5 ms·

But he recouped the money through charging people to see the movie. Not a counter-example at all.

steveklabnik 16y ago
He did. It was also available to download for free on the Internet. "No IP" does not mean "You can't charge for things." Enough people would rather go to a movie theater than get on Bittorrent that he made his money back. Side note: I was one of those people. I wear Pirate Bay tshirts around, I'd throw out all IP law if I was in charge... but I did pay money to go to the theater to see Avatar. Going to the theater and getting that crazy huge screen, great sound system, and (maybe) the 3D was totally worth it.
- alanh 16y ago
  Fascinating his wife’s movie, released the same year, actively litigated those who shared the movie online.
- teamonkey 16y ago
  The fact that it worked for one movie does not mean that it would work any other movie. The hook with Avatar was that it was a spectacle deliberately designed to be seen in 3D on the biggest screen possible, to the extent that there's very little point not seeing it in a movie theatre. It's a unique example and its impact (and profitability) would be lessened by a) competition by similar movies and b) greater adoption of home 3D hardware.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    Absolutely. There's no question that without IP, things would be different. The real question is if it would be a better or worse world.
    - alanh 16y ago
      In my mind, the answer is “better” if we also no longer need to worry about money (that is, a post-capitalist system). I’m not sure about the meantime.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        The book that I cited up there in my huge post actually lays out a pretty compelling argument that it even works within capitalism. IP is a pretty new concept. Things have worked really well for a long time without it.
        teamonkey 16y ago
        Yes, capitalism is a pretty new concept also. The two go hand-in-hand. But never before in history have we been able to copy media ad infinitum for practically zero time, cost and effort. It's always required time, an educated, talented person to copy, or resources that had a real cost. In the case of the 3D printer the only real expense is the plastic used to print the object, which is awesome only for those who manufacture the materials.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        Actually, it's pretty funny: the materials are the only place where they make their money. 3D printers are sold on a total razor and blade model, the machine manufacturers make 70% of their money from materials, and something like 5% on actual machines. Then things like this happen: http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/2009/10/sugar-sugar-powder/ http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/2009/10/sugar-sugar-powder/ > The cost of this mix is $0.15 – $0.30 per pound!
- Yzupnick 16y ago
  >Enough people would rather go to a movie theater then get on Bittorrent True, but i guarantee that Movie theaters would rather get on Bittorrent rather than pay millions of dollars in fees to James Cameron. The only thing stopping them is IP laws.

He did. It was also available to download for free on the Internet. "No IP" does not mean "You can't charge for things." Enough people would rather go to a movie theater than get on Bittorrent that he made his money back. Side note: I was one of those people. I wear Pirate Bay tshirts around, I'd throw out all IP law if I was in charge... but I did pay money to go to the theater to see Avatar. Going to the theater and getting that crazy huge screen, great sound system, and (maybe) the 3D was totally worth it.

alanh 16y ago
Fascinating his wife’s movie, released the same year, actively litigated those who shared the movie online.
teamonkey 16y ago
The fact that it worked for one movie does not mean that it would work any other movie. The hook with Avatar was that it was a spectacle deliberately designed to be seen in 3D on the biggest screen possible, to the extent that there's very little point not seeing it in a movie theatre. It's a unique example and its impact (and profitability) would be lessened by a) competition by similar movies and b) greater adoption of home 3D hardware.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  Absolutely. There's no question that without IP, things would be different. The real question is if it would be a better or worse world.
  - alanh 16y ago
    In my mind, the answer is “better” if we also no longer need to worry about money (that is, a post-capitalist system). I’m not sure about the meantime.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      The book that I cited up there in my huge post actually lays out a pretty compelling argument that it even works within capitalism. IP is a pretty new concept. Things have worked really well for a long time without it.
      - teamonkey 16y ago
        Yes, capitalism is a pretty new concept also. The two go hand-in-hand. But never before in history have we been able to copy media ad infinitum for practically zero time, cost and effort. It's always required time, an educated, talented person to copy, or resources that had a real cost. In the case of the 3D printer the only real expense is the plastic used to print the object, which is awesome only for those who manufacture the materials.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        Actually, it's pretty funny: the materials are the only place where they make their money. 3D printers are sold on a total razor and blade model, the machine manufacturers make 70% of their money from materials, and something like 5% on actual machines. Then things like this happen: http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/2009/10/sugar-sugar-powder/ http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/2009/10/sugar-sugar-powder/ > The cost of this mix is $0.15 – $0.30 per pound!
Yzupnick 16y ago
>Enough people would rather go to a movie theater then get on Bittorrent True, but i guarantee that Movie theaters would rather get on Bittorrent rather than pay millions of dollars in fees to James Cameron. The only thing stopping them is IP laws.