3 ms·

That's a really interesting topic. I wish there was more... realistic discussion about those things. I remember 10 years ago, when the pirate party was hyping

by ketzu 6y ago

That's a really interesting topic. I wish there was more... realistic discussion about those things. I remember 10 years ago, when the pirate party was hyping up, there were a few propositions of basically a tax based system: remove copyright, but add a 10€ entertainment tax. It felt unrealistic to me to replace a multi billion dollar industry with 80million/year. Digital objects might have nearly zero reproduction cost, but producing the art still costs money. Splitting the cost of a single 320$mio movie on 8bil people, still costs everyone 4cents. In a similar veine the limitations for artists to monetize their money and rely on others: artist could market directly to consumers instead of having advertisers! But that would mostly select for people that are good at advertising themselves, what morphed to influencers.

zozbot234 6y ago
A movie doesn't have to cost $320M - by way of example, the Blender Institute's freely available movies cost far less than that to make. Movie making is a "multi-billion dollar industry" only because of the incredible amount of sheer waste that's involved in that pursuit.
- ketzu 6y ago
  While I believe there is quite a lot of waste, I still think that such a change would have a huge impact on movie making and other things. I don't know enough about the Blender movies and the cost involved, so I have to adress it in a "strawman" like way by comparing it to open software: Having volunteers working on it for free greatly reduces cost, but diminishes that those often have jobs in the related industry, indirectly funding the project and helping the peoples skills. Switching to free software for everyone (forbidding advertisements and data collection for further income of course!) on a small tax scheme would very likely have a devastating consequence medium term for open source software as well. But all of this is just speculation by me.

by ketzu 6y ago

zozbot234 6y ago

A movie doesn't have to cost $320M - by way of example, the Blender Institute's freely available movies cost far less than that to make. Movie making is a "multi-billion dollar industry" only because of the incredible amount of sheer waste that's involved in that pursuit.

ketzu 6y ago
While I believe there is quite a lot of waste, I still think that such a change would have a huge impact on movie making and other things. I don't know enough about the Blender movies and the cost involved, so I have to adress it in a "strawman" like way by comparing it to open software: Having volunteers working on it for free greatly reduces cost, but diminishes that those often have jobs in the related industry, indirectly funding the project and helping the peoples skills. Switching to free software for everyone (forbidding advertisements and data collection for further income of course!) on a small tax scheme would very likely have a devastating consequence medium term for open source software as well. But all of this is just speculation by me.