If someone is paid by the council to build a bridge, at the end of it he hands it over to the council, they pay him out of the public purse, and allow the public (who paid for it) to walk over it freely all day and every day. If the bridge builder doesn't like those terms, then he doesn't take the contract and doesn't do the work. Just like you can commission someone to write or record a piece of music for you, then it's yours to do with as you please.
But that's obviously unfair - why should singers get offered royalties but not bridge builders? Saying that that's the way it is is no explanation. If we stuck to that logic then we'd still have slavery, we'd believe the world was flat, we'd have no anti-biotics, or electricity rods etc. Instead we sought to improve our situation, morally and intellectually. But when it comes to money, we seem to accept that people who work hard deserve less money than those who don't, that the jobs people most want to do (footballer, actor, singer, model, etc) often come with *huge* remuneration, whilst those jobs that no one would day-dream about having (sewer worker, toilet cleaner, supermarket til assistant, etc) get paid very poorly. And we accept that some jobs pay royalties, whereas others don't, even when the situation is blatantly unfair.
Alternatively, the bridge builder (with appropriate license) can fund the building of that bridge entirely himself, and then charge a toll for everyone who crosses it, and take the risk personally of ever making his money back. Just like any musician making his own recording and offering it for sale.
That's hardly the same thing. Anyone can afford to make a song (well, for a little bit of cash, be it for a PC and equipment, or to rent a studio for the afternoon), but you can't just decide "I'll build a bridge here", even if you have the equipment, cement, metal structure, etc. Town planning and city councils are (I'd imagine) the only ones allowed to grant you the right to build a bridge.
And even so, why should the bridge builder have to do everything to get royalties (tolls)? The singer doesn't have to build the studio, install the equipment, make sure everything is safe, etc.
Are you going to argue that you have the right to run or drive over that bridge without paying the appropriate toll, simply because it's there?
No, and where did I imply otherwise?
'Entitlement' has nothing to do with the matter. Each party enters into production on the understanding that either a contract or the law will protect his intention to collect the appropriate revenue. You simply do not have the right to alter the terms under which he provides his services after the fact.
Yes, but tell me when, for example, a PC repair man has ever been offered a contract stipulating that he'd get paid x amount of money every time someone used a PC that he'd repaired. It wouldn't happen. So why should it be the case for someone who spends five hours painting a picture, then never touches it again, that he gets paid every time someone else copies the picture, for the next seventy-five years?
There's no obvious analogy to format-shifting there, so forget about that for the moment, but when you're talking about 'rights' and 'entitlements' that don't seem to fit with copyright law, you're mis-construing that you're trying to breach what is an inherent contract between provider and consumer. What you're actually doing is trying to assert 'rights' and 'entitlements' that you don't have.
No I'm not. I'm not saying that royalties should not exist, or that I, or anyone does or doesn't deserve them. I'm just saying that I've never seen a good explanation put forward why some professions do offer royalties, and some don't.
As for who makes 'more' or 'less' money, that's irrelevant. If you take the risk, you reap the rewards. A fireman who hypothetically agrees to be paid on a per-fire basis is taking a risk he'll never be paid for years, or that he'll hit some irregular but massive bonuses. But most would rather take a steady income for being on watch. Just as any musician can take a semi-steady (but low) income as piano-player in a hotel or session musician to a recording studio, or can instead risk it all on a few big hits as a songwriter or in a band.
"If you take the risk, you reap the rewards"? Seriously? Tell me what risks a singer is taking by recording a song? As far as I know, no one gets shot for making a bad record. Meanwhile, soldiers do risk getting shot, and their reward is a *lot* less money.
Again, you're not comparing like for like; you're being deliberately and highly selective to make an argument that completely falls apart when you consider the wider implications.
You'll find very few performing artists in this country whose income is more than the national average wage. Very few. But if they're taking the risk themselves, then a few who get very lucky are bound to make more; that's simply how the results of risk are distributed. Why does anyone deserve millions for winning the lottery, when so many people playing it get a pittance back? It's a stupid question with an obvious answer.
The reason for long copyright periods is for people who aren't netting millions to at least make some money back over the longer term. You're picking on a few lucky ones and using them as reason to deny an income to thousands who are struggling; you'd deny them a fair crack to punish a few who made it rich.
The question you have yet to answer, is what gives you the right to dictate the terms by which someone can offer something they've done to the marketplace? If they offer a recording of a performance for sale under particular conditions, you can choose to buy it or not buy it. What gives you the right to change the terms afterwards?
"If you take the risk, you reap the rewards"? Seriously? Tell me what risks a singer is taking by recording a song? As far as I know, no one gets shot for making a bad record. Meanwhile, soldiers do risk getting shot, and their reward is a *lot* less money.
ewgf, you seem to be trying to "measure" [artistic] creativity here, though, and to some extent the period of time that creativity has an effect. I get what you are trying to say but some of your comments remind me what it's like when stating how much to clients it'll cost them for me to do an illustration.
Someone making a musical performance and recording it is taking the risk that they can make money off that, when they could instead be doing a regular paid-by-the-hour job. That's the risk - going down the route of all-or-nothing compared to a steady income. They're already starting at a loss; more so if they have to pay the recording studio they use. Why shouldn't they receive as much as the market will pay up? No-one's forcing anyone to pay them a single penny if they don't want to.
why should singers get offered royalties but not bridge builders? Saying that that's the way it is is no explanation. If we stuck to that logic then we'd still have slavery, we'd believe the world was flat, we'd have no anti-biotics, or electricity rods etc. Instead we sought to improve our situation, morally and intellectually. But when it comes to money, we seem to accept that people who work hard deserve less money than those who don't, that the jobs people most want to do (footballer, actor, singer, model, etc) often come with *huge* remuneration, whilst those jobs that no one would day-dream about having (sewer worker, toilet cleaner, supermarket til assistant, etc) get paid very poorly. And we accept that some jobs pay royalties, whereas others don't, even when the situation is blatantly unfair.
Completely incoherent babble. A third of that I covered with the next paragraph; a third is just you stretching an analogy beyond breaking point, and the rest - how do you even get from royalties and tolls to slavery? You're just casting out for ever more random rubbish to spout off about, and it just smacks of desperation.
Look, you seem to think 'royalties' are something special that you can rule on one way or the other. All they are is a part-payment. You can write a book and sell it to a publisher for a flat fee, or you can take a chance and ask to be paid per individual sale. If you go for the flat fee, then the publisher takes the risk that he won't make his money back, or makes a killing if the book is a best-seller. If you agree to royalties, then you get your share of the risk and rewards. You get paid - what's the big difference if it comes in a lump sum or a series of little cheques? How on Earth do you think you can make a fixed amount of money on every book or musical recording or photograph or painting ever made? Someone has to take the risk and ammortise the cost over time. How can that not happen?
The only way it can not happen is if you make a law that everyone has to buy a copy of every book or record ever produced at a fixed price, or if the state takes control of every artwork and dictates its value, renumerates the artist from public funds, then distributes it amongst the people. Are those the kind of conditions you want to live under? As there's still a few countries you can move to that do just that.
Otherwise, you live in a free-market economy, where people can choose to offer goods to the public and the public choose to buy them or not buy them. No-one tells you at which point you've made too much money and now have to stop. Not in any business that takes risks up-front for later rewards. Why should entertainment be singled out for flat rates of pay? There are plenty of people I judge are over-paid, but while it's their own endeavours and private business that pays their wages I'm in no position to tell them otherwise.
If someone is paid by the council to build a bridge, at the end of it he hands it over to the council, they pay him out of the public purse, and allow the public (who paid for it) to walk over it freely all day and every day. If the bridge builder doesn't like those terms, then he doesn't take the contract and doesn't do the work. Just like you can commission someone to write or record a piece of music for you, then it's yours to do with as you please.
But that's obviously unfair - why should singers get offered royalties but not bridge builders?
If the terms of the contract stipulate that then that is how it is, the thing being equated here is if you build a bridge and then charge a toll is akin to royalty payments.
Saying that that's the way it is is no explanation. If we stuck to that logic then we'd still have slavery, we'd believe the world was flat, we'd have no anti-biotics, or electricity rods etc. Instead we sought to improve our situation, morally and intellectually. But when it comes to money, we seem to accept that people who work hard deserve less money than those who don't, that the jobs people most want to do (footballer, actor, singer, model, etc) often come with *huge* remuneration, whilst those jobs that no one would day-dream about having (sewer worker, toilet cleaner, supermarket til assistant, etc) get paid very poorly. And we accept that some jobs pay royalties, whereas others don't, even when the situation is blatantly unfair.
Actually what you are saying is equivalent to slavery, you want someone's work without having to pay for it, right? The rest of that is just clutching at straws and shows that really you aren't interested in understanding the issue from a reasonable perspective.
Alternatively, the bridge builder (with appropriate license) can fund the building of that bridge entirely himself, and then charge a toll for everyone who crosses it, and take the risk personally of ever making his money back. Just like any musician making his own recording and offering it for sale.
That's hardly the same thing. Anyone can afford to make a song (well, for a little bit of cash, be it for a PC and equipment, or to rent a studio for the afternoon), but you can't just decide "I'll build a bridge here", even if you have the equipment, cement, metal structure, etc. Town planning and city councils are (I'd imagine) the only ones allowed to grant you the right to build a bridge.
And even so, why should the bridge builder have to do everything to get royalties (tolls)? The singer doesn't have to build the studio, install the equipment, make sure everything is safe, etc.
Goodness, the circular logic is in overdrive, all of this is broken down in a contract and figured out and goes towards the final cost of any product.
Look, when it comes to a CD, check this out:
CDs have to be made with cases - charged by each CD
Inlays have to be printed and inserted - charged by each CD
Delivery to the store - charged by the shipment
Profit for the store - charged by each CD
So how do you figure out what an recording artist should get for their work amongst that? Is it a flat fee? All the above is secondary to the primary product, which is the music. But you are suggesting that if a CD sells 100 or 100,000,000 the artist should only get a flat fee, based on what? The CD pressing plant makes more for each sold, the printer makes more for each sold, the delivery guy gets more for each shipment and the store makes more profit from each sold.. etc. etc.. so I do not see how it can be viewed as unreasonable that the primary party for which the consumer purchases the product for gets a cut of each CD sold too.
So, in your estimation if a CD sells 1,000 how much should the artist get paid? How about 10,000? or 1,000,000? And how do you arrive at this figure ahead of knowing that it will sell the amounts above? What if it only sells 100?
'Entitlement' has nothing to do with the matter. Each party enters into production on the understanding that either a contract or the law will protect his intention to collect the appropriate revenue. You simply do not have the right to alter the terms under which he provides his services after the fact.
Yes, but tell me when, for example, a PC repair man has ever been offered a contract stipulating that he'd get paid x amount of money every time someone used a PC that he'd repaired. It wouldn't happen. So why should it be the case for someone who spends five hours painting a picture, then never touches it again, that he gets paid every time someone else copies the picture, for the next seventy-five years?
That's the terms of his contract, he could suggest a contract like you suggest. Going around in circles again..
There's no obvious analogy to format-shifting there, so forget about that for the moment, but when you're talking about 'rights' and 'entitlements' that don't seem to fit with copyright law, you're mis-construing that you're trying to breach what is an inherent contract between provider and consumer. What you're actually doing is trying to assert 'rights' and 'entitlements' that you don't have.
No I'm not. I'm not saying that royalties should not exist, or that I, or anyone does or doesn't deserve them. I'm just saying that I've never seen a good explanation put forward why some professions do offer royalties, and some don't.
Edited this part as I misread it. But royalties exist for a valid reason as explained above.
As for who makes 'more' or 'less' money, that's irrelevant. If you take the risk, you reap the rewards. A fireman who hypothetically agrees to be paid on a per-fire basis is taking a risk he'll never be paid for years, or that he'll hit some irregular but massive bonuses. But most would rather take a steady income for being on watch. Just as any musician can take a semi-steady (but low) income as piano-player in a hotel or session musician to a recording studio, or can instead risk it all on a few big hits as a songwriter or in a band.
"If you take the risk, you reap the rewards"? Seriously? Tell me what risks a singer is taking by recording a song? As far as I know, no one gets shot for making a bad record. Meanwhile, soldiers do risk getting shot, and their reward is a *lot* less money.
Risk isn't just physical, it's financial, emotional, all things.. but it's obvious that you picked this to make an irrelevant comparison. Musicians and artists need to pay mortgages and food etc.. too, if you want to make a career in this somehow these things need to be paid just like anyone else, or do they not deserve that opportunity because you see no worth in their endeavours?
But the fundamental problem for me with your stance is that you seemingly write off creative works as worthless, but yet want to have access to them nevertheless, thus proving that there is a demand, which in the marketplace is the fundamental measure of worth.
If you think it's all worthless, then just don't bother with it, but if you do want something, then pay up like everyone else! Or feel free to paint all the pictures you want to have, make the music you want to hear, the movies you want to see, the tv programs you want to watch etc… Surely you have the talent, but it's likely the thing that stops you is that you have a job that you have to work at to pay the bills and there just isn't enough time in the day..
> Are you going to argue that you have the right to run or drive over
> that bridge without paying the appropriate toll, simply because it's there?
No, and where did I imply otherwise?
By your argument, once the guy has made his money back from tolls, he's not entitled to make any more money from it, so he should open it up to the public.
Yes, but tell me when, for example, a PC repair man has ever been offered a contract stipulating that he'd get paid x amount of money every time someone used a PC that he'd repaired. It wouldn't happen.
No, but so what? It's a free country. He can stipulate that that's how he'll work, and his customers can choose to take him on or not. Alternatively, he may be on a fixed salary that pays him daily on retention whether he actually had anything to fix or not. Do you want to argue over how fair that arrangement is?
I'm just saying that I've never seen a good explanation put forward why some professions do offer royalties, and some don't.
Because it's a free market, and you can offer whatever you like to get someone to work. Why should salesmen get a bonus instead of a flat fee for selling stuff? Isn't their job to just sell stuff day in and day out? It's simply the economics of risk and reward, and of motivating people. If you can't see that that involves a variety of ways of renumerating different people then you're living in the wrong part of the world, as that's simply how this economy works.
Again, you're not comparing like for like; you're being deliberately and highly selective to make an argument that completely falls apart when you consider the wider implications.
You'll find very few performing artists in this country whose income is more than the national average wage. Very few. But if they're taking the risk themselves, then a few who get very lucky are bound to make more; that's simply how the results of risk are distributed. Why does anyone deserve millions for winning the lottery, when so many people playing it get a pittance back? It's a stupid question with an obvious answer.
So what is the answer? Just tell me why profession a deserves royalties, whilst profession b, which might be both more beneficial to mankind and also requires much more hard work and sacrifice?
And using the lottery to back up your argument is pointless. A lottery is random, we're talking about payment what are decided and set in contracts, not a random figure.
The reason for long copyright periods is for people who aren't netting millions to at least make some money back over the longer term. You're picking on a few lucky ones and using them as reason to deny an income to thousands who are struggling; you'd deny them a fair crack to punish a few who made it rich.
So by your "The reason for long copyright periods is for people who aren't netting millions to at least make some money back over the longer term" argument, people who get paid a pittance to clean toilets should also get (long term) royalties to bolster their income? No? Then why should singers do so?
[.quote]
The question you have yet to answer, is what gives you the right to dictate the terms by which someone can offer something they've done to the marketplace? If they offer a recording of a performance for sale under particular conditions, you can choose to buy it or not buy it. What gives you the right to change the terms afterwards?
I don't have the right, nor did I say I did. I'm just saying that the present method is unfair. I mean, imagine that royalties did not exist. So Meatloaf only gets paid when he actually sings Bat Out of Hell, Stephen King only got paid once for writing Salem's Lot, Harrison Ford only got paid once for acting in Blade Runner, etc.
Now imagine that Meat Loaf, Stephen King, Harrison Ford, etc, suddenly announced that they should not receive a one of payment for doing what they do, they should get 'royalties', this new idea whereby someone gets paid repeatedly, for decades afterwards, for something that they once did. How do you think other people would react?
Imagine if Harrison Ford then went on a chat show (say the Jonathan Ross Show) to explain his point of view. It would be like:
Ross: So Harrison, do you really think you should be paid multiple times for doing something once?
Ford: Of course.
Ross: Why?
Ford: I might only act in a film once, but people get the benefit of my performance millions of times over. Every time someone watches the film in the cinema, or on a DVD, then I should get paid.
Ross: So the bloke who fixed your car should be paid every time you then drive the car?
Ford: No, that's different.
Ross: How?
Ford: Erm... It just is.
Ross: No, come on. You get the benefit of his work every time you turn the ignition key and the car starts up. How's that different from you?
Ford: No, look I'm an artist.
Ross: So? Does that make your work more important than someone who saves lives?
Ford: Yes. No. Er...
Ross: And how long after you do something do you want to earn these 'royalties' for? A year? Two? Five?
Ford: [small voice] seventy-five years.
*The audience gasps*
Ford: [defensively] It's not just me. It should be writers, artists, actors, singers...
Ross: But not soldiers, firemen, life-guards, people who put their lives at risk.
Ford: Er no...
Ross: Why is that?
Ford: Er, well... Look Jonathan, I don't see why you're objecting, as the royalties rule would apply to you.
Ross: Would it? Blim-, er, I have to admit that it does seem to be a fair system, and I urge everyone to petition their MP to get this passed into law.
*The studio audience boo*
See what I'm saying? The system is fundamentally flawed, and we only accept it because we're used to it. If you think I'm wrong, then fine. But EXPLAIN to me why some people are entitled to royalties instead of being paid a one off fee.
ewgf, you seem to be trying to "measure" [artistic] creativity here, though, and to some extent the period of time that creativity has an effect. I get what you are trying to say but some of your comments remind me what it's like when stating how much to clients it'll cost them for me to do an illustration.
Granted creativity (and talent) isn't something that you can quantise, but that's beside the point. Take an actor who nowadays makes overall say a million pounds for film (including royalties). Now if the payment across the board was say £150 per day for an actor, no royalties and no actor earned more or less than that, do you think that that actor would say "I'm not going to do that, it's beneath me. I'll get a job sweeping streets instead, for half that money"?
Of course not. He'd still do the glamorous, and still (relatively) well paid job over 99.99% over jobs in the world. Royalties aren't necessary to make a film good.
The thing is - nobody has to pay for the CDs or book distribution - anyone can just share copies of the information. Copyright laws made sense when recording music and publishing text required the kind of investment that building a bridge does.
Historically, artists and creative types were patronised or had to work / perform like everyone else. There was a small period of history where mass publication ruled, and copyright law was relevant to this. Times are moving on and the laws aren't. The costs or 'risks' of producing and distributing are becoming ever more negligible. Either the laws will have to become ever more draconian and invasive to keep un-needed publishers in business, or things will have to change entirely.
You could argue that the current model motivates 'talent', and as Joefish implies, keeps standards up somehow. You could also argue that it just forces money to be directed towards labels and publishers to spend on advertising / brainwashing for the same lowest-common-denominator art, and dumbs our culture down.
Either way, I'm not too bothered. I'll get on with making my living in accordance with the status quo. Leave the legal stuff to lawyers and morals to philosophers.
Imagine if Harrison Ford then went on a chat show (say the Jonathan Ross Show) to explain his point of view. It would be like:
Ross: So Harrison, do you really think you should be paid multiple times for doing something once?
Ford: Of course.
Ross: Why?
Ford: I might only act in a film once, but people get the benefit of my performance millions of times over. Every time someone watches the film in the cinema, or on a DVD, then I should get paid.
Ross: So the bloke who fixed your car should be paid every time you then drive the car?
Ford: No, that's different.
Ross: How?
Ford: Erm... It just is.
Ross: No, come on. You get the benefit of his work every time you turn the ignition key and the car starts up. How's that different from you?
Ford: No, look I'm an artist.
Ross: So? Does that make your work more important than someone who saves lives?
Ford: Yes. No. Er...
Ross: And how long after you do something do you want to earn these 'royalties' for? A year? Two? Five?
Ford: [small voice] seventy-five years.
*The audience gasps*
Ford: [defensively] It's not just me. It should be writers, artists, actors, singers...
Ross: But not soldiers, firemen, life-guards, people who put their lives at risk.
Ford: Er no...
Ross: Why is that?
Ford: Er, well... Look Jonathan, I don't see why you're objecting, as the royalties rule would apply to you.
Ross: Would it? Blim-, er, I have to admit that it does seem to be a fair system, and I urge everyone to petition their MP to get this passed into law.
*The studio audience boo*
Oh my god! I'm not getting involved in the debate between you guys, but this is comedic gold, I laughed and almost spat beer on my screen. I'll admit you paint a good picture here ewgf :))
You're trying to force moral judgements on a situation where there are none. The economic model of this country does not make conscious decisions. People do, but everyone makes their own personal decision, and the result of that is unstable and unpredictable shifts from one thing to another, hence the random and fickle nature of commerce which everyone has to take risks in.
You attach an obsessive importance to royalties over other forms of remuneration, when the reality is it's just one end of a sliding scale. You can get paid once for writing a book, if you want. Or you can get a fixed salary as an in-house writer. Or you can take an advance and a small amount for each copy sold. Or you can take no fixed payment and just a share of the profit. It's a perfectly free choice. If someone offers payment on those terms, or you seek payment of those terms and can make it work, then you're free to choose. But you seem to think you can say "this form of remuneration offends me and I therefore dub it immoral". Or that just because one sort of work offers a choice of methods of remuneration and another is more fixed, that there's something inherently 'wrong' with the world. Again, you have a completely free choice of what you do and who you work for. If a load of people choose en masse to do one thing and one alone, it's not for you to tell them otherwise.
And again, you rather blindly make your own counter-arguments. Most major movie actors aren't paid royalties; they get paid a one-off fee. Most of the cast of Star Wars got paid naff-all; one of them chose to be paid in a share of the profits and got very rich off the back of it - the others - including Harrison Ford - didn't! It's the studio and distributor, collecting the till takings from the cinema, who is taking the 'royalties', but then they're the ones who are millions in debt for making the movie and need to make their money back.
And the mechanic gets paid once for fixing the car. Just like I pay once for a DVD. No-one makes more money if I watch it a second or a third time. So your example just invalidates itself - again.
You're trying to force moral judgements on a situation where there are none. The economic model of this country does not make conscious decisions. People do, but everyone makes their own personal decision, and the result of that is unstable and unpredictable shifts from one thing to another, hence the random and fickle nature of commerce which everyone has to take risks in.
You attach an obsessive importance to royalties over other forms of remuneration, when the reality is it's just one end of a sliding scale.[/quote]
First of all, I'm not obsessed by it. Arguing a point does not make you obsessed by it. Just answer one question, that is all I have been asking:
Why should one person get royalties and not another. Just answer me that. Because I have yet to see a justification for it.
You can get paid once for writing a book, if you want. Or you can get a fixed salary as an in-house writer. Or you can take an advance and a small amount for each copy sold. Or you can take no fixed payment and just a share of the profit. It's a perfectly free choice.
Yes, but you can't get a job building a staircase on a royalty basis. Why do some professions have this option, and not others?
If someone offers payment on those terms, or you seek payment of those terms and can make it work, then you're free to choose. But you seem to think you can say "this form of remuneration offends me and I therefore dub it immoral".
No I don't. And please don't post any more strawmen arguments, just answer the question. Though I suspect that if you could, then you would have by now.
Or that just because one sort of work offers a choice of methods of remuneration and another is more fixed, that there's something inherently 'wrong' with the world. Again, you have a completely free choice of what you do and who you work for. If a load of people choose en masse to do one thing and one alone, it's not for you to tell them otherwise.
No, and those people who argued against slavery were total ******s who should have minded their own business, I suppose. And those ****s who stopped kids being sent up chimneys had no moral right to object...
It IS for people to speak up if they think something is unfair.
And again, you rather blindly make your own counter-arguments. Most major movie actors aren't paid royalties; they get paid a one-off fee. Most of the cast of Star Wars got paid naff-all; one of them chose to be paid in a share of the profits and got very rich off the back of it - the others - including Harrison Ford - didn't! It's the studio and distributor, collecting the till takings from the cinema, who is taking the 'royalties', but then they're the ones who are millions in debt for making the movie and need to make their money back.
Again you dodge my question. Yes, there are different forms of payment for artists, but I never said that there weren't. But why should they, or some of them, have the option of royalties when others have not.
And the mechanic gets paid once for fixing the car. Just like I pay once for a DVD. No-one makes more money if I watch it a second or a third time. So your example just invalidates itself - again.
No it doesn't. Though you might wish it did. I was talking about earnings, not payments, but since strawmen seem to be all you can post here, then I shouldn't be surprised I suppose
Tell you what, Joefish, re: that Harrison Ford/Jonathan Ross skit I posted, put yourself in Harrison Ford's position, and post what you (as him) would say to Jonathan Ross and the studio audience to justify the fact that you (Ford) should get royalties whilst the audience (made up of taxi drivers, nurses, shop assistants, fork lift truck drivers, etc) should just get a one off payment.
Ross: So Harrison, do you really think you should be paid multiple times for doing something once?
Ford: Of course.
Wrong, it's one payment spread out pro-rated based upon sales. Salesmen in many industries only work on commission, they only got one sale, so why should a salesman get 2% of selling 100,000 as opposed to 100?
Or how about this, a mortgage payment spread out over a number of years, is the bank asking to be paid for another mortgage every month?
I see something, but not same thing as you desperately are trying to convince us of. No, what you put up was the classic strawman fallacy argument, a vague hypothetical situation contrived to back up your erroneous logic based on an inability to see anything beyond your own desire to get all the good, but worthless (in your 'opinion'), stuff for free.
I start to wonder, psychologically speaking, that the situation is a classic rationalisation, that if you can believe that all the movies, music, games and stuff you downloaded for free is worthless, then somehow you've done nothing wrong.
The reality is that companies are closing that pay not only artists, but accountants, builders, office staff, cleaners etc.. the knock on effect is a reality, and burying your head in the sand and throwing up random nonsense does nothing to change that.
I think you are part of a mass delusion that says that intellectual property rights are not valid, and that view propagates an self-image that somehow you are all Robin Hood characters at the worst and champions of freedom at best, believing that somehow all this mass downloading and sharing has no effect whatsoever on real people. But it does.
The system is fundamentally flawed, and we only accept it because we're used to it. If you think I'm wrong, then fine. But EXPLAIN to me why some people are entitled to royalties instead of being paid a one off fee.
The replies have done nothing but explain… but evidently pebkac.
Accusing me of straw-man arguments simply for pointing out the great gaping flaws of reason in yours is pretty low.
So, Harrison Ford goes on TV and says, "You know what, instead of being paid 80 million upfront for my next movie, I'm going to be paid a few pence each time a cinema ticket is sold or someone buys a DVD. So if it tanks I get naff all, and if it's a hit a get a big fat bonus". And everyone thinks, fair enough. Take a chance, confidence in your own abilities. And you stand up at the back of the audience and shout "but that's not fair", and everyone stares at you uncomprehending, followed by which you're quietly led from the studio because no-one whatsoever agrees with you.
You ask me to explain why one job pays one way, and another job another. But it's an impossible question to answer, because every job, and everyone who does one, is different, and everyone is motivated and views risk and appraises their own abilities differently. You might as well ask why there are different styles of music or colours in the rainbow - because they can. You're the one that wants something that exists to not exist anymore. You need to make a coherent argument to stop it.
Ross: So Harrison, do you really think you should be paid multiple times for doing something once?
Ford: Of course.
Wrong, it's one payment spread out pro-rated based upon sales. Salesmen in many industries only work on commission, they only got one sale, so why should a salesman get 2% of selling 100,000 as opposed to 100?.
Have you actually read anything I've posted?
Or how about this, a mortgage payment spread out over a number of years, is the bank asking to be paid for another mortgage every month?.
Look, since Joefish has made it perfectly clear that he can't answer my question (though he won't admit it), why don'y you? Go back, read my posts, and ANSWER MY QUESTION.
I see something, but not same thing as you desperately are trying to convince us of. No, what you put up was the classic strawman fallacy argument, a vague hypothetical situation contrived to back up your erroneous logic based on an inability to see anything beyond your own desire to get all the good, but worthless (in your 'opinion'), stuff for free..[/quote]
For ****s sake, I am not saying that at all. I'm asking a question, which no one will answer because they all know that there's no answer.
I start to wonder, psychologically speaking, that the situation is a classic rationalisation, that if you can believe that all the movies, music, games and stuff you downloaded for free is worthless, then somehow you've done nothing wrong. .
I don't think that, and it wasn't my point at all. Please try to understand that you have to read and understand what an adult writes, before you can properly judge them.
.[/quote]
The reality is that companies are closing that pay not only artists, but accountants, builders, office staff, cleaners etc.. the knock on effect is a reality, and burying your head in the sand and throwing up random nonsense does nothing to change that. .[/quote]
I never mentioned anything about redundancies, the recession, job losses, etc, as you'd klnow if you'd read my posts.
Do me a favour and don't reply to any more of my posts. I don't have a high tolerance for fools at the best of times, and these past few weeks have not been good.
I think you are part of a mass delusion that says that intellectual property rights are not valid, and that view propagates an self-image that somehow you are all Robin Hood characters at the worst and champions of freedom at best, believing that somehow all this mass downloading and sharing has no effect whatsoever on real people. But it does..
The system is fundamentally flawed, and we only accept it because we're used to it. If you think I'm wrong, then fine. But EXPLAIN to me why some people are entitled to royalties instead of being paid a one off fee.
The replies have done nothing but explain… but evidently pebkac.[/quote]
No no one has. As you'd understand if you had the reading comprehension of a ten year old. And if they had explained it, then Joefish would have repeated the post, makng sure I saw it, instead of chickening out because he knew he couldn't justify it.
Royalties exist because it's one way of paying people for something that only makes its real value back over a long period. That's all there is to it. There's no morality in it, and not all jobs generate revenue like that, so they don't all pay like that.
But somehow I think that even the most obvious and simple explanation isn't going to make the slightest difference.
Wow, I come back to delete my last post (it's pointless arguing, and even though what I said was right, I don't want to cause bad feeling, WOS is low enough at the moment as it is), and of course Foggy has imposed his own warped view of things. Big surprise.
Nobody knows what your question is because all you seem to post about is aliens, bridges and slavery.
You know damn well what my question was, but you knew you couldn't answer, just as you couldn't in the thread from a while back.
One thing I do know for certain is that if you continue to insult members of the forum then you will be banned permanently.
Some mods would say that Fizz's clearly out of place insistence that I was only trying to justify being a thief was an insult, and would be cause for a warning. Some mods.
Whatever you do, how you get paid tends to fall into one of two categories:
1) High financial risk, higher financial reward. This covers things like consultancy, royalties, commission based work etc. Essentially you are trading the possibility of getting next to nothing on the fact that if you do well, you'll earn significantly more.
2) Low financial risk, lower financial reward. Typically salaried jobs or fixed hourly rates, for example. You don't earn as much, but you know what's going to be in you bank at the end of the month. You've traded potentially better earnings for the safety of knowing how much money you'll have at any given time.
And that's all there is to it. Major actors earn big bucks because, if their film flops, they risk having spent a lot of time on a project which won't earn them anything.
Oh and to specifically answer the question about soldiers, how many do you think would go out to fight on the condition that how well they'll get paid depends on how many wars we win?
Err, sorry but you are all wrong. It should be illegal for anyone to be paid for any creative works. All this playing of computer games, watching movies and TV, listening to music. Reading books and magazines for entertainment... It's all wrong. You should all be out in the fields planting carrots.
! Standby alert !
“There are four lights!”
Step up to red alert. Sir, are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb!
Looking forward to summer in Somerset later in the year :)
Comments
But that's obviously unfair - why should singers get offered royalties but not bridge builders? Saying that that's the way it is is no explanation. If we stuck to that logic then we'd still have slavery, we'd believe the world was flat, we'd have no anti-biotics, or electricity rods etc. Instead we sought to improve our situation, morally and intellectually. But when it comes to money, we seem to accept that people who work hard deserve less money than those who don't, that the jobs people most want to do (footballer, actor, singer, model, etc) often come with *huge* remuneration, whilst those jobs that no one would day-dream about having (sewer worker, toilet cleaner, supermarket til assistant, etc) get paid very poorly. And we accept that some jobs pay royalties, whereas others don't, even when the situation is blatantly unfair.
That's hardly the same thing. Anyone can afford to make a song (well, for a little bit of cash, be it for a PC and equipment, or to rent a studio for the afternoon), but you can't just decide "I'll build a bridge here", even if you have the equipment, cement, metal structure, etc. Town planning and city councils are (I'd imagine) the only ones allowed to grant you the right to build a bridge.
And even so, why should the bridge builder have to do everything to get royalties (tolls)? The singer doesn't have to build the studio, install the equipment, make sure everything is safe, etc.
No, and where did I imply otherwise?
Yes, but tell me when, for example, a PC repair man has ever been offered a contract stipulating that he'd get paid x amount of money every time someone used a PC that he'd repaired. It wouldn't happen. So why should it be the case for someone who spends five hours painting a picture, then never touches it again, that he gets paid every time someone else copies the picture, for the next seventy-five years?
No I'm not. I'm not saying that royalties should not exist, or that I, or anyone does or doesn't deserve them. I'm just saying that I've never seen a good explanation put forward why some professions do offer royalties, and some don't.
"If you take the risk, you reap the rewards"? Seriously? Tell me what risks a singer is taking by recording a song? As far as I know, no one gets shot for making a bad record. Meanwhile, soldiers do risk getting shot, and their reward is a *lot* less money.
You'll find very few performing artists in this country whose income is more than the national average wage. Very few. But if they're taking the risk themselves, then a few who get very lucky are bound to make more; that's simply how the results of risk are distributed. Why does anyone deserve millions for winning the lottery, when so many people playing it get a pittance back? It's a stupid question with an obvious answer.
The reason for long copyright periods is for people who aren't netting millions to at least make some money back over the longer term. You're picking on a few lucky ones and using them as reason to deny an income to thousands who are struggling; you'd deny them a fair crack to punish a few who made it rich.
The question you have yet to answer, is what gives you the right to dictate the terms by which someone can offer something they've done to the marketplace? If they offer a recording of a performance for sale under particular conditions, you can choose to buy it or not buy it. What gives you the right to change the terms afterwards?
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
Tupac.
Completely incoherent babble. A third of that I covered with the next paragraph; a third is just you stretching an analogy beyond breaking point, and the rest - how do you even get from royalties and tolls to slavery? You're just casting out for ever more random rubbish to spout off about, and it just smacks of desperation.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
The only way it can not happen is if you make a law that everyone has to buy a copy of every book or record ever produced at a fixed price, or if the state takes control of every artwork and dictates its value, renumerates the artist from public funds, then distributes it amongst the people. Are those the kind of conditions you want to live under? As there's still a few countries you can move to that do just that.
Otherwise, you live in a free-market economy, where people can choose to offer goods to the public and the public choose to buy them or not buy them. No-one tells you at which point you've made too much money and now have to stop. Not in any business that takes risks up-front for later rewards. Why should entertainment be singled out for flat rates of pay? There are plenty of people I judge are over-paid, but while it's their own endeavours and private business that pays their wages I'm in no position to tell them otherwise.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
If the terms of the contract stipulate that then that is how it is, the thing being equated here is if you build a bridge and then charge a toll is akin to royalty payments.
Actually what you are saying is equivalent to slavery, you want someone's work without having to pay for it, right? The rest of that is just clutching at straws and shows that really you aren't interested in understanding the issue from a reasonable perspective.
Goodness, the circular logic is in overdrive, all of this is broken down in a contract and figured out and goes towards the final cost of any product.
Look, when it comes to a CD, check this out:
CDs have to be made with cases - charged by each CD
Inlays have to be printed and inserted - charged by each CD
Delivery to the store - charged by the shipment
Profit for the store - charged by each CD
So how do you figure out what an recording artist should get for their work amongst that? Is it a flat fee? All the above is secondary to the primary product, which is the music. But you are suggesting that if a CD sells 100 or 100,000,000 the artist should only get a flat fee, based on what? The CD pressing plant makes more for each sold, the printer makes more for each sold, the delivery guy gets more for each shipment and the store makes more profit from each sold.. etc. etc.. so I do not see how it can be viewed as unreasonable that the primary party for which the consumer purchases the product for gets a cut of each CD sold too.
So, in your estimation if a CD sells 1,000 how much should the artist get paid? How about 10,000? or 1,000,000? And how do you arrive at this figure ahead of knowing that it will sell the amounts above? What if it only sells 100?
The implication is derived from the very logical comparison being made.
That's the terms of his contract, he could suggest a contract like you suggest. Going around in circles again..
Edited this part as I misread it. But royalties exist for a valid reason as explained above.
Risk isn't just physical, it's financial, emotional, all things.. but it's obvious that you picked this to make an irrelevant comparison. Musicians and artists need to pay mortgages and food etc.. too, if you want to make a career in this somehow these things need to be paid just like anyone else, or do they not deserve that opportunity because you see no worth in their endeavours?
But the fundamental problem for me with your stance is that you seemingly write off creative works as worthless, but yet want to have access to them nevertheless, thus proving that there is a demand, which in the marketplace is the fundamental measure of worth.
If you think it's all worthless, then just don't bother with it, but if you do want something, then pay up like everyone else! Or feel free to paint all the pictures you want to have, make the music you want to hear, the movies you want to see, the tv programs you want to watch etc… Surely you have the talent, but it's likely the thing that stops you is that you have a job that you have to work at to pay the bills and there just isn't enough time in the day..
No, but so what? It's a free country. He can stipulate that that's how he'll work, and his customers can choose to take him on or not. Alternatively, he may be on a fixed salary that pays him daily on retention whether he actually had anything to fix or not. Do you want to argue over how fair that arrangement is?
Because it's a free market, and you can offer whatever you like to get someone to work. Why should salesmen get a bonus instead of a flat fee for selling stuff? Isn't their job to just sell stuff day in and day out? It's simply the economics of risk and reward, and of motivating people. If you can't see that that involves a variety of ways of renumerating different people then you're living in the wrong part of the world, as that's simply how this economy works.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
I don't have the right, nor did I say I did. I'm just saying that the present method is unfair. I mean, imagine that royalties did not exist. So Meatloaf only gets paid when he actually sings Bat Out of Hell, Stephen King only got paid once for writing Salem's Lot, Harrison Ford only got paid once for acting in Blade Runner, etc.
Now imagine that Meat Loaf, Stephen King, Harrison Ford, etc, suddenly announced that they should not receive a one of payment for doing what they do, they should get 'royalties', this new idea whereby someone gets paid repeatedly, for decades afterwards, for something that they once did. How do you think other people would react?
Imagine if Harrison Ford then went on a chat show (say the Jonathan Ross Show) to explain his point of view. It would be like:
Ross: So Harrison, do you really think you should be paid multiple times for doing something once?
Ford: Of course.
Ross: Why?
Ford: I might only act in a film once, but people get the benefit of my performance millions of times over. Every time someone watches the film in the cinema, or on a DVD, then I should get paid.
Ross: So the bloke who fixed your car should be paid every time you then drive the car?
Ford: No, that's different.
Ross: How?
Ford: Erm... It just is.
Ross: No, come on. You get the benefit of his work every time you turn the ignition key and the car starts up. How's that different from you?
Ford: No, look I'm an artist.
Ross: So? Does that make your work more important than someone who saves lives?
Ford: Yes. No. Er...
Ross: And how long after you do something do you want to earn these 'royalties' for? A year? Two? Five?
Ford: [small voice] seventy-five years.
*The audience gasps*
Ford: [defensively] It's not just me. It should be writers, artists, actors, singers...
Ross: But not soldiers, firemen, life-guards, people who put their lives at risk.
Ford: Er no...
Ross: Why is that?
Ford: Er, well... Look Jonathan, I don't see why you're objecting, as the royalties rule would apply to you.
Ross: Would it? Blim-, er, I have to admit that it does seem to be a fair system, and I urge everyone to petition their MP to get this passed into law.
*The studio audience boo*
See what I'm saying? The system is fundamentally flawed, and we only accept it because we're used to it. If you think I'm wrong, then fine. But EXPLAIN to me why some people are entitled to royalties instead of being paid a one off fee.
Granted creativity (and talent) isn't something that you can quantise, but that's beside the point. Take an actor who nowadays makes overall say a million pounds for film (including royalties). Now if the payment across the board was say £150 per day for an actor, no royalties and no actor earned more or less than that, do you think that that actor would say "I'm not going to do that, it's beneath me. I'll get a job sweeping streets instead, for half that money"?
Of course not. He'd still do the glamorous, and still (relatively) well paid job over 99.99% over jobs in the world. Royalties aren't necessary to make a film good.
Historically, artists and creative types were patronised or had to work / perform like everyone else. There was a small period of history where mass publication ruled, and copyright law was relevant to this. Times are moving on and the laws aren't. The costs or 'risks' of producing and distributing are becoming ever more negligible. Either the laws will have to become ever more draconian and invasive to keep un-needed publishers in business, or things will have to change entirely.
You could argue that the current model motivates 'talent', and as Joefish implies, keeps standards up somehow. You could also argue that it just forces money to be directed towards labels and publishers to spend on advertising / brainwashing for the same lowest-common-denominator art, and dumbs our culture down.
Either way, I'm not too bothered. I'll get on with making my living in accordance with the status quo. Leave the legal stuff to lawyers and morals to philosophers.
Oh my god! I'm not getting involved in the debate between you guys, but this is comedic gold, I laughed and almost spat beer on my screen. I'll admit you paint a good picture here ewgf :))
I could really imagine this happening =))
You attach an obsessive importance to royalties over other forms of remuneration, when the reality is it's just one end of a sliding scale. You can get paid once for writing a book, if you want. Or you can get a fixed salary as an in-house writer. Or you can take an advance and a small amount for each copy sold. Or you can take no fixed payment and just a share of the profit. It's a perfectly free choice. If someone offers payment on those terms, or you seek payment of those terms and can make it work, then you're free to choose. But you seem to think you can say "this form of remuneration offends me and I therefore dub it immoral". Or that just because one sort of work offers a choice of methods of remuneration and another is more fixed, that there's something inherently 'wrong' with the world. Again, you have a completely free choice of what you do and who you work for. If a load of people choose en masse to do one thing and one alone, it's not for you to tell them otherwise.
And again, you rather blindly make your own counter-arguments. Most major movie actors aren't paid royalties; they get paid a one-off fee. Most of the cast of Star Wars got paid naff-all; one of them chose to be paid in a share of the profits and got very rich off the back of it - the others - including Harrison Ford - didn't! It's the studio and distributor, collecting the till takings from the cinema, who is taking the 'royalties', but then they're the ones who are millions in debt for making the movie and need to make their money back.
And the mechanic gets paid once for fixing the car. Just like I pay once for a DVD. No-one makes more money if I watch it a second or a third time. So your example just invalidates itself - again.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
First of all, I'm not obsessed by it. Arguing a point does not make you obsessed by it. Just answer one question, that is all I have been asking:
Why should one person get royalties and not another. Just answer me that. Because I have yet to see a justification for it.
Yes, but you can't get a job building a staircase on a royalty basis. Why do some professions have this option, and not others?
No I don't. And please don't post any more strawmen arguments, just answer the question. Though I suspect that if you could, then you would have by now.
No, and those people who argued against slavery were total ******s who should have minded their own business, I suppose. And those ****s who stopped kids being sent up chimneys had no moral right to object...
It IS for people to speak up if they think something is unfair.
Again you dodge my question. Yes, there are different forms of payment for artists, but I never said that there weren't. But why should they, or some of them, have the option of royalties when others have not.
No it doesn't. Though you might wish it did. I was talking about earnings, not payments, but since strawmen seem to be all you can post here, then I shouldn't be surprised I suppose
Tell you what, Joefish, re: that Harrison Ford/Jonathan Ross skit I posted, put yourself in Harrison Ford's position, and post what you (as him) would say to Jonathan Ross and the studio audience to justify the fact that you (Ford) should get royalties whilst the audience (made up of taxi drivers, nurses, shop assistants, fork lift truck drivers, etc) should just get a one off payment.
Seriously, please post your argument.
Wrong, it's one payment spread out pro-rated based upon sales. Salesmen in many industries only work on commission, they only got one sale, so why should a salesman get 2% of selling 100,000 as opposed to 100?
Or how about this, a mortgage payment spread out over a number of years, is the bank asking to be paid for another mortgage every month?
I see something, but not same thing as you desperately are trying to convince us of. No, what you put up was the classic strawman fallacy argument, a vague hypothetical situation contrived to back up your erroneous logic based on an inability to see anything beyond your own desire to get all the good, but worthless (in your 'opinion'), stuff for free.
I start to wonder, psychologically speaking, that the situation is a classic rationalisation, that if you can believe that all the movies, music, games and stuff you downloaded for free is worthless, then somehow you've done nothing wrong.
The reality is that companies are closing that pay not only artists, but accountants, builders, office staff, cleaners etc.. the knock on effect is a reality, and burying your head in the sand and throwing up random nonsense does nothing to change that.
I think you are part of a mass delusion that says that intellectual property rights are not valid, and that view propagates an self-image that somehow you are all Robin Hood characters at the worst and champions of freedom at best, believing that somehow all this mass downloading and sharing has no effect whatsoever on real people. But it does.
The replies have done nothing but explain… but evidently pebkac.
So, Harrison Ford goes on TV and says, "You know what, instead of being paid 80 million upfront for my next movie, I'm going to be paid a few pence each time a cinema ticket is sold or someone buys a DVD. So if it tanks I get naff all, and if it's a hit a get a big fat bonus". And everyone thinks, fair enough. Take a chance, confidence in your own abilities. And you stand up at the back of the audience and shout "but that's not fair", and everyone stares at you uncomprehending, followed by which you're quietly led from the studio because no-one whatsoever agrees with you.
You ask me to explain why one job pays one way, and another job another. But it's an impossible question to answer, because every job, and everyone who does one, is different, and everyone is motivated and views risk and appraises their own abilities differently. You might as well ask why there are different styles of music or colours in the rainbow - because they can. You're the one that wants something that exists to not exist anymore. You need to make a coherent argument to stop it.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
Have you actually read anything I've posted?
Look, since Joefish has made it perfectly clear that he can't answer my question (though he won't admit it), why don'y you? Go back, read my posts, and ANSWER MY QUESTION.
I see something, but not same thing as you desperately are trying to convince us of. No, what you put up was the classic strawman fallacy argument, a vague hypothetical situation contrived to back up your erroneous logic based on an inability to see anything beyond your own desire to get all the good, but worthless (in your 'opinion'), stuff for free..[/quote]
For ****s sake, I am not saying that at all. I'm asking a question, which no one will answer because they all know that there's no answer.
I don't think that, and it wasn't my point at all. Please try to understand that you have to read and understand what an adult writes, before you can properly judge them.
.[/quote]
The reality is that companies are closing that pay not only artists, but accountants, builders, office staff, cleaners etc.. the knock on effect is a reality, and burying your head in the sand and throwing up random nonsense does nothing to change that. .[/quote]
I never mentioned anything about redundancies, the recession, job losses, etc, as you'd klnow if you'd read my posts.
Do me a favour and don't reply to any more of my posts. I don't have a high tolerance for fools at the best of times, and these past few weeks have not been good.
I never said that. Cretin.
The replies have done nothing but explain… but evidently pebkac.[/quote]
No no one has. As you'd understand if you had the reading comprehension of a ten year old. And if they had explained it, then Joefish would have repeated the post, makng sure I saw it, instead of chickening out because he knew he couldn't justify it.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/jck.gif
One thing I do know for certain is that if you continue to insult members of the forum then you will be banned permanently.
But somehow I think that even the most obvious and simple explanation isn't going to make the slightest difference.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
1) High financial risk, higher financial reward. This covers things like consultancy, royalties, commission based work etc. Essentially you are trading the possibility of getting next to nothing on the fact that if you do well, you'll earn significantly more.
2) Low financial risk, lower financial reward. Typically salaried jobs or fixed hourly rates, for example. You don't earn as much, but you know what's going to be in you bank at the end of the month. You've traded potentially better earnings for the safety of knowing how much money you'll have at any given time.
And that's all there is to it. Major actors earn big bucks because, if their film flops, they risk having spent a lot of time on a project which won't earn them anything.
Mark
Repair Guides. Spanish Hardware site.
WoS - can't download? Info here...
former Meulie Spectrum Archive but no longer available :-(
Spectranet: the TNFS directory thread
! Standby alert !
“There are four lights!”
Step up to red alert. Sir, are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb!
Looking forward to summer in Somerset later in the year :)