From: sobriquet <>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id c12mr1007516qtj.5.1513639982616;
Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:33:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id o193mr126262vke.9.1513639982484;
Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:33:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <p19huo$15ei$>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=;
References: <>
<p0rg46$1tqe$> <131220171132354803%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<> <181220171608156123%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<> <p19er6$101g$>
<> <p19huo$15ei$>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
From: sobriquet <>
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 23:33:02 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 96
Print Article
Forward Article
On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 12:11:27 AM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
> "sobriquet"<> 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.

Lawyers and congressmen are irrelevant. They can't make
pigs fly or make water running uphill instead of downhill.
So they can pretend that numbers can be owned and sold
like tangible commodities, but the reality of the
situation will always be that people share numbers
indiscriminately, since numbers inherently have this
property of not being scarce.

> | 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.

Ok, so we're actually engineering artificial misery and
artificial scarcity.
Hopefully we will come to our senses soon before we fuck
up the whole environment with our collective stupidity.