Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 133 posts

Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off

#121

Post by Dalewyn »

pdonis wrote: post #114
Dalewyn wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You're quibbling. If you aren't doing without it, then it has value. I never said there is no value, I'm saying art has low value (and thus no value I couldn't do without) compared to actually tangible, important things and that it has been overvalued to an extreme until recent decades when more supply (more artists) and better efficiency (digital technologies, "AI") finally started to slash perceived value. >Neithe…

> I never said there is no value You said "artists don't serve any valuable role in society". > Plenty of people think the internet as it exists today is actually a net negative for humanity I've never seen anyone say that. To me it's obviously false; the Internet has enabled huge wealth creation.

>You said "artists don't serve any valuable role in society".

Just because artists don't serve any valuable role doesn't mean they have no value. A cheap keyboard or a free piece of software isn't valuable, but they nonetheless have some value.

>I've never seen anyone say that. To me it's obviously false; the Internet has enabled huge wealth creation.

Most of the sentiment is based around the ever increasingly "cable TV" nature of the internet as well as the scientifically demonstrated negative effects of social media.

Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off

#122

Post by Ferret7446 »

tom-_- wrote: post #21
pfdietz wrote: post #4

What this is saying is that creativity is privileged and (unlike other forms of labor) should be given more than the market says it's worth. Why should non-creatives go along with this?

No, the author is saying the share of revenue the distributors (tech, music industry) are receiving is misaligned with the value they're adding. Compare content creators with a SWE. They both produce the product being sold, what percentage of the revenue should they receive?

I wager that the share of revenue that various people in the industry are receiving is correctly aligned with the value they're adding. The bottom-line content creators are simply not adding that much value. Marketing, distribution, etc is worth the cost that they demand; otherwise people would stop using those services.

Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off

#123

Post by pfdietz »

bequanna wrote: post #44
MourYother wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Central planning of anything is generally very inefficient and results in the concentration of power. So far, we haven’t been able to find a way to concentrate power without corruption. The lesson is: only give the government as much control as necessary, never more. In a system that is more socialist, the people forfeit their power to the party. Super easy for one party to dominate in these systems so votes mean lit…

It's not just corruption. Non-market systems fundamentally cannot solve the problem of economic calculation, figuring out prices so tradeoffs can be performed. They have to make assumptions about what's wanted and needed, assumptions that cannot help but be drastically wrong, even if everyone involved is pure of any taint of corruption.

Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off

#124

Post by pfdietz »

pjmorris wrote: post #64
bequanna wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Central planning of anything is generally very inefficient and results in the concentration of power. So far, we haven’t been able to find a way to concentrate power without corruption. The lesson is: only give the government as much control as necessary, never more. In a system that is more socialist, the people forfeit their power to the party. Super easy for one party to dominate in these systems so votes mean lit…

> Central planning of anything is generally very inefficient and results in the concentration of power. When corporations take over the central planning, what forces should counteract? Before you say 'market forces', you have to address the present case, where three music owners control 60-70% of the market on terms favorable to them rather than to customers or creators.

> When corporations take over the central planning, what forces should counteract?

Don't buy their product, buy from someone else.

The complaints here are from people who want to keep using a convenient platform, just insist it produce something different. Or, they are complaining that consumers are happy with that platform instead of what they think the consumers should be happy with.

The problem in any market economy that underlies most complaints is the realization that you have been judged to not be valuable. You are producing creative things, but people don't want them. It's maddening especially if you're entitled. At risk of Godwin, one might call this the Hitler problem.

Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off

#125

Post by pfdietz »

anigbrowl wrote: post #98
pfdietz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about no? The evidence is that markets are essential. Attempts to use central planning instead have been universally disastrous, for reasons that were predicted ahead of time.

Markets as a general thing are essential, I agree. The particular market configuration that we have in this context is bad and tends toward oligopoly. I'm sorry for not articulating this more clearly. I'm sure you don't think that all markets are equally efficient or sustainable, but that individual markets can be more or less good depending on how they are structured and how competitive they are. Attempts to use cen…

Central planning is just one example of a non-market mechanism. What other alternative do you propose that could adequately solve the problem of establishing prices?

Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off

#126

Post by pdonis »

Jensson wrote: post #117
pdonis wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The market is saying those elements can be worth more than the creative's output. No, customers aren't saying that. Customers are just saying that the final packaged, delivered product they receive (today a better description would be the overall service channel through which they receive the products) is worth what they pay for it. They aren't paying the various contributors separately so their payments say nothin…

They aren't paying for the unpackaged raw product, hence they feel the package is worth more than the content. There are many talented people who produce works worth packaging, not many who want to do all that packaging so it can reach consumers.

> They aren't paying for the unpackaged raw product

Nobody is offering them the unpackaged raw product, at least not for creators that work through the big media companies, so it's impossible to know whether they would pay for it if it were offered by the big media companies, and if so, how much they would pay. Some creators do sell direct to customers over the Internet, or make a living through Patreon contributions or something similar, so the package the big media companies are selling is not the only thing customers are buying.

However, it's certainly true that the big media companies do have advantages that they are making full use of. As I said in my original post in this subthread, the only way for creators who don't like the small cut they are getting from the big media companies and want more of the profit for themselves is to do their own distribution instead of doing it through the big media companies. Some are doing that, as I said above, but not many.

Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off

#127

Post by pdonis »

Dalewyn wrote: post #121
pdonis wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never said there is no value You said "artists don't serve any valuable role in society". > Plenty of people think the internet as it exists today is actually a net negative for humanity I've never seen anyone say that. To me it's obviously false; the Internet has enabled huge wealth creation.

>You said "artists don't serve any valuable role in society". Just because artists don't serve any valuable role doesn't mean they have no value. A cheap keyboard or a free piece of software isn't valuable, but they nonetheless have some value. >I've never seen anyone say that. To me it's obviously false; the Internet has enabled huge wealth creation. Most of the sentiment is based around the ever increasingly "cable…

> A cheap keyboard or a free piece of software isn't valuable, but they nonetheless have some value.

I find your use of language here very confusing.

> the ever increasingly "cable TV" nature of the internet

But you don't have to use those particular Internet channels in order to use the Internet. The Internet carries lots of other traffic. One of the nice things about the Internet as compared with previous communication media is how easy it is to just ignore what you don't like.

> as well as the scientifically demonstrated negative effects of social media

Those effects have been around as long as humans have, and pandering to the worst instincts of people has always been a way for cheap grifters to gain money and notoriety. But it only works because people choose to give in to those worst instincts. You can't fix human nature by discarding useful tools because some people misuse them.

Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off

#128

Post by Dalewyn »

pdonis wrote: post #127
Dalewyn wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You said "artists don't serve any valuable role in society". Just because artists don't serve any valuable role doesn't mean they have no value. A cheap keyboard or a free piece of software isn't valuable, but they nonetheless have some value. >I've never seen anyone say that. To me it's obviously false; the Internet has enabled huge wealth creation. Most of the sentiment is based around the ever increasingly "cable…

> A cheap keyboard or a free piece of software isn't valuable, but they nonetheless have some value. I find your use of language here very confusing. > the ever increasingly "cable TV" nature of the internet But you don't have to use those particular Internet channels in order to use the Internet. The Internet carries lots of other traffic. One of the nice things about the Internet as compared with previous communica…

>I find your use of language here very confusing.

"Valuable" as in how most people use the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valuable

>2

>a : having desirable or esteemed characteristics or qualities; valuable friendships

>b : of great use or service; valuable advice

Artists do not provide valuable work, but doesn't mean their work has no value. Not providing valuable work simply means their work is of (very) low value.

----------

>But you don't have to use those particular Internet channels in order to use the Internet.

There has been a substantial centralization and consolidation of the internet to varying degrees and for better or worse, both on the front and backends. The frontend centralization in particular is not being received well in recent times.

>Those effects have been around as long as humans have, ... You can't fix human nature by discarding useful tools because some people misuse them.

I agree.

Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off

#129

Post by pdonis »

Dalewyn wrote: post #128
pdonis wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A cheap keyboard or a free piece of software isn't valuable, but they nonetheless have some value. I find your use of language here very confusing. > the ever increasingly "cable TV" nature of the internet But you don't have to use those particular Internet channels in order to use the Internet. The Internet carries lots of other traffic. One of the nice things about the Internet as compared with previous communica…

>I find your use of language here very confusing. "Valuable" as in how most people use the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valuable >2 >a : having desirable or esteemed characteristics or qualities; valuable friendships >b : of great use or service; valuable advice Artists do not provide valuable work, but doesn't mean their work has no value. Not providing valuable work simply means their work is of…

> how most people use the word

I don't know about "most". The very first meaning (1 a) in your reference is "having monetary value", which is how I have been using the word.

> Artists do not provide valuable work...their work is of (very) low value

Maybe not in your subjective judgment (and both of the definitions you cited for "valuable" are subjective), but other people's subjective judgment might differ from yours. Many people pay significant sums of money for the work of artists. Maybe that doesn't make the art "valuable" in your eyes, but it apparently does in theirs.

In any case, if you're going to talk about "society" as a whole, you can't just help yourself to your subjective judgment. The definition I just cited above of "valuable" is objective: people pay money for it. And people do pay money--in many cases significant sums, as I noted above--for art in our society, so I don't think you can say artists "do not provide valuable work" for society as a whole.

Yes, if push comes to shove, people will stop buying art before they will stop buying, say, food, clothing, and shelter. But in such a hypothetical, society is much poorer, so people are forced to focus on bare subsistence. But I don't think anyone would say such a society had a lot of valuable things in it--indeed, it's precisely the fact that such a society doesn't have a lot of valuable things in it that makes it poor. A rich society has many more valuable things in it than just what is needed for bare subsistence; that's what makes it rich. And people generally prefer a rich society to a poor one. Art is one of those valuable things that people in rich societies like to have. Not everyone, but people's tastes differ, and one of the nice things about rich societies is that it's much easier for people to satisfy their particular tastes, even if they're not common.

Re: Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off

#130

Post by Dalewyn »

pdonis wrote: post #129
Dalewyn wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I find your use of language here very confusing. "Valuable" as in how most people use the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valuable >2 >a : having desirable or esteemed characteristics or qualities; valuable friendships >b : of great use or service; valuable advice Artists do not provide valuable work, but doesn't mean their work has no value. Not providing valuable work simply means their work is of…

> how most people use the word I don't know about "most". The very first meaning (1 a) in your reference is "having monetary value", which is how I have been using the word. > Artists do not provide valuable work...their work is of (very) low value Maybe not in your subjective judgment (and both of the definitions you cited for "valuable" are subjective), but other people's subjective judgment might differ from yours…

You keep on insisting I said art has no value and implying people don't pay. Please show me when and where I said that. I said art has a low real value and that its perceived value has historically been vastly overblown.

Yes, people pay money for art (including me), but the pricing has been steadily falling due to increasing supply (more artists) and efficiency (digital technologies). "AI" in particular is likely going to slash the perceived value lower than humanity has ever seen by making the creation of art dramatically more democratic, thereby reflecting the low real value better.

I consume a lot of art just like most other people, and also realize that I probably pay far too much for it all too because art just doesn't serve any of life's needs other than perhaps killing boredom and flaunting social status.

Post reply on HN