instead of paying, I'll just not pay." Whatever else you're doing in that situation, you are not acting within your rights.