5 ms·
Why are small creators inherently more entitled to 'support' than larger creators though? Why do we just decide that at a certain threshold, it's fine to take t
by dbbk 5y ago
Why are small creators inherently more entitled to 'support' than larger creators though? Why do we just decide that at a certain threshold, it's fine to take things for free?
- matheusmoreira 5y agoSmall creators don't lobby the government in order to extend copyright duration for the nth time.
- chii 5y agodisney was once a small creator. The thing with double standards is that there's just so many to choose from!
- mariusor 5y agoMaybe we're thinking about different things when we're saying "small creator" but Disney had contracts with Hollywood studios[1] almost from the start. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company#1923%E2%80%931928:_Founding_and_silent_film_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company#1923%E...
- scghost 5y agoThe value of the money made is relative to how much money the person has. A person going from $0 -> $5 gets more value than a person going from $1,000,000 -> $1,000,005.
- t0suj4 5y agoBy that logic small scam game devs would be on par with other small creators. I don't think it's because of relative value of money.
- Flankk 5y agoThat's the same logic a thief uses when they shoplift from Walmart. As an indie myself, the biggest threat to my livelihood is actually piracy.
- cute_boi 5y agoBut i guess we agree on one thing: Shoplifting a poor's shop is far more egregious than wall mart? Relative value of money does make sense. Its not just here but in crime too. Can you punish people who steals 1$ and 1 million dollar in same way? Bad behavior, stealing is not a binary to my eyes.
- Flankk 5y agoYour error is in comparing a single theft between small and large business. In reality, big business will face much more theft due to their high volume. The difference is marginal when you account for relative value. Your second example does not follow.
- LocalH 5y agoOnce a creator reaches a (likely fuzzy, undefined, needs more study) threshold, they gain the ability to negatively influence the laws in their favor, against the laws' original intent. Regulatory capture and all. Look at all the lobbying that happened by the Walt Disney Corporation, among others, to extend the copyright term to the insanity we see today. Some people/corporations also want perpetual copyright that never expires, and they tend to be the larger ones (although not all, so that is sort of almost orthogonal).
- t0suj4 5y agoIf people are thinking that small creators bring universally better value than big creators then they're in the right to give them money. I, for example, dislike Take Two's way of intimidating modders so I'm trying to avoid giving them money.
- 6510 5y agoThis is a great question. The answer imho is that large creators can use crowd sourcing and leverage their reputation. All they have to do is ask the public for money to make the next [say] Mad Max, Riddick, Startrek, Batman, etc etc If the public doesn't want a new Startrek movie funding will be insufficient. It might have to happen on a smaller budget, not at all or simply have to wait until funds are sufficient. New things (not sequels) can be done/advertised on the reputation of the studio, director, actors etc etc I pay for production, I pay in advance for a cinema ticket, I get a digital download some months later. Whatever copying happens after that is pure promotion.