3 ms·

No. The reason d'etre for the centralised platforms is that they are accountable to the major rights holding companies. That's all. One can speculate why this i

by johbjo 5y ago

No. The reason d'etre for the centralised platforms is that they are accountable to the major rights holding companies. That's all. One can speculate why this is so important for society, but ostensibly it is to protect the rights of Universal, Disney, etc. Accountability becomes impossible with decentralization, and small decentralized distributors can be easily intimidated with copyright-related legislation. This is partly why p2p fizzled. Internet change will require political change, such as rolling back various copyright legislation. For example, limiting to 20 years (like patents) and several others. The consequences of this would be to erase the book-value of the rights holding companies. But decentralized media can not be held accountable to society/politics like for example Youtube. I suspect this is the underlying political motivation, not so much charity to Disney.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> One can speculate why this is so important for society, but ostensibly it is to protect the rights of Universal, Disney, etc It is not difficult for me to speculate that it is due to people’s desire to get paid for their time and effort. The people working at Universal (Comcast) and Disney have the option of doing their own thing and trying to get people to pay for it outside of centralized platforms. That they do not seems to indicate it is not a viable option. That is not to say anything about unnecessarily long copyright terms, that is a separate issue.
- johbjo 5y ago
  Content creators are not the beneficiaries of the current copyright legislation, which enables accumulation of large catalogues of old works that can be used to strong-arm central platforms to act as gatekeepers (for lack of a better word.) Living independently from patreon and youtube is the dream of most content creators. Whether it is currently viable isn't an argument in favour of current copyright legislation.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > Content creators are not the beneficiaries of the current copyright legislation On average, they seem to be doing better than people trying to earn money from Patraeon and YouTube. They might not be the intended or primary beneficiary of current copyright legislation, but they are a beneficiary of their employers earning money due to the copyright legislation (however disproportionate). > Whether it is currently viable isn't an argument in favour of current copyright legislation Yes, that’s what I was hoping to convey by ending my comment stating current copyright lengths are a separate issue.
selfhoster11 5y ago
> This is partly why p2p fizzled. That's news to me. The less legitimate ways of acquiring media seem to be thriving in this day and age, and most are p2p.

by johbjo 5y ago

lotsofpulp 5y ago

> One can speculate why this is so important for society, but ostensibly it is to protect the rights of Universal, Disney, etc It is not difficult for me to speculate that it is due to people’s desire to get paid for their time and effort. The people working at Universal (Comcast) and Disney have the option of doing their own thing and trying to get people to pay for it outside of centralized platforms. That they do not seems to indicate it is not a viable option. That is not to say anything about unnecessarily long copyright terms, that is a separate issue.

johbjo 5y ago
Content creators are not the beneficiaries of the current copyright legislation, which enables accumulation of large catalogues of old works that can be used to strong-arm central platforms to act as gatekeepers (for lack of a better word.) Living independently from patreon and youtube is the dream of most content creators. Whether it is currently viable isn't an argument in favour of current copyright legislation.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > Content creators are not the beneficiaries of the current copyright legislation On average, they seem to be doing better than people trying to earn money from Patraeon and YouTube. They might not be the intended or primary beneficiary of current copyright legislation, but they are a beneficiary of their employers earning money due to the copyright legislation (however disproportionate). > Whether it is currently viable isn't an argument in favour of current copyright legislation Yes, that’s what I was hoping to convey by ending my comment stating current copyright lengths are a separate issue.

selfhoster11 5y ago

> This is partly why p2p fizzled. That's news to me. The less legitimate ways of acquiring media seem to be thriving in this day and age, and most are p2p.