This is one of the things that really gets my goat. As somebody who studies music professionally, I know a lot about the creative process. While the public has this idea that composers and other creators basically live in some sort of world where there are no such things as bills to pay, food to buy, clothes to wash and other such mundane things that make up ordinary existence, these things are often important parts of why certain choices are made in a professional life and why some people either succeed or fail. "Information just wants to be free" should never be understood as "free as in beer", since composers, writers, artists and others have to make their lives.

Happily for people living today, other creators in the past have fought to create some sort of payment for use of intellectual property to those who create. Beaumarchais was the first important figure in this process, insisting on a percentage of the book at performances of his plays. Beethoven created a new statute for composers by refusing to submit to the old system of royal patronage. Finally, in 1847, the composer Ernest Bourget sued the Café-Concert (think "cabaret") the Ambassadeurs in Paris for payment for use of his songs and won his court case. This lead to the create of unions of composers such as the SACEM, ASCAP, PRS and others which allowed for payment for use of music. Although there are excesses, I can personally point to situations in which this money becomes the difference between living comfortably (but not lavishly) and being in a poorhouse...

Information just wants to be free, but creators need to be paid. It's a right to be paid for your work. Why should creators be any different?

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is taking this even further in their latest fund-raising ploy : Give us money and we'll give you "free" information.

The pitch starts out on the right foot, even making the important statement that Free should be understood to mean freedom :



I mean , nobody is going to come out and say "we want information repressed". But we're talking about "free" in terms of freedom here. The payment part is out of the picture.

Since they're trying to get money out of us, money quickly comes back in the next paragraph:



So, giving money to Wikipedia means supporting "freedom"? Not a bad sentiment. But it's also, by their own admission, not that simple :



This implies that transformation or derivation somehow adds quality. If I write a piece for soprano and string quartet using a biblical text, using it as a soundtrack in a porno movie or in the latest Gangsta Rap record does not really further my intentions in writing such a work. Creation implies ownership, but it also implies intent. It just as much the creator's right to say "this is NOT my work" as it is to say "this is my work.

The fact that most works are, by default, copyright is also a quality, not a default (and I'm sure that our friend Durova is very thankful that this is the case). It means that anyone living in countries who adhere to the Bern Convention have automatic protection to works that they create. The whole "Happy Birthday" business (the "worst case" scenario, if there ever was one) is just going around the issue: You are free to sing any song, to perform any play, to do whatever you wish with anything in the privacy of your own home. But you can't do it in a place where money is being made without paying the creator. And if you don't have permission to transform something, then you can't make money off of it yourself; this is called "stealing".

Then we have the usual Utopian business about everything being "free", but note that it's not clear whether we're talking about "free" as in "freedom" or "free" as in "beer". And finally, we get back to the central issue: for this to work, you have to have....money :



So, how are we going to do this?

Well, here's WP's answer! Give us money!



I guess that "free culture's Utopians" don't read the Register these days...

Then we have another use of the word "free" :



"Free" as in "Freedom"? Or "free" as in "beer"? Probably the latter here...so, because Wikipedia is "Free", we're supposed to pay for it. But, wait! There's more!



Free Culture is better than the proprietary alternatives? Which "free" is this? And why does any of this have to do with choices that I make about my work and how it is used? It's sort of like going into someone's house and saying, "alright, I've decided that this is mine now, so you have to move out". If you want to do something with a song or a painting, you can make one yourself!

If all of this is about "free" as in "freedom", then wouldn't it be better to support those artists, writers, musicians and others by attending concerts/buying artwork/buying books, instead of creating the circumstances which allow their work to be stolen in a misguided effort to help "poor children in Africa"? And if this is about "free" as in "beer"...Well, there's that office down the hall marked "Wikia"? They're certainly not giving out anything for "free"...

It's not Utopian. It's a Marxist analysis calling for the ending of private property and the forced collectivization of Information and History.

It's as if the 20th Century never happened.

People have to be assured that they can reap from whatever they create. Otherwise, why invent anything?

That's not to say there isn't altruism. As individuals, it is our responsibility to help others. If I invent a cure for cancer, I shouldn't be a heartless you-know-what and hoard it for a high price. I should get it out there to save as many people as possible. The law though does defend the heartless inventor and the charitable inventor. A conundrum to be sure.

Free...as in malaria.

...as in rampant pandemics want to be free.

Better to give your money to to Bill and Melinda if you care about that African kid.

Well, the comments are pretty epic and indicate that this tactic is also going down in flames :





...not to mention Greg K's great comments...




Yes, but that's a moral question, not a legal one. Of course, one should do good, but what these people want to do is effectively steal other people's property and then profit off of it.

This isn't about "poor children in Africa". This is about Sue G. and Michael G.'s salaries, the move to SF, Jimbo's traveling and Floflo's childcare bills.

Now, is that really worth a million dollars? And does this really deserve to be called a "not-for-profit" organisation?

It's just like their changing use of the word "free". This is the "shell game", pure and simple.

Don't fall for it!

I still don't get it. Objectivism is quite clear on this: asking for altruism is bad. How, then, can Jimbo's encyclopedia not only ask for donations, but imply that donating to Wikipedia is a moral necessity?

Charity is in many ways like a business.

I invest in a business and expect dividends. I expect my investment to produce good products.

For a charity, I expect no material reward, but I do expect a good product: something that benefits people and helps them.

If I invest (i.e. donate) in the Wikimedia Foundation, what does it give to people no one else can?

This all reminds me of an article I read recently where this charity is creating these crank-up laptops for schoolkids in Kenya. Weeeeeell, some private companies came along and created their own crank-up laptops which are better made, have better software, and at a better price than the charity's. The charity then complained that that was mean of the private companies to offer a better product at a better price to the Kenyan schoolchildren. I would have thought the charity would have been happy that private companies were investing in the "Third World." Like the laptop charity, I don't think many Wikipedians are truly altruistic and believe they are helping anybody.

The "Third World" needs reliable computers and reliable Internet connection at a low low price. After that, good information skills are needed so people can find the information they need that relates to their problems and find solutions. This is investing in education and people and the rewards will be fruitful for everyone.

I would love a comprehensive limitless reliable encyclopedia that everyone can enjoy and learn from. Heck, more than one such encyclopedia/reference work would be great too! Wikipedia just isn't right for this. There needs to be more control, more academic oversight, more research, and more good faith collaboration as well long-term commitment. Right now, I wouldn't give WP's troubles to a monkey on a rock let alone some poor kid in Africa trying to get good information and education to help himself and his countrymen.

I thought in Ayn Rand's world people would voluntarily donate to the government because it's in their rational self-interest. So obviously not all donations are considered by Objectivists to be "altruism".

When has Jimbo implied that donating to Wikipedia "is a moral necessity"?

I would donate with the stipulation that my money go directly to maintaining WikiQuote and WikiSource. I do not want a cent of my money going to Sue Gardner, Jimbo, or the English Wikipedia.

If the Foundation allowed that, maybe I'd consider donating as I like WikiQuote and WikiSource. Not because I think it embiggens the smallest man or anything, just because I like it!

More comments about this posting :







Then, there is this rather confusing rant, which seems to cover all of the bases:

Wikiquote has at least one really superb brilliant admin and Wikisource has at least one really superb brilliant contributor.

Getting back to The Joy's main idea, which was being able to indicate where one wants one's donation spent, I seem to remember somebody saying that this was possible in the US. And I believe that they have to provide proof that the funds were indeed spent that way.

Of course if any donation to a non-profit is conditional the non-profit has the right to accept or reject the donation in light of the conditions. Otherwise a donor could impose a net hardship with the "gift" or even disrupt the mission of the non-profit.

Howdy gang.

I mainly just sit back and learn from the erudite denizens of this fine forum, but I had to comment on this quote:



So, let's get this straight. The Executive Director is a person and needs a $500.000 a year budget to eat; but us content authors...no, we're just in it for the love of the game and the warm (empty) feeling in the pit of our stomachs that comes from having our content "liberated." I think that sums the Free Content mindset up nicely.

Darbyl, you've GOT it, and it only took you one post! Welcome.

Yes, our good Hungarian specialist in pharmaceutical ionization, Drazen Cavuzic, believes that a salary that exceeds 99.5% of the income earners in the United States is well worth the IMPORTANT work that Sue Gardner will be doing. You know, bringing in-language encyclopedia workshops to remote villages in Tanzania. Oh, and coordinating Jimbo's worldwide travel schedule.

I hope you enjoyed your liberation.

Greg

501 ( c ) ( 3 )'s report the compensation of key employees each year on form 990. I have never actually heard of any sanction being imposed as a result of this disclosure, but then again I have never heard of a such a shockingly disproportionate income by an executive director of a non-profit. Keep in mind that that we talking about an enterprise with employees and activities that compare modestly with a 7-11.

You mean they are mostly a junk feud peddler?

Intellectual junk food: cheap, easily digestible, ultimately unfulfilling, and chock full of unsavory additions.

I was think in terms of numbers (10-12 employees.)

Hi Darbyl and welcome to WR! I'm sure that you'll fit right in here!

But much higher salaries.