6 ms·

I already don't enjoy many big-budget productions. I find niche Youtubers catering to my interests to be a better use of my time -- recently, we've been binging

I already don't enjoy many big-budget productions. I find niche Youtubers catering to my interests to be a better use of my time -- recently, we've been binging on 3Blue1Brown. I'm also finding very little relation between production budget (which mostly goes into things like SFX) and my enjoyment. Some of my favorite films were very low budget, from Dr. Horrible to some Bruce Campbell flicks. Good writing makes a huge difference. Decent acting and performance makes a bit of difference. Replacing all the SFX with sixties-era Star Trek SFX wouldn't make a wit of difference to my enjoyment. There is a correlation between finding good writers and having big budgets -- if you're dropping $300 million to make a film you might as well hire good writers -- but it's not a super-strong correlation.

IdiocyInAction 6y ago
Then don't watch those movies. The fact is, many people enjoy these things - there's market research on that - and you are not the target audience. The sum amount of enjoyment from a big budget production is much higher than what 3B1B produces (who I also like!). And that enjoyment would not exist if not for IP law.
- woofie11 6y ago
  I could live with that if you didn't try to impose their values on me. I want to be free to write whatever code I want in the privacy of my own bedroom. I want to be free to understand my democratic government institutions. I want to be able to reverse-engineer things I own. I want to understand the world around me fully, and completely, to within the limits of my intellect. I want to build school systems where kids learn to understand their world. If your enjoyment of big-budget movies doesn't infringe on that, go ahead and enjoy them. Since it does, I'll fight every step of the way. Perhaps I'll lose, but I'll fight.
  - smhenderson 6y ago
    Sorry if I'm missing something here, but how does my enjoyment of a big budget movie correlate with I want to build school systems where kids learn to understand their world. What harm am I causing these kids that I am apparently unaware of?
    - wongarsu 6y ago
      The initial argument was "we need IP law so we can enjoy big budget movies". The counterargument is "I don't care about those, here's a list of things I do care about that are made harder or threatened by IP law". It's an interesting case in that the internet has caused big media to push for stricter copyright enforcement and experiment with giving people less and less rights on their products, but at the same time the internet has made people much more aware of the downsides of copyright.
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      I don't know how true this is (it could just be rumours) but I've heard multiple times from hardware vendors that the main reason they can't open source GPU drivers and firmware, or the code for a smart TV, is because of concerns about the DRM being cracked. It would be a pretty sad state of affairs if the end result of this copyright enforcement is that the general public just isn't allowed to know how a TV or a GPU works anymore, and that right becomes reserved only for the 5 big movie studios.
    - woofie11 6y ago
      The world my child grows up in is increasingly controlled by technology. You can't really understand your toaster, your car, your printer, or your democracy without understanding the software which power them. When my parents were growing up, they could take things apart, tinker, and understand them as deeply as their hearts desired and intellects allowed them to. They could modify books (with pencils), archive them (in their basements), and even quote exerts. Building radios or modifying cars were mainstream hobbies. I'm okay if your IP laws restrict my right to distribute copies of your work. I'm not okay with a copyright regime that makes it illegal for me to reverse-engineer and understand the software which controls my life, to tweak my car, or to understand my phone. There's a possible dystopia where elections are de facto controlled by secret algorithms at Facebook, where all my information comes from a Google phone with a locked-down infrastructure I can't peak at or understand, where I can't record a 30 second clip of a movie to discuss it in my classroom, and where my car shuts down if I do an after-market repair. At the time the DMCA came in, the RIAA and MPAA became major enemies of my personal freedom and my child's ability to learn.
ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
What's the point of this comment? Why does your opinion matter so much? Truth is most (practically all) people want to watch Game of Thrones and are willing to pay for it.
- woofie11 6y ago
  And that's fine. The question at hand isn't whether people will pay for GoT, but whether they'll be used as an argument to pass laws like the DMCA, which says I'm not allowed to reverse-engineer technologies in my home, or ones which put bankrupt or put college students in prison. My claim is that if MPAA profits went down even 50%, society wouldn't be any worse off at all. On the other hand, we are worse off for DRM.
  - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
    Then you’re arguing against politicians politicking. It’s not like its real people arguing for any of that. I think most people would say were worse off if game of thrones was produced any different. You don’t like visual effects, but you’re in an extreme minority.

IdiocyInAction 6y ago

Then don't watch those movies. The fact is, many people enjoy these things - there's market research on that - and you are not the target audience. The sum amount of enjoyment from a big budget production is much higher than what 3B1B produces (who I also like!). And that enjoyment would not exist if not for IP law.

woofie11 6y ago
I could live with that if you didn't try to impose their values on me. I want to be free to write whatever code I want in the privacy of my own bedroom. I want to be free to understand my democratic government institutions. I want to be able to reverse-engineer things I own. I want to understand the world around me fully, and completely, to within the limits of my intellect. I want to build school systems where kids learn to understand their world. If your enjoyment of big-budget movies doesn't infringe on that, go ahead and enjoy them. Since it does, I'll fight every step of the way. Perhaps I'll lose, but I'll fight.
- smhenderson 6y ago
  Sorry if I'm missing something here, but how does my enjoyment of a big budget movie correlate with I want to build school systems where kids learn to understand their world. What harm am I causing these kids that I am apparently unaware of?
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    The initial argument was "we need IP law so we can enjoy big budget movies". The counterargument is "I don't care about those, here's a list of things I do care about that are made harder or threatened by IP law". It's an interesting case in that the internet has caused big media to push for stricter copyright enforcement and experiment with giving people less and less rights on their products, but at the same time the internet has made people much more aware of the downsides of copyright.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    I don't know how true this is (it could just be rumours) but I've heard multiple times from hardware vendors that the main reason they can't open source GPU drivers and firmware, or the code for a smart TV, is because of concerns about the DRM being cracked. It would be a pretty sad state of affairs if the end result of this copyright enforcement is that the general public just isn't allowed to know how a TV or a GPU works anymore, and that right becomes reserved only for the 5 big movie studios.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    The world my child grows up in is increasingly controlled by technology. You can't really understand your toaster, your car, your printer, or your democracy without understanding the software which power them. When my parents were growing up, they could take things apart, tinker, and understand them as deeply as their hearts desired and intellects allowed them to. They could modify books (with pencils), archive them (in their basements), and even quote exerts. Building radios or modifying cars were mainstream hobbies. I'm okay if your IP laws restrict my right to distribute copies of your work. I'm not okay with a copyright regime that makes it illegal for me to reverse-engineer and understand the software which controls my life, to tweak my car, or to understand my phone. There's a possible dystopia where elections are de facto controlled by secret algorithms at Facebook, where all my information comes from a Google phone with a locked-down infrastructure I can't peak at or understand, where I can't record a 30 second clip of a movie to discuss it in my classroom, and where my car shuts down if I do an after-market repair. At the time the DMCA came in, the RIAA and MPAA became major enemies of my personal freedom and my child's ability to learn.

ulisesrmzroche 6y ago

What's the point of this comment? Why does your opinion matter so much? Truth is most (practically all) people want to watch Game of Thrones and are willing to pay for it.

woofie11 6y ago
And that's fine. The question at hand isn't whether people will pay for GoT, but whether they'll be used as an argument to pass laws like the DMCA, which says I'm not allowed to reverse-engineer technologies in my home, or ones which put bankrupt or put college students in prison. My claim is that if MPAA profits went down even 50%, society wouldn't be any worse off at all. On the other hand, we are worse off for DRM.
- ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
  Then you’re arguing against politicians politicking. It’s not like its real people arguing for any of that. I think most people would say were worse off if game of thrones was produced any different. You don’t like visual effects, but you’re in an extreme minority.