Hacker News Reader

Almost all modern games, movies, and tv series would not have been created if there was no profit insentive. And even the book author needs to somehow make a living. Begin able to write books without having to work in some factory for half of your day makes writing easier.

How do you explain open source?

Enthusiasts always exists and there is a low capital requirement. Just like you get anonymous art, people volunteering for all sorts of things - not everyone does everything for money or even recognition.

And even open source typically has some licenses language associated.

Job pays them really well and/or they are very well off already, so a minority have the time and passion to try and make something on the side. Even then, the biggest and highest value OSS have full time maintainers and offer pay for that. Are there really any Linuxes out there that were purely maintained by free labor?

Alternatively, students who want portfolio pieces. They have an incentive to stand out in a job market and make money as an endgoal.

There's lots and lots of OSS licenses out there, some more lenient than others.

I personally know quite a few OSS devs that don't care if individuals and small shops use their stuff in whatever way they want to, but obviously it's much different when a nameless megacorp does it instead.

There are some open-source games and fan movies, but they come nowhere near the quality and quantity of the commercial titles. For every tux raacer, there are 5 Mario karts

It would seem that the "almost all" in their comment already does.

> I remain unconvinced by the argument that without financial incentives, creative individuals will cease to create and society will be deprived of their creative contributions.

Except that artists well into the 20th century were continuously seeking patronage or success with the greater public. Because they had to live. Erasmus was seeking shelter at least until his 50s, and trying to keep publishers from printing his work (or work under his name) without paying him.

> Society would not have missed out on much if some famous author published only their first 3 truly inspired works, which they wrote to satisfy their creative urge, but not the 20 potboilers that followed.

You don't see the contradiction there?

i want to write. what i don't want is someone else to profit from it without me getting a cut.

that would stop me, because why should i allow myself to be exploited.

this works for contracted work as it is usually paid enough to live off it. and it works for FOSS to a degree as reselling that usually takes extra work (but we are getting to the limits of that too)

i don't know what the best model for this is. maybe some kind of tax for the commercial reproduction like some countries have for music? i think this would still work without any exclusive copyright.

or seen from the other side, open up copyright to allow unlimited non profit use and reproduction

I think you don't understand how writing, making music, making movies or any creative endeavor works.

You don't get to decide "ah now I am writing top charts song" and you write it and then you sing it and it goes to top of charts you rake in profits and swim in cash like Scrooge McDuck.

You create work and then you release it to the world and world decides ... countless times it turns out great work is appreciated only after author dies.

What do you do for work and how much do you charge?

Art is a profession, not a charity.

Copyright essentially makes it charity. If you're solely relying on copyright, you rely on some combination of the government forcing people to pay you and people ignoring the many circumvention options because of guilt. Business models like live performances, physical delivery of art, commissioned work, etc. can allow one to be a professional without the need for copyright. I reject the idea that people are owed a business model based solely on artificial scarcity.

You’re forcing people to pay you when they utilize the product of your labor. And that’s correct, that’s a good thing obviously. You presumably don’t work for free do you?

Copies aren't the product of any creator's labor.

I get paid to perform work. I don't collect rent from people who benefit from my work long after I stopped working.

I definitely don't ask the government to lock people up if they benefit from my work years after I stopped working on it.

Does copying destroy some incentive to produce the original work?

AFAICT, most people who create copyrightable works believe it does. Freeriding rent-seekers who wish to commercialize others’ work tend to believe it doesn’t. I’m personally more inclined to believe the former.

Obviously some creators are happy to create without the additional incentives created by copyright. But here’s the thing: they’re more than welcome to produce and share their work that way already.

Only if you rely on artificial scarcity to get paid; there are other choices that are less harmful. Copyright is not just an incentive, but also a restriction on everybody else. And of course, some people are welcome to not harm others, but the harm that comes from copyright owners restricting others still remains.

I’m sure the art world would be more than happy to consider these alternative ways to get paid. But “here’s another option, otherwise I’m going to steal it anyway” isn’t proposing an alternative, that’s coercion.

Presumably software companies should all be obligated to release their source code right?

It’s free to duplicate, so the scarcity is artificial. Also it only cost labor directly once (at time of writing) which they should get paid for, but after that they’re just benefiting from artificial scarcity/government-enforced monopoly.

Also obviously all model weights should be public. The labor all just went into training it, which happened once, but after that it’s just artificial scarcity.

> I’m sure the art world would be more than happy to consider these alternative ways to get paid.

You are correct, which is why a lot of artists actually already live in a post copyright world. Commissions, patronage, live performances... these don't need copyright to function.

Edit: The issue for this is that even when no copyright is needed, people do not give it up. I think at the very least, copyright should be opt-in and costs money to register, much like patents.

> But “here’s another option, otherwise I’m going to steal it anyway” isn’t proposing an alternative, that’s coercion.

It's not possible to steal public data. And the free culture community has proposed many over the years.

> Presumably software companies should all be obligated to release their source code right?

> [Snip]

Yes.

Then simply use the works from people who choose to publish that way! It’s well within their rights to do so.

Hey if you really believe software companies should be obligated to release their source code, I can at least respect the coherence of your opinion. Seems extreme and like it’d kill a lot of valuable incentives, but at least it’s a coherent view someone can hold!

>Commissions, patronage, live performances... these don't need copyright to function.

those are all copyright. You very much can go after someone for infringement if you give away paywalled content. Commissions still can't be duplicated and sold en masse just because you paid $20 for it. And yes, even concerts have DMCA to worry about. small artists generally won't bother, but it doesn't mean they can't.

> I think at the very least, copyright should be opt-in and costs money to register, much like patents.

they changed that precisely to benefit smaller artists. BigCo doesnt care if it costs 1m dollars/year to register a copyright if they feel it's a billion dollar idea. Meanwhile, many artist may not know their rights until a lawyer is consulted, and it'd be too late to register.

>I don't collect rent from people who benefit from my work long after I stopped working.

I don't either but that's because I (plan to) sell my art for a lump sum and move on when it ships. No one is forcing you to charge a subscription.

>I definitely don't ask the government to lock people up if they benefit from my work years after I stopped working on it.

you rarely get locked up for copyright infringement. It's a civil case, so at worst you are bankrupted. You need to be doing some violation on a massive scale to justify a crminal hearing.

Someone stealing an indie artists' 3 songs and selling them isn't seeing jail time.

"Work" in the sense you mean means someone wants to pay you. Exerting yourself mentally or physically is not automatically economic work that deserves payment, particularly not a recurring stream of payments.

Then don’t use their production, then you don’t need to pay anyone. No one is making you use it. If it has no economic value then you’d just make it yourself or not utilize it.

No patents then, either, right? What about licensing regimes, be it for professions or for things like resources extraction? They also create artificial scarcity. Pretty sure there is much more business that is in one form or another related to artificial scarcity of sorts.

> Pretty sure there is much more business that is in one form or another related to artificial scarcity of sorts.

That doesn't make it right. At least that's closer to a logical counterargument. Artificial scarcity, as a byproduct, could make sense if it's in the service of some greater good. Certification for doctors is probably a good example. For real estate agents, maybe not. Taxi medallion quotas definitely not. There are lots of cartel-like certifications that are not helping anyone. Copyright, like government mandated certifications, is another form of scarcity, the supporting argument I'm aware of is that it spurs innovation and creativity, not the labor theory of value stuff I'm seeing discussed. I don't believe that copyright results in more creative work and so I don't see it as an acceptable tradeoff, especially given the way it gives advantages to bigger companies and wealthier people. I think it would be a valid argument to try and show that it really did result in a more creative and innovative society.

“I think it would be a valid argument to [do impossible thing given there is no control case]”

Alternatively, you can just realize that copyright exists to retain incentive to create and share creative work. AI’s entire value prop in this domain, quite explicitly, is to obviate the need for artists to be doing the art. That is incentive destruction. You can observe that artists tend not to publish work directly into public domain despite always having the ability. You can observe that most art people actually consume is made by professional artists.

It’s not hard to connect the dots when one steps outside of their own ridiculous sense of entitlement to profit off others’ work.

I’d respect the anti-copyright view a whole lot more if they just came out and said it: “I deserve to be able to profit off other people’s labor without paying them.”

Control cases of sorts have existed at times (e.g., UK vs Germany in the 19th century), and at least some point to net negative effects of copyright systems, but as I wrote below, the overall body of research seems much less clear one way or the other.

There is a fair amount of research out there on the effects of copyright and patents. From my casual observation, it feels murky as far as causal relationships go, but then it is not a field I actively study. The effects are also not independent of the actual implementation of IP rights - it can help or hinder and there might be some optimal setup. I certainly wouldn't dismiss that there could be a copyright implementation that is net helpful for fostering creativity and innovation.

No. Art has turned into a profession, precisely because it yields money. It is not, by any means, intrinsically a profession.

As a matter of fact, most of those who make videos, play music and write stories don't make and won't ever make a dime off it.

And most art that people actually consume is not made by such hobbyists. It’s made by professionals because people who are able to make a living out of an activity tend to get much much better at that activity.

If it’s so trivial to do as a hobby with no economic output, then do it yourself or don’t use other people’s professional output. No one is forcing you to!

Artists are also welcome to publish their work directly into public domain whenever they feel like doing so for charity. You can always go visit your local schoolhouses to see hobbyist art.

What a roundabout way to concede the point

“Software engineering is a profession so it’s bad to take people’s source code without a mutual agreement.”

“Actually, software engineering isn’t intrinsically a profession. It’s only such because people pay software engineers to do it.”

Gee thanks

nothing is intrinsically a profession. Even in prehistoric times there were basic economies exchanging shells and rocks for necessary goods. And that expanded to artistic ideas once humanity didn't need to spend a full time job surviving.

This seems to be splitting hairs at this point. Yes, everything "turns into a profession". no, not everyone is a professional, regardless of domain.

Today, yes, but that's not universal across human history.

Yes the cave drawings were for funzies. That sort of art still happens, also for funzies.

We get higher quality art via professionalization, as is readily apparent in the historical record (not many hobbyists in there).

I'm not talking about cave paintings. When Livy wrote Ab Urbe Condita, when Chaucer wrote Centerbury Tales, who were they planning to sell the rights too?

Professional/career writing didn't become the default until the middle of the 19th century, when a rise in literacy made it financially viable.

Even as recently as the first half of the 19th century, most of the literary greats were not professional writers.

Leo Tolstoy was a nobleman born into wealth, financially set for life, and wrote purely for the intellectual stimulation. Chekov saw himself first and foremost as a physician, continued to practice with a full patient panel even after he encountered massive success as a writer, and famously said "Medicine is my wife and writing is my mistress." Nathaniel Hawthorne was a low level government bureaucrat throughout his life. Henry David Thoreau alternated between running a pencil factory and being an indigent. And yet no matter their financial situation, no matter their day job, no matter how much or how little income they derived from writing, they all wrote, and they wrote good stuff.

Professionalization of writing in the second half of the 19th century directly coincided with the rise of doggerel and dime novels. The volume of new works went up, but the average quality went down - not up as you suggest. When the financial incentive is central there is a push to optimize for quantity over quality.

What excellent evidence to my point!

Livy: Uniquely without a patron, so uniquely able to write without fear of reprisal -- he was independently wealthy

Chaucer: Dependent on patronage

Tolstoy: Yep, wealthy people can make art in their leisure time

Chekov: Yep, wealthy people can make art in their leisure time

Hawthorne: Registered his works with the copyright office. Lived with very well-off relatives throughout his youth. Had his college paid for by well-off relatives.

Thoreau: Went to Harvard and was the grandson of a very wealthy Boston merchant -- had plenty of access to money. His indigence was a philosophical decision he made.

I never argued that no good art is produced outside of commercial incentives, I didn't argue the "average" quality would go up or down. I believe that overall volume and diversity of art increases with commercial motivation, as artists can produce art without a direct attachment to existing wealth and power structures. There are more great pieces of art across a more diverse range of styles, perspectives, formats, etc. This is readily apparent in the historical record, and outliers like Livy are the exceptions that prove the rule.

We've never had a problem producing high-quality art from the perspective of and at the whims of the rich and powerful.

Your initial argument was "art is not a charity" - i.e. people don't produce quality artistic work unless there is a financial incentive, for which copyright is an essential requirement. Now you have carved out three or four different exceptions to that rule and seem to be reshaping your argument into some sort of class-struggle narrative between wealthy authors and middle class authors. That is very different than what you were initially asserting.

If anything, you're presenting an argument for a universal basic income so that people have leisure time that they can use for creative purposes, not an argument for copyright as an essential catalyst for creativity.

Let’s say someone proposes that all code any individual or company writes must be made publicly available immediately upon authoring. After all, some people choose to write OSS and do so voluntarily.

Are you also confused by the statement, “software engineering is a profession, not a charity” in the context of that argument? I’ve found the only people who claim to struggle to understand this are motivated in a particular direction (the “we should be allowed to profit from others work” crowd).

I’ll restate it more specifically for the literalists: art is both a profession and a hobby (as clarified in my second comment and as is self-evident to everyone on the planet). If you’re using the existence of the hobbyist creator as an excuse to capture the economic value of the professional creator, you’re 1) an asshole and 2) likely to destroy much of the incentive that allows professional creators to get as good as they are today and in such diverse forms, from such diverse perspectives (especially in the memetic diversity sense, which I care most about).

> some sort of class-struggle narrative

The history of funding methods is one of the most informative lenses one can apply to art history. It literally distorts the historical record (oh it turns out the only good artists in the world were those painting church stories eh!). The economic history is real and isn’t changed by your dismissive reference as “some sort of narrative.”

> you’re presenting an argument for UBI

No I’m not. I’m presenting an argument for forbidding AI companies from rent-seeking on other people’s work and destroying the incentive to continue producing original work.