5 ms·

There is one apocalyptic scenario here that everyone ignores: it is monetary compensation that keeps the social norm. Remove that, make it so only the rich or

There is one apocalyptic scenario here that everyone ignores: it is monetary compensation that keeps the social norm. Remove that, make it so only the rich or the obsessed write, make music, etc, and they will increasing do so for their own ends, because there is no reason not to. Social alone approval will motivate very few to commit to the amount of work necessary for most creative endeavors. On the surface, of course, this would seem ridiculous. But we only have to examine how much cultural capital is employed to keep writers writing toward the money and controlled by editors, and ratings boards, etc. And the common consumer expects what they, the consumer, to always be delivered unto with exactly that which they claim to desire. Under the monetary system reproductive advantage slates toward those who accrue capital. However remove that, and the 'shock value' of 'independent artistic work' becomes the most viable remaining path to mate attraction. So, remove the money, and the only artists, writers, etc, who remain, are the ones that the mass of consumers despise as 'experimental' and 'weird', etc. And given that humanity is pretty much by definition a story species, the resulting effects on society as a whole, with such a major hit to the mytho-poetic infrastructure that undergirds any society, might be very interesting. Most likely some government or wealth-backed cultural production engine will emerge in the vacuum, however, the question might be whether it will do so fast enough.

clarry 8y ago
I think everyone ignores it because it's so far fetched (even if they go as far as assuming copyright == monetary compensation)
- apocalypstyx 8y ago
  How does anyone otherwise do work that is distributed via mass mechanical reproduction? Disney could operate private theatres that threw out and banned people with recording devices, but how could home distribution function. For popular work, we are back at the pre-copyright world of patronage. Popular appeal might lead certain rare individuals to monetary compensation in academia, but this, I would say, will be country and culturally dependent. In France, for example, I might see it, but not the United States. And it might lead to a certain amount of tribal-production to sustain the replication of certain cultural norms, but in order for that to e so the trend of production and consumption previously adhered to in these industries (from the consumer viewpoint) will have to be reverse: the consumer will be paying patronage in advance of the creation of the work which will then be mechanically mass reproduced upon release. However, I think a smaller amount of people than currently consumptive model of media will be as likely to switch wholly to a 'pig-in-a-poke'-model. Even with things like netflix, the primary draw has always been that which pre-exists, that which the consumer already knows to be available, and its primary value is not weighted on what necessarily 'might' be produced in the future. People might be willing to fund such models through 'micro transaction', however, any individual funding themselves, thus, would necessarily require a proportionally larger base of funders; however this would have the function of keeping the cultural mytho-poetic framework in check, producing what commonly referred to as 'the lowest common denominator'. Also, however, even if someone were to make a living in this manner, they might not what to in that, no matter what survivable level of income they may derive, a Disney would then, through the sheer economy of their scale, be able to transform that, now mechanically reproduced work into something distributed through the private theatre system at no cost for the acquiring of the source material. This alone may be a sufficient psychological demotivator for many, and present a common source of burnout (thus requiring a change in employment), or even an obstacle to many taking up the profession at all. The question remains, if the so-called creator is likely to get no monetary compensation, and little in the way of social capital anyway, what will induce them to create any works besides those they want to create. The problem is that 'artistry' in the mytho-poetics of most western countries attains a somewhat religious significance, but the most of its practitioners (or at least those who mange to make their primary living at it) would leave so-called creative fields for greener pastures; it's a job. (I suppose I should add here that I am very much against to current copyright system as it stands now, though I realize my reply might indicate otherwise. I do, however, become aggravated when the attitudes of so-called consumers amounts to a type a slavery where they want what they want [produced but want it for free, resembles too much those companies that have baited artists and writer with 'exposure' for far too long. As it stands, what is said about the disruptive potential of the internet aside, most writers and artists make what they do (and paltry sums at that) by effectively signing over their copyrights in perpetuity to what amounts to intellectual property holding companies. So the law may say the author owns it, but to see anything from it (in the vast majority of cases) they have to give that right away, and then so-called consumers come along and claim (purely to pinch pennies) that authors should relinquish even (and presenting no alternative) that is, to me, as aggravating as the media conglomerates who do the same.)
  - icebraining 8y ago
    A few notes (not dismissing your post): - The prepayment model was quite successful in the past; authors like Arthur Conan Doyle, Dickens and Dostoevsky made a living from producing novels in serialized form[1]. This model fits well also with TV shows, podcasts, and potentially video games. - Plenty of content is already funded by volunteer donations and ads (although, personally, I abhor the latter more than copyright). - You don't necessarily need copyright to have protection; contracts exist. It's doubtful the competing private theater networks would just copy each other's movies, rather than reach a legal agreement not to do so. - For certain types of works, live performances provide a funding model that doesn't rely on copyright. It's not copyright that keeps people going to concerts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_(literature) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_(literature)
    - apocalypstyx 8y ago
      The problem is our respective post are sort of coming at the problem from opposite ends. Though, I agree with you, for the most part. Mine is attempting (lazily, I perhaps have to admit) to formulate how a post-copyright world functions. And, again, I agree, for the most part, with what you point out. Fundraising has been more and more a useful model employed by many writers and artists, no doubt. But all of that is still backed by copyright. Even in Dickens and Dostoevsky's day. (Though, in Tsarist Russia, it was the printer and not the author who obtained copyright.). Dickens, however, (in typical author fashion of often going from feast to famine) had almost all of his works circulated in the United States (where he was extremely popular) outside of the control of copyright, as, at the time, and as most developing nations do, the United States (much as China had done with technology in the nineties) neglected, for the most part, protecting foreigns works in favor of 'building themselves up' quickly. This was (to draw in your point about live performances) helpful to Dickens after a fashion, in that, at one point, his speaking tours ere his primary means of income. (However, part of that can be attributed not just to his popularity as a writer, but his phenomenal skill as an orator, so more than anything else, he may represent the exception that allows certain individuals to rise so much within the sphere of social influence.) But, to me, it still remains an unanswered question as to what would happen if, say, writing a 'Game of Thrones' under such a model, where a studio would have access to the material with no restrictions. The only thing that might hinder it is that multiple such entities would have the same rights, and they would most likely not want to step on each others toes (only for the reason they would likely see it as dividing their potential audience and thereby dividing the result money stream), and contractual and wink-wink-nudge-nudge agreements might become common place between them in such circumstances. And given the fact of the enormous amount of capital required for such undertakings (it's unlikely something on the order of Marvel film would be generated solely by crowd-funding) it would be unlikely, I would think, for many upstart companies to produce such, thereby locking in the defacto 'gentlemen agreements'. But there is also the question of just how much social impart such media would have, without the angel of home distribution, something that is fundamental to replicating the modern myths-poetic frameworks of western societies. And in any regard a truly post-copyright world, would seem to have the possibility of reshaping both culture and society in ways that are not apparent or predictable in extrapolating from system that are still in essence backed by it. After all, even Creative Commons and Free Software exists wholly on the back of copyright. In regards to contracts, I think we only need to look at history: the case comes to mind wether agents of Thomas Edison saw a screening of the film 'Voyage to the Moon' and bribed a theatre operator to get a copy of the film made, so it was Edison, showcasing it in his private theatre chains (he owned an enormous amount of patents in motion picture technology, which is why Hollywood is movie capital of the United States, to get beyond the legal reach of Edison in New York), thereby having extracted the commercial value of the film prior to the director managing to bring it to the United States. Still, this leaves out the entire possibility of home distribution (outside of the most egregious contracts and locked-down hardware (so far as I can see), which, looking at the way things are going, may be the case under the current system as well). I will completely agree as it regards to live performance. But that is a very small segment of so-called creative work. And even then we are still left with the perennial problem of the lion's share of the resultant capital going not to the actual performers, to the investor class. But, then again, copyright or no, maybe we'll always have that as the touchstone of commonality no matter what social, political, or artist upheaval does or doesn't come to fruition.
guy98238710 8y ago
This is so ridiculous on so many levels. I will just pick one angle. It's the non-profits like Wikipedia and non-profit-like writers and creators who deliver high quality. Commercial sites and blogs just produce tons of spammy junk.
- apocalypstyx 8y ago
  Yet Wikipedia is licenses share-alike. And I would be interested in seeing a non-niche author who consigns their work to the public domain (or as far as is possible in some legal districts). Yet more than 90% of the work consumed by (pretty much everyone) is commercial in origin. Even those producing news segments and documentaries for PBS are doing so because they are paid to do so. I'm not saying people won't write things like Wikipedia articles. But if the value for others (a given corporation, for example) exceeds the social capital they generate for themselves, if they just feed a machine for no benefit, expending more and more of themselves in the process, only to watch a Disney, say, become far more well known for it (thus increasing the desirability of mating with the owners and board members and rich directors involved) why would any so-called rational person commit to such? I doubt all those wiki contributors would feel good if if, somehow, all that content were retroactively re-licensed (or more accurately de-licensed) and incorporated into a commercial, subscription-based encyclopedia. Yes, in one sense, everything that's on Wikipedia would remain as always, as available as always, but I cannot see it as having gone untainted after such a move. True, a certain proof might be found in the uses of the MIT and 2-clause BSD licenses (and their kind), but still, it seems to me, even in those cases (taking note that they exist in veritable islands of copyleft and proprietary software) the social benefits (mainly in their ability to contrast themselves with the aforementioned alternatives) allows either the potential gain of social capital that can be parlayed both in personal relationships and employment (both having their obvious connection with attraction of a mate based on the expression of extended phenotypes) or, alternatively, such software is created purely for person use and released to the wider world because the commodification and distribution of computer technology makes it trivial and cheap to invest in the possibility of acquiring even minimal social capital, and should none come it, of course, the producer is out nothing, so there, relatively, likely only the possibility of gain. Even our own present conversation falls within this realm, just as, according to the law (of course, I presume your geographical location to likely be somewhere within a country affected by the Berne Convention, though I will admit the possibility of error here) we are automatically granted ownership over our respective words, either collection of phrases walled off from the other in a way, possibly, and ironically, reflecting our respective mental dispositions on this issue, and just as the terms of service for this sight allow its owners to store and serve them unto any who enter. Spammy junk, bad movies, terrible TV, is the common binding thread of cultural narrative and the mytho-poetic framework (a phrase I have type too many time I think), but, in any regard, it creates and reinforces who we are. Even those who decry it, in doing so, define themselves in relation to it and in its terms. So...long live the new flesh, I guess.

clarry 8y ago

I think everyone ignores it because it's so far fetched (even if they go as far as assuming copyright == monetary compensation)

apocalypstyx 8y ago
How does anyone otherwise do work that is distributed via mass mechanical reproduction? Disney could operate private theatres that threw out and banned people with recording devices, but how could home distribution function. For popular work, we are back at the pre-copyright world of patronage. Popular appeal might lead certain rare individuals to monetary compensation in academia, but this, I would say, will be country and culturally dependent. In France, for example, I might see it, but not the United States. And it might lead to a certain amount of tribal-production to sustain the replication of certain cultural norms, but in order for that to e so the trend of production and consumption previously adhered to in these industries (from the consumer viewpoint) will have to be reverse: the consumer will be paying patronage in advance of the creation of the work which will then be mechanically mass reproduced upon release. However, I think a smaller amount of people than currently consumptive model of media will be as likely to switch wholly to a 'pig-in-a-poke'-model. Even with things like netflix, the primary draw has always been that which pre-exists, that which the consumer already knows to be available, and its primary value is not weighted on what necessarily 'might' be produced in the future. People might be willing to fund such models through 'micro transaction', however, any individual funding themselves, thus, would necessarily require a proportionally larger base of funders; however this would have the function of keeping the cultural mytho-poetic framework in check, producing what commonly referred to as 'the lowest common denominator'. Also, however, even if someone were to make a living in this manner, they might not what to in that, no matter what survivable level of income they may derive, a Disney would then, through the sheer economy of their scale, be able to transform that, now mechanically reproduced work into something distributed through the private theatre system at no cost for the acquiring of the source material. This alone may be a sufficient psychological demotivator for many, and present a common source of burnout (thus requiring a change in employment), or even an obstacle to many taking up the profession at all. The question remains, if the so-called creator is likely to get no monetary compensation, and little in the way of social capital anyway, what will induce them to create any works besides those they want to create. The problem is that 'artistry' in the mytho-poetics of most western countries attains a somewhat religious significance, but the most of its practitioners (or at least those who mange to make their primary living at it) would leave so-called creative fields for greener pastures; it's a job. (I suppose I should add here that I am very much against to current copyright system as it stands now, though I realize my reply might indicate otherwise. I do, however, become aggravated when the attitudes of so-called consumers amounts to a type a slavery where they want what they want [produced but want it for free, resembles too much those companies that have baited artists and writer with 'exposure' for far too long. As it stands, what is said about the disruptive potential of the internet aside, most writers and artists make what they do (and paltry sums at that) by effectively signing over their copyrights in perpetuity to what amounts to intellectual property holding companies. So the law may say the author owns it, but to see anything from it (in the vast majority of cases) they have to give that right away, and then so-called consumers come along and claim (purely to pinch pennies) that authors should relinquish even (and presenting no alternative) that is, to me, as aggravating as the media conglomerates who do the same.)
- icebraining 8y ago
  A few notes (not dismissing your post): - The prepayment model was quite successful in the past; authors like Arthur Conan Doyle, Dickens and Dostoevsky made a living from producing novels in serialized form[1]. This model fits well also with TV shows, podcasts, and potentially video games. - Plenty of content is already funded by volunteer donations and ads (although, personally, I abhor the latter more than copyright). - You don't necessarily need copyright to have protection; contracts exist. It's doubtful the competing private theater networks would just copy each other's movies, rather than reach a legal agreement not to do so. - For certain types of works, live performances provide a funding model that doesn't rely on copyright. It's not copyright that keeps people going to concerts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_(literature) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_(literature)
  - apocalypstyx 8y ago
    The problem is our respective post are sort of coming at the problem from opposite ends. Though, I agree with you, for the most part. Mine is attempting (lazily, I perhaps have to admit) to formulate how a post-copyright world functions. And, again, I agree, for the most part, with what you point out. Fundraising has been more and more a useful model employed by many writers and artists, no doubt. But all of that is still backed by copyright. Even in Dickens and Dostoevsky's day. (Though, in Tsarist Russia, it was the printer and not the author who obtained copyright.). Dickens, however, (in typical author fashion of often going from feast to famine) had almost all of his works circulated in the United States (where he was extremely popular) outside of the control of copyright, as, at the time, and as most developing nations do, the United States (much as China had done with technology in the nineties) neglected, for the most part, protecting foreigns works in favor of 'building themselves up' quickly. This was (to draw in your point about live performances) helpful to Dickens after a fashion, in that, at one point, his speaking tours ere his primary means of income. (However, part of that can be attributed not just to his popularity as a writer, but his phenomenal skill as an orator, so more than anything else, he may represent the exception that allows certain individuals to rise so much within the sphere of social influence.) But, to me, it still remains an unanswered question as to what would happen if, say, writing a 'Game of Thrones' under such a model, where a studio would have access to the material with no restrictions. The only thing that might hinder it is that multiple such entities would have the same rights, and they would most likely not want to step on each others toes (only for the reason they would likely see it as dividing their potential audience and thereby dividing the result money stream), and contractual and wink-wink-nudge-nudge agreements might become common place between them in such circumstances. And given the fact of the enormous amount of capital required for such undertakings (it's unlikely something on the order of Marvel film would be generated solely by crowd-funding) it would be unlikely, I would think, for many upstart companies to produce such, thereby locking in the defacto 'gentlemen agreements'. But there is also the question of just how much social impart such media would have, without the angel of home distribution, something that is fundamental to replicating the modern myths-poetic frameworks of western societies. And in any regard a truly post-copyright world, would seem to have the possibility of reshaping both culture and society in ways that are not apparent or predictable in extrapolating from system that are still in essence backed by it. After all, even Creative Commons and Free Software exists wholly on the back of copyright. In regards to contracts, I think we only need to look at history: the case comes to mind wether agents of Thomas Edison saw a screening of the film 'Voyage to the Moon' and bribed a theatre operator to get a copy of the film made, so it was Edison, showcasing it in his private theatre chains (he owned an enormous amount of patents in motion picture technology, which is why Hollywood is movie capital of the United States, to get beyond the legal reach of Edison in New York), thereby having extracted the commercial value of the film prior to the director managing to bring it to the United States. Still, this leaves out the entire possibility of home distribution (outside of the most egregious contracts and locked-down hardware (so far as I can see), which, looking at the way things are going, may be the case under the current system as well). I will completely agree as it regards to live performance. But that is a very small segment of so-called creative work. And even then we are still left with the perennial problem of the lion's share of the resultant capital going not to the actual performers, to the investor class. But, then again, copyright or no, maybe we'll always have that as the touchstone of commonality no matter what social, political, or artist upheaval does or doesn't come to fruition.

guy98238710 8y ago

This is so ridiculous on so many levels. I will just pick one angle. It's the non-profits like Wikipedia and non-profit-like writers and creators who deliver high quality. Commercial sites and blogs just produce tons of spammy junk.

apocalypstyx 8y ago
Yet Wikipedia is licenses share-alike. And I would be interested in seeing a non-niche author who consigns their work to the public domain (or as far as is possible in some legal districts). Yet more than 90% of the work consumed by (pretty much everyone) is commercial in origin. Even those producing news segments and documentaries for PBS are doing so because they are paid to do so. I'm not saying people won't write things like Wikipedia articles. But if the value for others (a given corporation, for example) exceeds the social capital they generate for themselves, if they just feed a machine for no benefit, expending more and more of themselves in the process, only to watch a Disney, say, become far more well known for it (thus increasing the desirability of mating with the owners and board members and rich directors involved) why would any so-called rational person commit to such? I doubt all those wiki contributors would feel good if if, somehow, all that content were retroactively re-licensed (or more accurately de-licensed) and incorporated into a commercial, subscription-based encyclopedia. Yes, in one sense, everything that's on Wikipedia would remain as always, as available as always, but I cannot see it as having gone untainted after such a move. True, a certain proof might be found in the uses of the MIT and 2-clause BSD licenses (and their kind), but still, it seems to me, even in those cases (taking note that they exist in veritable islands of copyleft and proprietary software) the social benefits (mainly in their ability to contrast themselves with the aforementioned alternatives) allows either the potential gain of social capital that can be parlayed both in personal relationships and employment (both having their obvious connection with attraction of a mate based on the expression of extended phenotypes) or, alternatively, such software is created purely for person use and released to the wider world because the commodification and distribution of computer technology makes it trivial and cheap to invest in the possibility of acquiring even minimal social capital, and should none come it, of course, the producer is out nothing, so there, relatively, likely only the possibility of gain. Even our own present conversation falls within this realm, just as, according to the law (of course, I presume your geographical location to likely be somewhere within a country affected by the Berne Convention, though I will admit the possibility of error here) we are automatically granted ownership over our respective words, either collection of phrases walled off from the other in a way, possibly, and ironically, reflecting our respective mental dispositions on this issue, and just as the terms of service for this sight allow its owners to store and serve them unto any who enter. Spammy junk, bad movies, terrible TV, is the common binding thread of cultural narrative and the mytho-poetic framework (a phrase I have type too many time I think), but, in any regard, it creates and reinforces who we are. Even those who decry it, in doing so, define themselves in relation to it and in its terms. So...long live the new flesh, I guess.