7 ms·

Look at what people routinely pay for in crowdfunding models, where all costs are 100% transparent and marginal cost is indeed generally low or even zero. You'

Look at what people routinely pay for in crowdfunding models, where all costs are 100% transparent and marginal cost is indeed generally low or even zero. You'll find a whole lot of indie stuff (very high-quality indie stuff in fact - because the same well-established reputational mechanisms that are active in the FLOSS community work there as well!), and few or no "actors/directors/musicians" of the mainstream sort getting any money there. This is how it should be - there is simply no rational case for mindless entertainment ("TV/Movies/Music") that costs on the order of $10M or $100M to make!

macintux 7y ago
And yet those big budget films/TV shows are one of the few things remaining that provide a common cultural experience. It’s nice to be able to talk about something besides the weather with a complete stranger.
- clarry 7y ago
  > And yet those big budget films/TV shows are one of the few things remaining that provide a common cultural experience. For some people. Believe me, there are lots and lots of people who do not share that experience.
  - hombre_fatal 7y ago
    I think you gave in to the temptation to point out that you're not like the rest of us sheeple even though it wasn't relevant.
- 0815test 7y ago
  > things... that provide a common cultural experience. That's what the public domain is for, of course. It's too bad that this limits us to 1923-or-before material (in the U.S., and ignoring non-copyright-renewed stuff from later in the 20th c.) but that still covers centuries of shared culture - even millennia, in some cases!
  - macintux 7y ago
    True enough, but those lack the virtue of timeliness. Absent an organizing effort, it’s unlikely you’ll catch someone who has read, say, Dracula for the first time recently just like you have and can share that initial enthusiasm for the material.
behringer 7y ago
Why would I create an indie production of some kind for no money? Are you saying now if I want to make something I have to setup a gofundme and get it funded before I even make the product. That's fine for something, and ruins the artistic intent for other things. Imagine Star Wars being crowdfunded before it was made. If we reach 100k we'll make sure Han Solo shoots first. It doesn't make sense. People should be paid for providing a service, whether it's a hamburger or a movie. You don't pay someone before the goods are delivered. The modern system of pre-funding and patronization is absurd for many projects.
- 0815test 7y ago
  > ...get it funded before I even make the product. Strictly speaking, you don't have to do this. You could make the product, send it under a strict NDA to a variety of widely-trusted 3rd-party reviewers/critics, with whatever sort of protection against leaks you might require, then put the existing product for crowdfunded "ransom" (Like Blender was, after the original company went out of business), building in whatever return you might wish to ask for in exchange for bearing the ensuing risk. This doesn't require ordinary copyright protection at all, only a very limited-in-scope protection for private, unpublished stuff. (The "ransom" model is in fact already potentially-applicable to a lot of existing content that's generally considered worthless, but that, much like Blender itself, might be valued more in the context of an open release. Transaction costs - namely, wrt. the exceedingly-common case of "orphan works", with unknown rights-holders - get in the way of it, however.)
  - behringer 7y ago
    Maybe, but piracy skirts that issue. Who's going to protect you when someone breaks the NDA? When someone steals your production copy? Piracy is a broad brush.
- saalweachter 7y ago
  There is the serialization model. You produce whatever small part of your work you can afford to on couch change, pizza favors and family support and sell it. Fund the next part from the proceeds of the first. It lives on today in webisodes and patreonage, or, hell, TV shows, but some of what we now consider great literature was produced as serialized chapters in magazines, and only after the fact bundled together as a single volume novel. Maybe box-office blockbusters funded as multi-million dollar investments and released all at once were just a temporary aberration, like the "album".
hombre_fatal 7y ago
> This is how it should be - there is simply no rational case for mindless entertainment ("TV/Movies/Music") that costs on the order of $10M or $100M to make! How is this not just outright snobbery about what people should enjoy? I like high-scale, ambitious entertainment.
- teddyh 7y ago
  If you like pyramids in modern times, it’s on you to pay for their construction.
  - jfk13 7y ago
    Which is exactly what we do when we buy movie tickets, etc. And those who aren't interested don't have to pay for it. I'm not sure what your point is?
    - teddyh 7y ago
      We all – not just those who go to the movies, but everyone – also pay a hidden cost: The cost of the copyright system itself. You imply that this cost is necessary for “high-scale, ambitious entertainment”, but I say that you should then be held to pay for it, instead of society as a whole. It may or may not be true that “high-scale, ambitious entertainment” is unsupportable without copyright. If it turns out to be not supportable, it would be like the pyramids: Large, impressive, and expensive things which the structure of our society and our economy can no longer support the constructions of. I.e. the society we live in could concievably be re-organized to again support the construction of pyramids, but we choose not to do that, in order to have a modern society and economy instead.
Noos 7y ago
The rational case is that it's absurdly expensive to make artistic content in term of people's time, as well as the cost in things like location, filming, and support. This isn't saying there isn't unneccessary costs...part of the need for a publisher is to keep costs under control! But things like building sets, special effects and more really ramp up the cost and fast. You are supporting an army of workers to make a decently budgeted film, for multiple years.

macintux 7y ago

And yet those big budget films/TV shows are one of the few things remaining that provide a common cultural experience. It’s nice to be able to talk about something besides the weather with a complete stranger.

clarry 7y ago
> And yet those big budget films/TV shows are one of the few things remaining that provide a common cultural experience. For some people. Believe me, there are lots and lots of people who do not share that experience.
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  I think you gave in to the temptation to point out that you're not like the rest of us sheeple even though it wasn't relevant.
0815test 7y ago
> things... that provide a common cultural experience. That's what the public domain is for, of course. It's too bad that this limits us to 1923-or-before material (in the U.S., and ignoring non-copyright-renewed stuff from later in the 20th c.) but that still covers centuries of shared culture - even millennia, in some cases!
- macintux 7y ago
  True enough, but those lack the virtue of timeliness. Absent an organizing effort, it’s unlikely you’ll catch someone who has read, say, Dracula for the first time recently just like you have and can share that initial enthusiasm for the material.

behringer 7y ago

Why would I create an indie production of some kind for no money? Are you saying now if I want to make something I have to setup a gofundme and get it funded before I even make the product. That's fine for something, and ruins the artistic intent for other things. Imagine Star Wars being crowdfunded before it was made. If we reach 100k we'll make sure Han Solo shoots first. It doesn't make sense. People should be paid for providing a service, whether it's a hamburger or a movie. You don't pay someone before the goods are delivered. The modern system of pre-funding and patronization is absurd for many projects.

0815test 7y ago
> ...get it funded before I even make the product. Strictly speaking, you don't have to do this. You could make the product, send it under a strict NDA to a variety of widely-trusted 3rd-party reviewers/critics, with whatever sort of protection against leaks you might require, then put the existing product for crowdfunded "ransom" (Like Blender was, after the original company went out of business), building in whatever return you might wish to ask for in exchange for bearing the ensuing risk. This doesn't require ordinary copyright protection at all, only a very limited-in-scope protection for private, unpublished stuff. (The "ransom" model is in fact already potentially-applicable to a lot of existing content that's generally considered worthless, but that, much like Blender itself, might be valued more in the context of an open release. Transaction costs - namely, wrt. the exceedingly-common case of "orphan works", with unknown rights-holders - get in the way of it, however.)
- behringer 7y ago
  Maybe, but piracy skirts that issue. Who's going to protect you when someone breaks the NDA? When someone steals your production copy? Piracy is a broad brush.
saalweachter 7y ago
There is the serialization model. You produce whatever small part of your work you can afford to on couch change, pizza favors and family support and sell it. Fund the next part from the proceeds of the first. It lives on today in webisodes and patreonage, or, hell, TV shows, but some of what we now consider great literature was produced as serialized chapters in magazines, and only after the fact bundled together as a single volume novel. Maybe box-office blockbusters funded as multi-million dollar investments and released all at once were just a temporary aberration, like the "album".

hombre_fatal 7y ago

> This is how it should be - there is simply no rational case for mindless entertainment ("TV/Movies/Music") that costs on the order of $10M or $100M to make! How is this not just outright snobbery about what people should enjoy? I like high-scale, ambitious entertainment.

teddyh 7y ago
If you like pyramids in modern times, it’s on you to pay for their construction.
- jfk13 7y ago
  Which is exactly what we do when we buy movie tickets, etc. And those who aren't interested don't have to pay for it. I'm not sure what your point is?
  - teddyh 7y ago
    We all – not just those who go to the movies, but everyone – also pay a hidden cost: The cost of the copyright system itself. You imply that this cost is necessary for “high-scale, ambitious entertainment”, but I say that you should then be held to pay for it, instead of society as a whole. It may or may not be true that “high-scale, ambitious entertainment” is unsupportable without copyright. If it turns out to be not supportable, it would be like the pyramids: Large, impressive, and expensive things which the structure of our society and our economy can no longer support the constructions of. I.e. the society we live in could concievably be re-organized to again support the construction of pyramids, but we choose not to do that, in order to have a modern society and economy instead.

Noos 7y ago

The rational case is that it's absurdly expensive to make artistic content in term of people's time, as well as the cost in things like location, filming, and support. This isn't saying there isn't unneccessary costs...part of the need for a publisher is to keep costs under control! But things like building sets, special effects and more really ramp up the cost and fast. You are supporting an army of workers to make a decently budgeted film, for multiple years.