[pp.int.general] Some parting thoughts

[Reinier Bakels]

It seems you are a true market believer, and a strong supporter of a 
tradtional application of copyright!
I still think there is a parallel between a journalist and a plumber.
The plumber is paid by the hour. Het gets the same if he fixes a toilet in a 
one-person household of a businessman who is traveling a lot and rarely uses 
his own toilet, and a toilet in the home of a large family (as you are not 
American, I say "toilet" instead of "bathroom").
I think the journalist should also be paid by the hour.
What is a reasonable tariff? I think there is another type of market effect 
that gives you the answer: market forces require people to be paid roughly 
the same amount as other people with similar education etc. I plumbers are 
poorly paid and carpenters get a lot of money, soon there won't be any 
plumber anymore (except for the people who really like their profession to 
the extent that the accept to become very poor: really people *addicted* to 
the profession of plumbing).
Similarly, a reasobable tariff can be found for journalists, typically 
people with a higher or even university education.
A decent employer should not shift the risk to the journalist and pay him 
"per view".

And let's remember where our debate started. I arguted that in the *present* 
system journalists are sometimes so poorly paid initially that they depend 
on extra money from extra views. Then it would not be fair to say: one one 
is enough.

I would favour a system that gives writers a decent amount the first time, 
so that they don't depend on dreadful copyright.
reinier
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Priezkalns" <eric.priezkalns at pirateparty.org.uk>
To: "Pirate Parties International -- General Talk" 
<pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Some parting thoughts


>
> 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
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general