4 ms·

Calling a one man indie who just had a stroke of success greedy and powerful is silly. Indies are very easy to work with. Napkin agreements are legally sufficie

Calling a one man indie who just had a stroke of success greedy and powerful is silly. Indies are very easy to work with. Napkin agreements are legally sufficient. A simple email promising 30% of net receipts may have been enough to seal the deal. Getting licenses from large companies isn't that hard either. Are you gonna make a bunch of money? Turns out big corporations love money. So if you're gonna make a bunch of money just contact their licensing department. It's available on their public website.

chipsy 11y ago
The problem is that that is too much business for individual creators to be bothered with. It is not a matter of whether they can literally do it if they behaved as a rational, rent-seeking Homo Economicus, but whether it's actually on their minds to do business first and not just act on their emotions and run away from the problem altogether, leaving money on the table. For artists, the latter is far more likely to be the case. We should not blame human beings for being flawed and fitting into our arrangement of society poorly.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  ...what? Most people fail at most things they try. Most businesses fail. Most ideas suck. Most personal projects never see the light of day. And because some people can't bothered to send a damn e-mail you propose... ?
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I'd say the real problem is big players buy up or fund the best stuff. So, opposite of that commenter's claim, most people trying to license good content are going to be doing business with medium-to-large firms that are quite greedy and won't give the time of day. In my wedding video example, it was so hard to get them on the phone and get the two licenses that some companies briefly specialized in doing just that part for people. Fee was typically around $10,000. Far cry from my teacher in middle school contacting Cinderella copyright holder and paying a quarter or so royalty to allow us to do a Cinderella play. So, if we're giving them control, I say there should be a requirement to make it easy to get a license from them.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
"Calling a one man indie who just had a stroke of success greedy and powerful is silly." Actually it is greedy for one man doing one thing to legally control that thing and charge whatever he wants for 100+ years. The things many workers create are much more valuable with little to no legal protection and far from guaranteed pay. So, there's should be a strong benefit to the public over no copyright if we're going to give the owner this much special treatment, power, and money. For most content, I'm not seeing much of a difference between the one's that do it for pay vs those that do it for fun. Only seems to factor in when the development or production cost is high enough where one needs to recover it. Complex software, video games, and SFX movies come to mind. Even then, the protections could be weakened after the return on investment came. Instead, we're seeing a lot of great stuff pulled off the market or still charged full price to force you to buy the next thing. That benefits only owners with provable harm to the public, esp with legacy software. The opposite of what system claims to provide. So, it's worth remembering that there's first part of getting authors paid and second part of what happens after. Both are corrupt in current scheme.

chipsy 11y ago

The problem is that that is too much business for individual creators to be bothered with. It is not a matter of whether they can literally do it if they behaved as a rational, rent-seeking Homo Economicus, but whether it's actually on their minds to do business first and not just act on their emotions and run away from the problem altogether, leaving money on the table. For artists, the latter is far more likely to be the case. We should not blame human beings for being flawed and fitting into our arrangement of society poorly.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
...what? Most people fail at most things they try. Most businesses fail. Most ideas suck. Most personal projects never see the light of day. And because some people can't bothered to send a damn e-mail you propose... ?
nickpsecurity 11y ago
I'd say the real problem is big players buy up or fund the best stuff. So, opposite of that commenter's claim, most people trying to license good content are going to be doing business with medium-to-large firms that are quite greedy and won't give the time of day. In my wedding video example, it was so hard to get them on the phone and get the two licenses that some companies briefly specialized in doing just that part for people. Fee was typically around $10,000. Far cry from my teacher in middle school contacting Cinderella copyright holder and paying a quarter or so royalty to allow us to do a Cinderella play. So, if we're giving them control, I say there should be a requirement to make it easy to get a license from them.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

"Calling a one man indie who just had a stroke of success greedy and powerful is silly." Actually it is greedy for one man doing one thing to legally control that thing and charge whatever he wants for 100+ years. The things many workers create are much more valuable with little to no legal protection and far from guaranteed pay. So, there's should be a strong benefit to the public over no copyright if we're going to give the owner this much special treatment, power, and money. For most content, I'm not seeing much of a difference between the one's that do it for pay vs those that do it for fun. Only seems to factor in when the development or production cost is high enough where one needs to recover it. Complex software, video games, and SFX movies come to mind. Even then, the protections could be weakened after the return on investment came. Instead, we're seeing a lot of great stuff pulled off the market or still charged full price to force you to buy the next thing. That benefits only owners with provable harm to the public, esp with legacy software. The opposite of what system claims to provide. So, it's worth remembering that there's first part of getting authors paid and second part of what happens after. Both are corrupt in current scheme.