3 ms·

> Can you name single great work of art created by Disney that isn't mostly derivative? Reflect on why you can't: they are monetizers of existing culture, not c

> Can you name single great work of art created by Disney that isn't mostly derivative? Reflect on why you can't: they are monetizers of existing culture, not creators of originality. You sort of have a point, since this is Disney we're considering, but this is a slippery slope. Most _everything_ is derivative work. Should I pirate all commercial software that's powered by open source software? Should I never pay for a modern book with a hero's journey storyline simply because it's not original? And I shouldn't pay artists for their covers or remixes of other songs? So unoriginal. And why should I buy tickets to any new Batman movie? Batman's part of our culture and the story is probably taken from the comics. And I should never profit from my business unless it's MY original idea. If you dislike Disney (for good reason), then boycott them. But that doesn't give you the _right_ to pirate their content nor should you encourage others to pirate.

cwkoss 7y ago
You should pirate content that you want to consume without supporting the creators. If Disney only made derivative movies and didn't lobby to to make IP laws more strict and punitive, I would not think it was immoral to give them your money. Consumers should consider paying for IP an investment in the creator's future work. If a creator made something you enjoy, fill their pockets so they can make another great thing. If the creator is known to damage society with their profits, giving them money should be avoided. Does paying for (before viewing) vs pirating a Disney film have any meaningful effect on the quality of future films? The current system optimizes for movies that look good in a 30-second trailer, because you can't get your money back if the movie is bad. If you really like a movie you pirated, you should buy it to send the signal. I'd argue paying for any movie before you see it contributes to the decline of film as art we've seen in the past ~3 decades.
- quacker 7y ago
  > You should pirate content that you want to consume without supporting the creators. I wonder how it is to feel so entitled that you see nothing wrong with this - to think that you deserve that content and that all the cast and crew deserve nothing in return. > the decline of film as art we've seen in the past ~3 decades. You must also have a very narrow definition of art to believe this.
  - cwkoss 7y ago
    Crew never gets residuals from major motion pictures. Actor residuals are often pretty paltry if they get any, unless they are a huge name. The people you care about have already been paid - almost always at a flat rate. Director and writers get some residuals, typically in the 3-5% range. Vast majority of what you're paying goes straight to the movie studios. Some of that is banked for future productions. Much of it is pocketed by execs like Harvey Weinstein. I would love to see reform in movie financing make more of the results of a film's success end up in the pockets of creatives, but that isn't how the industry works currently. I think there is a great opportunity for a startup in patreon's footsteps that allows an audience to 'tip' the cast and crew directly, bypassing the studios. I think the 'leaderboards' of what films/roles get the most tips would be a much better signal of quality than most film review aggregation sites or the Oscars. Would also be cool to be able to sort films by donations to specific roles, ex. set design, costuming, lighting, FX etc.

cwkoss 7y ago

You should pirate content that you want to consume without supporting the creators. If Disney only made derivative movies and didn't lobby to to make IP laws more strict and punitive, I would not think it was immoral to give them your money. Consumers should consider paying for IP an investment in the creator's future work. If a creator made something you enjoy, fill their pockets so they can make another great thing. If the creator is known to damage society with their profits, giving them money should be avoided. Does paying for (before viewing) vs pirating a Disney film have any meaningful effect on the quality of future films? The current system optimizes for movies that look good in a 30-second trailer, because you can't get your money back if the movie is bad. If you really like a movie you pirated, you should buy it to send the signal. I'd argue paying for any movie before you see it contributes to the decline of film as art we've seen in the past ~3 decades.

quacker 7y ago
> You should pirate content that you want to consume without supporting the creators. I wonder how it is to feel so entitled that you see nothing wrong with this - to think that you deserve that content and that all the cast and crew deserve nothing in return. > the decline of film as art we've seen in the past ~3 decades. You must also have a very narrow definition of art to believe this.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  Crew never gets residuals from major motion pictures. Actor residuals are often pretty paltry if they get any, unless they are a huge name. The people you care about have already been paid - almost always at a flat rate. Director and writers get some residuals, typically in the 3-5% range. Vast majority of what you're paying goes straight to the movie studios. Some of that is banked for future productions. Much of it is pocketed by execs like Harvey Weinstein. I would love to see reform in movie financing make more of the results of a film's success end up in the pockets of creatives, but that isn't how the industry works currently. I think there is a great opportunity for a startup in patreon's footsteps that allows an audience to 'tip' the cast and crew directly, bypassing the studios. I think the 'leaderboards' of what films/roles get the most tips would be a much better signal of quality than most film review aggregation sites or the Oscars. Would also be cool to be able to sort films by donations to specific roles, ex. set design, costuming, lighting, FX etc.