5 ms·

Probably because without these regulations, there would be no visibility for niche productions, no way for them to reach the few people who want to watch them.

Probably because without these regulations, there would be no visibility for niche productions, no way for them to reach the few people who want to watch them. That may run contradictory to capitalist beliefs, but the system intends to allow existence of films/music/cultural products which (regardless of quality) have too few customers to survive in a non-regulated market. If you wish to keep having diversity in your cultural industry, that's not a bad thing.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Unfortunately, due to the way broadcast television works, it's just not possible to cater to minority tastes. There's just no way to have the people who enjoy niche productions to pay the creators of those productions directly. If only there were some sort of global system for distributing niche productions to those subscribers who want to see them. Perhaps some sort of system using minicomputers to transmit the information - we could call it "Minitel". But seriously, are you really trying to claim that the internet is making it harder for niche producers and consumers to connect?
- wfo 10y ago
  Broadcast television can and has been catering to minority tastes for many, many years as we all know. It just can't bankroll itself by doing this, so it requires public funds or regulations to prop it up. But sometimes making room for minority viewpoints/culture/attitudes is worth interrupting the all-consuming capitalist neoliberal worldview for a moment, if just long enough to allow someone to point out its many flaws.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Since you seem to have missed the sarcasm, I'll make it explicit. There's this thing called the internet. It allows minority producers and minority consumers to connect with each other. For example, if you wish to read fiction about the Death Star's project manager, or My Little Pony characters living in the world of Fallout, or a rationalist-themed fanfic rewrite of Harry Potter, you can do so. There is even erotic fanfic to the aforementioned Harry Potter fanfic. It's never been easier for producers and consumers to find each other than today. If the stuff the French are trying to protect can't survive in the age of the internet, it's because no one likes it.
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      > For example, if you wish to read fiction about the Death Star's project manager, or My Little Pony characters living in the world of Fallout, or a rationalist-themed fanfic rewrite of Harry Potter, you can do so. There is even erotic fanfic to the aforementioned Harry Potter fanfic. Which all is only tolerated but not allowed by copyright laws.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        His point was that the internet allows for much more diversity, rather than less. The example he chose is a little unfortunate. Copyright issues surrounding fan fiction are not relevant to the matter at hand. I'd argue that the goal with the French cultural protectionist laws is not to allow diversity, but to choose winners and losers by constraining choice.
    - wfo 10y ago
      Yes, it lets hobbyists and amateurs connect with each other. It doesn't help a well-respected cultural tradition of art continue and give it the tools it needs to continue to exist. And plenty of people like it. The whole point of art is that often, if it's worth anything, the majority of people don't like it. Comparing art to erotic fanfics really quite makes my point for me -- the character of your argument is laid bare, you aren't willing or capable of making the distinction, it's all mindless entertainment and nothing more. The fight the French are fighting against is the lowest common denominator which replaces art -- valueless trash which is entertaining and nothing more. It is seductive and destructive and valuable monetarily but valueless otherwise.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        The internet has made it easier than ever for content that only a tiny majority of people like to survive. If 99% of the population hates it and 1% loves it, you've got a viable business. Discussing the "lowest common denominator" is an outdated argument from the broadcast television era. "Lowest common denominator" doesn't exist anymore due to entertainment becoming fragmented. When it premiered, Seinfeld's ratings were 8.0, making it #14 on TV. Today, the #1 show (Big Bang Theory) has ratings of 8.8. http://www.thewrap.com/seinfeld-no-14-in-its-debut-season-would-beat-every-show-but-one-today/ http://www.thewrap.com/seinfeld-no-14-in-its-debut-season-wo... http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html Lets face it - the problem with the stuff that you are defending is that it's enjoyed by fewer people than erotic meta-fanfic.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    >But sometimes making room for minority viewpoints/culture/attitudes is worth interrupting the all-consuming capitalist neoliberal worldview for a moment, if just long enough to allow someone to point out its many flaws. So affirmative action for ideas? If you can't win, maybe you can win by forcing people to listen to you?

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Unfortunately, due to the way broadcast television works, it's just not possible to cater to minority tastes. There's just no way to have the people who enjoy niche productions to pay the creators of those productions directly. If only there were some sort of global system for distributing niche productions to those subscribers who want to see them. Perhaps some sort of system using minicomputers to transmit the information - we could call it "Minitel". But seriously, are you really trying to claim that the internet is making it harder for niche producers and consumers to connect?

wfo 10y ago
Broadcast television can and has been catering to minority tastes for many, many years as we all know. It just can't bankroll itself by doing this, so it requires public funds or regulations to prop it up. But sometimes making room for minority viewpoints/culture/attitudes is worth interrupting the all-consuming capitalist neoliberal worldview for a moment, if just long enough to allow someone to point out its many flaws.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Since you seem to have missed the sarcasm, I'll make it explicit. There's this thing called the internet. It allows minority producers and minority consumers to connect with each other. For example, if you wish to read fiction about the Death Star's project manager, or My Little Pony characters living in the world of Fallout, or a rationalist-themed fanfic rewrite of Harry Potter, you can do so. There is even erotic fanfic to the aforementioned Harry Potter fanfic. It's never been easier for producers and consumers to find each other than today. If the stuff the French are trying to protect can't survive in the age of the internet, it's because no one likes it.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > For example, if you wish to read fiction about the Death Star's project manager, or My Little Pony characters living in the world of Fallout, or a rationalist-themed fanfic rewrite of Harry Potter, you can do so. There is even erotic fanfic to the aforementioned Harry Potter fanfic. Which all is only tolerated but not allowed by copyright laws.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      His point was that the internet allows for much more diversity, rather than less. The example he chose is a little unfortunate. Copyright issues surrounding fan fiction are not relevant to the matter at hand. I'd argue that the goal with the French cultural protectionist laws is not to allow diversity, but to choose winners and losers by constraining choice.
  - wfo 10y ago
    Yes, it lets hobbyists and amateurs connect with each other. It doesn't help a well-respected cultural tradition of art continue and give it the tools it needs to continue to exist. And plenty of people like it. The whole point of art is that often, if it's worth anything, the majority of people don't like it. Comparing art to erotic fanfics really quite makes my point for me -- the character of your argument is laid bare, you aren't willing or capable of making the distinction, it's all mindless entertainment and nothing more. The fight the French are fighting against is the lowest common denominator which replaces art -- valueless trash which is entertaining and nothing more. It is seductive and destructive and valuable monetarily but valueless otherwise.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      The internet has made it easier than ever for content that only a tiny majority of people like to survive. If 99% of the population hates it and 1% loves it, you've got a viable business. Discussing the "lowest common denominator" is an outdated argument from the broadcast television era. "Lowest common denominator" doesn't exist anymore due to entertainment becoming fragmented. When it premiered, Seinfeld's ratings were 8.0, making it #14 on TV. Today, the #1 show (Big Bang Theory) has ratings of 8.8. http://www.thewrap.com/seinfeld-no-14-in-its-debut-season-would-beat-every-show-but-one-today/ http://www.thewrap.com/seinfeld-no-14-in-its-debut-season-wo... http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html Lets face it - the problem with the stuff that you are defending is that it's enjoyed by fewer people than erotic meta-fanfic.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  >But sometimes making room for minority viewpoints/culture/attitudes is worth interrupting the all-consuming capitalist neoliberal worldview for a moment, if just long enough to allow someone to point out its many flaws. So affirmative action for ideas? If you can't win, maybe you can win by forcing people to listen to you?