4 ms·

If I produce something and you want to consume it, and I ask for money, then I deserve to get paid. Just because someone produces something doesn't mean you de

If I produce something and you want to consume it, and I ask for money, then I deserve to get paid. Just because someone produces something doesn't mean you deserve to consume it. Why is it so unreasonable for an artist to ask for money in exchange for his work? Are you saying that because it's digital, it not longer has any value? If I make music or a game, I wouldn't stop someone from listening to my music or playing the game (I would encourage it), but if they want to own a copy of it, it seems reasonable for me to ask for a payment. That social contract has been around for thousands of years. Now that there happens to be technology that makes it easy not to pay for it, it's suddenly ethically okay? You can consume as much media as you want for free: you can rent music, books, movies, and games at the library. But if you love it so much that want your own copy of it, shouldn't you show your appreciation to the artist by just buying it?

greenleafjacob 12y ago
Well if they want to get it from you then certainly they must pay, but the question is basically whether your property rights extend to someone other than you. > Are you saying that because it's digital, it not longer has any value? Well one might not go that far, but the marginal cost is zero.
- mSparks 12y ago
  that's exactly it. digital copying is a perfectly competitive zero marginal cost game. only immoral thieves IMHO are the monopolists who want to make society worse off by trying to enforce artificial and pointless barriers to that market.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    Ah yes, the people who make what you want are "immoral thieves". It's insane how people somehow arrive at that point in their thinking.
cam_l 12y ago
"If I produce something and you want to consume it, and I ask for money, then I deserve to get paid." This is a common misunderstanding of the payment dynamic. The reality is it is actually a power dynamic. I make something that you want and I can keep it from you until you pay me.. is more approximate to the truth. there is no inherent value in work, but only in supply and demand. Digital goods have demand, but no natural limitations in supply. Un-natural limitations (social acceptability, guilt, lawsuits, criminalising, etc) are being attempted but it seems likely they will all fail eventually. "You can consume as much media as you want for free" The corollary to this of course is, artists can make as make media as they like, but to make a decent living from it they need to show appreciation and respect to their patrons. If, on the other hand, they want to be stinking rich, or they want to bet big and spend hundreds of millions of hollywood dollars on expectation of a payout, they have to understand and manipulate that power dynamic. Just don't try and make out there is any kind of moral right to get paid.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  The reality is it is actually a power dynamic. I make something that you want and I can keep it from you until you pay me. That sort of presupposes that your wants should be satisfied as a matter of course, no? I have to agree with some of the posters above about the immaturity of this attitude. In the natural world, you get some things for free and you have to work for other things; eg you might find a coconut on the ground, but that's not guaranteed - chances are that you'll need to forage or hunt for your food most of the time. You can want the coconuts at the top of the tree to any degree imaginable, but your basic choices are to stay hungry or climb the tree. Is the tree exercising power over you by withholding the coconuts? Of course not. In the natural world, when you want something you frequently have to put your money where your mouth is - that is, expend some effort to get hold of it. The actual power dynamic in the case of piracy is that any attempt at establishing a contractual relationship between producer and consumer can be easily undermined by a small number of people who are willing to break that contract by giving away copies for nothing while painting producers as morally deficient and undeserving of compensation. Digital goods have demand, but no natural limitations in supply. This is simply not true - there is a fixed cost of supply. Just because the marginal cost of supply is zero does not mean there are no constraints on supply. You're equating non-substitutable creative goods with quite high costs of supply from the producer standpoint with fungible commodities in a marketplace of perfect competition. The corollary to this of course is, artists can make as make media as they like, but to make a decent living from it they need to show appreciation and respect to their patrons. So what you're saying is that you want to be entertained and have your ego stroked - you wish your consumption to be reflected back to you in heroic terms, because you place such a currency value upon your attention. Put another way, you consider the time invested in consumption of entertainment as a form of economic labor which is traded for the aesthetic pleasure (qua economic utility( that you hope to extract from the art work.

greenleafjacob 12y ago

Well if they want to get it from you then certainly they must pay, but the question is basically whether your property rights extend to someone other than you. > Are you saying that because it's digital, it not longer has any value? Well one might not go that far, but the marginal cost is zero.

mSparks 12y ago
that's exactly it. digital copying is a perfectly competitive zero marginal cost game. only immoral thieves IMHO are the monopolists who want to make society worse off by trying to enforce artificial and pointless barriers to that market.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Ah yes, the people who make what you want are "immoral thieves". It's insane how people somehow arrive at that point in their thinking.

cam_l 12y ago

"If I produce something and you want to consume it, and I ask for money, then I deserve to get paid." This is a common misunderstanding of the payment dynamic. The reality is it is actually a power dynamic. I make something that you want and I can keep it from you until you pay me.. is more approximate to the truth. there is no inherent value in work, but only in supply and demand. Digital goods have demand, but no natural limitations in supply. Un-natural limitations (social acceptability, guilt, lawsuits, criminalising, etc) are being attempted but it seems likely they will all fail eventually. "You can consume as much media as you want for free" The corollary to this of course is, artists can make as make media as they like, but to make a decent living from it they need to show appreciation and respect to their patrons. If, on the other hand, they want to be stinking rich, or they want to bet big and spend hundreds of millions of hollywood dollars on expectation of a payout, they have to understand and manipulate that power dynamic. Just don't try and make out there is any kind of moral right to get paid.

anigbrowl 12y ago
The reality is it is actually a power dynamic. I make something that you want and I can keep it from you until you pay me. That sort of presupposes that your wants should be satisfied as a matter of course, no? I have to agree with some of the posters above about the immaturity of this attitude. In the natural world, you get some things for free and you have to work for other things; eg you might find a coconut on the ground, but that's not guaranteed - chances are that you'll need to forage or hunt for your food most of the time. You can want the coconuts at the top of the tree to any degree imaginable, but your basic choices are to stay hungry or climb the tree. Is the tree exercising power over you by withholding the coconuts? Of course not. In the natural world, when you want something you frequently have to put your money where your mouth is - that is, expend some effort to get hold of it. The actual power dynamic in the case of piracy is that any attempt at establishing a contractual relationship between producer and consumer can be easily undermined by a small number of people who are willing to break that contract by giving away copies for nothing while painting producers as morally deficient and undeserving of compensation. Digital goods have demand, but no natural limitations in supply. This is simply not true - there is a fixed cost of supply. Just because the marginal cost of supply is zero does not mean there are no constraints on supply. You're equating non-substitutable creative goods with quite high costs of supply from the producer standpoint with fungible commodities in a marketplace of perfect competition. The corollary to this of course is, artists can make as make media as they like, but to make a decent living from it they need to show appreciation and respect to their patrons. So what you're saying is that you want to be entertained and have your ego stroked - you wish your consumption to be reflected back to you in heroic terms, because you place such a currency value upon your attention. Put another way, you consider the time invested in consumption of entertainment as a form of economic labor which is traded for the aesthetic pleasure (qua economic utility( that you hope to extract from the art work.