71–80 of 147 posts
While this touches the discussion on HN only on certain aspects it makes for an interesting read when you have the time. And are not put off by the host name.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/g...
In our economy value is not based on cost but on supply and demand...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It was an attempt to influence OTHER photographers not to give away their photos for free. At some point, photographers will need to understand that their work is not that unique and that the wealth created by the community through sharing is much greater than that derived by a single artist through the licensing and sale of their work.
Which I'm sure will be a great comfort to them when they're struggling to feed themselves, because they've donated all that wealth to the "community". Would you apply the same argument to your own line of work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course you're also misrepresenting the other guy's argument: he wasn't arguing against "intellectual property theft" (what a loaded term!); rather, he was arguing against people's asking for the photograph for free. Moreover, his particular argument (ignoring the larger issue) was fairly obviously flawed and overbearing.
If we put on our blinders and ignore the larger issue, asking an artist for free stuff is rather condescending. As Mueller says, why should magazines, advertisers, websites or corporations expect or ask for free work? (Let's not pretend it's anything other than this) If the artist didn't already put it on a Creative Commens license or similar (or has indicated that he is willing to give non-commercial licenses to peo…
Also, most programmers I know (admittedly all are at least open source enthusiasts) are all more than happy to provide you with little scripts. They are not only willing to allow you to use their code, but also usually happy to support that code for free to some extent (people are usually happy to help you get it set up, at the very least). I've mostly seen this on smaller programs and scripts, but those are not much different in scope from a single photograph.
I hope everyone understands, including the authors themselves, that each author in this back-and-forth is correct. The right to give and the right to charge are inherently personal decisions that only the owner of the photo can make. This was the main frustration that I had with the "this photograph is not free" comments, as well as the tone the author of this article takes. It doesn't matter what the commentators cl…
This author is partially refuting the original, though. It's not just saying "I give away my photos", it's also saying that it is unrealistic to expect to make money from photography because so many people have a camera and the tools to publish their photographs. I don't really agree with this because the skill and artistic inclination of the photographer is still a critical factor in how the photo turns out. But it…
A simplified view: 30 years ago, there were amateur photographers who, for small amounts of money or free, could get you a snapshot of 0/10 through 3/10 quality; and there were professional photographers, who for a large fee would take 9/10 or 10/10 quality photographs. You went with them because the free/amateur photography was just not good enough. But you didn't really need 9/10 quality; maybe 6/10 would be perfectly adequate for your needs. Now, you can buy low-cost or sometimes even free 6/10 photography. This causes lost work for the 10/10-quality photographers, but it's work that in some sense never really valued their product fully in the first place, but previously bought it because there was no "good enough" lower-quality/cost alternative. Now they only get the work of people who really, absolutely want 10/10 quality work and are willing to pay for it, which is a much smaller market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It was an attempt to influence OTHER photographers not to give away their photos for free. At some point, photographers will need to understand that their work is not that unique and that the wealth created by the community through sharing is much greater than that derived by a single artist through the licensing and sale of their work.
Which I'm sure will be a great comfort to them when they're struggling to feed themselves, because they've donated all that wealth to the "community". Would you apply the same argument to your own line of work?
In our economy value is not based on cost but on supply and demand...
In our economy demand is routinely manufactured (commercials, subsidies, gov contract corruption, etc.) and supply is routinely artificially constrained (regulated industries, copyright, etc.)
If you just make it and keep it to yourself, just for your own personal fulfillment, sweet!
Or all put another way, if you like somebody else's art, but object to their charging something for it, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from learning the craft and producing it yourself...and you might get even more out of it then.