5 ms·

I really don't like this idea that artists should be compensated for having their music listened to. I find it hurts the consumers, and it will hurt the artists

by Fargren 11y ago

I really don't like this idea that artists should be compensated for having their music listened to. I find it hurts the consumers, and it will hurt the artists in the long run. Basically, I don't think the concept of intellectual property works. What I believe is that artist should find a way to be compensated for the actual crafting of their work, and for the act of performing (Patreon is a great example of what I'd like to see more of). Intellectual property wasn't a thing for most of human history. If you performed a song in public, anyone who heard it could write it down and perform it or do whatever they wanted to do with it. If you released something to the public, it belonged to the public, and legally that was that. And art still happened. Great art. The idea that whoever made something owns it (and I really think it's absurd to own an idea) means that everyone else loses out. And I don't see how that can be good, even for the owner.

taylorwho 11y ago
Taylor who? And why should we care about her so-called muzak?
tehwalrus 11y ago
This is about free access to a set of highly engineered content, which is not just a back catalogue you are trying to milk but your current latest creation. We do not think that software engineers should be prohibited from charging for copies of their software: neither do we think that musicians should be prohibited for getting paid for their music. Yes, people will continue to make art for free, because they love doing it. No, that has nothing to do with whether people are (implicitly) banned from charging for their art/labour if they want to.
- Fargren 11y ago
  Most software engineers (employees) are paid for crafting their software, not for having crafted in the past. That's exactly what I advocate for. We absolutely should pay people for working! I'm saying that those who distribute should be compensated for the distribution, and those who craft should be compensated for the crafting. And everyone should be free to do either, to the best of their abilities.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    This is not true at all. Many consultants may in fact be paid once. But most developers work at companies for a salary. That salary is paid for by charging for software over and over. Without being able to charge multiple times for the same piece of software, there would be no Microsoft, IBM, or Oracle, no SaaS, and no App Store, just to name a few, and none of the jobs that come along.
    - Fargren 11y ago
      But if they stop working, they are not paid anymore. They are effectively compensated for the act of working, not for some ownership over the work they've done.
    - zxcvcxz 11y ago
      You're being deceptive, Fargren is on point. Once the dev leaves the company they no longer make that salary. Artists typically get paid some kind of royalty and don't give up full ownership of their work. >Without being able to charge multiple times for the same piece of software, there would be no Microsoft, IBM, or Oracle, no SaaS, and no App Store Good riddance.
      - themartorana 11y ago
        You're being deceptive That's not very nice. Who do you think owns SaaS businesses, or App Store apps, or downloadable software, etc.? I own a software company. If I couldn't resell my software over and over, I'd be homeless. If it couldn't sell software over and over, I'd have to fire all my employees (dev, customer support, marketing...) and shutter my business. Do you think artists don't have employees? Is their music not their business? There's no difference between me owning software or an artist owning music. Also, the companies you're saying "good riddance" to defined the world of selling software as a business and as a profession. You may think we'd be fine without them now, but not acknowledging the role they played is disingenuous at best - not to mention the literally hundreds of thousands of jobs they've created directly or indirectly.
themartorana 11y ago
But for most of human history, there weren't instant/digital cameras, digital recording devices, TVs, monitors, internets, instant and basically free copies, and so on. You want to see the latest Monet painting? There's only one way to do that. Want to make a very close copy of it? It's likely you're a bit of a genius yourself. It's not that I think this model is perfect, but consuming art was difficult at best, expensive for much of history, and for large swaths of time, reserved for the rich. If the exchange for extremely cheap and ubiquitous consumability is a model where artists get further compensated, I'm fine with that.
- Fargren 11y ago
  I agree that the model we had is probably not a perfect fit for our era. But the one we have wasn't designed for this time either. It is a combination of historical accident and strong lobbying for private interests that got us to this point. And while we do get extremely cheap and ubiquitous consumability, which is a good thing, we also get highly restricted redistribution, derivation and consumption. What I believe is that we should have a system where everyone is free to distribute any form of media they have access to, and of any modifications he can make of that. Obviously, this would require a different form of compensation than the one we are using; if anyone can distribute, then charging for distribution is not a great idea. We should instead pay the produces for the act of producing (and the performers for the act of performing). This is not some crazy scheme by the way: this is exactly how we pay employees for software. We agree on a price for your skill, and pay you for as long as you excersize that skill. Patreon and Kickstarter also work with similar models, compensating for the creative act before it is done (or directly afterwards).
hetman 11y ago
Throughout most of human history there was also no way to listen to a specific artist unless you attended their live performance. Since technology has made the impossible possible, it shouldn't surprise anyone that new social contracts have also been created around it.

by Fargren 11y ago

taylorwho 11y ago

Taylor who? And why should we care about her so-called muzak?

tehwalrus 11y ago

This is about free access to a set of highly engineered content, which is not just a back catalogue you are trying to milk but your current latest creation. We do not think that software engineers should be prohibited from charging for copies of their software: neither do we think that musicians should be prohibited for getting paid for their music. Yes, people will continue to make art for free, because they love doing it. No, that has nothing to do with whether people are (implicitly) banned from charging for their art/labour if they want to.

Fargren 11y ago
Most software engineers (employees) are paid for crafting their software, not for having crafted in the past. That's exactly what I advocate for. We absolutely should pay people for working! I'm saying that those who distribute should be compensated for the distribution, and those who craft should be compensated for the crafting. And everyone should be free to do either, to the best of their abilities.
- themartorana 11y ago
  This is not true at all. Many consultants may in fact be paid once. But most developers work at companies for a salary. That salary is paid for by charging for software over and over. Without being able to charge multiple times for the same piece of software, there would be no Microsoft, IBM, or Oracle, no SaaS, and no App Store, just to name a few, and none of the jobs that come along.
  - Fargren 11y ago
    But if they stop working, they are not paid anymore. They are effectively compensated for the act of working, not for some ownership over the work they've done.
  - zxcvcxz 11y ago
    You're being deceptive, Fargren is on point. Once the dev leaves the company they no longer make that salary. Artists typically get paid some kind of royalty and don't give up full ownership of their work. >Without being able to charge multiple times for the same piece of software, there would be no Microsoft, IBM, or Oracle, no SaaS, and no App Store Good riddance.
    - themartorana 11y ago
      You're being deceptive That's not very nice. Who do you think owns SaaS businesses, or App Store apps, or downloadable software, etc.? I own a software company. If I couldn't resell my software over and over, I'd be homeless. If it couldn't sell software over and over, I'd have to fire all my employees (dev, customer support, marketing...) and shutter my business. Do you think artists don't have employees? Is their music not their business? There's no difference between me owning software or an artist owning music. Also, the companies you're saying "good riddance" to defined the world of selling software as a business and as a profession. You may think we'd be fine without them now, but not acknowledging the role they played is disingenuous at best - not to mention the literally hundreds of thousands of jobs they've created directly or indirectly.

themartorana 11y ago

But for most of human history, there weren't instant/digital cameras, digital recording devices, TVs, monitors, internets, instant and basically free copies, and so on. You want to see the latest Monet painting? There's only one way to do that. Want to make a very close copy of it? It's likely you're a bit of a genius yourself. It's not that I think this model is perfect, but consuming art was difficult at best, expensive for much of history, and for large swaths of time, reserved for the rich. If the exchange for extremely cheap and ubiquitous consumability is a model where artists get further compensated, I'm fine with that.

Fargren 11y ago
I agree that the model we had is probably not a perfect fit for our era. But the one we have wasn't designed for this time either. It is a combination of historical accident and strong lobbying for private interests that got us to this point. And while we do get extremely cheap and ubiquitous consumability, which is a good thing, we also get highly restricted redistribution, derivation and consumption. What I believe is that we should have a system where everyone is free to distribute any form of media they have access to, and of any modifications he can make of that. Obviously, this would require a different form of compensation than the one we are using; if anyone can distribute, then charging for distribution is not a great idea. We should instead pay the produces for the act of producing (and the performers for the act of performing). This is not some crazy scheme by the way: this is exactly how we pay employees for software. We agree on a price for your skill, and pay you for as long as you excersize that skill. Patreon and Kickstarter also work with similar models, compensating for the creative act before it is done (or directly afterwards).

hetman 11y ago

Throughout most of human history there was also no way to listen to a specific artist unless you attended their live performance. Since technology has made the impossible possible, it shouldn't surprise anyone that new social contracts have also been created around it.