5 ms·

There is a fundamental difference (at least for now)–there is nearly zero cost involved in copying data and moving it around. There's no real scarcity of data.

by nynx 5y ago

There is a fundamental difference (at least for now)–there is nearly zero cost involved in copying data and moving it around. There's no real scarcity of data. There is some real scarcity of candy bars.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
To be fair to the argument, there is scarcity of the labor that produces the data and that must be compensated somehow.
- nynx 5y ago
  That's true, but the labor that actually produced the data is not receiving the full value of the money that people pay to access the data. If the money went directly to the creators, I think people (and myself certainly) would feel much more amenable to paying for it.
  - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
    Enters Patreon and similar type of things where you directly support contributors. However, $15/month for "everything-ish", or do you Patreon every content creator you watch? If you do anything around $5/month, thr budget might start hurting on the other side.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
      I can’t imagine people subscribing to Disney’s patreon, or to key grip #8’s patreon. That model will never work industry-wide.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  The scarcity of the labor is completely disconnected from the artificial scarcity of data.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Agreed, but therein lies the problem. The markets for our needs are still markets based on scarcity, and therefore artists need to operate within them even while producing a product that exists in a post-scarcity environment. To date no one has developed a better way to deal with this dichotomy than to impose some form of artificial scarcity in the post-scarcity space. I personally find that solution unappealing, but admit to no better option than to deal with it in most cases. Some of the people producing work I like can be compensated through patreon or twitch or some other means, but not all.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
With physical books, the cost of the pages was never that significant anyways. Same with VHS. The scarcity was never in the medium, so I fail to see why suddenly it matters.

by nynx 5y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

To be fair to the argument, there is scarcity of the labor that produces the data and that must be compensated somehow.

nynx 5y ago
That's true, but the labor that actually produced the data is not receiving the full value of the money that people pay to access the data. If the money went directly to the creators, I think people (and myself certainly) would feel much more amenable to paying for it.
- ThunderSizzle 5y ago
  Enters Patreon and similar type of things where you directly support contributors. However, $15/month for "everything-ish", or do you Patreon every content creator you watch? If you do anything around $5/month, thr budget might start hurting on the other side.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
    I can’t imagine people subscribing to Disney’s patreon, or to key grip #8’s patreon. That model will never work industry-wide.
goodpoint 5y ago
The scarcity of the labor is completely disconnected from the artificial scarcity of data.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Agreed, but therein lies the problem. The markets for our needs are still markets based on scarcity, and therefore artists need to operate within them even while producing a product that exists in a post-scarcity environment. To date no one has developed a better way to deal with this dichotomy than to impose some form of artificial scarcity in the post-scarcity space. I personally find that solution unappealing, but admit to no better option than to deal with it in most cases. Some of the people producing work I like can be compensated through patreon or twitch or some other means, but not all.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

With physical books, the cost of the pages was never that significant anyways. Same with VHS. The scarcity was never in the medium, so I fail to see why suddenly it matters.