My gut answer is “yes!!!” or “revolution” but I want to hear what y’all think. For those unware, some creative professions such as film writers get paid a small portion of all revenue generated by their work after it’s been produced, which is called a “residual,” and it’s part of their current fight with hollywood not properly paying those residuals due to the streaming loophole.
Since most programs that are profitable are based on the work of long gone developers (basically capital that gets worked on by machine labour), I think this might be a great demand for an eventual software development union.
What do y’all think?
Labor should only get remunerated for the time spent in producing the thing. Someone making nuts and bolts doesn’t get paid residuals, so I don’t see why someone producing software, which is a commodity like any other, should either. And those residuals would have to come out of the pockets of those actually creating value.
I think this is where I may be a bit misguided. I have been thinking of software both as a commodity and as effectively industrial capital. In that sense, a lot of the “value” generated by corporations like google comes by using automatic labour of hardware on software (both of which are the corporation’s sole property) for which nobody in the company actually gets paid, specially if the developers no longer work there. There are always people working in maintenance and administration, but in my experience those are a very small number of workers compared to those who produce the software before being “relocated” or laid off.
But then it gets really confusing and contradictory for me, and I admit I don’t know much about the labour theory of value in the first place. I just really feel that this is why corporations really like to pretend like software development is cool, but then do their best to promote their programmers to managerial positions or just fire and rehire a lot, because the subsequent labour force is paid at kWh rather than rent prices.