21–30 of 32 posts
My view of work is that you can be paid in 4 ways: 1. Paid in cash. 2. Paid in power. 3. Paid in social status. 4. Paid in deferred career benefit. Because of the reach of content with the internet, the pay in categories 2 and 4 has gone up. It depends on what you do, but pay in category 3 may also have increased. Unsurprisingly the cash pay is going to decline. In my own case, I write a fair bit. I gain career benef…
My view of work is that you can be paid in 4 ways: 1. Paid in cash. 2. Paid in power. 3. Paid in social status. 4. Paid in deferred career benefit. Because of the reach of content with the internet, the pay in categories 2 and 4 has gone up. It depends on what you do, but pay in category 3 may also have increased. Unsurprisingly the cash pay is going to decline. In my own case, I write a fair bit. I gain career benef…
Isn't there also "not paid at all"?
It's annoying that the author takes the original article about paywalls by Nathan Robinson so literally at some points. For example, the Robinson wrote "Creators must be compensated well. But at the same time we have to try to keep things that are important and profound from getting locked away where few people will see them." To which the commenter replied "None of the above is true." Then explains that only some cr…
> ... the problem here is evident: black-and-white, either-or thinking.
If you put the problem in terms of creators needing to be well paid, on the one hand, and their creations needing to be free and universally accessible, on the other, you've set yourself up a zero-sum cage match. The first quote I pulled from Nathan was more nuanced than that, lamenting paywalls but accepting them, because "it's complicated". The second quote I pulled, from the end of Nathan's piece, puts things more absolutely, leaving less hope.
If the problem is being stuck between the rock of creator comp and the hard place of free, universal access, the solution is recognizing that neither of those is absolute, immovable, or perfect. Not all creation requires or deserves compensation. Not all information needs be free and convenient to everyone.
If you stop thinking of open/closed and free/paid as toggle switches, and embrace that they're actually pretty fine-grained dials, it's no longer a war between creators and consumers, and there are lots of practical things to try. Find the optimum balance in the situation and over time. As I suggest:
> When the works we need or want come readily available at affordable costs that we can pay, and paying is easy, there’s no great harm to access or progress or truth. That cost many not be great. But if a great many pay it, the results can be.
To make that more concrete: I don't think I'd pay $10 a month for Current Affairs. But I'd darn sure pay $3. Or up to $10, scaling up with how many articles I read in a month. Perhaps on top of free access to an archive of articles more than a year old.
I'm not sure how this ended up on HN, either.
I really can't tell what they're trying to say here. > giving more away for $0 online would improve outcomes > there is nothing inherently worse about paying a fee Aren't these contradictory? Is the author taking any position?
The author is generally in favour of free content and argues that it is good for both the consumer (as there is no hassle) and the content creator as there are other avenues for earning money.
The author is so very close to realizing that intellectual property is incoherent in the fact of information theory, and also that universal basic income is an essential component of a hyperwealthy neoliberal democracy. We could be a culture of creators, with every person having a relatively small but fluid audience who supplements their income and contributes to their work, but no starving artist dependent on their…
Economics didn't run up to the industrial revolution and stop. The book I cited, Slauter's Who Owns the News?, gives a great history of English law from before the Statute of Anne. For a view from the Internet era back, on an economics angle, Shapiro and Varian's Information Rules is a great read. For a more nuanced view from those who lean open, James Boyle's books are all worthwhile.
The author is, as it happens, an open-leaning intellectual property lawyer.
The author is so very close to realizing that intellectual property is incoherent in the fact of information theory, and also that universal basic income is an essential component of a hyperwealthy neoliberal democracy. We could be a culture of creators, with every person having a relatively small but fluid audience who supplements their income and contributes to their work, but no starving artist dependent on their…
Intellectual property law is only coherent in the face of information. It's the property law of intangibles. Economics didn't run up to the industrial revolution and stop. The book I cited, Slauter's Who Owns the News? , gives a great history of English law from before the Statute of Anne. For a view from the Internet era back, on an economics angle, Shapiro and Varian's Information Rules is a great read. For a more…
Economics still works fine. The funny thing, though, is that information doesn't behave like a typical good; it's only got marginal cost to duplicate, and is usually too cheap to meter, and every purchase adds a new seller to the market. Thus, it's kind of hard to even justify applying the economic question to information. Indeed, our societies are so drenched in information that we put price tags on tooling which can reduce, filter, aggregate, summarize, and otherwise lower the total number of bits of information within our control.
Any pragmatic and ethical intellectual property law regime must account for the practical truth that artists and scientists can only receive a full education by participating in an underground copyright-infringement movement which consists of private libraries, ad-hoc study sessions, thumb drives full of art and philosophy, and most recently Bittorrent and Sci-Hub. Our current law regime is completely out of touch with this reality, and fixing it will require drastically shortening the length of copyright, ending works-for-hire, and taking other big actions to destroy the media cartels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intellectual property law is only coherent in the face of information. It's the property law of intangibles. Economics didn't run up to the industrial revolution and stop. The book I cited, Slauter's Who Owns the News? , gives a great history of English law from before the Statute of Anne. For a view from the Internet era back, on an economics angle, Shapiro and Varian's Information Rules is a great read. For a more…
The author is dangerously close to realizing that all property rights are incoherent! Just take the contrapositive of your current position, and then keep going. Economics still works fine. The funny thing, though, is that information doesn't behave like a typical good; it's only got marginal cost to duplicate, and is usually too cheap to meter, and every purchase adds a new seller to the market. Thus, it's kind of h…
Valuable information that's easy to reproduce isn't a new phenomenon. See Who Owns the News?. Nor is it peculiar to digitally reproducible works today. See Rothman's The Right of Publicity. Both highly skeptical of many legal developments, but not doctrinaire or absolutist.
Digital technology didn't take the economic theory of property by surprise. See Information Rules, or even Landes and Posner's The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law. The latter goes light on software and the Internet, but covers all the same dimensions of marginal cost, prior work, and so on, in analysis of other domains. Cost savings with digital technology didn't break the theories or policy justifications. They just made analysis of certain combinations more valuable.
If I've guessed right, here comes the part where you lump me in with Disney, the Copyright Office, the IP Watchdog people, and other "IP maximalists". They lump me in with the pirates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author is dangerously close to realizing that all property rights are incoherent! Just take the contrapositive of your current position, and then keep going. Economics still works fine. The funny thing, though, is that information doesn't behave like a typical good; it's only got marginal cost to duplicate, and is usually too cheap to meter, and every purchase adds a new seller to the market. Thus, it's kind of h…
You've given me the tech-exceptionalist party line circa 1999. I could've given you the same, way back then. Lessig. Drahos. Braithwaite. With more nuance, Boyle. Have you done any reading from the other side? I hadn't. Valuable information that's easy to reproduce isn't a new phenomenon. See Who Owns the News? . Nor is it peculiar to digitally reproducible works today. See Rothman's The Right of Publicity . Both hig…
We need to halt the abuse of artists in our society. It is common, it is automated, and it is cruel. Ensnaring them in ever-more-complicated licensing schemes is not a substitute for a living wage, nor does it recognize that art fundamentally needs to be shared between people in order to be effective.
Legal technology, like all technology, is not culturally neutral. We choose how the law develops by how we practice and observe it. We are obligated to construct societies whose laws are not just moral, but ethical, and which dole out a portion of justice to everybody under their ambit. Your attitude that supporting UBI and tearing down copyright is so "circa 1999" and thus somehow tired and outdated is ridiculous. What's so new that's replaced this position? You offer only compromise with the existing system, rather than a hope for an improvement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've given me the tech-exceptionalist party line circa 1999. I could've given you the same, way back then. Lessig. Drahos. Braithwaite. With more nuance, Boyle. Have you done any reading from the other side? I hadn't. Valuable information that's easy to reproduce isn't a new phenomenon. See Who Owns the News? . Nor is it peculiar to digitally reproducible works today. See Rothman's The Right of Publicity . Both hig…
I wouldn't lump you with IP maximalists; I'd lump you with status-quo supporters. There is a way forward for our society, and your entire response is that I should read a book or two and think harder about my position. It's no different from when modern Democrats tell Democratic Socialists to shut up and eat doughnuts; I'm not going to mistake you for a Republican merely because you dislike socialism, but I am going…
The working artists, designers, and other creators I know, and no few I've worked with, don't want to abolish the legal regime set up to ensure them compensation. They don't want to trade what leverage they have for the dole, or for "universal basic income", which is much the same when you'd qualify for either. I've heard and read much the same from their guilds and industry groups.
That doesn't mean the status quo. Many would reform or replace fair use and add orphan-work safe harbors. Others would make copyright protection entirely opt-in, as before Berne. Some would expand "moral rights", or implement them where they haven't been. Others want commonly negotiated terms, like portfolio rights for works made for hire, made defaults, under law. Views on term of protection vary.
There's nothing terribly tired about arguing for copyright abolition, other than that we've heard it for decades now, and political prospects might be worse now than they were then. What is tired is portraying intellectual property as standing on no firm policy foundation, especially no economic foundation. Activists have been making a straw man of economic theory, pretending it got as far as 19th century industrial considerations and stopped, since the nascent years of Internet exceptionalism. The idea that low or no marginal cost of reproduction totally confounds public policy underlying property protection is emblematic. Low marginal cost of reproduction didn't begin with the Internet. It occurred to economists discussing intellectual property, and was well integrated by them, generations before.