Now you seem to be stuck on some odd notion of “fair” price. The one and only fair price that is permisable for any transaction is the one agreed to by the purchaser and the seller. No other measure of fairness has any validity.
Hows that for extreme libertairianism. 
No, that’s not all there is to it.
Some people look at me creating my artwork and want to pay me less for it because I can finish it in a relatively short amount of time. But they forget that the reason I can finish it in such a short amount of time is that I spent many hours (and years, really) practicing and studying so I could get that fast. So it isn’t only about the effort and time it takes now, it’s about all the background that led me to now. Someone else who has put in a lot less effort and practice than me might take much more time to finish the same kind of artwork, and I certainly wouldn’t expect them to get more than me for their work because they are (essentially) less experienced.
All I’m saying is that if people want me to produce something (and in my case, they have made that request) I have to be able to afford to do it. And if I’m not going to be compensated, I can’t afford to do it.
What’s the other side? People who want my stuff for free or want to pay less for it? :shrug: Either I have the right to ask for compensation for my work, or I won’t do it. If I price my work too high, I won’t sell it. No one is forced to use my work, my work won’t save lives and I don’t feel obligated to: 1) do it for nothing, or 2) do it for a lower price than I feel like taking. And, I can’t force anyone to buy my work, and I can’t force them to pay what I want them to pay.
Let’s put it this way (it’s probably pretty obvious, I should think): Would you want to spend a lot of time doing something for almost nothing, just because someone else wanted it from you? Well, neither would I.
Yeah. That.
I occasionally meet a potential client who gets all bent out of shape when I state my prices (which are not too high—not even close). They act as if I am doing something to them—forcing them in some way to do something against their will. I’m not. I’m just stating how much I need to have the incentive to do the work. If they don’t like that, go somewhere else. That’s what competition is all about.
yosemitebabe, yea, people will be that way. Most people are quite understanding. But there seems to be a sort of disconnect when it comes to intellectual work.
I’m reminded of the smelter expert story. I know its been told many ways, but I heard it this way so that’s how I remember it.
A smelter was having problems. Now, you have to understand that these smelters were large clay (essentially) structures which required lots of time and energy to heat up. Once they were heated up, you could not simply turn them off to sork on them. Often maintenance had to be done while they were hot. This meant that they had little margin for trial and error fixes. They could not very well try a fix and see if it worked. The needed to know it would work.
They called in an expert one day. He listened to the side with a stethoscope. He tapped on a few places. Then he drew a big X in a particular spot. He said “Fix this spot and everything will be fine.” Then he presented his bill for $10,000. The plant manager nearly had a stroke. “$10,000 for 20 minutes of work? That’s outrageous!” The expert said simply, “No, its $100 for the 20 minutes worth of work. Its $9900 for knowing where to put the X.”
Have I been missing that sig line of yours all this time? Is it really supposed to be “geyser” as opposed to “geezer”? Is it meant to be as naughty as I think it is?
Okay, I see. By applying the reasoning behind your first example to the second example, what you would then do is to have both hole diggers dig the hole, and then skip off without paying either of them.
Why should you care what they have invested, in time, labor and tooling if it’s more reasonable for you to welsh on the deal if you can get away with it?
I don’t think P2P sharing has that big an impact on visual artists and authors because of preferences. I certainly would not want to look at a low-resolution image if I can get my hands on a high resolution photo at a reasonable cost. Same with books. I haven’t heard Steven King complaining about losing huge $$$ to file-sharers, say.
I don’t think that’s the case, that’s just a lot of hype by BSA, MPAA, RIAA etc. how much $$$ they have lost to illegal copying, while in fact they are taking absolutely bull.
pervert, I’ve heard similar stories to the smelter one, with the same message. If it looks so “quick” and “easy,” why don’t they just do it themselves?
Getting on a hijack for a moment, I remember in art school there were some students who were, let’s say, “unmotivated.” They didn’t seem to love art and the sometimes hard work that went into it. But they didn’t, I suppose, make the connection between hard work, practice, and results. So many times I’d get a fellow (“unmotivated”) student ask me, “I’ll bet you’ve had lots and lots of lessons, like, special lessons to be able to do that, right?” I’d say, “No, not really. I just draw a lot.” They’d then say, “I’ll bet you really had to struggle hard and spend a whole long time to get that drawing just right, right?” And again I’d answer, “No, I just draw a lot.”
They’d exhaust every possible explanation as to why I could do some of the work I did (not that I was that great) and do it quickly and without a lot of struggle, while they could not. And they seemed really ticked off when my answer basically was, “No, I just worked hard. I practice and practice and practice. That is ALL.” These students seemed to want to hear that I had some “special” advantage that they did not, which would explain why I didn’t have as much trouble as they did. They didn’t want to accept the possiblity that perhaps I could do things that they couldn’t because I worked harder at it. And that if they had worked as hard as I did, they could have the same results that I did. No! No one wants to hear that the “secret” is hard work! 
Ah, my sig line. Long story. A late, lamented Doper, Wally (of “putz” fame), had a knack for making sig-lines for everyone (often involving bad puns or turns of phrase), and I asked him to make one for me. I think he got Yosemite and Yellowstone mixed up. (Yellowstone has the geyser.) So he made a joke involving a geyser. But hey! Wally had made me a sig line, dammit, so I was going to use it! (He passed away a few months after he made the sig line, if memory serves.)
That’s true for the most part. I don’t anticipate that people who produce, for instance, large colorful art books or “coffee table” books are going to worry about P2P cutting into their business. But for those books that are mostly text, I think that some people would prefer to pay $0 for an eBook on P2P rather than, say, $20 for the paperback book. Not all, but some.
In my case, I am pretty sure that many people would prefer the book in paper form, but many people would gladly “share” the eBook for free. How much percentage would “share” the eBook, I do not know, but I would think that it would be a not-insignificant percentage.
See, this is the crux of it. Who gets to decide what is “reasonable”? Apparently some people think that unless I sell something that I took 5 hours to do for no more than $35, I’m “overcharging.” And my feeling is, my work is not some God-given right, something that they must have, and must have at a price that they deem “reasonable.”
pervert, I’ve heard similar stories to the smelter one, with the same message. If it looks so “quick” and “easy,” why don’t they just do it themselves?
Getting on a hijack for a moment, I remember in art school there were some students who were, let’s say, “unmotivated.” They didn’t seem to love art and the sometimes hard work that went into it. But they didn’t, I suppose, make the connection between hard work, practice, and results. So many times I’d get a fellow (“unmotivated”) student ask me, “I’ll bet you’ve had lots and lots of lessons, like, special lessons to be able to do that, right?” I’d say, “No, not really. I just draw a lot.” They’d then say, “I’ll bet you really had to struggle hard and spend a whole long time to get that drawing just right, right?” And again I’d answer, “No, I just draw a lot.”
They’d exhaust every possible explanation as to why I could do some of the work I did (not that I was that great) and do it quickly and without a lot of struggle, while they could not. And they seemed really ticked off when my answer basically was, “No, I just worked hard. I practice and practice and practice. That is ALL.” These students seemed to want to hear that I had some “special” advantage that they did not, which would explain why I didn’t have as much trouble as they did. They didn’t want to accept the possiblity that perhaps I could do things that they couldn’t because I worked harder at it. And that if they had worked as hard as I did, they could have the same results that I did. No! No one wants to hear that the “secret” is hard work!
Ah, my sig line. Long story. A late, lamented Doper, Wally (of “putz” fame), had a knack for making sig-lines for everyone (often involving bad puns or turns of phrase), and I asked him to make one for me. I think he got Yosemite and Yellowstone mixed up. (Yellowstone has the geyser.) So he made a joke involving a geyser. But hey! Wally had made me a sig line, dammit, so I was going to use it! (He passed away a few months after he made the sig line, if memory serves.)
That’s true for the most part. I don’t anticipate that people who produce, for instance, large colorful art books or “coffee table” books are going to worry about P2P cutting into their business. But for those books that are mostly text, I think that some people would prefer to pay $0 for an eBook on P2P rather than, say, $20 for the paperback book. Not all, but some.
In my case, I am pretty sure that many people would prefer the book in paper form, but many people would gladly “share” the eBook for free. How much percentage would “share” the eBook, I do not know, but I would think that it would be a not-insignificant percentage.
See, this is the crux of it. Who gets to decide what is “reasonable”? Apparently some people think that unless I sell something that I took 5 hours to do for no more than $35, I’m “overcharging.” And my feeling is, my work is not some God-given right, something that they must have, and must have at a price that they deem “reasonable.”
But these could be credible P2P scenarios in a few years. Between plasma screens, uber printers, and perhaps an e-book that finally gets it right, I’d be surprised if it’s that far off. Ten years ago the Internet barely existed as far as most folks were concerned. The Pentium chip was right around the corner though…
When someone like Stephen King is facing the possibility of losing money the issue will only get that much more complex. Wait until the publishing houses start feeling the pinch.
Unfortunately, the worth of these creations are highly subjective, and there are always some people who will never pay for anything, but these will not be your customers regardless of circumstances, so they can be ignored.
Fortunately, most people are reasonably reasonable
A lot of things could happen, like WAP, and all those dotcoms 
Plama screens? What about them? Uber printers? They exist already, but you can’t afford them. e-Book? Who wants an e-Book?
One would think it’s much easier to make soft copies of text than songs and photos, no?
Snag,
Also, don’t forget that you can download a lot of software free. But a number of companies are still thriving. So it’s not just the availability of certain items that’s decisive.
I want an e-Book!!! Haven’t seen one worth a damn yet. 
Gah! What the hell happened with all these multiple posts? I only clicked once!
I have no doubt that the RIAA is talking absolutely bull.
However, I know first hand that people do not comprehend or necessarily respect the work that artists do. I’ve heard the line, “But it’s just a piece of paper and you didn’t take that long to do it!” as a reason for not expecting to pay me very much for the work. Now, thankfully, a lot of people do respect the work, but not everyone. Not by a long shot.
I kind of figure, if it’s just a “piece of paper,” then they can go pick up a sheet of blank paper, scribble on it, and use that as a viable substitute for the artwork that they want from me.
I don’t doubt that this is a possibility too.
Yeah, if they look at competing work and can cite the “going rate,” then perhaps. But then again, if I don’t want to sell my work for the “going rate,” then I don’t have to.
I can charge whatever I want for whatever whim reason I want. For instance, I might charge less for something that I enjoy more. I can charge more for something that is grueling and unpleasant to me, even if it’s fun and easy for someone else. I don’t think that anyone else should decide for me what is a “fair” or “reasonable” price, since they are not the one doing the work—I am.
I’m the one with the product, but I can’t force anyone to use my product. If I price myself out of the market, I can either decide to stop producing work for that particular market, or I can lower my prices.
I still say FCTS is the way to do it. Artist would get paid for their work being used, and most people would be quite happy with it. The DMCA would have little use and be would eliminated, removing the chilling effect it’s had on civil liberties, and pervert. FREE PORN!! sorry could not resist.
Another post brought to mind an interesting issue. Canada seems to have stumbled on to a FCTS system of sorts. Because CDs have a tax on them paid to the RIAA, a Canadian judge ruled that while uploading was still illegal, downloading was fine. It’s going to be interesting to see how this turned out.
Yes, that’s why you have people who won’t pay a dime for anything they can download, and will not pay a dime for anything that they can’t.
I can respect that 
As you noted. It’s a two-way street in this commercial world though. So unless you come across a million dollars you must deal with this reality.
FACTS? What’s that?
If people start to decide that “just a piece of paper” or “just a bunch of information” is worth $0 to them, then I’ll only distribute work that I am willing to give away for free. Which means, I won’t be producing (or at least, releasing) as much work as I would if I could get compensated.
So, if that’s the way you want things to go, that’s fine. To put it bluntly, I’ll take my toys and go home. There’s no way that I’m spending hours, days, etc. doing something just to “give it away” to people who have decided that it’s worth not a dime. And I can guarantee that many others would feel exactly the same way.
If it’s worthless, then let those who consider it worth nothing to start producing the work themselves. Hey! That sounds great! Let them get paper and pencil and see what they can do. I’d love to see how that would pan out.
And since I own a copy of a song, I am free to give it to anybody who is willing to accept is at no cost. Good thing I’m not a libertarian.
You seem to be continuing to miss the point, and continually trying to shift the ground instead. This line of discussion began with a description of the problem from a public goods point of view, with my advocating the idea that it is described as such, with reference to others who disagree. If you want to demonstrate that it is not a public goods problem, then do so.
I already told you. I did so explicitly. I gave you both sides of the story and explained why that created the problem. If you don’t get it, fine; but, you could at least try to understand what I’m attempting to get across instead of restating your personal point of view.
[quore]All I’m saying is that if people want me to produce something (and in my case, they have made that request) I have to be able to afford to do it. And if I’m not going to be compensated, I can’t afford to do it.
[/quote]
That simply isn’t true. You are saying much more than that. You are saying that you should be charging a price for an additional piece of work higher than what it costs to produce it. The fact that you can’t afford to produce art for free has nothing to do with that claim. Indeed, by describing this as a public goods problem I am agreeing that you can’t afford to produce for free, but that in no way implies that as a profit maximizer you would want to include your sunk costs in the price of your output. What it implies is that for artistic goods that can be cheaply copied without restraint, like a pdf copies of books, we will expect to see an underproduction of that type of artwork. (Artwork such as original oil paintings, are not cheaply copied and don’t suffer from the same problem.)
Levine, who I referenced at the start, would disagree with me on that, but he would also agree that you can’t produce for free, and I wouldn’t be suprised if when you told him that you included sunk cost into your price, he’d tell you to drop them out and increase your profits.
Allow me an analogous illustration. Suppose you shoot an arrow in the air as high as you can. Now suppose you’re standing in a hole, and you fire the arrow as high as you can. It won’t go as high. For a producer, that hole is like sunk costs. Training isn’t merely a sunk cost–that’s why I compared Oasis with a songwriter who uses more effort to produce an album just as good. If training can cause you to produce better original oil paintings, holding everything else constant, then you’d expect a higher price and more profits–but you’d also be producing a different good, wouldn’t you? Training would be like working out so that you could draw the bow back farther. But given a certain level of strenght, strentgh of bow, etc., you can only shoot the arrow so high. Suppose that you pay thousands of dollars for oil painting instruction that doesn’t improve your skill. Why would that allow you to charge a higher price and maximize profit at the same time? Suppose a tax is imposed that charges $100 from every artist who sells paintings. Why would that allow you to raise your price and maximize profit at the same time? You don’t pain’t any better, or any faster; the demand for your paintings hasn’t changed; the cost of paint and canvass hasn’t changed. Why can you suddenly increase your profits by raising your prices simply because you are paying a $100 tax?
This is different from a pdf copy of your book! My position is that this all breaks down because the pdf can be copied and given away freely at zero cost, unlike original oil paintings. It’s a market failure!
:rolleyes:
So, first off, since you can only misrepresent my argument, I can safely conclude that you in fact have no substanative objection to the idea that pricing happens on the margin. If you had actual reasoning then you would have used it, right?
Second, my reasoning: Producers maximize profits where marginal revenue is equal to their marginal cost. It takes a lot of effort to dig an additional hole. Therefore the price of the hole is greater than zero. Duh.
Racist.
I’m sorry, my eyes are glazing over. Huh? What?
Sorry. I’ve had this headache…
First off, I thank you for your analogy and I actually did (sort of) comprehend it. You have to understand who you’re dealing with here: not always so sharp on the uptake, especially when lacking caffeine.
But I want to keep my question really simple and straightforward this time. Am I or am I not entitled to charge anything I damn well want for my work? Am I or am I not entitled to charge for my work based on whim, based on the color of my cat’s shit in the dirtbox, the phases of the moon, or anything else? Yes or no?
Another thing I wanted to add: I don’t intend to ever release a PDF version of this book. Ever. It ain’t gonna happen. I hope the reasons for that are obvious. Is there something “wrong” with me making that decision?