Just something that I was thinking about, and I'm curious to see how people would respond to this question:
Why doesn't an architect get paid every time somebody walks into his building? Just like a musician composing and then recording a CD, he's worked once but he's only been paid once rather than every time somebody makes use of his building.
They are two totally different business models and are apples and oranges in comparison.
Yes, I suppose it’s really down to business models. And in hindsight, I realize that the comparison isn’t great (I think I found a better analogy further down).
Still, what interests me is how come it is accepted by society that most people’s work is rewarded only once but in the case of movies, TV shows or music you have to reward the rights holders again and again and again (I’m talking about the work required to create the content or the original work, not the additional work required by distribution, for example).
I realize that many actors, musicians or other artists do not benefit in this way. They’re paid once for the job they do like everyone else.
I suppose it’s probably more interesting to raise the above question with reference to the copyright holders who haven’t necessarily contributed anything to the work creatively but continue to benefit over years and even decades and, more importantly, who benefit multiple times from the same people having to pay over and over.
Please note that I’m not trying to tie this into the whole piracy issue or use it as any kind of justification. I just wonder why it has become socially accepted or acceptable. I’m not surprised that the people who make money this way find it acceptable, mind you
.
To put it simply and without getting into detailed explanations, what you're suggesting is that the architect charge for each person entering and exiting the building. This doesn't work simply because the equivalent to a musician would be that the musician charges for each time someone plays the CD.
I suppose a better comparison would be the pay-per-view model that exists for movies or TV shows.
Neither the CD or the building is property of the musician or architect, respectively. It is the work of the Architect/Musician that is sold via physical means. Even though music is digital, it still requires hardware to distribute it. This hardware is not free. It requires bandwidth. This bandwidth is not free. It requires time and effort to transcode the work. This time and effort is not free. Just as the buyer of the architect's design must then labor to build the end result and bring the architect's creative work to fruition, the same applies to the musician.
Distribution is a completely separate issue, I agree. It’s essentially a service or a service combined with manufacturing. But the process of creating the work itself that is then distributed only takes place once (barring director’s cuts or the likes which require additional creative work). The process of transcoding is also work that takes place only once.
That’s why I think it’s perfectly fair that you pay for the distribution and manufacturing of a DVD or for the maintenance costs for a legal download, for that matter. But I do wonder why you have to pay for the film again even if you’ve seen it and paid for it at the theater (a cost separate from the price you pay the theater owner for showing the film).
Again, of course, it’s down to business models. The business model as is yields more profits for the entertainment industry. But I think it is questionable that you basically have to pay again for something you’ve already paid for.
Now, to follow up on that, let me ask you a question. Would you be okay with someone making a copy of an architect's plans to use for their own personal use as long as they didn't harm the originals?
I think there’s a core difference here. The architect’s plans, essentially, constitute internal documents. They reveal far more about the building and how it’s crafted than a CD does about the music it contains.
As such, copying an architect’s plans is akin probably to industrial espionage, though I’m no expert on this topic.
Leaving that aside and focusing merely on the idea of wanting to replicate a building the architect has created some place else (which I assume is what you’re thinking of), I think it’s wrong.
It’s similar to the illegal distribution of music in that the creator of the work doesn’t get to decide how it’s represented. The music might be ripped at low quality, the building crafted with inferior materials and by inexperienced craftsmen.
It’s also very clear that the architect will never be rewarded for this since the user of the building already has a building and has no motivation to pay anything more later on. Contrary to an illegal download, even a building whose plans have been copied comes with a cost, namely the cost of building it. And that cost is still going to be relatively high.
This, I think is one difference when compared to some users of legal downloads, namely those who download but do purchase the official release later on. And there are many reasons for them to purchase later on, such as supporting the creative talents they like or getting higher-quality versions of the work.
Why doesn't an architect get paid everytime somebody walks into his building?
An architect with enough clout and chutzpah might be able to wrangle a deal like that. The only thing preventing it is that any architect who made that a stipulation would find him or herself out of work as clients hire the less egomaniacal competition. But an architect with a truly unique vision, who had no competition, could theoretically pull it off. It would never happen simply because architects aren't unique enough to make their designs truly non-interchangeable with the competition.
How do you figure they would have to be complete egomaniacs? Do you think musicians, for example, who receive royalties for their works are complete egomaniacs?
I’m just curious as to why you’d put it that way.
Anyway, your assessment basically falls in line with what J.Allen said in that it’s about business models. And I suppose that also answers my own question from above about what’s socially acceptable. If people buy it the way it’s offered, the business model has become socially acceptable. If not, you have to seek a different business model.
Interestingly, architects like Gehry have been accused of essentially stealing their own designs
. If you hire Gehry, you’re buying a “Gehry” building. So, in a sense, you want something that’s not necessarily unique as a building but that stands out because it carries a certain brand name.
Anyway, I'm not sure that's a good example.
It’s probably not.
How about the example of a museum designed by, say, Frank Geary? Part of the attraction, and therefore part of the entrance fee, is the architecture itself. (If you can't charge for the fancy architecture, then what justifies the budget for doing it in the first place?)
I suppose the extra costs could be counted as marketing expenses since a building by a famous architect is likely to attract more visitors hence yielding more revenue. It pays for itself through higher visitor numbers. Most likely nobody would be interested in the Bilbao design museum if it wasn’t for the design of the building itself.
Still, that doesn’t mean they mightn’t slap on some extra charge (which people will probably be willing to pay because of the building).
Geary gets a one-time fee for his design; the museum charges users a per-visit fee to enjoy the interior of the museum. Same as the musician who gets a one-time fee from a distributor who charges a per-use fee.
That’s one version. The other would be to look at musicians who receive royalties whenever their work is played on the radio, for example, or when it gets used in film.
That makes me wonder: Why don’t architects receive royalties when their buildings are shown in films?
Just something that I was thinking about, and I'm curious to see how people would respond to this question:
Why doesn't an architect get paid everytime somebody walks into his building? Just like a musician composing and then recording a CD, he's worked once but he's only been paid once rather then everytime somebody makes use of his building.
The CD buyer is comparable to the building owner, not the person entering the building.
Yes, that’s probably true.
The architect is free to sell as many building designs as he/she can, just as the musician is free to sell as many CDs as possible. Obviously the two items are of much different scale.
There’s also usually a lot more customization involved in architecture. Each building is unique because it’s built some place else, and the prerequisites are different.
I suppose one of the problems here is also that the architects work is usually a lot broader. The creative part of coming up with the design is only one of many aspects.
If the building owner wants to charge people for entering the building, they're free to do so, it's their property, but that's beside the point.
This is interesting. Then why am I not allowed to charge people for listening to my CD?
Don’t get me wrong, I know the answer why. But it points to an inconsistency, I think, in the way movies or music are handled.
If you’re really buying a license, which, I think, is fair, then you should not have to pay again just because you’re picking up that particular piece or work in a different format (you SHOULD have to pay for distribution and manufacturing costs, of course).
Again, I’m not trying to leverage this in the piracy debate. It’s just something that bothers me as a consumer.
And, by the way, I think this is a really interesting discussion. I’m also happy to see how civilized it’s been overall.
