License Zero: Comments on “The Truth Is Paywalled but the Lies Are Free”
blog.licensezero.com
blog.licensezero.com
Being rich inherently gives one a voice, being right does not. If the truth is inconvenient to the rich then it will face an uphill battle against the well funded lies.
Agreed. I read the whole thing twice and couldn't identify any thesis.
> Creators needn’t be compensated well just because they are creators.
> Neither must useful works of every kind cost nothing to everyone.
Obviously this author knows that if poor quality cheap information proliferates and high quality information remains costly then people will prefer the former to the later.
The author is effecting a denial of the implicit argument of the "post truth" panic, which is that it is important that the public have a high quality and cheap information source.
It's not utterly unreasonable to argue against an assumed premise such as this but it would've been nice if they had been a bit clearer about it.
"Build it and they will come."
or
"The universe will provide..."
and sometimes, it does. Like in Wayne's World.
So this seems either false or completely irrelevant to the topic at hand: "I happen to believe that in most areas of creative work, and in most adjacent industries, giving more away for $0 online would improve outcomes for most players, overall."
1. Paid in cash.
2. Paid in power.
3. Paid in social status.
4. Paid in deferred career benefit.
Because of the reach of content with the internet, the pay in categories 2 and 4 has gone up. It depends on what you do, but pay in category 3 may also have increased. Unsurprisingly the cash pay is going to decline.
In my own case, I write a fair bit. I gain career benefits. I gain contacts from Hacker News as I write under my own name. There are friends who find it cool that I am published on Stack Overflow. I have a regular software engineering job, so the money now is not a priority.
Eventually most content creation is just going to be supported by people doing other things to earn a living. Only deep investigative journalism would require someone to earn a full time living doing it.
That's fine for many types of content, but do we really want world news and investigative journalism to be done exclusively by amateurs with no resources?
But yes, that is one of the few areas where you still need permanent full-time people.
Whether it nets as much long-term happiness or food in your mouth is free to debate, but I think a lot of people are just content with the idea of creating something they wanted.
I think you see this a lot in OSS (linux, git, gnu) as well as e.g. the video games industry.
I don't think it's a particularly sustainable way to get paid, but it can exit into the other 4 you mentioned.
For example, the Robinson wrote "Creators must be compensated well. But at the same time we have to try to keep things that are important and profound from getting locked away where few people will see them." To which the commenter replied "None of the above is true." Then explains that only some creators and some works should be compensated well. As if it wasn't clear that the Robinson was referring to creators and works that he felt was of value.
In rebuttal, he only provides his opinion that "I happen to believe that in most areas of creative work, and in most adjacent industries, giving more away for $0 online would improve outcomes for most players, overall." without any evidence that is the case for journalism (or even software for that matter). Not even a weak "logical" argument.
Perhaps he's right, perhaps he's not. I don't know, it it's annoying that this response has somehow hit #2 on HN. It's as weak as this post :-)
> ... the problem here is evident: black-and-white, either-or thinking.
If you put the problem in terms of creators needing to be well paid, on the one hand, and their creations needing to be free and universally accessible, on the other, you've set yourself up a zero-sum cage match. The first quote I pulled from Nathan was more nuanced than that, lamenting paywalls but accepting them, because "it's complicated". The second quote I pulled, from the end of Nathan's piece, puts things more absolutely, leaving less hope.
If the problem is being stuck between the rock of creator comp and the hard place of free, universal access, the solution is recognizing that neither of those is absolute, immovable, or perfect. Not all creation requires or deserves compensation. Not all information needs be free and convenient to everyone.
If you stop thinking of open/closed and free/paid as toggle switches, and embrace that they're actually pretty fine-grained dials, it's no longer a war between creators and consumers, and there are lots of practical things to try. Find the optimum balance in the situation and over time. As I suggest:
> When the works we need or want come readily available at affordable costs that we can pay, and paying is easy, there’s no great harm to access or progress or truth. That cost many not be great. But if a great many pay it, the results can be.
To make that more concrete: I don't think I'd pay $10 a month for Current Affairs. But I'd darn sure pay $3. Or up to $10, scaling up with how many articles I read in a month. Perhaps on top of free access to an archive of articles more than a year old.
I'm not sure how this ended up on HN, either.
> giving more away for $0 online would improve outcomes
> there is nothing inherently worse about paying a fee
Aren't these contradictory? Is the author taking any position?
As the slogan goes, "All of our grievances are connected: Eat the rich."
Economics didn't run up to the industrial revolution and stop. The book I cited, Slauter's Who Owns the News?, gives a great history of English law from before the Statute of Anne. For a view from the Internet era back, on an economics angle, Shapiro and Varian's Information Rules is a great read. For a more nuanced view from those who lean open, James Boyle's books are all worthwhile.
The author is, as it happens, an open-leaning intellectual property lawyer.
Economics still works fine. The funny thing, though, is that information doesn't behave like a typical good; it's only got marginal cost to duplicate, and is usually too cheap to meter, and every purchase adds a new seller to the market. Thus, it's kind of hard to even justify applying the economic question to information. Indeed, our societies are so drenched in information that we put price tags on tooling which can reduce, filter, aggregate, summarize, and otherwise lower the total number of bits of information within our control.
Any pragmatic and ethical intellectual property law regime must account for the practical truth that artists and scientists can only receive a full education by participating in an underground copyright-infringement movement which consists of private libraries, ad-hoc study sessions, thumb drives full of art and philosophy, and most recently Bittorrent and Sci-Hub. Our current law regime is completely out of touch with this reality, and fixing it will require drastically shortening the length of copyright, ending works-for-hire, and taking other big actions to destroy the media cartels.
Valuable information that's easy to reproduce isn't a new phenomenon. See Who Owns the News?. Nor is it peculiar to digitally reproducible works today. See Rothman's The Right of Publicity. Both highly skeptical of many legal developments, but not doctrinaire or absolutist.
Digital technology didn't take the economic theory of property by surprise. See Information Rules, or even Landes and Posner's The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law. The latter goes light on software and the Internet, but covers all the same dimensions of marginal cost, prior work, and so on, in analysis of other domains. Cost savings with digital technology didn't break the theories or policy justifications. They just made analysis of certain combinations more valuable.
If I've guessed right, here comes the part where you lump me in with Disney, the Copyright Office, the IP Watchdog people, and other "IP maximalists". They lump me in with the pirates.
We need to halt the abuse of artists in our society. It is common, it is automated, and it is cruel. Ensnaring them in ever-more-complicated licensing schemes is not a substitute for a living wage, nor does it recognize that art fundamentally needs to be shared between people in order to be effective.
Legal technology, like all technology, is not culturally neutral. We choose how the law develops by how we practice and observe it. We are obligated to construct societies whose laws are not just moral, but ethical, and which dole out a portion of justice to everybody under their ambit. Your attitude that supporting UBI and tearing down copyright is so "circa 1999" and thus somehow tired and outdated is ridiculous. What's so new that's replaced this position? You offer only compromise with the existing system, rather than a hope for an improvement.
The working artists, designers, and other creators I know, and no few I've worked with, don't want to abolish the legal regime set up to ensure them compensation. They don't want to trade what leverage they have for the dole, or for "universal basic income", which is much the same when you'd qualify for either. I've heard and read much the same from their guilds and industry groups.
That doesn't mean the status quo. Many would reform or replace fair use and add orphan-work safe harbors. Others would make copyright protection entirely opt-in, as before Berne. Some would expand "moral rights", or implement them where they haven't been. Others want commonly negotiated terms, like portfolio rights for works made for hire, made defaults, under law. Views on term of protection vary.
There's nothing terribly tired about arguing for copyright abolition, other than that we've heard it for decades now, and political prospects might be worse now than they were then. What is tired is portraying intellectual property as standing on no firm policy foundation, especially no economic foundation. Activists have been making a straw man of economic theory, pretending it got as far as 19th century industrial considerations and stopped, since the nascent years of Internet exceptionalism. The idea that low or no marginal cost of reproduction totally confounds public policy underlying property protection is emblematic. Low marginal cost of reproduction didn't begin with the Internet. It occurred to economists discussing intellectual property, and was well integrated by them, generations before.
I went to music school. I copied CDs and sheet music from the school library. I also burned CDs and copied thumb drives from other musicians. My jazz class mandated listening to dozens of albums, didn't give us copies, and expected us to acquire them however. My professors taught us how to listen to the radio and reproduce what we heard. I played out of "The Great American Songbook," which is the tradition where you play what folks in the USA like to listen to, or you don't get paid for the gig. My compensation was per-gig and based on live performance, not based on royalties or licensing. Despite what amounted to a pretty good hourly wage, the actual number of hours per week was very low, and I had a day job. This was not atypical, but the intended route for the bulk of professional performers, and nothing has changed since I went to school other than that copyright infringement is cheaper and easier than ever.
Nothing is new under the sun. Making original music is incredibly difficult. We swim in such a massive sea of ambient art, and almost all of it is licensed in ways which forbid us from integrating that experience into our original artwork. The entire discipline of remixing exists as a proud affront to copyright, just like libraries once did and still do. And today's musicians are a product of a system which simultaneously requires them to continuously infringe in order to be productive, while using the law to punish them for infringing.
When I hear you talking about the folks that you know and work with, and imagine what kind of musician actually is lucky enough to receive royalties, I imagine a privileged few folks. They're not bad people, but they benefit from a system designed to compensate them at the expense of everybody else. And their actual benefit is relatively meager! Middlemen at the labels suck out nickel and dime, and even successful musicians find themselves flipping burgers. They're propping up a system which disenfranchises them.
And when I hear you talking about "their guilds and industry groups"! I personally believe that ASCAP is a plague upon practicing musicians, music venues, music lovers, and the entire tradition of making music. They have the audacity to take royalties on behalf of those great legends who are long since departed, and their entire justification is that it's a legal theft of the public domain, and why shouldn't they do what they're legally entitled to do? The RIAA's not any better, with multiple members committing acts upon their customers and artists that, in literally any other context, would be criminal. Imagine if I, an independent musician, published a CD with infectious malware on it, and used it to attack my listeners; I'd be convicted and thrown in prison!
The worst part of all of this is "political prospects". Yes, fascism is popular right now. No, we shouldn't abide by it. No, fascism isn't an excuse to avoid socialist reforms. No, we shouldn't just give up on what we the people want just because it's inconvenient for the ruling classes.