Creative workers deserve better than a choice as to who rips them off • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by whimsicalism » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 6:06 PM UTC

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?

if you think it is a raw deal, don’t use the platform.

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

#52

Post by whimsicalism » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 6:07 PM UTC

vunderba wrote: post #48

Dalewyn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why should non-creatives go along with this? We shouldn't. Art has historically been vastly overvalued and I like that its perceived/demanded value has been sharply declining over the past several decades and especially now with the advent of "AI". I'm sorry if anyone reading this is an artist and I just twisted your pantaloons, but artists don't serve any valuable role in society. Artists exist strictly because soc…

Just a clarification, art has never been overvalued historically. In point of fact, artisans and musicians were considered a fairly lower class as a mere trade within the medieval time period outside of a few rockstars such as Beethoven and Liszt (later in the 18th and 19th centuries).

artists were not lower class compared to the vast majority of the population and that generally remains true.

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

#53

Post by pjmorris » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 6:07 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #33

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?

It’s especially hard to defend given that the barriers to entry for creatives today (thanks to cheap editing equipment and Internet distribution) is extremely low.

Yes, tools are cheaper, but the big barriers to entry remain the hours invested in learning whatever creative craft is at hand.

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

#54

Post by thevidence » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 6:09 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #16

anigbrowl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about fuck the market, which produces terrible outcomes across the board. It's not the toy 'supply and demand' model of economics classes or anything resembling a pure meritocracy, it's heavily shaped by cartels and asymmetric contractual relations.

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.

[dead]

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

#55

Post by navane » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 6:09 PM UTC

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?

Because the creative marketplaces have turned into effective monopolies or oligopolies at best (YouTube, Spotify), the market is broken. Note that an effective market has multiple vendors of similar commodities. Because the market is broken, value is payed not where it is due. This is intentional however, every big corp tries to break the market and lobbies for laws that allow that.

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

#56

Post by zogrodea » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 6:12 PM UTC

Dalewyn wrote: post #14

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?

>Why should non-creatives go along with this? We shouldn't. Art has historically been vastly overvalued and I like that its perceived/demanded value has been sharply declining over the past several decades and especially now with the advent of "AI". I'm sorry if anyone reading this is an artist and I just twisted your pantaloons, but artists don't serve any valuable role in society. Artists exist strictly because soc…

I think you would enjoy reading this which seems to agree with you somewhat. https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1cCymY7GRLn-PDwh948WC...

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

#57

Post by bequanna » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 6:14 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #39

bequanna wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your wealth likely derives from a mixture of raw talent, hard work, luck, and preferential attachment This is a disturbing viewpoint to see on HN. We already went down this path (a few times) and it resulted in >100 million deaths in the 20th century.

Try arguing with substance instead of hyperbolic (and specious) comparisons. Preferential attachment is a well-documented economic phenomenon, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment

This is a feature, not a bug.

In our system, capital tends to concentrate and flow to people who are good stewards of it.

Many of the rich train their children to provide value and allocate capital efficiently. This is somehow a bad thing?

The comment I responded to was the typical collage freshman “eat the rich” bs which is rooted in communistic ideation. Those ideas are generally worthless and go down a shitty path for both the individual and society. Those ideas result in misery literally every time we try them.

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

#58

Post by pjmorris » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 6:14 PM UTC

Dalewyn wrote: post #14

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?

>Why should non-creatives go along with this? We shouldn't. Art has historically been vastly overvalued and I like that its perceived/demanded value has been sharply declining over the past several decades and especially now with the advent of "AI". I'm sorry if anyone reading this is an artist and I just twisted your pantaloons, but artists don't serve any valuable role in society. Artists exist strictly because soc…

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."

- John Adams, 2nd US President

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

#59

Post by ip26 » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 6:15 PM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #34

tom-_- wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This “people should be paid based on the value they create” myth comes up a lot on HN. Compensation is only tied to value creation as a maximum level. The actual compensation level is whatever people are willing to work for while doing good-enough work. If you want to price your work based on value, you need to run your own business.

It’s a thought experiment. What are the reasons you aren’t paid for the value you create? Can you fix some of them?

In this case, it’s postulated the biggest single factor is a monopsony.

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

#60

Post by pjmorris » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 6:15 PM UTC

nope1000 wrote: post #40

Dalewyn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why should non-creatives go along with this? We shouldn't. Art has historically been vastly overvalued and I like that its perceived/demanded value has been sharply declining over the past several decades and especially now with the advent of "AI". I'm sorry if anyone reading this is an artist and I just twisted your pantaloons, but artists don't serve any valuable role in society. Artists exist strictly because soc…

There is no value in music, books, movies, video games? Or did you just think about paintings?

I'd add all software to video games; despite all the optimization and mechanization it remains a creative endeavor.