3 ms·

I've said this before on HN, but we really need to get away from the idea that distribution is hard. Distribution is basically a Solved Problem. We don't need g

I've said this before on HN, but we really need to get away from the idea that distribution is hard. Distribution is basically a Solved Problem. We don't need gatekeepers telling people what they are and aren't allowed to consume. What we do need is better economic models that allow the creators to get paid. People are clearly willing to pay for content, but I don't know of anyone who wants studios/companies/lawyers/etc to get the money rather than the artists themselves. This old world way of thinking about content funding really needs to die off already.

tfha 9y ago
What's hard is distribution without allowing redistribution, which is what traditional companies consider a mandatory prerequisite for distribution
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  And that's what I mean. It's stupid that disallowing redistribution is even a concept. We have data that can immediately be duplicated infinitely for free, why should anyone be barred from re-distributing it?
  - turc1656 9y ago
    Because property rights exist to allow the owners of intellectual property a wide ability to legally control the (re)distribution, ownership, and/or licensing of their creation.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      And that made sense back when distribution and funding the creators was hard. That is no longer the case today.
      - turc1656 9y ago
        My point was more that it's not the issue of difficulty or whether or not it could be done, but rather that each property holder has different wishes, and many times their wishes don't conform to the model which you are suggesting. They don't really seem to want a consume-all-you-want because that hasn't proven to be able to replace the income from the classic distribution chain. Look at Spotify as an example.
        CaptSpify 9y ago
        Oh yeah, I'm not trying to argue against what you are saying, I'm arguing against the model we are using to monetize. You are absolutely correct. IDGAF what the property holder wants, unless it's the creator themselves. Even then, if you don't want it redistributed, maybe don't put it in a format that is trivial to redistribute in. Just because they've been making money because of the old model, doesn't mean they have the right to keep making money once we've automated that away.

tfha 9y ago

What's hard is distribution without allowing redistribution, which is what traditional companies consider a mandatory prerequisite for distribution

CaptSpify 9y ago
And that's what I mean. It's stupid that disallowing redistribution is even a concept. We have data that can immediately be duplicated infinitely for free, why should anyone be barred from re-distributing it?
- turc1656 9y ago
  Because property rights exist to allow the owners of intellectual property a wide ability to legally control the (re)distribution, ownership, and/or licensing of their creation.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    And that made sense back when distribution and funding the creators was hard. That is no longer the case today.
    - turc1656 9y ago
      My point was more that it's not the issue of difficulty or whether or not it could be done, but rather that each property holder has different wishes, and many times their wishes don't conform to the model which you are suggesting. They don't really seem to want a consume-all-you-want because that hasn't proven to be able to replace the income from the classic distribution chain. Look at Spotify as an example.
      - CaptSpify 9y ago
        Oh yeah, I'm not trying to argue against what you are saying, I'm arguing against the model we are using to monetize. You are absolutely correct. IDGAF what the property holder wants, unless it's the creator themselves. Even then, if you don't want it redistributed, maybe don't put it in a format that is trivial to redistribute in. Just because they've been making money because of the old model, doesn't mean they have the right to keep making money once we've automated that away.