Digital Britain Minister Insists No One Is Creative If They Don't Earn Money

from the oh-really,-now? dept

Andrew Dubber does a nice job taking Digital Britain minister Stephen Timms to task for claiming that "If people can't be paid for their creativity, they're going to stop being creative."
On the face of it, that's an incredibly stupid thing to say, and is amazingly offensive to the vast majority of people in the world who are creative amateurs.

Note: I did not say "the vast amount of creative people in the world who are amateurs", though this would also be true. Most people in the world do creative things for no money. The vast majority of music in the world is made for cultural reasons that are not economic. To suggest that the only reason to be creative is with the expectation of payment is utterly offensive.

Beyond stupidity
But it's not just stupid and offensive -- it's corrupt. It's so manifestly and obviously false that it could not possibly be the considered belief of a rational human being.

The alternative (and indeed, the only plausible conclusion) is that it's a deliberate falsehood in order to support something that is utterly indefensible when examined with any intellectual honesty.

It's the direct result of corporate lobbying, it's entirely disingenuous, and it's a bald-faced lie echoed to support the interests of powerful and moneyed multinational organisations.
He goes on to suggest that a statement like that, so revealing in how Timms views the world, should get Timms fired, as he's basically admitting that he's only there to protect corporate interests, rather than actual creativity.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Emo the Libertarian (profile), Feb 15th, 2010 @ 9:54am

    Suprising how???

    Sorry but as is clearly evident in Europe (for the most part), England (especially), and America (even more than England)... The politicians and thier toadies are here for one thing only, protect the corporate interests of their masters, or turn things into a socialist welfare state... None of them (as is supposed to be the case in this enlightented time) represent the people or the interest of the people just Power and MONEY...

    And any comments as such that some of the dimwitted will swallow is good enough... thus the big push to censor and control the interweb, the facts come out and dont go away, which shines lights where "they" would rather people not look.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Hulser (profile), Feb 15th, 2010 @ 10:07am

    Art precedes payments

    "If people can't be paid for their creativity, they're going to stop being creative."

    Not that I can top the "Dubber Timms Drubbing", but the other item that reveals Timms' statement as utter falsehood is the simple fact that artwork was around long before people received formal payments. Cavemen didn't have lawyers to ensure that the copyrights on their cavepaintings were protected. Humans create art because it's part of what makes us human.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 10:20am

    Re: Art precedes payments

    Politicians and lawyers are really starting to erode artistic expression. Do you know what's more important than artistic expression? That's right!

    Money. Sad but true.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 10:20am

    Re: Art precedes payments

    "If people can't be paid for their creativity, they're going to stop being creative."

    2 words for you, "Burning Man"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Feb 15th, 2010 @ 10:30am

    Sure.. lol, whatever.

    That's obviously the way a politcian would look at it though: don't do ANYTHING without a buck attached.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    DS, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 10:32am

    That's not a creative way of looking at things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 10:33am

    Does he insist the world is flat, too?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Joe, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 10:38am

    hmmmm, I actually didn't think much of that post by Dubber. It was pretty heavy on the vitriol and light on logical points. I much prefer methodical dissection of logical flaws then screams about idiocy. Oddly, it's one of the reasons I enjoy this blog.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 10:51am

    Re:

    True Joe, but it can be difficult to formulate a solid logical reply to a statement as blatantly wrong as this one, his premise is essentially:
    "All humans are greedy selfish sociopaths. No one would ever do anything unless they profit directly from it."

    Its like trying to formulate a more elegant response to "the sky is green" than "look at the sky you idiot, its not green"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    rjk (profile), Feb 15th, 2010 @ 11:00am

    Re:

    yes, because only the IP maximalists and their paid for political partners are allowed arguments that are ALL hysterics and NO logic, reason or evidence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    STUPID GOVT is this for real?, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 11:26am

    TWO WORDS

    OPEN SOURCE

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    The Buzz Saw (profile), Feb 15th, 2010 @ 11:33am

    Wow

    My buddy and I must be clinically insane. We are working on a computer game without pay or even promise of pay. We both love to program, and we love game design. Sure, we will try to monetize it at its completion, but we fully expect the possibility of scoring zero profits. It truly is just a labor of love.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 11:53am

    Creativity

    Someone should point them to all the sites out there with creative communities. I personally visit AllPoetry where thousands of people write songs, poems, stories, etc. all for free. Certainly they own a copyright on their work, but they write it and place it on the site for everyone to read for free.

    Not to mention all the gaming mod sites. Thousands and thousands of very creative game levels for all sorts of games, made by fans, for fans.

    I would venture to say that the majority of creative expression in the world is NOT done for money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 15th, 2010 @ 11:59am

    Re: Wow

    Need a writer for the storyline? ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Ed Woychowsky, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 12:23pm

    Re: Art precedes payments

    That explains why nobody is doing cave painting any more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Henry Emrich (profile), Feb 15th, 2010 @ 1:43pm

    This is what happens when creativity is allowed to become a specialist "profession", separate from the culture surrounding it (and making it possible.)

    We've just gone through nearly a century where the model was:

    1. A small elite of super-rich "celebrities" about whom you couldn't help but know.

    2. A much larger non-elite of artists/creative folks who wwere not motivated *exclusively* by the financial or "fame" attendant to #1 above.

    3. A small sub-set of non-"Celebrities" who nonetheless aspired to/lusted after the "celebrity" lifestyle relentlessly pimped by the beneficiaries of #1 above.

    4. The rest of the populace, who were relegated to the status of mere "consumers" -- as opposed to PARTICIPANTS --- in the culture which surrounded them.
    The "consumer" was merely required to pay whatever the Elite could gouge price-wise, and passively accept any/all restrictions the Elite could manage to buy/bribe from their cronies -- whether they took the form of ever-longer copy"right" terms, more draconian abrogations of "fair use", etc.

    The *real* danger posed by the Internet, Creative commons, remix culture, etc. -- is that in an environment of ubiquitous creativity ("User-generated content", remixes, mashups, etc.) the specious distinction between "professional" artists and "amateurs" doesn't make any sense, and the only way they can retain such a specious dichotomy is by defining it all in terms of whether you get "paid" or not. (Can't really claim that "professional" musicians draw *all* of their income from music, either, since they sell T-shirts and fan memorabilia and such.)

    Interestingly, with the advent of micro-payment or any of the other business-models Masnick and others have been highlighting, it will become *much* easier to "get paid" for participating in culture -- with all that such mass participation implies. (The "new paradigm" won't really *have* the "big megaphone"-type celebrities, so the mindless levels of opulence -- the "celebrity lifestyle" -- probably won't be possible.

    But, personally, If 100 artists can manage to get 20,000/yr. where 1 "mega-star" got 2 million -- I'd consider the culture *and* creators -- to be far "richer".

    Awaiting TAM's predictable defense of the "celebrity lifestyle", or denunciation of "remix culture" as uncreative, or some other specious nonsense...

    (Maybe we'll be lucky, and find out he spilled his "morning coffee" on his computer....)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Simon, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 1:46pm

    A widely held view in Europe

    Consider this

    "Copyright is the basis for creativity. It is one of the cornerstones of Europe's cultural heritage, and of a culturally diverse and economically vibrant creative content sector."
    http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/other_actions/col_2009/reflection_paper.pdf

    So began the European Commission's latest contribution to the debate about online content.

    Simon

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Derek, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 1:50pm

    Re: Wow

    As someone who sometimes gets paid for being creative, I've had the same experience. In some cases, not being paid actually helps my creativity because it's easier and more fun. Without the "cost" of being paid, I'm free to explore new directions and not have to follow a client's "ok here's what we want, now go be creative" expectations.

    Society is so trapped in a money/profit 24/7/365 delusion that we can't imagine anything different. I may give creative work away for free, because it advances something more important than my bank balance.

    There's no shortage of creativity out there. As a photographer I'm selling my time and my attention -- sometimes that comes at a premium, other times I don't want the complications of money attached.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Feb 15th, 2010 @ 2:13pm

    Re:

    The *real* danger posed by the Internet, Creative commons, remix culture, etc. -- is that in an environment of ubiquitous creativity ("User-generated content", remixes, mashups, etc.) the specious distinction between "professional" artists and "amateurs" doesn't make any sense, and the only way they can retain such a specious dichotomy is by defining it all in terms of whether you get "paid" or not.

    I agree with everything else you're saying, but that really is how the words "professional" and "amateur" are defined. Maybe it's increasingly hard to tell the difference between the two groups, but that is just what the words mean.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Hulser (profile), Feb 15th, 2010 @ 2:53pm

    Re: Re: Art precedes payments

    Ha. Good point. Maybe Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer was frozen in the first place because he couldn't protect the rights of the cave painters and they went out of business because of all the piracy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Rasmus, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 3:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Art precedes payments

    Actually there are people who do cave paintings. Its still a live tradition among aboriginal people in Australia. And they don't do it for tourists because tourists aren't allowed in those caves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Joe, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 4:00pm

    Re:

    I didn't say I disagreed with his conclusion. The British government appears to be making some very ill advised moves that seem bound to cause a lot of pain. I just didn't care for his path to the conclusion. In truth, your method of extreme paraphrasing, is not really any better.

    Nothing wrong with the good old, 'here's their quote, here's my response'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    cynix, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 5:00pm

    the anti mike

    Hey, were's the anti mike now? Where's Techdirt's best troll when you need him most?

    What Stephen Timms is so obviously corrupt and eye-wateringly ridiculous, that anti mike has no way to spin this one his way, so he clams up.

    The troll has been beat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Vincent Clement, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 5:39pm

    Re: A widely held view in Europe

    If something is "economically vibrant" it usually doesn't need a government-granted monopoly. We are doomed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Henry Emrich (profile), Feb 15th, 2010 @ 5:48pm

    Re: Re:

    "Just what the words mean".

    Who created the catagories, and decided that they should be mutually exclusive?

    In other words, is your quibble "descriptive" (in that you're discussing how the majority of people use the two words) or "prescriptive", in that you believe that the two mutually-exclusive categories *designated* by such words, have some sort of empirical merit?

    It's "hard to tell the difference" between the two, because ultimately there *is* no difference. Under the old (dying) RIAA-style corporate paradigm, the *sole* source of revenue for even so-called "professional" musicians was never *solely* the music. Everything from T-shirts and memorabilia, to product endorsements represented a "stream of income".

    So the claim that the status of "professional" ever required that one's "profession" was *ever* the sole revenue-stream, has always been specious.

    Funny, with all the negative connotations that the corporate megaliths/their apologists tie to the idea of "patronage" (whatever form it takes), at base, their business-model was *all* about acting as their contractees "patrons" -- and taking the lion's share of any potential financial returns.

    My point was, that if the mark of a "professional" is that one's *sole* source of income be related to a single activity -- or class of activities -- then there have *never* been "professionals", of any kind.

    There may have been *primary* areas of relative specialization, but to the extent that, for example, Doctors dealt in real-estate, or any other income-generating actitvity (even "on the side"), it neccesarily follows that the practice of medicine was *never* their SOLE source of income.

    So why do *some* musicians/authors scoff at the notion that multiple streams of income should be unneccesary for *them*? Is it because their present patrons (the multi-national corporate media megaliths) have spent decades training them to implicitly *or explicitly* view themselves as an "elite" group? I'm pretty sure that has *something* to do with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 5:50pm

    Re: Re: Art precedes payments

    Cave paintings were simply paintings done inside one's own home, at the time.

    Today they are just called paintings. Not house paintings. Just paintings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    :), Feb 15th, 2010 @ 11:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Art precedes payments

    Cavemen paintings still exists today, they are called graffiti now though.

    Excluding the little ones that love to draw on the inside walls of a house.

    Graffiti has been around for ages from the caves to the modern day streets.

    Funny though, today it is against the law to do it and people risk harsh punishment and still do it why? they don't get paid why they do it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Dubber, Feb 16th, 2010 @ 1:22am

    In defence of my 'vitriol'...

    ...I was REALLY pissed off. :)

    I'm sure I could construct a measured and thoughtful argument against the position in a calm and reasonable article, but for now, a rant on my personal blog served to be therapeutic.

    Was not really trying to make a convincing argument. Was just trying to say "I'm very, very angry".

    Want clear and thoughtful reflection on what's happening in digital culture? Read Techdirt. Want to know what I'm doing, what I find interesting and how I'm feeling? Read my blog. Different texts and contexts for different purposes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Mike, Feb 16th, 2010 @ 2:18am

    Things other than copyright!

    While Mandy deserves to be ridiculed for any attempt at imposing three strikes, which is the real issue in hand, folk do think about protecting their ideas before putting anything online, it's part of the creative process.

    Many would argue the following 'snag' list is more important to our connectivity and creativity than the copyright issue. These include;

    1) The internets naming and addressing remains a kludge,
    2) The lack of transparency in Broadband package parameters - peak hour bandwidth allocations (30kbps), quality of data transport all need to be transparent.
    3) Re-writing of UK Communications law which today is focused on preserving the telephone service and its costs into perpetuity.
    4) Cost recovery regime for ISP based on achieving a 16 fold increase in peak hour bandwidth availability, not call termination fees.
    5) An end to the anachronism of fixed and mobile - all connectivity is a cable with a radio at the end.
    6) To use the radio spectrum to increase the bit commons, not something to be sold to the highest bidder who can then ration its use as per the current plan.

    While your slagging Timms off for some poor sentence construction we are missing the chance to outline a better shopping list.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Ron, Feb 16th, 2010 @ 7:23am

    Re: Wow

    What kind of game? When is the beta testing coming?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Ron, Feb 16th, 2010 @ 7:31am

    Re: In defence of my 'vitriol'...

    I think its time more people got upset, nobody seems to listen to reason anymore. Keep it up!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    The Buzz Saw (profile), Feb 16th, 2010 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Wow

    I'd be fairly surprised if you could come up with a coherent storyline for this. :P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    The Buzz Saw (profile), Feb 16th, 2010 @ 11:31am

    Re: Re: Wow

    I'll post a link to our website once we get one up. :P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    The Buzz Saw (profile), Feb 16th, 2010 @ 11:32am

    Re: Re: Wow

    I completely agree. It is nice to be paid for my talents, but along with that money comes chains. It is all about fulfilling requirements X, Y, and Z.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2010 @ 9:57pm

    Re: Re:

    "Nothing wrong with the good old, 'here's their quote, here's my response'."

    Even that valid method of discourse can sometimes be discounted as Fisking. Sometimes the only way to deal with obviously stupid remarks is to call them out on their blatant stupidity up front, rather than argue over the trivial details of why they are stupid. In this case, the point is being made that the stupidity is either due to ignorance, or they are feigning stupidity out of intentional malice. In either case, such stupidity entails a valid grounds for impeachment.

    In this case instead of saying Timms is too stupid to live, it suffices to point out he is too stupid to govern.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Charles, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 10:46am

    amateur arts

    It's obvious that he was talking about professional creatives, who are often horrendously underpaid. Don't get me wrong, the millions of amateurs have a great time, and good for them - but for those of us trying to make a living from the professional creative arts, he is absolutely right.
    Come, on, be sensible now. Our country is justly proud of, say, The Royal Ballet Company, which attracts thousands of visitors from all over the world to marvel at their expertise. It's not the same as Strip The Willow in the village hall is it ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This