That’s solid. What about the right of a productive individual to be compensated for their work?
Discussion
So, I think nobody has a right to take from other people no matter how hard the work they use to justify doing so is.
Let’s say musicians for example. It’s totally fair for them to say “you can’t kidnap me and make me sing”. The sensibility stops when they say “here’s a cd for you to have, but I’m in charge of what you do with the 1s and 0s on it forever even though you’ve not agreed in any way to what I’m saying”
They are free to do different work if they feel they aren’t being paid well enough. I am free to pay them if I desire.
That’s an interesting take. The logic is apparently sound and the conclusion follows.
Is it fair? (Is it supposed to be?)
I would personally want royalties for my content being shared, but if I can’t enforce that through some type of mutual contract, I would likely need to increase the price of my “initial sale” to cover my potential losses if others buy my work from each other, rather than from me.
That said, there’s something “icky” about the idea of someone putting decades into developing a skill set, creating something that others value, and then selling that piece of art (in the music example) to someone who can then profit off of the artist’s work by doing little more than burning a cd.
Perhaps it’s logical, and unenforceable, but still unethical…
What do you mean by “is it fair? (Is it supposed to be?)”?
Yeah, I hear you. People who labor with the expectation that they will be paid a certain way have every right to feel icky to when someone flips that expectation. Unethical even. Though maybe nobody would feel icky about freely sharing I’d that were just what everyone expected while making the art. In fact, making the art might be even more of an act of love or creativity knowing that once you share the 0s and 1s, they fly out into the world to live on their own.
On the other hand, it feels very icky to me to say that we are gunna make SURE people don’t use the 0s and 1s on their own computers in their homes in ways we don’t like. Like how is that actually done… well people show up and use the real threat of overwhelming physical force to MAKE people to behave in a certain way with the 0s and 1s. Gross. Not 100% sure but I think that’s the only fundamentally unethical part of this.
On the last point, who would pay anyone but you in a DRM-free world? Maybe a few cents for the copy of the 1s and 0s, but then they might send you much more in appreciation for the original work. The first person may have been their doorway into your art, but you are and always will be the creator of it.
My first question involved whether or not the seemingly logical proof was in fact a humane/fair one. The second (“is it supposed to be?”) was around whether these sort of perspectives should take fairness into account as a starting point (or not). Open questions!
I do agree about the use of state violence (imprisonment etc) as a deterrent against relatively small - even if unethical - acts. That level of intervention should be reserved for the most severe anti-social behaviors, in my opinion (instances where another human is put directly in harm’s way because of one’s actions).
What is DRM?
(Digital Rights Management , it’s a way of preventing people from sharing songs without paying) but I’m being sloppy. To rewrite it:
On the last point, I’m wondering who would pay anyone but you in a free-to-share-1s-and-0s world? Maybe they pay the person who helped them get a copy a few cents for the effort… but enjoying your music they might send you much more in appreciation for your original work. The first person may have been their doorway into your art, but you are and always will be the creator of it.
RE: Is it fair and should it be:
Maybe it comes down to what do we mean when we say “fair”. If you were told that you’d be paid a certain way and so you work, then all of a sudden everyone realizes they aren’t willing to force people to behave a certain way for such low stakes. Yeah that feels unfair. But it’s also unfair to force people in such an arbitrary way. Maybe it’s like the people caught between the american revolutionaries and the British. I’m fuzzy on details for this analogy, but real people lost their shirts because they assumed that business would continue as usual, but when the Americans didn’t want to buy from where they were supposed to, suddenly they were at a huge business loss. That doesn’t feel fair. I’d argue it is though. They just had risk in their business that maybe they didn’t realize they had.
These are all good points! I’m about to hit the bed but I appreciate the discussion — will respond tomorrow when I’m able to think more criticallly about it 🫡
I like the idea that a fully open information economy could lead to better compensation for artists. Especially considering how frequently their production companies take advantage of them.
That said, it’s a tricky hypothetical. So many people are used to getting their content for free or dirt cheap - I want to believe that we’d all give greater recognition/compensation to artists in this scenario, but I have some remaining cynicism.
Nostr is a fascinating microcosm for exactly this idea, though. Perhaps this is the first time we can watch it play out in a real scenario 🤯
You make good points about fairness, too. Perhaps contractual agreements would help solve this: “I will sell you this content only if you agree not to redistribute it”. In that case, both parties have agreed on the terms of the transaction. If the buyer breaks the contract (ie burns 100 copies of the cd and sells them on the street), then the artist is entitled to seek damages.
Perhaps that’s the ethical boundary: civil litigation, not criminal penalty (state violence etc etc).
Thanks for helping me think through this a bit 🙏