4 ms·

How can this statement: “Note that this isn't the same as saying I'm entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free.” Logically coexist with thi

by dchuk 5y ago

How can this statement: “Note that this isn't the same as saying I'm entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free.” Logically coexist with this: “Paying for entertainment always seemed "wrong" somehow. That includes paying for it with attention, like watching commercials or enduring sponsorships on YouTube.” I’m being serious. Stuff costs money to make, seems logical that somehow compensation can be acquired for creative work somehow.

moonchrome 5y ago
I think they could just avoid using it and find entertainment in things that are not monetised - which sounds OK, unfortunately society isn't structured this way so you're both missing out on huge parts of it and ostracizing yourself. But when I think about it the fact that it seems outrageous at first glance really tells me how consumerist I am, not sure that I like this.
- bm3719 5y ago
  Reduction of embodying a consumer is another positive from trying one's best to not pay for entertainment. It cuts out a large swath of entertainment outlets that are a net negative to one's life, and often, for the environment as well. Simple example: Say you want to have fun with your children. Instead of buying an entertainment outlet, like going to an amusement park, maybe go on a hike, write some code, or tell stories. If you insist on spending money, don't pay for the entertainment as a product, but buy some supplies to build something. As a grown-up now, I look back on those events more fondly from childhood than any of the purchased activities.
bm3719 5y ago
The first statement acknowledges the economic reality of the entertainment industry as-is. In that, I occasionally tolerate the things I dislike about it, and pull out the wallet or reluctantly tolerate an ad. The other statement is my ideal where creators are free to make things they actually enjoy, and that I might. Take video games, for example. I find the deepest and most rewarding experiences to be had in free games (e.g., Dwarf Fortress, ToME, and various rogue-likes), compared to the output of the for-pay video game producers, like EA. Creating stuff does cost money, energy, and/or time. In the former example, I might be inclined to donate to the project, and if I don't, others usually will. Or, they can just give it away and not ask for donations too, which many (including me) do. Imagine the world of entertainment working similar to FOSS, as a good example we're all familiar with. Like with FOSS, it changes the nature of the product produced, arguably for the better.
pope_meat 5y ago
This comment took a few calories to write. You can read it for free, but by your logic, perhaps I should charge you a monthly service fee, or start each comment with a ad spot... Technically this comment is costing me money to make, internet isn't free, neither is the food I eat to sustain myself. Logically coexisting none the less.

by dchuk 5y ago

moonchrome 5y ago

I think they could just avoid using it and find entertainment in things that are not monetised - which sounds OK, unfortunately society isn't structured this way so you're both missing out on huge parts of it and ostracizing yourself. But when I think about it the fact that it seems outrageous at first glance really tells me how consumerist I am, not sure that I like this.

bm3719 5y ago
Reduction of embodying a consumer is another positive from trying one's best to not pay for entertainment. It cuts out a large swath of entertainment outlets that are a net negative to one's life, and often, for the environment as well. Simple example: Say you want to have fun with your children. Instead of buying an entertainment outlet, like going to an amusement park, maybe go on a hike, write some code, or tell stories. If you insist on spending money, don't pay for the entertainment as a product, but buy some supplies to build something. As a grown-up now, I look back on those events more fondly from childhood than any of the purchased activities.

bm3719 5y ago

The first statement acknowledges the economic reality of the entertainment industry as-is. In that, I occasionally tolerate the things I dislike about it, and pull out the wallet or reluctantly tolerate an ad. The other statement is my ideal where creators are free to make things they actually enjoy, and that I might. Take video games, for example. I find the deepest and most rewarding experiences to be had in free games (e.g., Dwarf Fortress, ToME, and various rogue-likes), compared to the output of the for-pay video game producers, like EA. Creating stuff does cost money, energy, and/or time. In the former example, I might be inclined to donate to the project, and if I don't, others usually will. Or, they can just give it away and not ask for donations too, which many (including me) do. Imagine the world of entertainment working similar to FOSS, as a good example we're all familiar with. Like with FOSS, it changes the nature of the product produced, arguably for the better.

pope_meat 5y ago

This comment took a few calories to write. You can read it for free, but by your logic, perhaps I should charge you a monthly service fee, or start each comment with a ad spot... Technically this comment is costing me money to make, internet isn't free, neither is the food I eat to sustain myself. Logically coexisting none the less.