5 ms·

The idea "exclusive monopolies" and transferable intellectual property rights for perpetuity is bullshit. The blunt fact of the matter is - A majority of the m

The idea "exclusive monopolies" and transferable intellectual property rights for perpetuity is bullshit. The blunt fact of the matter is - A majority of the movies would gain more by giving it away to the public domain because most movies fail. Radio did not kill Art. Internet is the new radio. The same is true even for software. 80% of business fail. It would not matter if they gave their code away. GPL based business have made billions, i'n not even talking about open source and have more users than some of the biggest "startups". Among the minority that made it "big" copyright contributed maybe 5% to the success. IP allows big companies to bully creators, lie to consumers and bully independent companies that they perceive as threats. In Music, Code, Science ... openness has lead to more innovation. Movies and Games present an interesting case. They have plenty of upfront costs. Games have already embraced some notions of the freemium mode. It would be really interesting if 100 million dollar movie is entirely funded by the people. There is nothing stopping that from happening. Copyright, Patents should last at-most 1 year.

doctor_eval 6y ago
Plenty of 100 million dollar movies have been entirely funded by the people [0]. They pay using a thing called “tickets”, or sometimes by paying a small fee to download it to their homes. To your point, the vast majority of media and software is proprietary, though much of it is supporting in nature and not directly for sale. Nevertheless, shouldn’t publishers be free to choose how they fund their creations? If we take away the option of artificial scarcity then an entire highly trained professional class will be out of work. While I don’t think Jonny Depp, for example, is worth $650M [1], I don’t personally think that’s a great option for the editors, writers, extras, gaffers, and many other professionals that work together to make great media. Companies are motivated to maximise the revenue from making this stuff. If they could make more money without copyright, they would have done this already. (And radio is a terrible example: commercial radio simply plays advertising for artists, called “songs”, 24x7) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films [1] https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jul/13/johnny-depp-tells-high-court-the-sun-libel-case-lost-650m-earnings https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jul/13/johnny-depp-tel...
- foobar_ 6y ago
  The number of CEOs who think printing money is a good idea might make you wonder if they even know anything about money. Polluting air costs less money why not do it ? 80% movies don't need the 100 million dollar budget and I'm pretty sure Johnny Deepp would be happy to release Edward Scissorhands to the public domain. Most big movies make their money by single day screenings and releasing movies at different dates in different regions with market buzz. > If we take away the option of artificial scarcity then an entire highly trained professional class will be out of work. Interestingly your argument fails for porn. Its about 1/4th the size of hollywood. How about publishers own the copyright and creators own the copyright instead of commoditising a copyright artefact ? I assure you musicians can survive and Depp can do some theatre. Most EDM is essentially copyright free, especially techno. 1 year of exclusivity is fine. Fuck NDAs. These days the cost of production has gone down so I think you will see more indie media taking advantage of that. The average budget for a reasonable movie is less than 5 million, heck even 500k dollars going by kickstarter funded movies.
  - doctor_eval 6y ago
    I don’t really know what you’re arguing, you seem to be making a few assumptions about my position, which are probably wrong. In terms of $100M movies, I think they almost all suck, but that was the value you suggested. I’d say that no movie needs to cost $100M! But plenty of movies cost $10M. If it takes 100 people a year to make a movie then you can easily spend $10M on salaries and overheads alone. > Interestingly your argument fails for porn Does it? I’d guess that the average porno costs a few hundred bucks to shoot, and takes a couple of hours. There is easily 100x more hours of porn produced per day than narrative fiction, and yet it only makes 25% of Hollywood, and notoriously, the actors are frequently exploited. I’d say that porn is a warning of danger rather than a proof of success! > Depp can do some theatre When was the last time you paid to go to the theatre? > Most EDM is essentially copyright free, especially techno. 1 year of exclusivity is fine. Fuck NDAs. My raver days are (sadly) behind me, but sure, OK, like porn, EDM can be produced with little investment. So what? No everything that is good is also cheap or easy to build. > These days the cost of production has gone down so I think you will see more indie media taking advantage of that. I’m a huge fan of indy media but, because of that, I pay for it, and I don’t like it when people freeload. > The average budget for a reasonable movie is less than 5 million I think you’re just making things up now, but even so, 5 million is a buttload of money that you need to get back. Few people are gonna spend that sort of money with no expectation of recouping it.
chipotle_coyote 6y ago
> A majority of the movies would gain more by giving it away to the public domain because most movies fail. What exactly about being in the public domain would help a movie "gain more" if it hadn't had a successful box office run previously? "GPL-based businesses making billions" does not strike me as a meaningful comparison here. ("Well, 'Cats' is a fiasco, but if we give it away for free we can make a killing selling enterprise service contracts for it!")
- foobar_ 6y ago
  How about scene by scene commentary for cats on a youtube video. Sports have this and you can watch old sports matches on youtube. Right now youtube would block it and my use case extends the fair use by quite a mark. You have to understand that under DRM even seeing the movie with family and friends is illegal.

doctor_eval 6y ago

Plenty of 100 million dollar movies have been entirely funded by the people [0]. They pay using a thing called “tickets”, or sometimes by paying a small fee to download it to their homes. To your point, the vast majority of media and software is proprietary, though much of it is supporting in nature and not directly for sale. Nevertheless, shouldn’t publishers be free to choose how they fund their creations? If we take away the option of artificial scarcity then an entire highly trained professional class will be out of work. While I don’t think Jonny Depp, for example, is worth $650M [1], I don’t personally think that’s a great option for the editors, writers, extras, gaffers, and many other professionals that work together to make great media. Companies are motivated to maximise the revenue from making this stuff. If they could make more money without copyright, they would have done this already. (And radio is a terrible example: commercial radio simply plays advertising for artists, called “songs”, 24x7) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films [1] https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jul/13/johnny-depp-tells-high-court-the-sun-libel-case-lost-650m-earnings https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jul/13/johnny-depp-tel...

foobar_ 6y ago
The number of CEOs who think printing money is a good idea might make you wonder if they even know anything about money. Polluting air costs less money why not do it ? 80% movies don't need the 100 million dollar budget and I'm pretty sure Johnny Deepp would be happy to release Edward Scissorhands to the public domain. Most big movies make their money by single day screenings and releasing movies at different dates in different regions with market buzz. > If we take away the option of artificial scarcity then an entire highly trained professional class will be out of work. Interestingly your argument fails for porn. Its about 1/4th the size of hollywood. How about publishers own the copyright and creators own the copyright instead of commoditising a copyright artefact ? I assure you musicians can survive and Depp can do some theatre. Most EDM is essentially copyright free, especially techno. 1 year of exclusivity is fine. Fuck NDAs. These days the cost of production has gone down so I think you will see more indie media taking advantage of that. The average budget for a reasonable movie is less than 5 million, heck even 500k dollars going by kickstarter funded movies.
- doctor_eval 6y ago
  I don’t really know what you’re arguing, you seem to be making a few assumptions about my position, which are probably wrong. In terms of $100M movies, I think they almost all suck, but that was the value you suggested. I’d say that no movie needs to cost $100M! But plenty of movies cost $10M. If it takes 100 people a year to make a movie then you can easily spend $10M on salaries and overheads alone. > Interestingly your argument fails for porn Does it? I’d guess that the average porno costs a few hundred bucks to shoot, and takes a couple of hours. There is easily 100x more hours of porn produced per day than narrative fiction, and yet it only makes 25% of Hollywood, and notoriously, the actors are frequently exploited. I’d say that porn is a warning of danger rather than a proof of success! > Depp can do some theatre When was the last time you paid to go to the theatre? > Most EDM is essentially copyright free, especially techno. 1 year of exclusivity is fine. Fuck NDAs. My raver days are (sadly) behind me, but sure, OK, like porn, EDM can be produced with little investment. So what? No everything that is good is also cheap or easy to build. > These days the cost of production has gone down so I think you will see more indie media taking advantage of that. I’m a huge fan of indy media but, because of that, I pay for it, and I don’t like it when people freeload. > The average budget for a reasonable movie is less than 5 million I think you’re just making things up now, but even so, 5 million is a buttload of money that you need to get back. Few people are gonna spend that sort of money with no expectation of recouping it.

chipotle_coyote 6y ago

> A majority of the movies would gain more by giving it away to the public domain because most movies fail. What exactly about being in the public domain would help a movie "gain more" if it hadn't had a successful box office run previously? "GPL-based businesses making billions" does not strike me as a meaningful comparison here. ("Well, 'Cats' is a fiasco, but if we give it away for free we can make a killing selling enterprise service contracts for it!")

foobar_ 6y ago
How about scene by scene commentary for cats on a youtube video. Sports have this and you can watch old sports matches on youtube. Right now youtube would block it and my use case extends the fair use by quite a mark. You have to understand that under DRM even seeing the movie with family and friends is illegal.