3 ms·

Yeah, but I'd argue its larger than YouTube. I think copyright (for digital assets) is near impossible to enforce on the internet - it's akin to the war on drug

by lunias 7y ago

Yeah, but I'd argue its larger than YouTube. I think copyright (for digital assets) is near impossible to enforce on the internet - it's akin to the war on drugs. And I don't think we should unbuild the internet. The new model seems to be: give away all digital content for free (marketing), build a trustworthy brand (to prevent any ol' copy cat from beating you), and sell a service / experience / physical item(s) associated with it. e.g. When someone uses your song in their YouTube video it should be seen as free advertising for your guitar lessons / live show / t-shirt company.

Lapsa 7y ago
It's not just songs. Do you want to identify as nothing more but a brand?
- lunias 7y ago
  Agreed, it's all digital assets i.e. songs, movies, tv shows, books, etc. You can still sell physical assets e.g. vinyl, blu-rays, tickets to shows, hardbacks, etc. like people did prior to the internet, but the driving motivation of most consumers today seems to me to be convenience. Physical is rarely more convenient than digital for anyone these days. It's not about what I or anyone else "wants" IMO. It's about what is actually possible and then what's desirable for humanity considering the tradeoffs. Like the war on drugs, it can be stated all day how bad drugs are for society, but it's a moot point if you can't enforce a drug free policy. Psuedo-enforcement gives rise to much worse conditions and impacts on society through black markets, misallocation of funds to ineffective counter-measures, and inconsistent punishments. What are some examples of things you're thinking of that people identify as that are not just brands and how do you see them as distinct? I believe that freedom of information is more beneficial to society than any single individual's or company's claim to copyright. Will creativity suffer? Perhaps, but I don't think creative people can help but be creative (nor will people stop sharing it online). Creativity is not what's at stake; it's the established model of monetizing that creativity that is in jeopardy. I don't think it's crazy that the internet has changed things. I think it's crazy to not change along with it.

by lunias 7y ago

Lapsa 7y ago

It's not just songs. Do you want to identify as nothing more but a brand?

lunias 7y ago
Agreed, it's all digital assets i.e. songs, movies, tv shows, books, etc. You can still sell physical assets e.g. vinyl, blu-rays, tickets to shows, hardbacks, etc. like people did prior to the internet, but the driving motivation of most consumers today seems to me to be convenience. Physical is rarely more convenient than digital for anyone these days. It's not about what I or anyone else "wants" IMO. It's about what is actually possible and then what's desirable for humanity considering the tradeoffs. Like the war on drugs, it can be stated all day how bad drugs are for society, but it's a moot point if you can't enforce a drug free policy. Psuedo-enforcement gives rise to much worse conditions and impacts on society through black markets, misallocation of funds to ineffective counter-measures, and inconsistent punishments. What are some examples of things you're thinking of that people identify as that are not just brands and how do you see them as distinct? I believe that freedom of information is more beneficial to society than any single individual's or company's claim to copyright. Will creativity suffer? Perhaps, but I don't think creative people can help but be creative (nor will people stop sharing it online). Creativity is not what's at stake; it's the established model of monetizing that creativity that is in jeopardy. I don't think it's crazy that the internet has changed things. I think it's crazy to not change along with it.