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

Don Rosa: Why I Quit

career-end.donrosa.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Don Rosa: Why I Quit

#21

Post by skymt »

tptacek wrote: post #18
skymt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't frame it like that. It's dishonest. Corporations withholding royalties from artists is obviously bad . But it's entirely consistent to condemn such abuse while still supporting the idea that artists ought to be repaid for their work.

Corporations withholding royalties from salaried employees with whom no agreement was made regarding royalties is not "obviously bad".

Point taken. My objection was to praptak's generalized false dilemma of corporations cheating their employees versus weak copyright and widely accepted file sharing. Don Rosa's case is indeed more complex.

Re: Don Rosa: Why I Quit

#22

Post by ctide »

thurn wrote: post #15

I might not understand the complaint here. I don't get paid royalties on the software I write either, because my employer owns the copyright to my work. That licensing arrangement suits both of us because I would like to collect a salary without assuming the risk that my work won't be profitable. It's not an exploitive relationship.

If that works for you, that's great!

Many software developers around these parts (myself included) want equity in the companies we work for. Equity is just our industry's form of royalties. Make awesome software that people love? Greater valuation of your equity!

Re: Don Rosa: Why I Quit

#23

Post by RexRollman »

This article is a good example of why I don't buy non-creator owned comics (aside from the fact that I view Marvel and DC comics from 1990-on to be pure shit). I know most comic fans don't give a shit but I do.

Re: Don Rosa: Why I Quit

#24

Post by IheartApplesDix »

thurn wrote: post #15

I might not understand the complaint here. I don't get paid royalties on the software I write either, because my employer owns the copyright to my work. That licensing arrangement suits both of us because I would like to collect a salary without assuming the risk that my work won't be profitable. It's not an exploitive relationship.

But then your employer starts releasing volumes of your old work with the title "Thurn's life work" one day, and one of your friends say, hey nice book, so you're going to pay me back that $200 you borrowed in college right, Mr. Big Shot?

Re: Don Rosa: Why I Quit

#25

Post by snowwrestler »

drcube wrote: post #17
jamesaguilar wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh. But Disney comics is the only case where no royalties are ever paid, at least according to Don in this article. I don't think he'd want us using those words as a blanket permission to pirate copyrighted works.

No, but it highlights the hypocrisy of the largest anti-sharing organization. Movie studios and record labels are also generally lousy to the talent they make their money off of. Treating creators like shit while outwardly pretending to care about them to advance your business interests makes your whole side look bad.

When we talk about copyright policy, or enforcement, the effects are not limited to the big rich companies that it is easy to hate.

There are plenty of artist-friendly, or artist-owned, labels and distributions companies, and they are also hurt by piracy. In fact I would argue they are hurt more than the big labels, because each individual missed sale is a bigger percentage of their total revenue.

Re: Don Rosa: Why I Quit

#26

Post by mech4bg »

kkowalczyk wrote: post #3

It seems it all boils down to this: he didn't make as much money as he wanted. I don't want to trivialize the issue: making money is not easy, but the guy over-plays the victim card. He seems to be a successful artist. He quits and it's all a fault of other people, who don't pay him as much as he deserves. Again, not to trivialize the issue, but an artist with a lot of fans should be able to find a way to make money.…

The bit he was actually focusing on seemed to me to be that they started using his name to sell the books.

If _the artist_ is the product being sold, don't you think the right thing to do would have been to work out a new agreement?

I thought it was incredibly well written and quite forgiving of him.

Re: Don Rosa: Why I Quit

#27

Post by milfot »

thurn wrote: post #15

I might not understand the complaint here. I don't get paid royalties on the software I write either, because my employer owns the copyright to my work. That licensing arrangement suits both of us because I would like to collect a salary without assuming the risk that my work won't be profitable. It's not an exploitive relationship.

The thing is, you are actually assuming the risk that your work is not profitable.. if the work is your personal work, your employer may sack you or withhold a raise. if the work is your team's then you share the risk, unless your team is the only team and then your employer goes out of business.

It is (usually) an exploitative relationship, most just don't know it. The fact that this arrangement is the norm speaks only of the power differential and nothing of fairness. Could you imagine what would happen to management if employees got a fair share of the work they produced.. for that matter, how much of Don's profits came from his hand and how much from the advertisers and how much from Disney's distribution network? Why are advertisers paid so much and box packers paid so little?

The fact that so many of us accept this system is because we don't have the power to demand profits (or we don't know any better) and we need to eat. We just tell ourselves that we prefer to earn a little less so we don't have to worry about risk. It makes it easier to sleep at night.

Re: Don Rosa: Why I Quit

#28

Post by MichaelGG »

snowwrestler wrote: post #25
drcube wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it highlights the hypocrisy of the largest anti-sharing organization. Movie studios and record labels are also generally lousy to the talent they make their money off of. Treating creators like shit while outwardly pretending to care about them to advance your business interests makes your whole side look bad.

When we talk about copyright policy, or enforcement, the effects are not limited to the big rich companies that it is easy to hate. There are plenty of artist-friendly, or artist-owned, labels and distributions companies, and they are also hurt by piracy. In fact I would argue they are hurt more than the big labels, because each individual missed sale is a bigger percentage of their total revenue.

Considering people buy for convenience or to support the artist, I'd say a small label benefits more from piracy. The big labels with extensive marketing are going to gain less fans from piracy. While I might torrent a well-known group to try it out, chances are I'm already acquainted.

Whereas with a small group, pirating a torrent of stuff might be a way I actually discover an artist. I know I've downloaded big "mix" torrents, come across some stuff I like, then went to Amazon and bought all the downloads they had for that artist. Without the piracy, I'd have never found them.

On top of that, I think (perhaps incorrectly), that when you buy from a small label, you're promoting more good than buying from the big labels that will use my money to campaign for things I'm against. I know I have a few artists I like, but I'm not going to give money to folks that push for less due process.

Of course, actual data is hard to come by: it's not like you can accurately track torrent downloads/disk swaps and compare conversion rates.

Re: Don Rosa: Why I Quit

#30

Post by snowwrestler »

MichaelGG wrote: post #28
snowwrestler wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we talk about copyright policy, or enforcement, the effects are not limited to the big rich companies that it is easy to hate. There are plenty of artist-friendly, or artist-owned, labels and distributions companies, and they are also hurt by piracy. In fact I would argue they are hurt more than the big labels, because each individual missed sale is a bigger percentage of their total revenue.

Considering people buy for convenience or to support the artist, I'd say a small label benefits more from piracy. The big labels with extensive marketing are going to gain less fans from piracy. While I might torrent a well-known group to try it out, chances are I'm already acquainted. Whereas with a small group, pirating a torrent of stuff might be a way I actually discover an artist. I know I've downloaded big "mix…

I would encourage you to try talking to people who actually own and operate small and midsize labels. The effect of piracy is clearly visible in their sales charts; but based on the cultural treatment of it, they consider it a cost of maintaining good relations with their fans.

Their fans are hurting them, but since they like their fans, they struggle to find a way to make up the difference somehow.

Piracy is a good way for new bands to get discovered, but that benefit fades over time. When you have a devoted fan base and you're trying to sell your 5th album, having most of them download it for free offers no benefit to the artist or label.

Post reply on HN