When Sharing is not Caring: The myth of the Sharing Economy

We now routinely have politicians prattling on about the need for ‘disruption’. They are regurgitating misleading propaganda. If they understood the true consequences of disruption and the so called ‘sharing economy’ they’d shut up very quickly.

This is an amazing bit of analysis. Very clear sighted, and all the more devastating for it.

Next time someone casually drops the word ‘disruption’ into a conversation, you might care to employ some of the arguments advanced here.


And while we are at it …

How about the rampant malarkey swirling around the concept of ‘crowdsourcing’?

Anyone with a functioning brain cell must have spotted the flaws, contradictions, and hidden consequences in this concept.


Have a read:


About Costa Botes

I'm a freelance film maker based in Wellington, New Zealand. I make mainly long form independent documentaries about characters I find interesting.
This entry was posted in Copyright and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to When Sharing is not Caring: The myth of the Sharing Economy

  1. justsomedude says:

    I’ve been reading through your blog, and what at first seemed to be decent arguments from the POV of a copyright holder slowly degenerated into outright iron-fisted fascism.
    At first it only happened in the comments but lately it seems to be leaking into the posts as well.
    Blaming the law for not fleecing the general population enough to cover for the crimes of a few is never OK. And that’s exactly what you’ve been suggesting lately.

    Disney movies are not a human right, true, but intellectual property was never meant to be as strong a right as physical property (say, a plot of land). Physical property has different laws, it is even taxed differently (income tax aside – we all pay that, there is no direct copyright tax in most countries). But don’t worry, the next time Steamboat Willy becomes threatened by public domain, come 2018 Disney will probably lobby to raise copyright to 95 years.

    Which I’m sure will help the unprofitable authors who last published a book 30 years ago…
    But, hey maybe this year it will be discovered by some hipster and go viral!

    That alone must be worth keeping 80+ YO orphaned works out of the public domain.

    No but seriously, think about that what good is owning the rights to a book/song/movie that hasn’t sold a copy in 50 years ?

    Also, I have family & friends that work as entertainers/musicians/authors and they all agree international copyright has gone out of hand and only benefits a select few.

    But shit… why do I even bother!?

    • Costa Botes says:

      You bother because you have a point of view, and I have allowed you to express it. I wouldn’t say my own point of view has degenerated. I believe I’ve been rather consistent. Albeit my outrage at the unfairness of a ridiculously out of whack situation has grown. Here and there you might find evidence that I don’t disagree with you about the terms of copyright. My own feeling is that death plus 50 years strikes a fair balance between rights of creators and public good. It’s hardly fascist to insist on the maintenance of rights that have enabled artists and creators to make a living from their talents since the 18th century. Why are you so intent on privileging amoral tech companies? How are they any more virtuous than the old world media conglomerates you so casually demonise? They’re not. They’re worse. At least Disney pays its way. And you really need to get much better informed about the nature of copyright, what it covers, what it doesn’t. You can’t tax copyright. You can tax income. Artists without copyright protection make no income, so there’s no tax to be paid. Less economic activity. Which means the public good suffers. I suppose as the lights start to go out, moochers can console themselves with free copies of Great Expectations.

    • Costa Botes says:

      Also, btw, your musician and author friends? Have any of them ever actually sold a book or song? Have they tried? Did they make anything? If so, then they are the beneficiaries of copyright. They enjoy the protection of the law as the creators of that work. Nobody else but them has the right to make copies of their work with permission or license.

      It puzzles me what possible problem they might have with this? Copyright does not limit their rights as artists. If they choose to freely share their work, nothing is stopping them. But if they’re good enough to do work that is attractive enough to draw willing buyers, then copyright is the only thing that protects their interests and enables them to monetise their efforts.

      I presume you work for a living. I invite you to consider your response if your boss chose not to pay you and suggested you work free for the love of it, and the good of mankind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.