I think most people naturally see a difference between “I paid for the item, so therefore I own the item,” and “I gave this artist a donation, I expect nothing in return.” The former may be constantly being eroded by soulless megacorporations (and the even more soulless WEF), but at least the latter I think is something people generally understand. So, I this is clear, where is this going?

My question is more philosophical in nature; at what point is it right to feel a level of ownership over something? Is there a point where, if you provide the artist enough money, you know have the right to tell them what they should work on next, and have them owe it to you to do it? What about, if they owe it to you to listen, even if they choose not to?

One of my biggest problems with the current state of the American economy is what I oversimplify as the “Shareholder Economy”: when corporations have to answer not to morality, nor to common decency, but are required to make their shareholders as much profit as conceivably possible. I believe this is why Valve has been so (relatively) consumer friendly; Valve is a privately owned corporation, so Gaben can look at a very profitable, but reputationally (and consumer-relationally) damaging decision and say, “The profit isn’t worth it.” A company like Microsoft or Apple cannot do that without getting the approval of the shareholders, and explaining to them why “Line Not Go Up.”

Tangent aside, is there a point where, like a shareholder, you now fund the artist so much that they have to answer to you? Not legally, if you’re just donating to them, but morally, that they owe you their time? If I take a starving Fiverr artist, and I donate to him $100,000 on top of paying him as thanks for his hard work; does he now owe me? If yes, what about $10,000? If no, what about $1,000,000?

Personally, I believe it still depends on the nature of the exchange. A donation means that there are no strings attached; no matter the amount, I give you X and you don’t have to do anything in return. That means, if I love that artist’s work, and I give him the $100,000 hoping to help him get better equipment, more recognition, and to get his name out there, but he takes the money and disappears, I have not been cheated because it was a gift with no strings attached. I may be very disappointed, I may even regret that decision, but I was not cheated because I asked for nothing in return.

However, even with small amounts of money, I think a lot of people who donate do feel they are owed something. Otherwise, they would not donate anything. This is the unfortunate nature of Free Software (and Open Source software). You release everything freely, and don’t hide anything behind a paywall; people choose to donate to you; then those people who donate do it because they want something of you. They believe that by paying you, you know owe it to them to give special treatment. I’ve never been on that side of this, I’m still a nobody behind a keyboard. But as an artist, I’ve always striven to be independent; I would never sign a record deal, I would never sell out, I would never, on and on.

But I guess that’s the nature of money; I’m the odd one, that money has no value to me inandof itself. Money is not something to be hoarded for its own sake, money is simply the cost of getting what I need or want, and nothing more. (Not that I am not materialistic, that is a battle I face just as anyone else). So, naturally, I value being able to make every decision myself more than money. Although maybe I have a price I just haven’t been offered yet. But for normal people, their price isn’t very high; how many people would do something dangerous for a $100 bill? How many people do dangerous things just because someone dared them to, without any other incentive? Normal people, right now, give up their privacy, freedoms, and right to ownership for the sole price of convenience. If the artist is willing to sell out, should anyone stop him? At the same time, if the artist, like a person at a casino who has hit their goal, has gotten his bag and is ready to cash out, should anyone stop him? I don’t think the artist is wrong for it.

But should someone stop me from saying, “I have paid you this $100,000, now make what I want you to and nothing else”? What about if I just dropped the “and nothing else”? What if, instead, I said, “now you must listen to my suggestions”? What about “critique”? What if I simply said, “Here is the money, now go and create”? In all of those cases, I am presenting my will for the artist to him; but in the first cases, I am saying that my will should be done, but I think more people would be on board with the last one than the first.

I don’t know where exactly this is going. I’m mostly just collecting my thoughts on donations and ownership. Again, I believe if I am donating to someone, it is to support them; so if they just take it and go home, I have been disappointed but not cheated, or wronged. I get a level of say when I am paying for it; if the money is given in exchange for something, and that is up front a part of the exchange, not something I try to sneak in during or after it. If I am not asking for anything explicitly, then I am not entitled to get it.