From: Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:10:06 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <p19huo$15ei$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <00942a15-c476-4273-9671-c1ef61328784@googlegroups.com> <p0rg46$1tqe$1@gioia.aioe.org> <131220171132354803%nospam@nospam.invalid> <d8ec4ebe-4153-448c-a71b-43f86105871c@googlegroups.com> <181220171608156123%nospam@nospam.invalid> <e2bafadf-81f6-45a2-bd23-34a8dc0ed858@googlegroups.com> <p19er6$101g$1@gioia.aioe.org> <33e7625e-8c31-47f9-9523-6c65af05aa7c@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dtpsOvdEBAmGA2GXTGzdjg.user.gioia.aioe.org
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Priority: 3
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Print Article
Forward Article
"sobriquet"<dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote

| >   I wouldn't go around talking about it if I were you.
|
| Well, we've had long discussions about the morality of copyright
| vs the morality of sharing information, so you know how I feel
| about the issue (i.e. all numbers belong to the public domain).
|

   I wasn't making a moral statement. Just
practical. It's not wise to advertise that you're
breaking the law. Adobe has a lot more lawyers
and congressmen than you do. That's just how
it works.

| In the near future all work can be done by robots anyway and
| at that point when there is such an abundance of material wealth
| it no longer makes sense to use money (since monetary value
| indicates relative scarcity).
|

    People actually thought that back in the 50s
and 60s. Technology would mean less work to do.
We'd all get a break. One Juliet Schor wrote an
interesting book about it called The Overworked
American. She made a fascinating claim: That the
microwave is the only appliance that's reduced
work time. For instance, we used to have to scrub
our clothes clean, but we didn't wash them nearly
so often. As our lives became easier we found ways
to make them harder -- manufacturing sense of
purpose.

  She also talked about the popular idea that technology
would make our lives easier. People expected we could
all move to 3-day work weeks. But it's not that simple.

* We make our lives more busy for sense of purpose.
People get bored and most people get into trouble if
they have free time.

* Economic changes have resulted in a greater imbalance
between rich and poor. There's less work to do, yet the
standard of living has gone down. Plutocrats have bought
the gov't in many countries, including, increasingly, the US.
This week's tax bill is intended to widen that gap.

* The great reduction in the need for housework and
manual labor has meant that women can now do most
jobs and often have free time. That's resulted in profound
gender role changes. The current sexual harassment
craze is part of that, as we try to work out functional
roles and standards for child-raising with the nuclear
family no longer being critical to survival. Will we
socialize child-raising? Will women take it over, with
taxes to support them? Right now it's becoming a
pastime for the rich. Upper middle class women have
children, with or without a husband, and pay low-wage
helpers to raise them. The helpers, in turn, can't
afford to have kids.

* Changes in technology also bring changes in costs.
Cars are more expensive due to improved safety. Houses
are more expensive due to complicated permitting,
safety regulations, etc.

 That's just scratching the surface. But basically, we've
already arrived in the Golden Age of leisure and it turns
out to be not all it's cracked up to be. Lots of people
doing pointless work. Lots of poverty. Lots of planned
obsolescence. We yak about the environment yet we've
created an economy that's increasingly dependent on
disposable items. From diapers to windows -- nothing's
designed to last. Use it and throw it away.
  I grew up in the 60s and early 70s. Life was much
easier then. A janitor could own a house and raise a
family. These days a janitor will probably need to share
rent on a 4-bedroom apt with 3 other people.

  In a very basic, practical sense we no longer need to
work nearly so much. But that just hasn't panned out
in practice.