[pp.int.general] Some parting thoughts

[Eric Priezkalns]

On 23 Oct 2009, at 15:06, Reinier Bakels wrote:

>>   You should acknowledge that artists often *initially* are poorly  
>> paid,
>>   because they are supposed to get more money the more often people  
>> listen to
>>   (or read) their works.
>>
>> I think you've changed the subject.  The issue I am talking about is
>> not how much some artist gets paid, or how much s/he ought to get
>> paid.  I'm talking about the basic structure of the situation.
>>
>> I would like to support artists better, and I propose several ways to
>> do it.  But that does not mean we owe them "compensation".  We must
>> reject that idea.
>
> I also talk about "ought". What model do you see then, given that  
> writers are people of flesh and blood who need food, clothing and  
> housing?
> 1. amateurs, earning money by some other means, and writing for free?
> 2. professionals who produce texts as a spin-off of their paid  
> activities (e.g. university staff writing in professional magazines)
> 3. journalists etc. who write as their main occupation?
> I don't think we can dispense of the last category. The model I  
> would prefer is to pay them as employees. If they prefer to work on  
> a freelance basis, pay them for each unit of text they produce  
> (word, page, etc.). But do it *once*, commensurate with the effort,  
> e.g. based on (an estimate of) the time actually spent in writing.
>
> Yes, copyright based remuneration is bad. Then the writers depend on  
> the actual number of copies sold. Perhaps that is good for a  
> tangible goods business, but not for writers, who "produce" onlky  
> once and can be copied infinitely afterwards. Writers should be  
> independent. If sales are disappointing, they should not suffer, and  
> if sales are high, they should not become outrageously rich - like  
> BIll Gates.
>
> One doesn't pay Joe the Plumber a very low advance, and then again  
> again if more people go to the bathroom! But that does not mean that  
> Joe the Plumber deserves a compensation for his effort!

Your analogy has some weaknesses.  Joe the Plumber is paid by the  
person who gets the benefit, in the sense of being paid by the person  
who owns the toilet and wants it to be fixed.  It is up to the owner  
of the toilet to decide if others may use their toilet or not (or  
whether to charge people for using the toilet).  Copyright is not  
wholly dissimilar in the idea of the person doing the work being paid  
by the people who enjoy the benefit.  The difference is that there is  
a much longer chain of events between doing the work, enjoying the  
benefit, paying for the benefit, and rewarding the person doing the  
work.

There is a valid argument about changing the mechanics of payment for  
content because they are unfair.  Even if the mechanics of payment are  
wrong, it does not follow that the only alternative is to break the  
link between producer and consumer completely.  At present, the artist  
is supposedly paid (however indirectly, however theoretically) by the  
people who enjoy the benefit.  If Joe the Plumber doesn't do his job  
properly, the customer doesn't have to pay.  Insisting on a fair  
salary for creative people to create, no matter what, is a little like  
saying Joe the Plumber should be paid for fixing toilets even if  
nobody wanted him to fix a toilet or even if he did a terrible job.

You don't address the hard part: who decides who deserves what pay for  
what quality of work?  I'm forced to assume that there should be some  
special person/committee/god/ruler who is considered all-wise and can  
just decide which writers should get money and which should not, which  
musicians deserve a salary and which deserve none.  I'm not in favour  
of that.  In particular, if the creator gets the same reward if lots  
of people like their work, or if nobody likes it, you end up  
interfering with even more basic freedoms.  The interference comes in  
expecting people to pay (somebody always has to pay in the end) for  
work that nobody likes or wants, or in giving somebody a dangerous  
power to deny any reward to somebody whose work would actually be very  
popular.  You also end up with a system that seems perfect for  
subordinating content creation to totalitarianism, and a terrible  
system for delivering what ordinary people really like.

E