Screw that. People should be able to do whatever they want with their own work. That is what it means to own something.
Are you also opposed to open source software?
Are you also opposed to open source software?
Donna Tartt takes about ten years to write a novel. Some writers take a month or two. It is not an easy task, and very few people can pull it off, let alone in a short time. The internet is full of free music, art and writing, with the result that creative people struggle to support themselves, because they are being undercut, and professional work is being converted into a hobby. The tax authorities, electricity companies, and supermarkets are not interested in whether you are self-centred or not as you put it. They want to be paid. (If you are on unemployment benefit while writing the book, they will demand that you look for other work during that time... Or claim you are able to work.)
They are free to do with their labour as they please. That includes charging for it. It also includes doing it pro-bono if they feel like it.
The self-centered part is the idea that they would never want to do it pro-bono. Electricians, plumbers do sometimes do work pro-bono if they feel it is a worthy cause. That is what freedom is: the ability to choose for yourself.
> The internet is full of free music, art and writing, with the result that creative people struggle to support themselves, because they are being undercut
were you under the impression that creatives were well paid before the internet?
It is self-centred to expect everyone to work for you for free. That is why we now have AI destroying creative industries, because it has become normalised not to pay people for using their content.
In parts of Africa the local textile and clothing industries have been destroyed by large amounts of free clothing being offloaded onto them by the developed world. This has been done with good intent, but it means that Africans have been put out of work, and so that they cannot sell their clothes on the international market. If those areas could develop a clothing industry it would bring much needed money into their economy and make them less dependent on onerous bank loans.
"were you under the impression that creatives were well paid before the internet?"
Yes, they were being better paid. Musicians had unions for one. Spotify and YouTube do not pay fair rates for their music, yet rake in from advertising. Old radio stations paid better.
This has been a problem in bars and venues. They tell lies like 'it will look good on your CV/resumé" or "it will get you attention". But if many of them are willing do it unpaid, it means a lot of the pubs won't pay anyone to play.
As I have said elsewhere, I know lesser known writers who have released their book for free on Kindle and gained nothing in return. (No reviews but certainly downloads.) All that resulted in was someone getting a free book. It is not a pattern to be encouraged.
So? People aren't a monolith. Maybe some can afford to give things away for free. Maybe some are living on the poverty line, but for whatever reason think the tradeoff of spreading something to more people (including those who can't afford to pay for it) is worth it if it means further reach for any number of reasons, including self-serving name recognition or selfless spreading of information they think is important to spread.
> All that resulted in was someone getting a free book. It is not a pattern to be encouraged.
Once again, you're trapped in your mindset and seem entirely blind to the aforementioned profit brainwashing. Other paradigms exist, with many benefits you're apparently still incapable of comprehending.
"Once again, you're trapped in your mindset and seem entirely blind to the aforementioned profit brainwashing. Other paradigms exist, with many benefits you're apparently still incapable of comprehending."
Tell this to your utility companies and any debt agencies you encounter and see how far you get with it. Try speaking to tax collectors about paradigms, brain washing and mindsets. See if your landlord or mortgage lender will accept a paradigm shift in place of monthly rent.
The only people who can get anywhere with that are people who already have money or some sugar daddy (or mummy.) Many of us have to work to survive. Ever heard of the working class?
Have libraries done some questionable stuff? Yes. But generally they are good.
My point about writing groups at libraries was that the people who run them get paid anyway. Nothing wrong with that.
The invisible hand only applies here if the goods are identical, and since we're talking about unique works like books, they are definitely not equal. What one another charges does not dictate what another author charges.
> The only people who can get anywhere with that are people who already have money or some sugar daddy (or mummy.) Many of us have to work to survive. Ever heard of the working class?
Wow, do you have any idea how many open source software contributors are living on Ramen and are on the side of the working class?
Maybe those types are eating ramen because they aren't getting paid for their work? There's a thought. In some places if you get caught doing that while on unemployment benefits, you will get those stripped from you too.
I don't like our economic system much either. It's run on creating debt. You have to have money and support from elsewhere or you sink.
I've been homeless. I didn't find that fulfilling or rationalise it with some Zen monk shtic. I saw it for what it was.
Anybody who is part of something greater, and who has learned to not depend on various addictions, wealth signaling, etc for greater fulfillment. A lot of this is in the mind, and really just a matter of adopting healthy perspectives on life.
> I've been homeless.
I've been very close to it, so I can empathize with the struggle. I'm not suggesting people should be homeless and give themselves away. Just that most people require far less to be happy than society has conditioned them to believe, but that doesn't become obvious until you shift your perspective.
If you're truly interested on how somebody might get there, consider giving this a look:
The Courage to Be Disliked by Ichiro Kishimi
But literally nobody is suggesting anyone, let alone everyone should be expected to work for free or do anything they don't want to.
> I've been running a writing group for four years now. I'm not paid to do that, and I set it up myself, but it is not putting someone else out of a job
You are competing with people who run paid writing workshops. It puts people out of a job to the same extent as the author posting his book on his website did. I personally think that neither does, but i'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that one does but not another without being a hypocrite. Hell, you even used teacher as one of your examples in an earlier post.
Most people given the choice between something free and something paid for, will go for the free item.
It is not just a matter of consent, but a market for ordinary people to make some money. Being able to work for free means you have to have the time and money to do so, otherwise you risk getting into debt yourself.
"You are competing with people who run paid writing workshops. It puts people out of a job to the same extent as the author posting his book on his website did."
Within thirty years (far longer than my group has been around) I've never witnessed anyone else run writing workshops within my local area who wasn't already working for the local libraries. They still do. So, that isn't the case — the others are all getting paid out of the council tax whether anyone turns up or not. I keep pretty close tabs on such things. At least I've helped other people publish and sell their books. It's helped my friend's café that was struggling financially after the government lockdown and may not have still been here without it. That's helped save her livelihood, and kept someone in work. Because of that she's been able to set up a catering arm. Far better than debt. So yes, it has had a positive impact on the local area, when so many places are turning into ghost towns and deserts.
That is for a short time every week. But I'd prefer not to work for nothing most of the time. I have had debt agencies after me in the past so it is not a luxury I can afford all the time, nor can most people. I have know people who make a living off writing, and many more who can't... But I'd prefer at least some people could. Some of the latter group put their books out for free, they got downloaded and they made little or no sales off that. (Not because they were all awful either.)
That undermines other novelists who are in most cases making barely any money to begin with. I know people who specifically go for free books in preference to ones they have to pay for.
I submitted an article to a magazine some years ago, which I had spent WEEKS researching. They turned it down and it mysteriously popped up on a blog, uncredited, and only lightly rewritten. I had to threaten legal action. But it was sickening given how much work I had put into it. I am not wealthy, in fact I struggle to pay my life expenses. This year was the first time I was able to take a holiday away from home in several years.
"Are you also opposed to open source software?"
I think people should be paid for work. We have it arse backwards in this society. Parasitic megacorporations get paid exorbitant amounts of money for crappy products through their cartels, and barely pay any tax... Whereas other people are expected to work for nothing. Being able to work for free means that you have the time and money to do so. But unfortunately it means that people expect other people's labour to be for free even though that is not how the economy works.
Companies like Wikimedia, Duolingo, IMDB, social media and so on, are taking unpaid labour and making money off it. Wikimedia Wikimedia got $150M in donations during July 1, 2020—June 30, 2021. 67M wen on salaries, with 9M of it going to management, and apparently pocketed 50M. Needless to say, the bulk of Wikimedia's labour never sees a bolt in compensation.
Most people like things that are free. Obviously. I myself make good use of my library card.
> I submitted an article to a magazine some years ago, which I had spent WEEKS researching. They turned it down and it mysteriously popped up on a blog, uncredited, and only lightly rewritten.
That sucks. But is besides the point. The key is consent. You didn't consent to that. The author of this book chose to make it freely available. Just like you are making your comments on hn freely available. its all about choice.
> Wikimedia got $150M in donations during July 1, 2020—June 30, 2021. 67M wen on salaries, with 9M of it going to management, and apparently pocketed 50M. Needless to say, the bulk of Wikimedia's labour never sees a bolt in compensation.
As an active participant in Wikimedia movement, i'm very familiar with it.
Nobody "pocketed it". They keep a reserve for unexpected expenses or if fundraising goes poorly. There are plenty of things you can fault the Wikimedia Foundation for, but this seems like a stupid one. Obviously they are going to keep some money in the bank, just in case something unexpected happens.
Libraries are not free. They're paid for out of taxes, and my local council is very forceful in collecting them. Libraries tend to buy most of their books (and pay lending fees to the authors most of the time). Despite attempts to turn libraries into voluntary services, many public libraries still have paid staff.
"That sucks. But is besides the point. The key is consent. You didn't consent to that. The author of this book chose to make it freely available. Just like you are making your comments on hn freely available. its all about choice."
No, it's not just about consent but the affect on others. Let's say we have ten bands, and seven of them tell bars they're willing to play for nothing... That means the other three are unlikely to get paid work as a result. If people keep handing out free hot dogs, that means the hot dog seller down the road isn't going to sell any.
Why are people so disgusted at my proposal that people are paid for work? Even Marxist-orientated societies like the USSR and Cuba pay/paid people (including writers!) for their work.
It is easy to do unpaid work when you have money already and many don't. I'm beginning to think I'm talking to a bunch of rich kids here.
"Nobody "pocketed it". They keep a reserve for unexpected expenses or if fundraising goes poorly. There are plenty of things you can fault the Wikimedia Foundation for, but this seems like a stupid one. Obviously they are going to keep some money in the bank, just in case something unexpected happens."
I edited Wikipedia for fifteen years. Despite some deletions, there are still thousands upon thousands of my words up there, and dozens of articles which I started. I never got paid anything for it, in fact I constantly had to deal with obnoxious behaviour on there from administrators who kept enshittifying content and leaving me rude messages. That's what destroyed my good will. Only a handful of admin ever bothered to thank me for it (and yes I did have some medals/badges).
So Wikipedia and Wikimedia have plenty of my work, and other people's, and are making money off it, but most of the editors aren't. (Same with IMDB. Plenty of my work on there. Nothing to show for it, and they advertise on there.) Wikimedia is maybe not even the main profiteer off it, since AI is quite clearly raiding it for content and so are various businesses.
But you must admit that authors make more money on an individual book sale then the amount they make on a library lending the same copy to hundreds of people.
> No, it's not just about consent but the affect on others.
indeed, it seems like you want to profit off the labour of others by forcing them to set a specific price for their labour to artificially raise prices. Why should you or anyone else profit off the labour of others?
> Why are people so disgusted at my proposal that people are paid for work?
Because this is a strawman and not what you or other people are actually saying.
> Even Marxist-orientated societies like the USSR and Cuba pay/paid people (including writers!) for their work.
Why are you so surprised? Having fixed renumeration for work that everyone abides by like you are arguing for is generally a very marxist belief. The capitalist belief is that everyone should set their own prices and undercut each other as much as it makes sense for each individual to do so in order for the overall market to be most efficient.
The fundamental belief of capitalism is the free market. You are arguing against the free market.
> It is easy to do unpaid work when you have money already and many don't. I'm beginning to think I'm talking to a bunch of rich kids here.
Just because the good is free does not mean the labour is unpaid. I am paid to write software that ultimately becomes open source. The author of the book we are talking about is getting paid, probably more than most authors do.
People make money in all sorts of different ways.
> I edited Wikipedia for fifteen years. Despite some deletions, there are still thousands upon thousands of my words up there, and dozens of articles which I started. I never got paid anything for it, in fact I constantly had to deal with obnoxious behaviour on there from administrators who kept enshittifying content and leaving me rude messages. That's what destroyed my good will. Only a handful of admin ever bothered to thank me for it (and yes I did have some medals/badges).
Were you mislead in your decision to contribute to Wikipedia? Wikipedia doesn't pretend to pay contributors. To put it bluntly, part of being an adult is to accept responsibility for the things you do. If you contributed to Wikipedia, knowing the terms of that, that choice is on you.
That said, given that you are complaining about admins (who are also unpaid) i can't help but wonder if the issue at hand is simply that Wikipedia didn't think your labour was particularly valuable despite it being free.
We have unions for a reason. They may be a pain sometimes, but the reason they exist is so that the lower end does not get abused. Now we have Uber and Deliveroo and Amazon who wilfully abuse their employees.
"The fundamental belief of capitalism is the free market. You are arguing against the free market."
We don't have a free market, and even if we did free content does not count as part of the market. The nearest are so called "loss leaders".
"Having fixed renumeration for work that everyone abides by like you are arguing for is generally a very marxist belief. "
So they say. In practice Marxists have used substantial slave labour.
"Were you mislead in your decision to contribute to Wikipedia? Wikipedia doesn't pretend to pay contributors."
I was misled about the nature of the project, how it was run and regret being persuaded into using a named account. I was far too optimistic about what it was and what it was for.