Comment by _kst_
6 days ago
"Copyright demands that everyone pretend the value of someone's work is the product of that work, not the labor."
Isn't it?
If you spend ten years writing the Great American Novel, and I spend ten years writing "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again, have I created as much value as you have?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Critique...
If I would have spent ten years writing the Great American Novel, but spent all my time working elsewhere so I could afford to live, then yes.
Why in the hell would anyone spend ten years writing "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again? Because they have no intrinsic meaning to provide, or because their life has no meaning to reflect?
We may as well set aside this argument anyway, because it actually isn't relevant. If I accept your premise that the product of work is the only value in labor, then why are there specific categories of product that I can value, and others that I cannot? That's the situation copyright has put us in: if I create the right kind of work, but it's derivative, then that's a violation of someone's copyright. If I create derivative work, but it's the wrong kind, then I can't copyright it. The only kind of work that I can profit from freely is "original", which is a false premise to begin with.
So what is the alternative? Speculation. In a society without copyright, labor must be funded somehow. Rather than promise a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, we would simply fund artists who we believe will create valuable products. We already do this to a moderately significant extent: everyone knows about Patreon and OnlyFans. Most successful creators rely on ad revenue instead of royalties. The problem with this model is that it must compete with copyright holders, who get to monopolize entire swaths of derivative work, and leverage the guarantee of their already-performed work as much easier to sell than speculative investment. Get rid of copyright, and the market simply becomes fair.
Of course no sane person would spend ten years writing "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again". That wasn't the point.
The labor theory of value says that the value of something is determined by the amount of labor that went into creating it. I'd say it's not really so much a theory as a definition of the word "value" -- and I suggest that it's not a particularly useful definition.
If I go to the widget store to buy a widget, the price I'm willing to pay depends on what it's worth to me. The amount of work that went into producing this widget or that widget doesn't affect my decision.
Another article you might (or might not) want to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theor...
"Get rid of copyright, and the market simply becomes fair."
I think the word "simply" is doing a whole lot of work there.
> I'd say it's not really so much a theory as a definition of the word "value"
And that's my point. It's a tautology that demands our participation, while at the same time literally devaluing participation itself.
If you want to understand my position, then you need to step out of that tautological frame, and consider labor as valuable. If you avoid doing that, then you are just avoiding what I'm trying to communicate here.