[pp.int.general] Some parting thoughts

[Eric Priezkalns]

On 23 Oct 2009, at 16:59, Reinier Bakels wrote:

> It seems you are a true market believer, and a strong supporter of a  
> tradtional application of copyright!

I wish you had not framed your response like that.  It's easy to  
disregard arguments by pigeonholing opponents.  For example, I didn't  
start my analysis by saying you seem like a Stalinist who believes in  
the merits of appointing somebody who can make important decisions for  
everybody else.

> 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).

I don't deny any of that.  I just want to know who would decide who  
gets paid what amount for what quality of work.  If you can't answer  
that, your arguments fail. It's not enough to find flaws in one  
system.  You also have to explain how an alternative system would work  
in practice, and show that it is not even more flawed.  I don't  
understand how your market forces work in terms of deciding how much a  
journalist or musician should be paid.  Market forces resulted in them  
getting paid by the current process.  How exactly would you reconcile  
a guarantee of a salary based on qualifications with the application  
of market forces?  Don't forget 'market forces' just means the  
aggregate effect of customers choosing what they buy and how much they  
pay.

> 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".

That's a moral argument.  And the language is confused.  Some people  
choose not to be employed.  Are they immoral if they want to be paid  
based on results and not a salary?  Should they be stopped?  And how  
does this guarantee a better world as opposed to a world where these  
'decent' big business that pay the salaries will have even more  
control over what content is produced?
>
> 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.

I understand that.  I just don't understand who decides who deserves  
to get paid to write and how they make that decision, without risking  
having some really awful system where an elite decides how the money  
is spent based on what they think is good for everyone else.

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