7 ms·

>'It'll be ok!' isn't a sufficient response, because look at how journalism has been gutted over the last twenty years. It's a genuinely tougher world for conte

>'It'll be ok!' isn't a sufficient response, because look at how journalism has been gutted over the last twenty years. It's a genuinely tougher world for content creators that aren't disney... Can we separate fiction from non-fiction? We need non-fiction to function as a society. We like fiction a lot. Laws should protect industries that we need. Laws should not interfere with the unfettered propagation of culture even if it's churned out from a hobby that's been industrialized.

sbarre 7y ago
I think in this context, it's about compensation for content creation, so fiction/non-fiction is somewhat irrelevant. You (the consumer) are paying (or not paying) for content that someone else spent time creating. > Laws should not interfere with the unfettered propagation of culture Who bears the costs of this culture creation if there's no reasonable compensation model (which most likely involves a legal framework) to incentivize creators? Are we willing to reduce cultural creative output to "whoever can afford to do it unpaid" because we don't want to pay for that work?
- fnord123 7y ago
  >Are we willing to reduce cultural creative output to "whoever can afford to do it unpaid" because we don't want to pay for that work? Yes. You will lose the multiillion dollar productions which many people like. But you will also get rid of the tournament theory[0] meat grinder that is 'the industry'. You will reduce the impact that groomers like Harvey Weinstein can have. I mean, do you think if the FA had a salary cap of 20k gbp/annum that people would stop playing Sunday league football? Obviously not. People participate because they want to. I guess a counterargument might be that we need industrialized culture to build and exert soft power around the world. Western music, films, sports, game, etc. But even then the money is so big that now US films can't risk angering China because there's too much money there. So now the tools of soft power have been hijacked against us. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_theory
  - sbarre 7y ago
    I guess we disagree then. I think artists should be paid for their work, and while I think the system should be fair, if it's not going to be fair, it should lean towards the creators before the consumers, because they're putting in the work. What you're objecting to seems to be the middlemen and gatekeepers that existed when the system required more investment on the distribution side rather than the creation side, but with new distribution models that don't require these middlemen, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater and remove fair creator compensation.

sbarre 7y ago

I think in this context, it's about compensation for content creation, so fiction/non-fiction is somewhat irrelevant. You (the consumer) are paying (or not paying) for content that someone else spent time creating. > Laws should not interfere with the unfettered propagation of culture Who bears the costs of this culture creation if there's no reasonable compensation model (which most likely involves a legal framework) to incentivize creators? Are we willing to reduce cultural creative output to "whoever can afford to do it unpaid" because we don't want to pay for that work?

fnord123 7y ago
>Are we willing to reduce cultural creative output to "whoever can afford to do it unpaid" because we don't want to pay for that work? Yes. You will lose the multiillion dollar productions which many people like. But you will also get rid of the tournament theory[0] meat grinder that is 'the industry'. You will reduce the impact that groomers like Harvey Weinstein can have. I mean, do you think if the FA had a salary cap of 20k gbp/annum that people would stop playing Sunday league football? Obviously not. People participate because they want to. I guess a counterargument might be that we need industrialized culture to build and exert soft power around the world. Western music, films, sports, game, etc. But even then the money is so big that now US films can't risk angering China because there's too much money there. So now the tools of soft power have been hijacked against us. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_theory
- sbarre 7y ago
  I guess we disagree then. I think artists should be paid for their work, and while I think the system should be fair, if it's not going to be fair, it should lean towards the creators before the consumers, because they're putting in the work. What you're objecting to seems to be the middlemen and gatekeepers that existed when the system required more investment on the distribution side rather than the creation side, but with new distribution models that don't require these middlemen, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater and remove fair creator compensation.