6 ms·

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

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.
  - foobar_ 6y ago
    > So what ? I too can ignore every big budget predictable cliche and say so what. Lets ignore the successes of alternatives. Is Kanye West and Britney Spears the best you can do with millions of dollars ? I'll stick to punk and EDM ... no thanks. > 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. Is copyright / patents the only way to finance and get money back ? Absolutely not. Thats the argument I am making. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
    - doctor_eval 6y ago
account42 6y ago
> Nevertheless, shouldn’t publishers be free to choose how they fund their creations? Of course. The problem is when they demand that goverments take away their ciziten's natural rights to copy and share information in order to support their chosen business model. If publishers want society to make their business model possible by being given special "rights" and having public institudions enforce those "rights" then it is very much up to all of society to choose if that is acceptable. Remember copyright is an entirely artificial construct meant to benefit society by encouraging creators to produce content. It is my and many others opinion that the current state of copyright is a very one sided affair that benefits mainly big corporations while having numerous negative effects on society. > If we take away the option of artificial scarcity then an entire highly trained professional class will be out of work. Unlikely. There will always be a demand for entertainment and people interested in filling that demand will find a way to make it worthwile. But even if the entire entertainment industry would instantly disappear then that would still not be an argument to uphold unjust laws. Professions becoming obsolete with progress is entirely natural. People can adapt.
- doctor_eval 6y ago
  While I agree in spirit with some of what you say, the law is as it is and producers invest in content with the expectation that those laws will be enforced. You want copyright to go away? Then get enough people to agree, and get the law changed. > copyright is an entirely artificial construct meant to benefit society by encouraging creators to produce content The problem with this line of reasoning is that all property is an artificial construct. Just because it’s an artificial concept doesn’t, on its own, make it wrong. > It is my and many others opinion that the current state of copyright is a very one sided affair that benefits mainly big corporations while having numerous negative effects on society. That may be true, but last I looked we live in a democracy, which means that we have a process for changing the law, which does not include doing whatever you want. And honestly, while there is plenty about modern copyright that I find repulsive, especially the constant extension, nevertheless the wholesale removal of copyright would have many consequences that you probably don’t want. For starters, the GPL, CC, Apache and many other free licenses rely on copyright to work. > There will always be a demand for entertainment and people interested in filling that demand will find a way to make it worthwile Copyright supports far more than just entertainment. The wholesale destruction of journalism, for example, has clearly damaged society. Part of the damage has been caused because Google and Facebook have subverted copyright to their own causes. It really is not black and white.

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.
- foobar_ 6y ago
  > So what ? I too can ignore every big budget predictable cliche and say so what. Lets ignore the successes of alternatives. Is Kanye West and Britney Spears the best you can do with millions of dollars ? I'll stick to punk and EDM ... no thanks. > 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. Is copyright / patents the only way to finance and get money back ? Absolutely not. Thats the argument I am making. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
  - doctor_eval 6y ago

account42 6y ago

> Nevertheless, shouldn’t publishers be free to choose how they fund their creations? Of course. The problem is when they demand that goverments take away their ciziten's natural rights to copy and share information in order to support their chosen business model. If publishers want society to make their business model possible by being given special "rights" and having public institudions enforce those "rights" then it is very much up to all of society to choose if that is acceptable. Remember copyright is an entirely artificial construct meant to benefit society by encouraging creators to produce content. It is my and many others opinion that the current state of copyright is a very one sided affair that benefits mainly big corporations while having numerous negative effects on society. > If we take away the option of artificial scarcity then an entire highly trained professional class will be out of work. Unlikely. There will always be a demand for entertainment and people interested in filling that demand will find a way to make it worthwile. But even if the entire entertainment industry would instantly disappear then that would still not be an argument to uphold unjust laws. Professions becoming obsolete with progress is entirely natural. People can adapt.

doctor_eval 6y ago
While I agree in spirit with some of what you say, the law is as it is and producers invest in content with the expectation that those laws will be enforced. You want copyright to go away? Then get enough people to agree, and get the law changed. > copyright is an entirely artificial construct meant to benefit society by encouraging creators to produce content The problem with this line of reasoning is that all property is an artificial construct. Just because it’s an artificial concept doesn’t, on its own, make it wrong. > It is my and many others opinion that the current state of copyright is a very one sided affair that benefits mainly big corporations while having numerous negative effects on society. That may be true, but last I looked we live in a democracy, which means that we have a process for changing the law, which does not include doing whatever you want. And honestly, while there is plenty about modern copyright that I find repulsive, especially the constant extension, nevertheless the wholesale removal of copyright would have many consequences that you probably don’t want. For starters, the GPL, CC, Apache and many other free licenses rely on copyright to work. > There will always be a demand for entertainment and people interested in filling that demand will find a way to make it worthwile Copyright supports far more than just entertainment. The wholesale destruction of journalism, for example, has clearly damaged society. Part of the damage has been caused because Google and Facebook have subverted copyright to their own causes. It really is not black and white.