A few days ago, The New York Times ran a piece about how they weren’t paying artists for the artwork you sometimes see replacing the Google logo on their main search page. Today they published my letter to the editor.
My Letter to the New York Times
Ted Rall
http://rall.comTed Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
Comments are closed.
20 Comments.
Great letter. Information is 'free' only when things can be negotiated to the artist's disadvantage. Information is NOT free when you add up the computer, hookup fees, electric bill and clicks for revenue.
I'm glad your letter cited the heart of the problem — not paying artists, as opposed to the "problem" being the duplication technology.
But I resemble the "vampire" remark!
Sure creators should be paid for their work, but if the costs of copying and distribution are negligible, it is unfair and illogical to extract from the consumer the same price as if he was paying the creator for an individual creation. In other words, I agree with you that the burden is on Google to pay an artist for artwork, but I disagree with you that consumers become criminals when they take something for free that cost literally nothing, to duplicate and distribute. There are all kinds of areas where corporations have powers & privileges far beyond a biological "person", this is one area where corporations have a liability and cost that biological "persons" do not.
If you insist that everybody has to pay for something which cost nothing to copy or distribute, then you are taking us one step further down the road where you ask your apartment-building neighbor "Is it raining outside? Will I need my umbrella?" and he responds, "What's it worth to you to know?"
As a writer, I refuse to give my work away. I did this a few times when I was younger over the whole "exposure" line. Alas…I was a dupe.
Quoth wise man Rall: Congress ought to act to make it illegal for a profitable corporation to solicit work without paying for it.
I might be old-fashioned, but doesn't a simple no from the artists, like the ones mentioned in the article, suffice? Why do you need a law to stop Google from asking them to submit their work for free?
Oh, but I see how that proposal could be interesting for renowned cartoonists to prevent lesser known competitors from getting exposure. Other than that, it's amusingly ironic for someone who spouses hardcore socialist ideas, to vent about so-called intellectual property.
I couldn't agree more. I'm heartened every time I read your logic put against Google's "financial model, as with Simon Dumenco taking HuffPo to task for having no plans of ever paying their bloggers. Especially in a depression, no one should even consider working for free.
Slant, Salon, Google, Huffpo, and every other poseur media outlet that pretends to be of value when they refuse to pay creators a reasonable wage should be shunned, snubbed, and ignored.
Wow, Ted. The Times actually acknowledged your existence.
Ted — I know you're a liberal, but don't slip into "there oughtta be a law"-ism. Fsck the laws and just start a boycott. Hit them where it hurts.
yeah, except Congress is busy screwing up health care and is too busy to make laws like that…
and I don't think that would be a good law anyway…
TED:
"One of the rarest commodities in the establishment media is someone who was a vehement critic of George Bush and who now, applying their principles consistently, has become a regular critic of Barack Obama — i.e., someone who criticizes Obama from what is perceived as "the Left" rather than for being a Terrorist-Loving Socialist Muslim," Greenwald writes. "It just got a lot rarer, as The Washington Post — at least according to Politico's Michael Calderone — just fired WashingtonPost.com columnist, long-time Bush critic and Obama watchdog (i.e., a real journalist) Dan Froomkin." –Glenn Greenwald
BTW, some news reports have admitted that the Post's Bush-loving, reader-attacking, clinically psychotic "ombudsman," Deborah "Whore-well" Howell, was instrumental in getting rid of Froomkin.
incitatus proposes:
"I might be old-fashioned, but doesn't a simple no from the artists, like the ones mentioned in the article, suffice?"
Basically, you are saying:
"The ignorant get screwed."
It is a hidden pillar of economics. It is hard to disagree with. That does not make it useful in a discussion about good economics.
Basically, you are saying:
"The ignorant get screwed."
Angelo,
That is not what Incitatus proposed. If you think they are ignorant and they are getting screwed, that's your right. Why don't you let the rest make their own decisions. That's called freedom. Frankly, I've had enough of you Statists "making laws" for us "ignorant. You've f'd up housing, the banks, the auto industry, medicare, social security, education, wall street.
Angelo,
You probably had a really bad teacher in logic. What I really said was: you don't want to given your stuff for free? Fine, just don't. You (and Ted), on the other hand, seem to want to prevent them from asking. This is absurd, not that it would make any difference with a Congress-critter.
Here's a piece of news that ought to make your (and Ted's) IP-loving heart content.
Frankly, I've had enough of you Statists "making laws" for us "ignorant. You've f'd up housing, the banks, the auto industry, medicare, social security, education, wall street.
That's rich, except for Medicare and SS all those institutions you mention are indeed f'd up, but it's from a lack of coherent regulation rather than the application of unfair laws, as you imply.
The only people who don't want laws are corporations and their dumbass lackeys: aka LIBERTARYANS.
Libertarians are the slimiest bunch of neo-Fascist motherfuckers I have so far seen come down the corporate poop chute.
Yes, there should be a law preventing corporations from soliciting work for no pay.
JXC,
Housing and banking regulations are exactly what got us into this mess. And when the Bush administration tried to get congress to move on shoring up FREDDIE and FANNIE, Dodd and Frank said there was nothing to fix.
And now Obama wants to force more risky loans on banks.
Aggie Girl
I said the lack of coherent regulation was the problem with those institutions. Bush never tried to impose regulation on any business, and what ever Obama does now is on his slate, it has nothing to do with the state of affairs we found ourselves in at the end of Bush's ruinous tenure, so I'm unsure what your talking about.
Hemlock,
You might want to check a dictionary for the meaning of the word fascist. It is not a generic invective to be used against people whose point of view you don't like.
Do you also think we need a law to prevent bums from asking you for spare change?
Such a law exists. 'minimum wage' laws. The question is, I supose, wages vs salary vs fee.
I'm just saying ted's proposal isn't all that unprecidented
I once worked for an absolutely brilliant engineer. We were out to dinner with some other people I hadn't met before. He was very open with them about his work. If someone at that table wanted to steal ideas, it would have been easy.
I asked him why he was letting all this good stuff go for free. His answer was that he had more to gain from collaboration and discussion than he had to lose from someone stealing aspects of his work. What was there to worry about, he asked. Its not like these were the last good ideas he would ever have.
Its amazing how much can be accomplished if you're not worried about who gets the credit. We are truly better off if information is free.
Maybe the economics of the creative professions are a losing proposition in the information age. Why should that be Google's problem? Why should there 'otta be a law? I sculpt because I love to. I have a day job because I know I can't make a living at sculpture. Why should "professional" artists should be spared having day jobs as well?
JXC
Bush never tried to impose regulation on any business.
So what? Banking and finance are heavily regulated. The Bush administration tried to impose tighter restrictions on FANNIE and FREDDIE. The Democrats, namely Frank and Dodd blocked those restrictions.