How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works

from the it's-the-link dept

Back in April, I wrote a post about Daniel Pink's new book, Drive, in which he highlights the rather stunning amount of counterintuitive research that suggests that money can actually make people less motivated to do creative works. Since then, I got a copy of the book myself, but it's in the stack with about five books that I want to get to before it, so I may not get to it for a while. However, a lot of folks have been passing around this great video of a 10 minute presentation that Pink did, which was then whiteboard animated. It's really well done and fun to watch and basically summarizes the idea in the book:
The same point is made in the presentation, but it clarifies it a bit. It's not that money isn't important. That finding would make little sense at all. As people note all the time, you need to be able to make money to survive. But, it's that once people have a base level of money that makes them comfortable, using monetary incentives to get them to do creative work fails. Not just fails, but leads to worse performance. As we noted in the original blog post about this, my initial inkling was that this highlighted a point often forgotten by economists and non-economists alike: while marginal benefit is often considered in terms of dollars, that doesn't mean that cash is the the equivalent of marginal benefit. That is, you can't just replace other benefits with cash. Sometimes people value other types of rewards even greater than the equivalent in cash. And, Pink's book and presentation highlight how it's often things like meaning and working on something fulfilling that are much more beneficial to people than cash. So it's not that money is bad for creativity -- but that having a direct pay-for-performance type scheme seems to create negative consequences when it comes to cognitive work (it works fine for repetitive work, however) -- and other types of non-monetary rewards are a lot more effective.

And while it isn't discussed in the presentation (and I don't know if it's discussed in the book), I wonder if the high monetary rewards in a "if you do this task, we'll give you $x amount" manner actually has a strong cognitive cost. That is, the pressure to then do the task well in order to "earn" that money actually ends up causing a creativity cost that takes away from the output. When you're just doing creative work for non-cash rewards, the pressure doesn't feel quite as strong. When you put the dollar signs in, it adds mental costs, and those costs outweigh the cash rewards. It's even possible, then, that the higher the cash reward, the greater the mental costs.

Related to all of this, Clay Shirky has also just come out with a new book, Cognitive Surplus (which isn't yet in the pile on my desk, but probably will be soon) that builds on an idea that he's talked about for years: about how all these claims that people doing stuff online for free is a "waste" totally misses the point. For the past few decades, people have devoted billions of hours to watching television. Yet, with the internet, rather than watching TV, they're actually doing some creative work (sometimes for free). So when looked at in isolation, doing stuff for free may seem weird, when combined in the larger scheme of things as a substitute for mind-numbing TV watching, it's actually a huge advancement.

Wired had the smart idea of having Shirky and Pink sit down and chat with each other, and they rehash some of these ideas, and how the concepts put forth in the two books seem to overlap. Moving people away from merely consuming content towards creating content leads to a huge boost in creativity and creative output -- exactly what we've seen happening. And, it's not because of monetary incentives -- in fact, it's often because of the exact opposite.

The more you think about it, the more this all makes sense, and the more you realize just how screwed up so many incentive structures are today, because so many people think that purely monetary incentives work best.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jun 4th, 2010 @ 8:06pm

    Whoa

    I am in awe of the speech and even moreso of the poor bastard who edited that.

    *slow clap that is joined by others*

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 4th, 2010 @ 8:29pm

    Atlassian

    Ha, I just learned how to use Atlassian software for a project I'm working on with my brother. JIRA is pretty much the industry go-to for task management and issue tracking.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 4th, 2010 @ 8:55pm

    All you gurus with your presentations based on facts and statistics and evidence and reality-based anecdotes are clearly all wrong. Everyone knows that cavepeople artists from ancient times would never get out of mammoth fur for less than a handful of shiny rocks and some feathers.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    ScottEllington (profile), Jun 4th, 2010 @ 9:49pm

    The Smart Money's oxymoron

    Autonomy, mastery and purpose suggest that box office is a truly moronic evaluative template with which to guage the success of movies; likewise, any industry that conflates quality with purely financial ROI must not be paying attention.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 4th, 2010 @ 9:50pm

    If you dont have time to read it ....

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 4th, 2010 @ 10:01pm

    If you dont have time to read it ....

    Scan it ... 20-30 minutes

    OCR and convert to mp3 ... set up 2 minutes and 6 hours of 5 year old computer time.

    save it to the blackberry ... 5 minutes

    35 minutes of time, bluetooth, the caddy, a long drive to work, and the audio book you created priceless.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 4th, 2010 @ 10:45pm

    Way to funny ... and great video

    "If you reward something do you get more of the behavior you want?"

    "I you punish something do you get less of the behavior you want?"

    "As long as the tasks required only mechanical skill, bonuses worked as expected"

    "For cognitive skills a larger reward led to poorer performance"

    "Once you get above rudimentary cognitive skills, rewards dont work the same way"

    "This comes from a study funded by the federal reserve bank."

    "When a task gets more complicated, it requires some conceptual thinking, or creative thinking monetary rewards dont work"

    "if we get past this ideology of carrots and sticks"

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Reed, Jun 4th, 2010 @ 11:06pm

    Good logic and evidence to backup what we know is true

    Wow, actual proof that locking up ideas for monetary gains goes against best practices.

    Those that argue for systems like Intellectual Property are NOT repeat NOT the creators or the innovators. They are the leeches that seek to destroy our culture of sharing and copying for their personal gain.

    It is was thing to screw over one person, but to screw over the progression of society for a buck is beyond asinine.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 7:41am

      Re: Good logic and evidence to backup what we know is true

      "It is was thing to screw over one person, but to screw over the progression of society for a buck is beyond asinine."

      What is really funny is that one day the head of a pharma house is going to be on deaths bed and realize he screwed up with his lobbying efforts.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    knome, Jun 4th, 2010 @ 11:23pm

    Motivation

    The emacs text editor has been distributed with a folder full of non-technical documents for some time. One of the files, in particular, is a file named MOTIVATION copied with permission from a January 1987 issue of Boston Globe.

    You can find a copy on the late Erik Naggums website :
    http://naggum.no/motivation.html

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 1:04am

    Creators rather than consumers

    That's why I keep suggesting that the future of music is more about giving lots of people the tools to create music rather than giving them reasons to buy what others create.

    As technology gives people the ability to make music themselves, even when they have little or no training/talent, I think their focus is going to shift there rather than becoming a member of a tribe or 1000 fans to support the "artist."

    It's often more fun to be the creator than to be the fan.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 1:38am

      Re: Creators rather than consumers

      This also touches upon why trying to find stuff and experiences to sell doesn't feel right to many musicians. They got into music to create music, not to come up with reasons to buy.

      Finding ways to pay your bills via a day job can free you to be truly creative with your art because you aren't having to link the art with money-generating activities.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 7:15am

        Re: Re: Creators rather than consumers

        Sounds good.
        Did you know you can go to Harry Fox and pay the royalty to virtually anything?

        The neighbor down the street that works for the FBI/OIG doesn't want his kid to get into music made. So I guess I am a bad influence for getting him a mac. You know, let the 19 year old play, damnit. If he has an ACT score of 34, you raised him right. He'll be a success in any world. Let up a little. Should I have him meet my friends at McKinsey and Company that pursued a similar route?

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 7:18am

      Re: Creators rather than consumers

      This idea has been around a long time. For example, it's the foundation of the punk movement. It's also the foundation of the blues and folk movements.

      Also: giving people the tools to create music is a reason to buy what others create. Musicians are the biggest fans of music. This is especially true in musical sub-cultures, where everyone at a show is probably in their own band.

      Too bad current copyright laws go against this idea. Were they in effect when folk was starting up, all of those musicians would have been "pirates."

      I'm not disagreeing with you, just expanding on your idea... Hey, just like progress itself. How's about that?

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 7:26am

        Re: Re: Creators rather than consumers

        Also: giving people the tools to create music is a reason to buy what others create. Musicians are the biggest fans of music. This is especially true in musical sub-cultures, where everyone at a show is probably in their own band.

        There's so much online for free that they probably don't have to buy it to hear it.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 8:48am

          Re: Re: Re: Creators rather than consumers

          Maybe so, and I do agree that artists are probably bigger "pirates" than other people. But they also buy each others' CD's, or T-shirts, or what have you, because they want to support the "scene."

          Similar to how people who donate work to FOSS projects, also make more financial donations to FOSS projects.

          It's not an either/or proposition. The same things that drive creativity are the things that give people a "reason to buy."

          And since copyright - especially the "artists' control" view of copyright - takes away the fans' "autonomy, mastery, and purpose," they are given less reason to buy.

          ...Again, not arguing, just expanding.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 9:23am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Creators rather than consumers

            Maybe so, and I do agree that artists are probably bigger "pirates" than other people. But they also buy each others' CD's, or T-shirts, or what have you, because they want to support the "scene."

            I think musicians are very supportive of each other, and will buy CDs. t-shirts, and shows if they can, but on the other hand, a lot of them don't have the money to do too much spending.

             

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

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 7:56am

      Re: Creators rather than consumers

      Suzanne

      You are a godess! I believe you actually get where the creation of music is going. "It's often more fun to be the creator than to be the fan" The technology is getting to the point were anyone can create muisc and video with ease. Mix that with colaboration and everyone gets to be the musician.

      David

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 8:58am

        Re: Re: Creators rather than consumers

        You are a godess! I believe you actually get where the creation of music is going.

        Thanks.

        The iPhone/iPad apps that are coming out to help people make music are really exciting. It's like whole new instruments are being invented weekly. A lot of the stuff is experimental, and may not amount to much, but collectively it's injecting a new dynamic into music,

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    TommyL, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 1:15am

    Epiphanous!

    Mike, This is one of the better posts I've seen on here! It gives me some ammunition to point to and explain why people do things better on their own rather than having an extrinsic motivator. This also has deeper applications to performance in many different areas. I think the article link posted by Knome above sums it up best in the final line of the post: Creative work, the research suggests, cannot be forced, but only allowed to happen. Flow deep and it will come! Tom

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Chunky Vomit, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 3:52am

    Interesting concept, I have seen it play out both ways

    My wife is a creative worker. For several years we lived in poverty while she tried to be creative. It was frustrating because she had these artistic ambitions but couldn't really use them. Why? She had to have to work a job where she could make real money so that we could pay our bills (of course, I work too. Just putting that there.).

    A few years ago she started work at a large and well known company working in the President's office as an administrative assistant. Fortunately, he saw that she was misplaced here and that she really ought to be working in the creative department for his company. So, promote and move. More money coming in at home meant less stress and time to focus on projects and practicing the crafts that she was already pretty good at.

    Then she promoted again, still more money coming in, now she has an administrative assistant of her own. Her art work has improved greatly because she isn't as worried about other things. She has people to take care of all the busy work, she can focus more on making the art happen... some of which includes taking time off from the office and enjoying life (vacations!).

    Her partner in the company is different though. He started out as a really good artist, but the more money he makes, the less productive he becomes...

    So I don't know that there is a final answer here, though, it can be said that money does stifle creativity in some ways. Neither of us have to be as creative as we used to be to solve daily problems that arise with lack of income, if something goes awry, hire somebody to fix it. If we lose the incomes we have, it will be interesting to see how we are able to cope with solving issues that were once easier to solve because we weren't as dependent on money to do the work for us.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 4:19am

      Re: Interesting concept, I have seen it play out both ways

      A great discussion here.

      Separating the creativity from the money-making has been long been core discussion in creative fields. Encouraging artists to become involved in the business side or marketing of art may turn out to be counter-productive for many of them.

      When you're just doing creative work for non-cash rewards, the pressure doesn't feel quite as strong. When you put the dollar signs in, it adds mental costs, and those costs outweigh the cash rewards. It's even possible, then, that the higher the cash reward, the greater the mental costs.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 4:23am

    But at higher levels of income, other incentives come into play...

    POWER LUST. It afflicts *everyone* who gets filthy stinking rich. Once far beyond excess, with servants to handle all routine details, flunkies always standing by to step and fetch, time is spent only on amusements, thoughts *always* turn to the one thing left to obtain: absolute power. They become creative at EVIL and all the incentives spur them on to more. And it's played as a *game* because those people are sure of living well regardless of any risks taken, amount expended -- or crimes committed, as the only people capable of bringing them to justice are also evil.

    The Rich should be hindered at every turn to prevent them fron getting out of hand, but when they get too arrogant, tossed into tumbrels for the trip to the guillotine. It's the only way that's ever worked. Once crime becames common among The Rich, it's simply not possible to render justice any other way: they too can only be killed once no matter how excessive are their crimes.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 4:36am

    Therefore steal music. It is the logically conclusion.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 4:41am

      Re:

      Therefore steal music. It is the logically conclusion.

      I'd say this instead: Make your own music. You don't need anyone else's.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Hephaestus (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 8:27am

        Re: Re:

        "I'd say this instead: Make your own music. You don't need anyone else's."

        Karl had an interesting point. Blues artists constantly borrowed from one another.

        Perhaps instead of JUST making your own music it might be better to have the ability to create your own music, modify other peoples music, and collaborate on both. One thing that would be needed for this to work on a global scale is an artist definable fair use and compensation system.

        One neat thing is the artists wanting compensation for fair use and remixing would de-evolve out of the system. The ones allowing open access would move upwards (evolve) as more people would use their works.

        David

         

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

      •  
        icon
        ScottEllington (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 8:28am

        Re: Re: Other People's Work

        I'd say that everyone re-invents the wheel (because teaching isn't learning), and that the best place to do that learning is on the shoulders of giants. In the shoulders of giants is less burdensome. That question, I think, is pivotal; How to contribute value to the enterprise (of art) while learning to do it better, appreciate it more astutely, and to what purpose?

        Money, apparently, isn't The Ultimate Answer to pivotal questions, anymore.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 7:25am

      Re:

      More like: it explains why most artists on major labels don't produce art that's even worth "stealing."

       

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

      •  
        icon
        harbingerofdoom (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 8:50am

        Re: Re:

        for proof see Metallica

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 9:45pm

        Re: Re:

        More like: it explains why most artists on major labels don't produce art that's even worth "stealing."


        That is very strange considering torrent top download lists are consistently 1-10 comprised of music from the major labels, films from the major studios, and books from the major publishing houses...

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 8:31am

      Re:

      You sir are an idiot ... I believe that is a quote from krusty the clown on the simpsons.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 8:43am

      Re:

      I apologize for calling you an idiot, you are just misinformed (euphemism for idiot). I do believe that stealing isnt the logical conclusion. I believe the logical conclusion is that all works and knowledge build on previous works. So stealing from a thief is reclaiming what is rightfully owned by society as a whole.

      Big Old GRIN

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 8:10am

    "The more you think about it, the more this all makes sense, and the more you realize just how screwed up so many incentive structures are today, because so many people think that purely monetary incentives work best. " - so here is a challenge for you mike: remove all the advertising from your site and do it for nothing. stop selling t-shirts, stop charging for special access, just do it because you love it. in theory, you should become much more creative when you are no longer restricted by money and the incentives to produce a website that is palatable to your advertisers and groupies.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Modplan (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 9:24am

      Re:

      TAM: The person to go to if you need crap to be made up, then spewed over the interwebs.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 11:50pm

      Re:

      Here's the thing: if Masnick stopped having ads (& etc) on his site, the site would still get as many hits, and as many comments, as it does now.

      There's nothing wrong with monetizing peoples' incentive to be invested in creative works. Hell, the entire post was about companies getting creative works out of their employees, which is definitely a commercial gain.

      The issue is confusing money with independence (et. al.) as an incentive for being creative.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 12:43am

        Re: Re:

        Hell, the entire post was about companies getting creative works out of their employees, which is definitely a commercial gain.

        And I don't think the employees are going to be very happy if they aren't getting paid much and the CEOs are becoming extremely rich.

        While people are motivated by other things than money, feeling exploited by the corporate system does encourage one to seek employment elsewhere.

        I was thinking about a creative job that I quit because the company fell so far behind in paying me that there was little chance they'd ever catch up (it had a cash flow problem and I gave up waiting for them to get on top of it). One of the reasons I quit is that the primary investor was a multimillionaire (what the company owed me was pocket change for him). I knew when I quit that the project I was running would go under (which it did because I was the primary employee), but I was demoralized that he was wealthy and I wasn't getting paid.

        It just wasn't worth it to me to keep working there, hoping that the company would eventually start making enough money to pay me. I figured that if I was going to work for free, I might as well work for myself.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    pr, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 9:53am

    I could go on all day

    Amazing discussion. I have so many examples of why the guy is right I could write all day. For free, even. Anonymously!

    I'm a regular blood donor. Why do I waste an hour and put up with the pain for a cookie and a juice box? I'm not sure. Sometimes it's worse; sometimes I do platelet pheresis. That's two hours, I have to get up at 5:30 on a Saturday, and I feel goofy all day. Why don't I go to the plasma center and get, what is it, thirty bucks? If they gave me ten bucks at the Red Cross would they get me to do it more? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, I would do it less.

    In the late '80s I saw a segment on the news of a guy who worked in a screw factory in the Soviet Union. He was working his *** off making screws. At the end of the day he was going to get paid in a useless currency that wouldn't buy much. But still he made screws. He believed in what he was doing.

    My business is aerospace/defense. People used to get really pumped up about doing that kind of work. Now it's drudgery. The interesting backward results I see is that the more they try to control costs, the more expensive everything gets. The more they try to reduce mistakes, the more mistakes they get. The more they try to get people "engaged" (yeah, my company uses that term) the more cynical they get.

    Cost control is a pretty good example of how it works. Take a bunch of motivated, intelligent engineers and tell them the best ones, the technical leaders, that they have to be cost managers. They don't want to do it, they want to make things.

    Management tries to use the argument that "it all pays the same" whether you're designing circuits or doing Mickey Mouse bean counting. Even though they have a hard time articulating the concept, everyone knows that's not true. The smart people dig in their heels and either refuse to do it, or do it badly, or maneuver to get out of it.

    What happens next is the "incentives" route. They reward with (at least the prospect of) promotions and pay to those willing to do the bean counting. The ones who take this offer are invariably the ambitious but not so talented ones. The people who are motivated by personal gain are exactly the worst people you want in positions of leadership, but that's what you get.

    That doesn't mean that money is never a motivator. We often get into scrums over paid overtime. People get ordered to work some test over nights or on weekends, or work all weekend because somebody over-promised on a delivery date, etc. When that happens people are seriously counter-motivated by the notion of doing it for free. After seeing it plenty of times I think that's more a matter of recognition of the value of the sacrifice being made than the cash itself.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 1:21pm

    "But, it's that once people have a base level of money that makes them comfortable, using monetary incentives to get them to do creative work fails."

    There are two reasons for this.

    A: The backwards bending labor supply curve.

    B: Once you do something that experience has shown to work, changing what you do is risky in that you fear changing what you do might not work and cause you to lose money.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 1:23pm

      Re:

      Kinda like a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Being creative might cause you to make more money, but you are uncertain, your experience tells you that what you do is more certain so you stick to what you do instead of taking risk.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Gene Cavanaugh, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 1:26pm

    creativity and money

    THIS is a great article! I have been saying for years (though apparently no one listens) that people like Mozart, Einstein, Shakespeare - all worked without copyright and other IP protections.
    With IP "stimulating creativity" we have no Mozarts, Einsteins, and Shakespeares. DUH! Do you suppose there might be a connection?
    Now, I still say that SOME IP is good to great! We need only see how Carnegie and Hahn, etc., etc. stifled creativity with greedy grabs and exploitation of inventors to see that - but the way we are doing it NOW is totally wrong, as this blog implies (and I totally agree).

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 1:45pm

      Re: creativity and money

      THIS is a great article! I have been saying for years (though apparently no one listens) that people like Mozart, Einstein, Shakespeare - all worked without copyright and other IP protections.
      With IP "stimulating creativity" we have no Mozarts, Einsteins, and Shakespeares. DUH! Do you suppose there might be a connection?


      Arguing about IP isn't my thing, so I'm not going to defend it or not, but the above statement isn't much proof. You can say the same thing about every development since Einstein.

      e.g., Now that we have personal computers, we have no Mozarts, Einsteins, and Shakespeares.

      Just saying.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 4:13pm

        Re: Re: creativity and money

        "but the above statement isn't much proof. You can say the same thing about every development since Einstein. "

        It's evidence that IP isn't needed. It's not "proof" but it is evidence.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 6:02pm

          Re: Re: Re: creativity and money

          I'll toss this out.

          Ultimately we might NOT want more Mozarts, Einsteins, and Shakespeares because they are viewed as isolated geniuses.

          In an era of networked communication, crowdsourcing, and open source, we might find that best that society produces is a collective effort.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Rather_Notsay (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 6:35pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: creativity and money

            "Ultimately we might NOT want more Mozarts, Einsteins, and Shakespeares because they are viewed as isolated geniuses.

            Good point. In my one horse town we have a great civic theater. No big stars, just local people being creative for fun. Mostly they put on shows that have been written by someone far away and part of the copyright system, so they have to pay fees.

            There are locals who can and do write scripts. They rarely get produced because of a perception that a big name show that everyone has heard of is necessary to bring in the audiences.

            As the copyright maximalization industry gets to be bigger and bigger jerks about things, why not tell them all to shove off and do everything on the locally. That's more fun on multiple levels. When people see that there's an opportunity to have their script produced, they'll produce more scripts. If I could take someone's almost good play and mash it to suit a new audience, that would be even more production.

            All without getting paid any more than the actors do, which is nothing.

             

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

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 1:39pm

    an artists want s t pay me?

    huh where do i sign up and if its costs more hten i get back well forget it
    im sick of giving artists anyhting
    i think i can stand up for all of canada with this

    ....................../´¯/)
    ....................,/¯../
    .................../..../
    ..... ......../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
    ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
    ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
    .........\.................'...../
    ..........''...\.......... _.·´
    ............\..............(
    ..............\.............\...

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 1:41pm

    @41 how arts works?

    is it some toy or device i can turn off and on suddenly?
    LOL
    again to you:
    ....................../´¯/)
    ....................,/¯../
    .................../..../
    ....... ....../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
    ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
    ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
    .........\.................'...../
    ..........''...\.......... _.·´
    ............\..............(
    ..............\.............\...

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 1:44pm

    damn im out of hands now

    but ok art is to be made for an expression that yu wish to share or convey to a public

    NOT a product made in china , that one can turn off and on.
    OR be physically used as a tool.

    yuo dont want to share
    OK
    we hereby repeal the copyright acts of the world
    vote now .....
    feel better. Starting to feel more nice and democratic to people rather then hostile and lawsuity

    YUP people like youi grew a 3rd hand
    ....................../´¯/)
    ....................,/¯../
    .................../..../
    ....... ....../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
    ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
    ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
    .........\.................'...../
    ..........''...\.......... _.·´
    ............\..............(
    ..............\.............\...

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    knome, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 2:06pm

    > e.g., Now that we have personal computers, we have no Mozarts, Einsteins, and Shakespeares.

    We have never had Mozarts, Einsteins and Shakespeares. If we did, we wouldn't have to single these gentlemen out and call them by name.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Chromanoid (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 3:25pm

    As I know companies like Sun give their employees a do-what-you-like time since ages. I.e. as i know Project Darkstar (now discontinued after oracle merger) is a child of this policy. so i do not really know what this video is new about... anyway this was mentioned before :)... anyway nice video...

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 7:04am

      Re:

      i do not really know what this video is new about.

      Agreed - it summarises the material on motivation that I was taught in a management course 20 years ago. However the strange thing is that this message has STILL not got through to so many people in senior positions - even thought it has been orthodoxy for those who study this kind of thing for many years.

      The two line summary (from my course all those years ago)

      1. Make sure the financial rewards are perceived to be fair (note to CEOs - paying yourselves a huge salary can toally undermine this perception)

      2. Organise the work so that it gives staff a sense of achievement.

      One cautionary note

      Motivations can sometimes be a bit perverse. I was told the story of a sausage skin factory that operated in appalling conditions (old , unsuitable building etc) but nonetheless performed really well. Management rewarded them with a spangly new building. Result: performance collapsed - the job had become too easy and no longer created a great sense of achievement.

      Something similar happened on the railways when steam locomotives were replaced by diesels.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 2:01pm

        Re: Re:

        I think sometimes people are motivated by a genuine need, not an artificial one. If people think their jobs serve a scarcely served role to society some tend to be more motivated. If people feel that their jobs aren't scarcely served roles because we already have technology capable of doing all the work and so you're just getting paid to meet a need that would be met perfectly fine without you, some people will lose motivation. Everyone is different though, generally I tend to think self interest and profits are what motivates people when it comes to work but not then again many people are often charitable and so other things clearly motivate people when it comes to non work issues. I think the key is to create work that serves charitable needs at the same time or at the very least to foster a system that enables those who want their work to serve a charitable. Our current IP system prevents that, those who want to conduct R&D and innovate for the sake of helping society (and getting paid at the same time) have to worry about which selfish person has a patent on what and will sue them. But clearly there are plenty of people willing to give their labor away and ask for voluntary donations for those willing to give, look at GPL and other free software and operating systems and look at how much people volunteer their time to charitable causes as well. The ultimate cost of anything is raw materials and labor and the acquisition of raw materials requires labor, so people are willing to put plenty of work into writing free software and operating systems (which takes a lot of time), this is evidence that people are just as willing to contribute to R&D on drugs and technology and whatnot for free and perhaps ask for donations in return (and others are willing to donate their time (since money is a product of time and labor) to fund those they see who produce the most innovation). But when we have a legal system that assumes that everything should be monopolies everyone is afraid of the legal costs, settlement fees, and judgments of contributing their labor to society to fund R&D and whatnot and this makes innovation and goods and services much more expensive and scarce. Now granted, some people are selfish, but I don't think granting them a patent really helps solve anything. It just disables those who are willing to volunteer their time from contributing to society because they have to worry about who has a patent on what. The assumption that people are self interested is generally true but it's not complete and not everyone is the same and we need a system that enables people to voluntarily help one another out.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 2:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          and much of the reason why software innovated so much is exactly because software patents were traditionally frowned upon. The Pharma industry, which has had patents for a long time, hardly innovates anymore, progress is excruciatingly slow, but pharma did progress a lot during times where pharma patents were scarce (particularly in places where pharma patents were scarce or non existing). but a few selfish people had to destroy it for their own personal gain and now drugs are expensive and innovation is scarce. and other industries (ie: cars) aren't really all that innovative anymore (sure there has been improvement, but no true innovation compared to how it used to be when more patent skepticism existed in the U.S. when the car was invented and initially improved upon, and most of the more recent improvement have occurred in other countries where patents have traditionally been ignored, not so much the patent happy U.S. where they have to violate the more recent patents of others to keep up, like has been discussed here on techdirt before). Of course selfish people want to make software development (and the price of software) just as expensive and non innovative by abusing the patent system just as well. It's really sad what selfish people have done turned this planet into. Imagine if business process patents were patentable at the time when Ford came out. The assembly line would have been patented and no one would be able to compete or extend the process to other products. But now retard legislatures want business processes to be patentable. It would completely hinder so much innovation just like patents hindered innovation everywhere else.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 2:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            and much of the reason why software innovated so much is exactly because software patents were traditionally frowned upon. The Pharma industry, which has had patents for a long time, hardly innovates anymore, progress is excruciatingly slow, but pharma did progress a lot during times where pharma patents were scarce (particularly in places where pharma patents were scarce or non existing).

            I don't think most of these anti-IP discussions are going to change much. The political system operates slowly and the money is with the companies that want to protect IP.

            Seems to me that the best way to change the system is just start putting up your own ideas and make them freely available. Then you aren't messing with I{ at all.

            And if you are being hampered by IP restrictions, why not carefully detail your ideas online in terms of what you want to do but can't because of current laws. If people can point to enough specific ideas (not generalities) as to how innovation is being hampered and society is paying the price, then perhaps a politician or two might have an incentive to lobby for change.

            I don't think music/film/art are good examples because they are not about saving lives or advancing an entire country's economic progress. Rather, I'd focus on researchers in science and technology who can give very specific examples of experiments which can't advance because of the laws. I mean examples in much greater detail than what is posted by commenters on Techdirt.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 4:41pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              There are examples. The problem is that politicians are too worried about their campaign contributions to worry about anything else. Without IP who would spend money on campaign contributions? The money that would be spent on campaign contributions would otherwise be wasted on innovation instead, politicians can't have that. They need their campaign contributions to keep their jobs.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 5:42pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                This is a link to one example. Is there a any place offering multiple examples? I haven't gone looking for a site that compiles them, but perhaps there is one. Like I said, IP legislation isn't something I closely follow. But whenever I read comments that have been posted on a discussion like this, I think to myself, "These aren't enough to persuade anyone to change the laws." The arguments have to be laid out in far more detail than what most commenters here do.

                I think you're either going to have to do your own work and make it freely available to show that such a system is good. Or you are going to have to publicly document what you are doing and note every point where you are running into legal conflicts.

                In the case of some research, I wonder if you can't shift it to a country that will allow it to proceed without legal barriers. It may be inconvenient to do so, but if that's what it takes, then that's what you do. It may be a far faster solution than to try to change the laws here.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 6:01pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Out of curiosity I did a Google search for "patent free zone." It appears that the concept is being proposed for certain areas. Seems like that might be a faster way to test everything out than to try to change the laws in the US.

                  Again, this is not an area I follow closely. But my sense is that merely complaining about the situation will not really accomplish anything other than to give people something to post about.

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 8:05pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "But my sense is that merely complaining about the situation will not really accomplish anything other than to give people something to post about."

                    Ok, do you have any better ideas? Get up and do them. It takes TIME for things to get done, but things are getting done. The pirate party is getting tons of momentum everywhere throughout the world and is even starting to gain momentum in the U.S. But the selfish rich people have ensured that you need a license to broadcast your message across public airwaves or else face punishment by the FCC et al (the Wifi that your wireless router can use has distance and wall penetration limitations) and only a small amount of rich special interest groups control these licenses. We can't get our message onto cable television because the mainstream media is also coerced with broken laws that give these evil rich people a monopoly over these media distribution channels. So our options are very limited in that respect, but things are being done, but it doesn't happen over night, it takes some time. If you think you can do a better job accomplishing something be my guest.

                     

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 8:16pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You may find this book interesting.

                    http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm

                    and techdirt has a plethora of examples of the problems that IP, lots of the threads concern intellectual property. Just do a search on patents or copyrights on the search bar, tons of stuff will come up. Tons of blogs spend a lot of time detailing the problems with patents and intellectual property. Techdirt doesn't detail everything though, there is so much of it that it's difficult to do so.

                    Also see
                    http://patentabsurdity.com/watch.html

                     

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 8:51pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I haven't taken the time to look at the book yet. but from a persuasive point of view, the chapters titles don't do a good job. It sounds too much like a religious war.

                      Chapter 1: Introduction
                      Chapter 2: Creation Under Competition
                      Chapter 3: How Competition Works
                      Chapter 4: Innovation Without Patents
                      Chapter 5: The Intellectual Monopoly Apologists
                      Chapter 6: The Evil of Intellectual Monopoly
                      Chapter 7: The Devil in Disney
                      Chapter 8: Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation?
                      Chapter 9: The Pharmaceutical Industry
                      Chapter 10: The Bad, the Good, and the Ugly

                       

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 9:04pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I looked at the movie site, but haven't had a chance to watch it yet.

                      I think some of what has been granted a patent should never have been granted a patent. That's probably where I would start. Rather than trying to eliminate IP protection altogether, I would start by trying to prevent its most blatant abuses. That seems more doable at this point than trying to change the entire system. Talking about how human society would be better off without patents/copyrights/trademarks seems more a discussion over beer than a plan of action.

                      I'm just trying to be pragmatic here. I want to live in a world where health care and clean energy are inexpensive and widely available. I'm open to your arguments, but show me how everything will be implemented. Lay out some working plans for me. A lot of the world's problems have very little to do with patents. There are generic drugs which can save lives in Africa and yet they aren't getting to the people who need them. So I see a lot of what needs to be done not getting done for reasons other than IP monopolies.

                       

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

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 9:23pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "So I see a lot of what needs to be done not getting done for reasons other than IP monopolies."

                        With that I completely agree, but that doesn't diminish the importance of the problems that IP provides. The lack of IP may even indirectly help solve some of these other problems you mention above. Perhaps we can find faster and cheaper methods of drug duplication and delivery to these people without IP? You never know. It seems like innovation is needed and if IP hinders innovation, which the evidence seems to suggest, then perhaps removing IP could help.

                         

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 8:27pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Let me make something clear. This isn't an issue about gathering enough data to show that the current state of IP causes far more harm than good. We have the data, there are tons of academic studies on the matter comparing various countries, tons of history comparing times and place of IP vs times and places with less IP, etc... and the data is pretty conclusive. The problem here is the fact that politicians are being controlled by a very small handful of people, a small percentage of the population, and they don't care what the data shows. If this weren't true copyright wouldn't last 95 years (or the lifetime of the artist plus 70 years) it doesn't take data to figure out that this is nefarious and absurd. All it takes is common sense. It doesn't take data to figure out that retroactive copyright extensions are bad. COMMON SENSE. It doesn't take data to figure out that it is easier for the person claiming to hold a copyright on something to know what s/he holds a copyright on than for a third party to know. As such, the punishment for accidentally claiming to own a copyright on something and falsely suing for infringement should be far higher than the punishment for accidentally infringing (but the reverse is true). It's common sense. Let me make something very clear. Politicians don't care. The laws are blatantly one sided and inequitable, if politicians don't care about this what makes you think they care about the data? They do not. The data is there, but just like the politicians don't care about these unfair laws they do not care about the data. Is that clear enough?

                     

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 8:30pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      and if politicians did care they would fix our broken copyright laws immediately to make them more equitable. but they do not.

                       

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 8:42pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      The problem here is the fact that politicians are being controlled by a very small handful of people, a small percentage of the population, and they don't care what the data shows. If this weren't true copyright wouldn't last 95 years (or the lifetime of the artist plus 70 years) it doesn't take data to figure out that this is nefarious and absurd.

                      I agree with you that politicians feel little incentive to change the situation. So you need to do what any group does when it wants to change the system. You need to find funding for lobbying and you also need to work on getting elected those people who support your ideas.

                      I think it will be a tough go because there are other issues the average citizen cares more about than this. If you can directly show that changing IP laws will result in more jobs, and if you can publicize this in such a way that the average voter believes you, then maybe you have a chance.

                      What I have been trying to say is that I'm an educated voter and I read a lot, and most of the comments in Techdirt haven't convinced me that IP reform should be a priority for me. I would expect other voters to be even a harder sell because they may not be open to exploring the research.

                      What I read in the music threads is how the RIAA is bad. But I've never downloaded any music illegally, so it's a non-issue for me. I would imagine a lot of people feel the same way. I'm not getting screwed by the music industry because I can find so much legal free music that I don't have time to listen to what is already out there.

                       

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

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 9:03pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "I'm not getting screwed by the music industry because I can find so much legal free music that I don't have time to listen to what is already out there."

                        But there is something you need to understand. Control over public airwaves and cable didn't happen over night. It took a long time for special interest groups to gain the level of control they have today. Yes, you can find all this content, but how much of it can you easily find outside the Internet (now you may argue that you can order some of it from people across the country, but we're also assuming you never had the Internet to communicate with others and view web pages when it comes to being able to track down who makes this content and where you can access it. We mean NO Internet which includes everyone you know from the Internet and who they know, and the ability to use the Internet to track down entities and businesses and find interested artists, etc...). Before the Internet was popular it would have been very difficult. Don't just assume that special Interest groups can't coerce the Internet just like they have managed to coerce everything outside the Internet and don't assume that just because you can find content on the Internet that your life isn't being made more difficult by the laws outside the Internet. If there were a decent amount of unlicensed bandwidth it's possible for wifi Internet access and unlicensed wireless communication to travel miles through walls. Laws make it very expensive and infeasible for local governments or malls or whoever wants to to set up a wireless access point to do so. With decent unlicensed spectra a lot more can be done in terms of communication and whatnot. and lets not forget about all the government funded R&D that winds up being published in journals that hold the copyright to them and hence you have no access to them without paying a second time. There are many ways our lives are being made more difficult because of broken laws. Don't underestimate it. and the fact that restaurants often avoid having bands and musicians and playing free music because of the threat of expensive lawsuits. If someone at a store ripped you off for $5 you would be outraged. The laws in place rob us of so much more, society should be far more outraged.

                         

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

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 9:14pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          (to continue)

                          and one thing that's important to realize is that the existence of intellectual property is the first step towards being able to optimally monetize and monopolize all content. Pretty much all content outside the Internet is monopolized, both the delivery platform (ie: public airwaves and cable) and the content (copyright). If it weren't for copyright it would be far less feasible to do so, how do you monopolize music if anyone can freely make copies and freely distribute them? Copyright (and very long copyright terms with infinite retroactive extensions) is a very important component of the scam that exists outside the Internet, the ability for special interest groups to optimally monetize and monopolize all content that anyone can easily get. For this reason I often wonder if intellectual property should even exist. IP laws are very dangerous, they make it much easier for special interest groups to do to the Internet what they did outside the Internet.

                           

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

                          •  
                            icon
                            Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 9:27pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            and one thing that's important to realize is that the existence of intellectual property is the first step towards being able to optimally monetize and monopolize all content.

                            I suppose I tend to shrug off these things because I have already lived them. The pay for writers has gone down over the years because everything has gone online and lots of people will write for little or no income. So the combination of less money coming to publishers and more writers means the world has changed. I don't feel the need to argue for or against copyright because I don't think it will make much difference.

                            Similarly, I don't have much to say about music copyrights. Music is essentially already free, so there isn't much to discuss. It is what it is. And I think technology will allow so many people to make their own music that there won't be much incentive to "steal."

                            Patents are a bit more complicated, but maybe there will be patent-free zones, so maybe there will be incubators somewhere encouraging research that will be widely available to the world.

                            We already know that China does what it wants to in terms of some of these things. Will China become the leader of the world? Probably. They don't have a democratic country, and that seems to be working for them. I think the issue may be a lot more complicated than just a willingness to ignore other countries' IP laws. They seem to have the will to economically support what they want to support and squash what they don't want to support.

                             

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

                            •  
                              icon
                              Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 10:58pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Here's how I view pragmatic solutions.

                              I am an environmentalist. There are many environmental groups. I decided that the one that makes the most sense to me is the Nature Conservancy. They buy up land. That means they don't have to worry whether or not there are currently laws to protect the land and whether or not those laws will remain in effect for generations.

                              In terms of patents, the equivalent would probably be an organization that files patents on behalf of researchers/inventors with the understanding that the patented ideas would be freely available to anyone. So if you wanted to make sure stem cell research is available for everyone to use, you would file patents on those ideas and then make them available.

                              Maybe some group is already doing this. It seems to me that it would be relatively inexpensive to file patents, in comparison to raising the money necessary to change IP laws. Kind of like buying up domain names and registering trademarks that you have no intention of using but that you want to keep out of the hands of others.

                               

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

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 11:14pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                "In terms of patents, the equivalent would probably be an organization that files patents on behalf of researchers/inventors with the understanding that the patented ideas would be freely available to anyone."

                                I've mentioned this possibility before on Techdirt.

                                "Maybe some group is already doing this."

                                Kinda. It's not nearly what I had in mind or what I've suggested on techdirt before (I suggested a group that collects patents, via people acquiring patents and donating them to this group, acquiring its own patents from the patent office, or buying them from patent holders, and only sues those who sue others but never sues anyone else and runs to the defense of those who sue others with potential counter suits of its own in hopes of encouraging others to drop their patent suits and cross license with everyone).

                                 

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

                                •  
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 11:16pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  Actually what I suggested on techdirt was that the EFF do what I said above.

                                   

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 8:10pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Are you new to techdirt? Researchers have already conducted studies on this issue comparing various countries and whatnot. MM is very familiar with the research, you might want to ask him.

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 8:32pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Are you new to techdirt? Researchers have already conducted studies on this issue comparing various countries and whatnot. MM is very familiar with the research, you might want to ask him.

                    No, I'm not new to Techdirt, but IP issues aren't something I care much about, so I don't follow the topic very much. It's only when it gets brought up in discussions about art, esp. music, that I notice.

                    Most what I read in the comments are how evil certain corporations and governments are, but I don't think any of that is going to change anything. I suppose what I am trying to do is to push the Techdirt commenters to move beyond complaints/insults into outlining some very specific courses of action if you feel passionately about this.

                     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 4:13pm

    Awesome. Another good excuse to disenfranchise content creators (especially the really good ones) while maximally exploiting their work.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      senshikaze (profile), Jun 5th, 2010 @ 4:35pm

      Re:

      ???
      please explain. your views fascinate me. kinda like trying to study a primitive culture.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      DCX2, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 8:55pm

      Re:

      Have you ever heard of "straw man argument"? No one says that we should not pay content creators.

      I believe what is being suggested is that perhaps excessive monetary rewards impede the creative mind. For example, letting the grandchildren of F. Scott Fitzgerald live it up off of royalties on The Great Gatsby is probably not going to help motivate him to write new works (it's hard to write something when you're dead). For that matter, I doubt his grandchildren are motivated to write new works, either.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 8:59pm

      Re:

      Awesome. Another good excuse to disenfranchise content creators (especially the really good ones) while maximally exploiting their work.


      Exactly.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 2:04am

      Re:

      Awesome. Another good excuse to disenfranchise content creators (especially the really good ones) while maximally exploiting their work.

      Reading comprehension fail.

      No one said that content creators shouldn't get paid. And it's beyond ridiculous to claim that accurately reporting the results of a study is a method of exploiting anyone. Hell, if you actually bothered to understand what's being discussed, you'd realize it's about the *opposite* of exploiting anyone.

      It amazes me that someone can have so much trouble understanding these concepts. Are you so blinded by money that when people tell you that not everything they do is for money that you insist they're lying? Because that's the only way to interpret your comment above.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 11:51am

        Re: Re: It amazes me that someone can have so much trouble understanding these concepts

        It amazes me, Mike that someone -- YOU -- can have so much trouble understanding these concepts of copyright law , that we ALL learned in elementary school

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 2:39pm

          Re: Re: Re: It amazes me that someone can have so much trouble understanding these concepts

          No one learned the concepts of copyright law in elementary school. You're lying.

          Sharing is caring and copying is in our DNA!

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 5:05am

            No one learned the concepts of copyright law in elementary school. You're lying.

            You were probably on drugs and forgot .

            I never lie.. I is against my religion.

            I am a nearly ordained Orthodox Rabbi.
            ( I got to take the formal "Rabbi" tests . I do not like taking tests, so I am blowing ti off , till I got time to concentrate on it .)

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2010 @ 8:23am

              Re: No one learned the concepts of copyright law in elementary school. You're lying.

              I was probably on drugs in elementary school and that's why I forgot that I learned the concepts of copyright law?

              You're dumb.

               

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

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 7:07am

      Re:

      Awesome. Another good excuse to disenfranchise content creators (especially the really good ones) while maximally exploiting their work.

      Double awesome, another reason to get rid of the system of laws which attracts (or maybe even creates) the kind of people who make comments like that...

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 11:56am

      Re:

      Looks like someone isn't a content creator!

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 6:37pm

    Pfft

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 10:05pm

    This is great news!

    ...for all the OVERPAID Silicon Valley workers! All those fat-cat tech millionaires and billionaires will now, no doubt donate the majority of their wealth to charity and accept drastic corporate pay cuts to immediately reap the benefits of better personal performance!

    Hell, lets just mandate a national wealth cap for everyone whose job requires even the tiniest amount of "rudimentary cognitive skill".

    We'll be out of this recession in no time!

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 10:34pm

      Re: This is great news!

      a cap is not the only path there is the competing or die thing too, don't give any privileges to any one and let everybody use everything and those that can offer great service will survive and those who doesn't will die off.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 10:38am

        Re: Re: This is great news!

        ...don't give any privileges to any one and let everybody use everything and those that can offer great service will survive and those who doesn't will die off.


        "May the best parasite win!"

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Richard (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 10:47am

          Re: Re: Re: This is great news!


          "May the best parasite win!"


          No - it's more a case of

          "let those who co-operate freely and don't try to get in everyone else's way be set free to build the future."

          Those who can only see value for themselves by blocking others are part of the problem - not part of the solution.

          What we have now is actually "let the best parasite (aka lawyer) win"

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 11:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This is great news!

            Those who can only see value for themselves by blocking others are part of the problem - not part of the solution.


            You yourself "see value" in "blocking others" every time you assert your right to own property.

            Which makes you yet another self-serving hypocrite in a very long line.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2010 @ 1:11am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is great news!

              Nice way to take what people said out of context.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2010 @ 1:11am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is great news!

                (in other words, clearly the poster wasn't referring to physical property but to intellectual thought).

                 

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

            •  
              icon
              Richard (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 2:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is great news!

              You yourself "see value" in "blocking others" every time you assert your right to own property.


              I suppose I do so I am indeed a hypocrite - because the founder of the creed I try to live by said:
              " Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. " (Luke 6 : 30)

              So I fail to live up to the "gold standard" of my faith - however - where I can - as with Free Software that I have written and offered I do.

              The true Christian standard of life is a really tough one to live by - few even attempt it. The Gospel is full of "hard sayings" - particularly about giving stuff away. We find it difficult to believe that these sayings really work - but to quote a famous Russian bishop "The Gospel says they do - so they must."

              Ultimately it is about faith - and trust. If we could learn to trust each other we could do without the concept of physical property - let alone intellectual property - but maybe intellectual property would be a good place to start loosening the bonds of attachment.

               

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

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 7:26am

      Re: This is great news!

      You are in denial. Your comment reads like the kind of remark that the ignorant made in response to Darwin.

      Don't forget that this is not just opinion - this is science - these are the results of carefully conducted experiments.

      In the real world those organisations that have the courage to work this way are amongst the most successful and (even more important) durable in the world.

      see http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/Display.aspx?MasterId=947efa13-8aac-47d9-b30a-e59a7bbca56c& ;NavigationId=548

      Note that at first glance this just seems to be about spreading the financial rewards around - but there is something more - (and it is something you notice every time you go into a John Lewis shop)

      It is best summed up by the tail end of John Lewis's speech
      (link at the bottom of the link above

      "I feel quite certain that the general idea of substituting partnership for exploiting employment is now-a-days in the air and will spread through industry of all kinds.
      It is already dear to many hearts besides my own, for it makes work something to live for as well as something to live by."

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Ross Nicholson, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 11:48pm

    Right on.

    In making movies, the size of projects make anyone a satisficer. "What has worked in the past? Do that!" becomes the inevitable answer. Wow, is THAT wrong-bong. If you name your ten most favorite movies of all time, chances are that I did five of 'em. Avatar, Titanic, Forrest Gump, E.T., Star Wars ... I'm the greatest genius who ever lived and that is because poverty demands creativity, while desperation positively inspires it! I've kept myself impoverished and in pain for most of my life, bitterly rejecting the massive pay offered by Spielberg and dozens of others for flick ideas. Why? Because the opportunity cost of not making my self-sacrifice was too great. My staying poor helps humanity dramatically. I suffer to help you all.
    Oh, and my non-movie work? I found the cure for crime, drug addiction, and perversion in my spare time. The title of my book is "Of Love KISSES PASS EPIGENETIC PHEROMONES IN THE PATHOGENESIS OF SOCIOPATHY, ‘MENTAL ILLNESS’ AND DISEASE The Cure for Crime. The Cure for Drug Addiction." Find it on Amazon dot com.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Tek'a R (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 9:24am

      Re: Right on.

      Ross, or Bubba, whichever you prefer, Once again you are spamming nonsense words to promote your self-published/whispernet Ebook, full of your plans of curing homosexuals and making meth-heads do chores.

      Its a lovely fantasy, but this is not the place to share it. Go ask Spielberg if his cybertronic technology can help you cure the world, or ask Cameron to lend you a couple bucks for proper ad campaign, since you were such a big help and creative influence for them both.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 3:00am

    @64

    if you ONLY Produce crap people will get the best crap available

    HINT HINT
    "content creators"
    MAYBE they shouldnt be paid ever. BY monetizing it this is the situation were in.
    MAYBE if you made art and music for fun YOU'D actually see the true creativity shine through and MORE people would be like i dunno ...happy, and have money for other things.

    DID YUO GUYS SEE TH EPARODY
    IRON BABY
    WOW WAS I EVER IMPRESSED
    some dad made a home movie based on iron man and i tell ya this is the future NOT BATMAN FOREVER part 55
    OR
    AVATAR 5D
    OR ....
    THe tech is all here for YOU ME and everyone to really do some neat stuff

    WHY should we in the slightest pander to these old ways with destruction of civil rights so a VERY few and there lawyers can sit on malibu beach examining there yacht building programs

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 11:01am

      Re: @64

      MAYBE they shouldnt be paid ever.

      I'm one of the biggest critics of copyright law, and I disagree with you 1000%.

      Obviously, artists and other "content creators" are going to create art, whether they're paid or not.

      But there is a benefit to paying artists: without having to earn money other ways (e.g. day jobs, "commercial" gigs), they'll have more time to be creative. And what they create will probably be better for it.

      Now, I'm not saying you have to be a mega-pop star, or a movie celebrity. The answer is right there in the video: pay them enough to take the money issue off the table.

      That's all most artists want. And those artists aren't the ones destroying civil rights or suing the public. It is the corporate executives - who have never been creative in their lives - who are doing that.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    agreed, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 3:20am

    i think this was an excellent article that does NOT encourage the exploitation of workers but explains the basic need for people to be creative within one's self minus the pressure of monetary gain. if one was paid an amazing sum of money to do what they do but better it would be distinctly different than one of would be made comfortable. i think that some of us need to remember what is "comfortable" vs what is "indulgent" which obviously some feel is deserved. it's hard to speak about fighting and hating "the man" for what you call "exploitation" when you aspire to be "the man" yourself. who is trying to exploit OR rather win over who then?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 11:39am

    "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"

    Thank you again Mike for again ansering my points pointed elsewhere at techdirt , in you own posts.

    I am honored you read my post so carefully.

    To bad you do not have the courage to reply to me diractly.

    Your open premise here : "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"is grotesque "Pirate Logic" ( ie, "Pretzel Logic" , a well known phrase that Steely Dan borrowed , and do not invent.)

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 11:48am

      Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"

      p.s.:

      1] Sorry for the mis-spells

      2} Mike you continually cite arguments, & sources here on copyright that that are so far outside the mainstream, that you should be ashamed.

      You cite intellectually dishonest people,

      to support your intellectually dishonest views on copyrights.

      3} Patent Law is a different animal. you actually do raise interesting points on that topic. Me not being , even remotely an expert on Patent law, withhold comments there.

      4) As a musician and artist , and writer , Copyright law , I know well , as it is part of my job to know it.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Richard (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 2:03pm

        Re: Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"

        2} Mike you continually cite arguments, & sources here on copyright that that are so far outside the mainstream, that you should be ashamed.

        Since when has "being in the mainstream" of itself been a measure of anything of value.
        almost every great man in history has been "outside the mainstream" when he started. Abraham, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Darwin and Einstein were all "outside the mainstream".

        If anything you should be ashamed to try such an argument.




        You cite intellectually dishonest people,


        Have you any evidence to back this up - other than your usual appeals to authority?

        to support your intellectually dishonest views on copyrights.


        Any evidence to support this view?


        4) As a musician and artist , and writer , Copyright law , I know well , as it is part of my job to know it.


        Unfortunately, as Karl has pointed out to you - you have broken the letter of this law yourself - so your track record here is not perfect.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 6:38pm

          Re: Re: Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"

          Richard , the man who falsely claimed a PhD. in physics to me.

          Which you still have not provided proof of to any academic satisfaction ,,

          -- i.e. pretend you where applying got a job with me , you would have to provide lock-solid proof w/references of your academic background, I deal with is often , in my life and work -- checking references_

          Rich , i will not answer any comments by you ,, you are more than intellectually dishonest -- you are just dishonest.

          Please do me a favor and do not reply to my posts , until you proof to me your academic credentials -- which you cannot ,,,, because there are none.

          Get a life Rich.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 7:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"

            Fucking drama much?

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 7:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"

            Perhaps Richard doesn't want to identify himself for the same reason you won't identify yourself.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 8:34pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"

              But he's an artist and artists have rights!

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 5:09am

              Perhaps Richard doesn't want to identify himself for the same reason you won't identify yourself.

              Are you are this planet ?


              Click my profile here .

              From there you can find out more about me ,, than my parents know about me. ,,( they have to read my blogs to keep up !)

               

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

          •  
            icon
            Karl (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 10:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"

            Richard , the man who falsely claimed a PhD. in physics to me.

            You're joking, right? He actually pointed you to academic articles that he'd written, as a PhD. You didn't even look at those articles, because you're an immoral douchebag. Now you're claiming Richard "falsely claimed a PhD" only because you can't read?

            If this is not some sort of prank, then you are a liar and an idiot. Either stop claiming "evidence" you do not have, or just leave this conversation. I'm hoping it's the latter.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 5:16am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"Perhaps Richard doesn't want to identify himself for the same reason you won't identify yourself.

              Karl, you are nutty wrong again.

              Richard has not yet send me professional level documentation.

              Hi links and articles are a sham.

              He does not even know the titie of his PhD. thesis , IF he had a resume it would have to be there.

              I have said Richard can contact me directly , through email , if he does not want to pot here.

              My email is available with 2 two clicks away form profile here .

              Other posters have contacted me that way .

              Why can't Richard ? BECAUSE he has no PhD. He is a lying fool .

              At least Karl , you are honest.

              Your a fool, but honest.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                Richard (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 6:14am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"Perhaps Richard doesn't want to identify himself for the same reason you won't identify yourself.

                I have - you just didn't look - it is here.


                http://web.archive.org/web/20010426014739/www.doc.ntu.ac.uk/people/rcc.htm

                I use the Archive version rather than the current because it contains a more complete biographical note than the current version.

                I looked for your email address on your sites - but it doesn't seem to be there.

                Now please quit your mistrust and impoliteness towards me.

                 

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2010 @ 8:04am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"Perhaps Richard doesn't want to identify himself for the same reason you won't identify yourself.

                You truly are an idiot. Your willful incompetence seems to be exhibited by most IP maximists. This is why you and those who hold your position are not taken seriously. This isn't about having more people defending IP on techdirt, this is about coming up with a reasonable defense that makes sense and not consistently looking incompetent because IP maximists are too lazy to either do a simple Google search (demonstrating the overall lazy nature of IP maximists suggesting that they just want IP to enable them to make money off of the work of others without doing any work of their own because they're too lazy) and they're too lazy to even read what others say and are mostly just downright dishonest in what they say. No amount of IP maximists posting on techdirt is going to further your position if you continue down the road of dishonesty and willful incompetence. It will only do the opposite, it will further the opposite position by further showing the level of dishonesty and willful incompetence that exists among those that hold your position.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                BigKeithO (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 1:20pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"Perhaps Richard doesn't want to identify himself for the same reason you won't identify yourself.

                Haha! Owned!!

                You make no sense dude, give it up.

                 

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 2:23pm

        Re: Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"

        "Mike you continually cite arguments, & sources here on copyright that that are so far outside the mainstream, that you should be ashamed."

        The fact that he ignores what the dishonset mainstream media says and instead focuses on the evidence just gives him more credibility. What, being credible and logical are bad things? Going with the evidence is a bad thing? Because the mainstream barely sites evidence for anything they claim, they just assert that copyright is good with no evidence at all just because. They assume that copyright length and laws are reasonable when they are in fact absurd and they never mention copyright length. Clearly they are being dishonest, why would anyone ever site a dishonest source? To what avail? Nothing these people say has credibility, of course they want longer copyright and more restrictive patents, because they and the corporations that control them unfairly benefit from this. But just because they are selfish liars doesn't mean we should pretend like what they say is legitimate just because they have managed to coerce our broken government into delivering a media monopoly (outside the Internet) to the most selfish people in America. That's nonsense.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Karl (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 10:18pm

        Re: Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"

        Mike you continually cite arguments, & sources here on copyright

        Unlike you, who have cited nothing that supports your diatribes.

        Patent Law is a different animal.

        Copyright law arises solely from the same Constitutional Article as patent rights. If you think they are unrelated, then you are proposing that authors' rights are not addresses in the Constitution - and thus not possibly protected by law. I have no problem with this... but I think you might.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 2:21pm

      Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"

      Your open premise here : "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"is grotesque "Pirate Logic" ( ie, "Pretzel Logic" , a well known phrase that Steely Dan borrowed , and do not invent.)

      What do you mean "pirate logic"? Last time I looked there were only two kinds of logic "Correct Logic" and "Incorrect logic". Also, if you wanted to discredit a logical argument, then you had to demonstrate the errors in it using logic or evidence.

      Merely slandering it as "pirate logic" carries no weight whatsoever. Likewise, simply citing the opinions of prominent people has no value, unless those opinions are themselves underpinned by evidence or logic.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 2:40pm

        Re: Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"

        Don't feed the trolls.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 8:38am

        "pirate logic"

        Convoluted Logic = Pretzel Logic = Pirate logic

        http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=4xe&rlz=1R1GPMD_en___US3 61&q=%22convoluted+logic%22+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

        ==== ========

        P.S. Rich . got your email. Your PhD is NOT in Physics, You claim physics and Einstein Quantum theories was your PhD.

        Your Phd is in computer games. Not Physics .

        From You :
        "Course Leader of MSc/Postgraduate Diploma Computer Games Systems and MSc/Postgraduate Diploma Real-Time Computing Applications. Module Leader of Graphics for Games and Dynamics Modelling and 3D Games Algorithms

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2010 @ 9:39am

          Re: "pirate logic"

          Are you truly an idiot. Did you not read the link.

          "Dr Richard Cant received a First Clas Honours Degree in Physics from the University of Manchester in 1975. After completing Part III of the mathematics Tripos at the University of Cambridge in 1976 he undertook Research in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London. He was awarded a PhD in 1980."

          http://web.archive.org/web/20010426014739/www.doc.ntu.ac.uk/people/rcc.htm

          and where the heck did you get video games from that?

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2010 @ 9:45am

            Re: Re: "pirate logic"

            (to continue)

            Ok, I'm the idiot. After thinking about Technopolitical's post for two seconds longer, I realize that I'm the idiot. Nobody can possibly be this utterly retarded. NOBODY!!!! Technopolitical is clearly anti IP and s/he just wants to make the pro IP position look more foolish than it already does. Idiot me, how the heck did I not realize this earlier. Technopolitical isn't that dumb, he just doesn't realize that falsely impersonating the opposite position to make it look dumb is economically counterproductive. We can be focusing on debating the actual problems with IP and current IP law and what needs to be done instead of you wasting time debating us and us wasting time responding. Yes, your pretended pro IP position worked for a while but when people start to realize that you're just being intentionally retarded it will negate much of your effort to oppose IP.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              nasch (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 3:22pm

              Re: Re: Re: "pirate logic"

              I think you're giving him too much credit. I think he really is pro-IP, I just can't figure out if he's a liar or an idiot. I guess it's also possible he's just a troll and doesn't care one way or the other, and is just doing it for giggles, but that seems less likely than options 1 or 2.

               

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

          •  
            icon
            Richard (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 11:50am

            Re: Re: "pirate logic"

            He looked at my current profile - (which I emailed to him in an attempt to satisfy his doubts and just contains current stuff and lacks the full bio.) He didn't bother to look at the link. A couple of emails later and he finally admitted (or came as close as he ever will to admitting) that he was wrong and I had been telling the truth all along.

            Wish I'd never replied to him - he is not susceptible to reason or evidence.

             

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

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 11:10pm

      Re: "How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works"

      Wow, amazing.

      Your open premise here

      It is not Masnick's "premise." It did not originate with him. It originated with lots of empirical studies, which a business author wrote about, and Masnick reported.

      is grotesque "Pirate Logic"

      I notice that you didn't even attempt to criticize the empirical studies, nor present any empirical studies of your own. I guess "pirate logic" is the only one that is driven by rational thought and empirical evidence.

      a well known phrase that Steely Dan borrowed , and do not invent.

      So, according to your moral values, Steely Dan should be sued, and prevented from using that phrase ever again.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 8:43am

        So, according to your moral values, Steely Dan should be sued, and prevented from using that phrase ever again.

        "So, according to your moral values, Steely Dan should be sued, and prevented from using that phrase ever again."

        ME : how or where did i say that ? you know you cannot copyright Idioms, Metaphors , or facts. All i did was point out that "Steely Dan" did not make up the phrase "Pretzel Logic"

        Again Karl, REALLY DUMB POST !!
        ====
        p.s

        Steely Dan = true musical genius.
        I Love & envy them

         

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

  •  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 2:00pm

    A detailed review of the book

    Here's a review of the book posted on Amazon (it's at the top of the reader reviews when I click on Amazon, not sure if it will be same for you, but I have linked directly to the review) and it appears to cover both the strengths and weaknesses of the book. Below is just an excerpt. The actual review is quite a bit longer.

    Amazon.com: Walter H. Bock "Wally...'s review of Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Mot...: "The examples that are used are heavily weighted toward academic and consulting studies. It's not apparent that Pink talked to a single worker or frontline supervisor. The book would have been more helpful if he had.

    There are some pre-requisites to having intrinsic motivation kick in. Pink mentions in passing that there needs to be fair compensation in place. That's true, but it's not an 'oh-by-the-way' point. It's Maslow's Hierarchy in work clothes.

    Throughout the book, Pink equates 'monetary' incentives with 'extrinsic motivation.' That ignores praise, promotion, preferment (in scheduling, eg), the admiration of peers, time off, and a host of other positive incentives. It also skews the discussion toward academic studies and away from the real workplace.

    Pink also presents the issue as if it were intrinsic motivators (good) versus extrinsic motivators (not good). In the TED talk he even says 'This is the titanic battle between these two approaches.'

    That's not how things work in the real world. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivators and their effects interact. You don't have a simple choice of which lever to pull. You have to understand and influence a complex system."

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 6:42pm

      Re: A detailed review of the book

      Hi Suzanne !

      1 hope you are well.

      Your comments here are always great.

      Thank you for all the articles you sent -- they did help to sharpen my posts here .

      Keep in touch as needed.

      Best
      TP

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 6:53pm

        Re: Re: A detailed review of the book

        Thanks. Been busy, so my correspondence of late has been limited, but it is good to hear from you.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 5:23am

          Re: Re: Re: A detailed review of the book

          me too ,, very busy ,, I do techdirt , over morning coffee,, and then before bed beer. But I cannot live here.
          --------------------------------------
          We need more Pirate slayers to post here !!!

          To the tune of "Kill the Rabbit" ( which is from opera)

          "Kill the Pirates ,, Kill the Pirates ....... Kill the Piraaaates"
          ----
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_Opera,_Doc%3F
          What's Opera, Doc? is a 1957 American animated cartoon short in the Merrie Melodies ... and, apparently appalled, sings his signature line "What's up, doc? ...

          ----------------

          http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GPMD_e n___US361&q=What%27s%20Opera%2C%20Doc%3F&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=vid:1&sourc e=og&sa=N&tab=wv
          ------------------------------------------------

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2010 @ 7:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: A detailed review of the book

            No, what we need is more IP critics on the mainstream media instead of having all these valid criticisms censored in favor of the unsubstantiated, illogical, and indefensible nonsense that you spew.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 9:10am

              No, what we need is more IP critics on the mainstream media instead

              "No, what we need is more IP critics on the mainstream media instead"

              Mike is trying. Seems no one cares. Copyright will only grow stronger.

              you want to make it weaker.

              Keep trying

              But you will loose.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2010 @ 9:34am

                Re: No, what we need is more IP critics on the mainstream media instead

                "Seems no one cares."

                That's why the Pirate party is gaining tremendous success all throughout the world despite being blacklisted from mainstream media, even the U.S. pirate party is starting to pick up. So you want to call everyone that disagrees with you "no one" and only the top one percent that control the mainstream media as "some ones" and so, according to you, no one cares simply because the few that control the mainstream media are censoring a very important position from/and a very important issue for no good reason?

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Technopolitical (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 1:37pm

                  That's why the Pirate party is gaining tremendous success all throughout the world despite being blacklisted from mainstream media, even the U.S. pirate party is starting to pick up.

                  That's why the Pirate party is gaining ++++
                  +++ really ? We are winning in the courts ++++

                  tremendous success +++++ numbers and stats please !!!!

                  all throughout the world +++++++ weak. ++

                  +++despite being blacklisted from mainstream media,+++++++

                  ++ techdirt is mainstream media . Right MIKE ? ++++++


                  even the U.S. pirate party is starting to pick up.+++

                  ++++ again stats please,, but there are all kind of nut parties out there. "Far Left" to "Far Right".+++++++
                  ==========================
                  =========


                  I ain't talking about a game I do not know.

                  I was working professional in the Green & Consumer movement

                  way back in the 1980s when

                  "recycling" was a very weird thing to do.

                  Now it is LAW.
                  ---------------

                  So bring it on Pirates.

                  You are up against me.

                  You will loose.

                  Copyright will win.

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 10:37am

                    Re: That's why the Pirate party is gaining tremendous success all throughout the world despite being blacklisted from mainstream media, even the U.S. pirate party is starting to pick up.

                    "We are winning in the courts"

                    But court decisions don't change public opinion and the law generally ends up reflecting public opinion one way or another (ie: via diplomacy or revolution).

                    "tremendous success +++++ numbers and stats please !!!!"

                    Look how successful the Swedish pirate party has become and their ability to enter parliament for instance. and look at how many people from various countries are starting to register pirate parties with the International pirate party.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party

                    The International pirate party seems to be gaining success.

                    They also have two city council seats in Germany and one city council seat in Switzerland.

                    and their membership is only growing and has grown a lot throughout the world.

                     

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2010 @ 9:37am

                Re: No, what we need is more IP critics on the mainstream media instead

                "But you will loose."

                You better hope that the pirate party and groups like the EFF and public knowledge don't continue to grow and gain influence at the current rate. That's why mainstream media and newspapers are losing viewers left and right in favor of other sources and so they have to keep complaining to the government to pass unfair laws because nobody listens to them and so they're losing revenue.

                 

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

  •  
    identicon
    Darryl, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 2:55pm

    Yes, star trek utopia - where's the synthathol ?

    This is all a very nice, Utipian, Star Trekkie type world you are proposing. And ive been trying to think of actual real examples of invention or innovation that is not financially motivated, there are some, yes, and alot in history, but things were simpler than, the cost of training, and equipment, and living is much higher now.

    Sure, money is often not the ultimate incentive for creativity, or invention, or design.

    After all, you're referring to things like modern products, and things that we find value in. (latest mobile phones, high speed internet, high speed computers etc).

    Sure, the GROUP of people who designed the CPU for you're PC would no doubt love electronics and engineering, (lord knows I do).

    And some of them, would most certainly have a strong personal interest in the subject, like a keep amateur. (I do). I will write software, and design electronics at home, in my spare time because it's great fun to do.

    But, going to work, is how I live, how I am able to retire and how im able to feed, house and support my family, and if im lucky enough I will have a wad of money in the bank for my family for when I kick it.

    But if you have ever worked in a design house, or somewhere where creativity and invention is a requirement, you will know that no one walks around all day putting a money value on their work, or competing for more money.

    They think about how to solve specific probems with the resources on hand. They think about the engineering and the product, not the bottom line, or their pay packet.

    Their pay has been worked out well before hand, every week they get a cheque, pay their mortgage, save a bit, and go to work.

    Rarly, very rarly will an engineer or scientist stop working in the field he loves if he gets that magical 'enough money'. Money is not a demotivator, it is a motivator.

    Speak to rich CEO's or rich business people, they will clearly state they have more than enough money to live several lifetimes, but they still work !, they use money made as a guage of their success.

    Same with engineers, and designers and scientists, money is not everything, but it allows you to have a house to stop you getting wet, a car to allow you to get to work, insurance, food and all the other things critical to invention and innovation.

    Im sure, if engineers were always worrying about where their next meal is comeing from, or where they are going to sleep that night, they would be less concerned on how to make a smart work better.


    Reverse the argument, look at countries what do not reward invention and innovation with money. Fixed income countries, im refering mainly to communist and socialist countries.

    If this theory was correct, those states would be hives of invention and innovation in every area. They should be world leaders in nearly (if not) everything.

    And the capitolist countries would be laggin behind, fill of fat rich highly skilled engineers, retired and watching TV.

    But that actually does not seem to be the case does it ?

    OK, dont believe me, of the top of you're head name 5 large and successful high technology, innovative companies in the Eastern Block Countries ?

    Even FOSS, free and open source, which tries to some degree to follow the 'for the love of it' mantra, is certain not an innovation minefield, it's quite good at immitation but innovation,, no so much.
    As well, all the 'big players' in the FOSS world are PAID!

    One of the only organisations that I know of, and am a member of, is TAD. You might want to look at that organisation as an example of innovation for things other than financial.

    TAD, Technical Aid for the Disabled, we invent, design and build specialised equipment to meet specific disabilities of people. It's 100% volenteer, and it's not done for self reward at all, it's not done to increase you're standing or name or to show off you're skills.

    It's done for one purpose, to provide some equipment to make someone elses life easier. It's 100% about them.

    But without a paying job, and without millions of dollars training and education, and without some large organisation providing the facilities and equipment to allow me to do my job, and to design and invent things. It would not be possible.

    Just as it would not be possible to use my spare time, creating and innovating products for people for free, if I had to worry about where my next meal is coming from, or how im going to pay for the electricity that is running my computers.

    Sure, there are millions of people now 'innovating', with blogs and on the web, but it's not really contributing anything greatly of value to society, and therefore the rewards for their work are comensurate.

    Google, Email, the WWW, computers, electronics, the Transistor, CRT and computer monitor, mouse, keyboard, satellite phones, GPS, WiFi... the list is endless, or modern and significant innovations, all created for financial incentive, and by people highly skilled, trained and at a high monetry cost.

    So for me, someone who has been in engineering, and science and electronics/computers all my life, it would not matter if I was earning 10 million a year or just enough to get by on, I would still love what I can do, and do it to the best of my ability regardless.

    Very few if anyone I know would do otherwise, sure, if you are unlucky and hate you're job, you might want to tell the boss to F*&^ YOU, and walk out the door.

    But you find in the creative fields, money is not the prime motivator, but a guage of you're perceived worth.
    Therefore money is the reward and incentive to do better, be more productive and more skilled. And one follows the other.

    The highly skilled, and experienced engineers get paid the most, they are the senior engineers, and the junors who are still learning, who are not as productive are paid less.

    If a senior engineer, becomes less productive than the junor, then questions will be asked and eventually he will be sacked, or demoted.

    But engineers rarly get worse, you learn more things and gain experience throught you're career, you love what you do, so you would do it anyway, but you like everyone else likes to know you are valued, and you're income is that indication.

    If you are valued in a company, and you are able to support youre self and your family, then that is more than enough motivation to do their best.

    Ive never met an engineer that does not want to do the very best they can, after all that is why they became an engineer, or some other creative field.

    You think a painter will product a better or worse painting because of the potential financial rewards? I dont think so.

    A painter, like an engineer, will do the best he/she can everytime, for their own gratification and rewards.

    Sure, if you digging holes, or punching number plates, (manual labour) as you put it, you assume there is little or no pride or satisifaction from that.

    Often that is true, the satisifaction those workers get is the money, the ability to support themselves and their family, to pay for kids education and so on, and even factory workers take pride in their work, and strive to do better, to enjoy what they do, to gain more from that work than just money.

    Everyone does, it appears that only in those countries that do not focus on financial and living improvement for production and invention, are the countries that do not progress nearly as fast as those that do.


    TAD - Technical Aid for the Disabled.

    Volenteer group, what creates for the only reason to provide equipment or things to make people with a specific disabilities life better.

    We do not chage for labour at all, and quite often source and purchase the raw materials and components ourselves.
    Something we could not do if we did not have jobs and incomes.

    So there are example of innovation and invention for non-money reason, and even non-selfish reasons, it's all about helping others.

    But it would not be possible without a strong economy and well paid people, with the spare money and time to dedicate to that work.
    There still is no social model, where that ultrueistic system is or can be the ONLY system.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 3:26pm

      Re: Yes, star trek utopia - where's the synthathol ?

      "And ive been trying to think of actual real examples of invention or innovation that is not financially motivated"

      Just because money is a motivating factor doesn't mean monopolies are necessary.

      "but things were simpler than, the cost of training, and equipment, and living is much higher now."

      Not necessarily. Thanks to technology a lot of things are simpler now. Traveling long distances is simpler, ordering stuff or looking for things across the country is simpler, finding information that you want is simpler. back in the days you needed serious experts and experienced librarians to track down the things teenager can find on Google today. Heck, back in the days programming was not simple but now script kiddies, teenagers, are able to write sophisticated programs because the languages are much simpler. Operating systems are simpler to use, word processing is more efficient, skills that pretty much everyone knows how to sue and require no training now a days pretty much required specialized experts a long time ago (ie: a typewriter was a valued position, now everyone types). Back in the days if you turned in a thesis statement and the reviewers found a mistake ... it might cause you to retype the entire thing or a large portion of it to make the correction. Now you open word processor, make some corrections, print it out, presto. Same thing for anything typed in order to make corrections. Many things are FAR SIMPLER now than ever before. Software is user friendly, you don't have to know EVERYTHING off the top of your head, you can search for it very quick on a search engine.

      "latest mobile phones, high speed internet, high speed computers etc"

      They maybe financially motivated to some degree, sure, but that's not to say that monopolies are necessary for advancement. Heck, the very reason why the United States is falling behind in broadband is because our politicians have been coerced into granting big corporations monopoly power over who can compete on existing infrastructure and who can build new infrastructure. and, again, much of the technological advancement has occurred exactly because IP was scarcely enforced.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 3:39pm

      Re: Yes, star trek utopia - where's the synthathol ?

      "Even FOSS, free and open source, which tries to some degree to follow the 'for the love of it' mantra, is certain not an innovation minefield, it's quite good at immitation but innovation,, no so much."

      This is hardly true, not even close. Microsoft copied firefox and linux on so many levels when it comes to Interface design. I even heard a Microsoft programmer admit that they tried a bunch of things when it came to a GUI interface for windows 7 and just wound up copying what linux did, figuring that what they were doing was optimal (it was some GUI feature). Firefox Tabbed browsing and search not getting the search bar in the way was copied by Microsoft. Much of the command line operations for DOS was copied from linux, since linux users are more dependent on command line Interfaces and so they produce better and easier to use command line interfaces (ie: instead of having multiple commands do multiple thing;s, have one command with multiple different way of doing different things so that calling the command will display one help screen explaining more. Microsoft used to have Deltree and Del to do two separate tasks, they copied Linux in terms of having one command doing them both). Lots of innovation occurred in linux long before Microsoft adopted, Linux was earlier to adopt the ability to utilize 64 bit processors, dual processors, etc... In fact, Linux often adopts new ideas first, under beta releases and whatnot, and Microsoft et al much later copies, because Microsoft is more concerned about bugs and not breaking things and backwards compatibility whereas most linux users know how to program and fix their own bugs and will stay with the stable releases for critical operations while messing around with non critical stuff. It's much easier, the environment that Linux fosters, for Linux people to adopt stuff, whereas for Windows there is a necessity for things to be much more stable upon release so catching up to linux is slow.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 3:41pm

        Re: Re: Yes, star trek utopia - where's the synthathol ?

        Oh, and lets not forget the idea of user accounts being securely separate, to prevent nefarious programs from jumping from user to user or infecting important administrator files, coming from LINUX first and being copied by Microsoft later. So much of Windows security and concepts of security came directly from Linux and their filing system (including file system features, like NTFS). To say that Linux didn't innovate is nonsense, Microsoft copied linux on SO MANY levels.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 3:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: Yes, star trek utopia - where's the synthathol ?

          ncluding file system features, like NTFS features *

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 3:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: Yes, star trek utopia - where's the synthathol ?

          (to continue)

          Now, to some degree, for some software I do think that some software copyrights, for absolutely no more than five years, are OK. I do think that all software (and most other) patents are unacceptable, but I think that some software copyrights are OK. However, Microsoft Windows 95 and windows 3.1 absolutely should not still be under copyright. Discontinued and unsupported software (abandoned software of abandonware) should be in the public domain.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 3:59pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, star trek utopia - where's the synthathol ?

            or abandonware *

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 9:16am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, star trek utopia - where's the synthathol ?

              with all the AC's arguing ,, i can't tell who is who .

              Mike you gotta get a better system.

              AC 1 , AC 2 , AC 3,, etc,,, as you posted elsewhere you have though of it.

              OR

              The NY Times , does register to post . works well there . Why not here ?

               

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

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 4:06pm

      Re: Yes, star trek utopia - where's the synthathol ?

      I don't think that anything you have written actually contradicts the article.

      For the most part the money side of motivation is really simple.

      1) You need to be paid enough not to worry about keeping body and soul together.

      2) You need to be convinced that your pay is fair relative to others in your organisation. (i.e. getting a bonus for good work may not be important - but if you see someone else getting a bonus when you think your contribution was more valuable that can be a demotivator).

      3) The occupations where using money to keep score is important generally tend to be those where the work itself is less interesting/creative.

      Reverse the argument, look at countries what do not reward invention and innovation with money. Fixed income countries, im refering mainly to communist and socialist countries.

      If this theory was correct, those states would be hives of invention and innovation in every area. They should be world leaders in nearly (if not) everything.


      Most of the socialist countries you are thinking about failed to convince their populations that they were operating fairly - at least in peacetime.

      However there was one socialist country that achieved an astounding level of innovation, in fact it created the baseline from which much subsequent innovation has been driven. I speak of course of the UK during WW2. In around 5 years of socialist war effort (and it really was socialist -just ask anyone who was there at the time) they created the computer and the jet engine, the two innovations that have formed the foundation for the modern world.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 6:52pm

      Re: Yes, star trek utopia - where's the synthathol ?

      Great Post here Darryl, ,, Sir !!!
      Good writing too!!

      Wow !! really Great, points Darryl,

      , you Pirates should read it 10x , print it out , sleep with it under your pillow . Maybe you will adsorb some wisdom

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 10:51pm

      Re: Yes, star trek utopia - where's the synthathol ?

      Even FOSS, free and open source, which tries to some degree to follow the 'for the love of it' mantra, is certain not an innovation minefield,

      Linux, Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL, HTML, Ruby, Rails, Java, UNIX, DARPA. All are open source. None of these was motivated purely by financial incentives (though nobody who created them was against making money). All of them have set the standard in their field - compare websites that use PHP vs. ASP, and you'll see what I mean.

      Or, if computer science is not your "bag," baby: look at physics. Physicists share all their knowledge, are underpaid relative to the private sector, and are the main source of scientific innovation.

      The rest of your post? It supports the video Masnick wrote about. Good for you, but probably not worth posting a thousand words about.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 10:53pm

        Re: Re: Yes, star trek utopia - where's the synthathol ?

        Most of the software features we take for granted (ie: copy/paste, save/open, word processing features, etc...), the true innovations that are in many ways more innovative than the improvements we have today, were made without patents.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 2:34am

      Re: Yes, star trek utopia - where's the synthathol ?

      Google,
      Email,
      Developed in academia
      the WWW, Developed as a side project at CERN
      I think Tim Berners-Lee would take issue with you here.
      computers, Developed in the UK as part of the war effort to break German codes
      electronics, the Transistor,Maybe - but a lot of early effort was military funded.
      CRT and computer monitor, the British war preparations again - needed for Radar
      mouse, keyboard, Maybe
      satellite phones, GPS, Military technology again
      WiFi... the list is endless, or modern and significant innovations, by no means all created for financial incentive,

      Please check facts more carefully next time.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 3:28pm

    Here's someone who still believes in monetary incentives:

    http://torrentfreak.com/the-mega-money-world-of-megaupload-100606/

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Jun 6th, 2010 @ 6:14pm

    IDEA

    How about instead of X dollars to gt JOB a done.
    You i'll pay you per creation X dollars, so the more yu create more you get.if you write 5000 lines a code that works the way we want great , but if you write 3000 we want and 2000 we dont need we'll give you half for that other code and keep it if its deemed maybe useful later. Which it might well be so we'd pay that.
    I know bit confusing but if i sat here with my 160 IQ and high EQ , in a week or two id have it all worked out to mathematical precision for hte lower lifeforms to indulge themselves. Oh no , there are these caps IQ and EQ. So Tell me how they are wrong to use now TAM.

    and ya know they could try a LOBBYING canada for no patents .....I am sure our govt woudl bend over for them like the copyright law they want....Then you get a big test sample and we'd be si all rich in short order with our great banking system and no patents.....WOOO.

    Your economy goes poof and we'll buy all your homes and you cna pay us rent and next time riaa and mpaa want a law made here , we'll evict them

    :P

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 6th, 2010 @ 7:48pm

    Relevant article on the changing nature of art

    This piece echoes what I have been writing about, too. I don't think artists will amass their "1000 fans" so much anymore because everyone will have a hand in the creation of whatever art there is. People won't follow artists because they will become artists themselves and modify whatever they like until it becomes theirs. That's why I think the economics of the creative fields have changed and will continue to change.

    ______
    Essay: Technology changes how art is created and perceived - latimes.com

    It used to be so simple. A book had an author; a film, a screenwriter and director; a piece of music, a composer and performer; a painting or sculpture, an artist; a play, a playwright. You could assume that the work actually erupted more or less full-blown from these folks. In addition, the book, film, musical composition, painting or play was a discrete object or event that existed in time and space. You could hold it in your hands or watch or listen to it in a theater or your living room. It didn't really change over time unless the artist decided to revise it or a performer reinterpreted it.

    Well, not any more. ...

    What all these [new] forms have in common is appropriation and a sense of rampant collaboration in which every work of art is simply raw material for anyone who decides to put his or her imprint on it, which then allows someone else to put his imprint on the imprint, which allows still someone else to put his imprint on the imprint on the imprint, and so on ad infinitum. You could call it Wiki-Culture after its prototype, Wikipedia, because like Wikipedia, it is a new form of democratic cultural construction in which everyone can make a contribution.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 5:36am

      Re: Relevant article on the changing nature of art

      Great post again Suzanne.
      ----------------------
      The Pirates here are to busy Writing to ever Read anything meaningful , that needs introspection , and self examination.
      -----------------------------
      Little hint Pirate guys, Research and then form opinions.

      Don;t have an opinion , and then research only to support your opinion.

      You too Mike. your posts are too long , and your concepts full of holes.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        BigKeithO (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 1:42pm

        Re: Re: Relevant article on the changing nature of art

        What makes Suzanne's post so great?

        She is basically talking about all IP being used in a sort of "mash-up" culture in the future. How is that not "pirate logic" by your standards?

        You did read what she wrote right? "...sense of rampant collaboration in which every work of art is simply raw material for anyone who decides to put his or her imprint on it..." She is talking about anyone and everyone taking IP and reusing it, remaking it into something else. Isn't that "stealing" and "pirate logic" to you?

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 5:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: Relevant article on the changing nature of art

          What makes Suzanne's post so great?

          She is basically talking about all IP being used in a sort of "mash-up" culture in the future.


          I suppose my take on the situation is that I think in the future the demand for IP-protected material will go down, so there's no need to fuss over the laws too much.

          Take music. The major labels are disappearing anyway, and the unsigned artists are giving their music away. So eventually I don't think there will be anyone left to fight for payment. It will all be free by default.

          In terms of text, there is so much out there that I don't think people will try very hard to gain access to copyrighted material.

          The same with film.

          There's enough freely available creativity at all levels, that who, in the end, is going to pay to own it? When the traditional purchasers of copyright (labels, publishers, film/TV studios) disappear, and the independent artists give it away for free for the exposure, who's going to bother to sue to protect copyright? When everyone is creating their own stuff, who is going to bother to pay for anything? The market won't be there.

          Now, in terms of patents, I can see that this will probably not work itself out quite so easily. For the stuff that is easily invented and duplicated, market forces will encourage knock-offs as there have always been.

          But for the big stakes games where a company has invested millions to develop a concept, companies/investors are going to want to guarantee some sort of return on R&D. They want to "own" something before they put the money upfront.

          I wouldn't mind going to a system where lots of research is done by publicly funded labs and universities and then made available to anyone who wants to use it, but finding the funding for those publicly-funded entities is already hard.

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    Jim, Jun 7th, 2010 @ 1:51am

    I'd be interested in subgroup studies

    I think you can easily apply the concept of non-monetary rewards to most software engineers; however, some types of jobs require creativity, but most of the people who do those jobs seem to be completely driven by money.

    If you want to destroy a company, for example, structure your sales peoples' compensation plan accordingly. I've hired, fired and managed a lot of sale people. Most good ones will knowing sell something for $1 that costs the company $10 to make, as long as they get a commission for it. They won't give a hoot if it kills the company.

    I went to B-school with a lot of people would worked at, or went on to work at, Goldman Sachs, Lehman, and other Wall Street firms. They were generally very smart, creative and hyper-competitive. The majority were motivated principally by money, and were totally amoral about it.

    Both sales people and Wall Streeters do jobs that often require creativity. In my experience, both groups are principally motivated by cash.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 5:41am

      The majority were motivated principally by money, and were totally amoral about it.

      "The majority were motivated principally by money, and were totally amoral about it."

      Very true , That is why I quit the on corp Job I ever had,, and only worked in non-profit before and after.
      -------------------------

      And Pirates;

      Quick define the terms: "Moral ", "Immoral" , and "Amoral" ----- w/o looking them up online.

      Quite frankly if you cannot ,, you do not deserve to post here .

      You too Mike.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2010 @ 7:51am

        Re: The majority were motivated principally by money, and were totally amoral about it.

        Let me guess, your definition is anything that disagrees with you.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 9:21am

          Re: Re: The majority were motivated principally by money, and were totally amoral about it.

          Wrong ,, it was a pop quiz to see who knows the FACTUAL DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS of

          "Moral ", "Immoral" , and "Amoral" .

          Clearly no takers..

          My point
          ----------------
          It is
          Philosophy 101 in college.

          Basic English lit in high-school
          --------------

          Pirate Geeks!

          Did you folks not study ANY Social Sciences !?!?

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2010 @ 12:09pm

        Re: The majority were motivated principally by money, and were totally amoral about it.

        Generally speaking there are two universally accepted ideas of morality.

        A: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

        B: Rule utility (and Kantism is similar but disagrees with the reasoning, but I like rule utility).

        With rule utility, one measures the net utility by making something a rule. Using this one can argue that copyrights and patents are wrong.

        If everyone copywrote or patented everything that they did or could and enforced these patents/copyrights, nobody would be able to say anything or repeat anything that anyone ever said. All words would be copyright, all sounds would be copyright, all actions would be patented, etc... by someone. So it can be argued that copyrights/patents fail the rule utility test.

        Now trademark is different, because trademark doesn't restrict duplicate behavior, it simply restricts impersonating others and pretending to be them. If everyone had a unique name and prevented impostors from impersonating them and pretending to be them (and I don't mean parodies where it is intentionally known that you are pretending to be someone else or referencing others either to criticize them or for other reasons) then there is nothing wrong with that.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Richard (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 12:43pm

          Re: Re: The majority were motivated principally by money, and were totally amoral about it.

          and of course with your type A morality one could also argue against the imposition of copyright.

          Personally that is my position - but not because I have a desire to pirate stuff - I don't- but rather because imposition of copyright is really bad psychologically (or, if you are religious, spiritually) for those that do it.

          Another psychological study I have seen found that giving stuff away resulted in really positive emotional responses from those who did it.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 9:32pm

            Re: Re: Re: The majority were motivated principally by money, and were totally amoral about it.

            "and of course with your type A morality one could also argue against the imposition of copyright."

            I don't mind others copying me (and would be honored actually, provided they aren't mocking me or something), so I see nothing wrong with copying others.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 9:34pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: The majority were motivated principally by money, and were totally amoral about it.

              In fact, I wouldn't have others prevent me from copying them and so, based on that, it would seem wrong for me to prevent others from copying me.

               

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

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 1:26pm

          With rule utility, one measures the net utility by making something a rule. Using this one can argue that copyrights and patents are wrong.

          "With rule utility, one measures the net utility by making something a rule. Using this one can argue that copyrights and patents are wrong."

          WRONG ! it is PIRATE LOGIC.

          There is a principle that saves us.

          It is embedded in the

          U.S. Constitution.

          It is in the Federalist papers

          John Locke to Ayn Rand write about it.


          Iti is the moral importance of IP
          and copyright protection

          as part of a moral society,

          Find ONE major , well studied , political philosopher who says

          "ABOLISH COPYRIGHT LAWS".

          there is none !!

          Zilch ,

          nadda ,

          Zero.

          The Laws are going to, and

          constitutionally have have to,

          change for the better to strengthen Copyrights..

          If we do not do well in Congress

          in getting good laws for Artist written .

          We got the Courts sown up.

          The copyright clause of the Constitution is all we need.

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    Now I get it., Jun 7th, 2010 @ 2:18am

    If it doesn't have a name...

    ...the post automagically goes to the filter.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Now I get it., Jun 7th, 2010 @ 2:21am

    Anonymous being persecuted...

    ...ok, I'm exaggerating a little and maybe being a bit dramatic, still if it was because of the field name, someone could at leas put that on the warning.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    FreemonSandlewould (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 5:21am

    You should probably consider otherwise

    ......your title suggests getting paid more demotivates work. That is probably an over statement.

    The real facts are what we have always known. If you do what you love then you are good at it. Getting paid well or more neither helps nor hurts that very much at all. Thus it is more of a NO OP.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 9th, 2010 @ 7:05pm

    Where can I DL this book for free?

    I want to MOTIVATE the author to write a sequel!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    anon man, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 2:14am

    illuminati eye

    This book/video contains research sponsored by the federal reserve bank (aka, the moneychangers, google it). You get a great shot of the all seeing eye. That's when I immediately stopped watching the vid. MIT is in on it too. This book, Drive, is Illuminati sponsored.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 14th, 2010 @ 3:58pm

    communist.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 14th, 2010 @ 4:06pm

    money makes projects bigger, it makes the artist more confident in............well screw that, why is art the only profession that claims to be pure and artists are expected to not want money and worldly things? Artists are people too, they are not gods, they are not pure, and they are not all socialist drones either. Stop thinking that money is bad you hippies, if your parents were poor and didn't provide a fall back plan for your hate of money you would be thinking about money much differently. Stop expecting every artist to be a pure deep well of pseudo spiritual cleanliness. Some of us want money, some of us want to be violent, some of us want to be greedy, some of us unhealthy, but mostly we want to be human. If you want reality to be different take some drugs or something you intellectual hack.

     

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


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