4 ms·
the world would probably a better place if people published stuff because they thought it would matter to do so, not for ad revenue. Replace "published stuff"
by crusso 13y ago
the world would probably a better place if people published stuff because they thought it would matter to do so, not for ad revenue.
Replace "published stuff" with whatever you do in your job every day to make a living and replace "ad revenue" with "compensation".
Doesn't sound quite so nice, does it?
[edit, added the question]
- lazyjones 13y ago> Doesn't sound quite so nice, does it? If I'd had issues with working without compensation, I'd never have built a website in late 1996 (for free!) that eventually got VC-funded in 2000 and led to a situation where I can retire for good any time I wish to. And even though I don't need the compensation, I am still doing this job. Does that answer the question?
- KC8ZKF 13y agoI'm confused. You don't have issues with compensation because you were compensated such that you no longer need compensation. Therefore other people shouldn't expect compensation?
- lazyjones 13y agoYes, you are. People can expect compensation and not get anywhere (see OP), especially if they publish content (they absurdly think it can be made accessible to everyone but not be copied - heck, we still copy content today that was published thousands of years ago!). Or they can build something that is useful with no such expectations and sometimes they will be rewarded anyway. If I had stuck to expecting compensation for every hour of work, I'd now be very likely stuck in a dull job somewhere ...
- crusso 13y agoWe're confused because you appeared to contradict yourself. Besides... the point you're not getting is that the content is copied because people value it. No one is digging and filling holes pointlessly and expecting compensation for useless "work". We're talking about content that is created that other people like and use. The difference between what you did and kept your compensation for vs what content creators do that they don't get compensated for is a matter of the proper protection via laws and technologies. While I would agree that maybe technology-wise it's a losing battle - legally and ethically, saying that the world would be better off if these people would produce what others want for free is problematic.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- redblacktree 13y agoOnly for you, specifically, because you're in the enviable position of being financially independent. Despite this, you must surely be aware that a great many people must continually earn money at something like a "job" in order to survive.
- lazyjones 13y ago> Despite this, you must surely be aware that a great many people must continually earn money at something like a "job" in order to survive. Last time I checked, there were plenty of jobs out there that didn't involve expectations of monopolizing publicly accessible information.
- redblacktree 13y agoAre you being deliberately obtuse? The point wasn't that earning money requires controlling the flow of information, since that is absurd. The point is that despite your views, a great many people not only desire, but actually need compensation for their work.
- lazyjones 13y agoI never argued against compensation (or expectations thereof) in general, just in the context of making information publicly accessible, because it simply cannot work in the general case. I recommend not spending time exclusively on projects driven by expectations of compensation.