3 ms·

2-3 years is no time at all. Someone could hand a movie studio a script in hopes of it being made a movie, the movie studio could wait 4 years, and then make th

2-3 years is no time at all. Someone could hand a movie studio a script in hopes of it being made a movie, the movie studio could wait 4 years, and then make the movie, with no harm to them whatsoever.

grishka 5y ago
Huh. A movie studio. Yes, my proposal also has a nice side effect of filtering out those who are in it for the money, not self-expression. The world would become a better place if there were no "entertainment industry".
- notJim 5y ago
  People who are in it for self-expression need to pay the bills too.
  - grishka 5y ago
    They usually start self-expressing just for themselves, so they still have a job. Most video bloggers started this exact way — first a hobby, then they quit their job and turned their vlogging into a Serious Business™ with obnoxious sponsorships, a studio, a ton of ridiculously expensive equipment, and optionally a crew.
- codyb 5y ago
  No entertainment industry? So... nobody could sit and create a movie studio or a record label? What a weird thing to rail against. I'm certainly unconvinced the world would be magically better without people organizing to produce content. Maybe there's some issues with copyrights, but as far as I can tell, almost any organization would attempt to preserve profits. We, as a people, then go through and create legislation which curbs rampant abuses whether that's environmental pollution, or unsafe kids' toys, or overly lengthy copyright claims. But the idea people can't get together and make movies, that's a new one.
  - grishka 5y ago
    > almost any organization would attempt to preserve profits. Often at the expense of everything else, including common sense. Despite their current revenues already covering their expenses, many times over. > But the idea people can't get together and make movies, that's a new one. They can, but they will own shares in them, either split equally or proportionally to their contribution.
    - californical 5y ago
      How are there shares if there’s no copyright? Do you own 10% of a movie that’s worth $0 since anyone can copy and distribute it for no cost?
      - grishka 5y ago
        There is copyright, but it's non-transferable and only lasts for 2-3 years. After that time, yes, anyone can copy and distribute it. My idea here is that you would have the option of either paying right now, or waiting when the copyright expires and getting it legally for free. In our current system people don't even consider that copyrights have an expiry date, they operate as if they're effectively indefinite. And the current system doesn't work anyway — the majority of the society just isn't having it. Everyone has pirated something at some point.
        t-writescode 5y ago
        I think the big problem here is that 2-3 years is almost no time at all. With 2-3 years, basically everyone will wait for the next book in the Game of Thrones series to come out of costing money. Covid has been nearly 2 years, and for many of us it feels both like yesterday and also like forever ago, for example. And then you'll have people that want to watch the movie of something, so they're willing to pay the video company for instant access, but the movie is based off a script someone wrote, or a book someone wrote, and that book is at least 2 years old. RR Martin would make zero dollars from Game of Thrones, for example.
- bena 5y ago
  If you are in it for self-expression, you're entirely free to self-express to your heart's content. Copyright doesn't matter, publishers don't matter, studios don't matter. The minute you want to express yourself to others, you're no longer in it for self-expression. And regardless of your opinion on what should and should not exist, people should be fairly compensated for their endeavors, even if those endeavors are to create leisure activities for others. Copyright is an attempt to enable creators to get compensation for their work. This is one thing the people who rail about the ease of reproduction miss. It was never about the difficulty of reproduction, it was always about the difficulty of creation. How do we reward that when we are allowed to freely copy their efforts without the need to consider their contribution? It's one of the few things I like about a subscription or Patreon model. We're paying directly for the effort of creation.
  - cgio 5y ago
    How were artists living before copyrights? We’ve had quite a few of them delivering masterpieces. So we can reward efforts the same ways as before, art will not die just be less profitable maybe. If reproduction is easy what do we as a society earn by making it harder artificially? I don’t believe any other worker is having these benefits. You do your job, paid for your effort by someone willing to do so, and then go on with your life. That includes other creative occupations and most of the employees of e.g. movie studios. Are we fairly compensating _them_ for their work?
    - andrekandre 5y ago
      > That includes other creative occupations and most of the employees of e.g. movie studios. Are we fairly compensating _them_ for their work? what i find really interesting is, why is it that a company owns what i make there automatically? afaik i didn't sign any copyright assignment in my work contract... i wonder what the legal basis is for that?
      - cgio 5y ago
        You most probably did. At least I know I did. And the point is exactly that, instead of protecting creative output copyright is locking it down by capitalising it. Rather than creativity being a flow of meaningful communication and exchange at the level of ideas and aesthetics, it’s becoming a stock with ongoing financial and not creative dividends. You will have trouble using your creative outputs when moving between companies. Unless you start all over again and from that perspective it is a weird motivator for creativity, albeit one oriented to getting you where you started from rather than one step further.
- tomcam 5y ago
  Is there something wrong with creating solely for money and not self-expression?
  - account42 5y ago
    Not inherently. What is wrong is asking society to bend over backwards to enable that.
- SpelingBeeChamp 5y ago
  What if anything do you watch for entertainment?

grishka 5y ago

Huh. A movie studio. Yes, my proposal also has a nice side effect of filtering out those who are in it for the money, not self-expression. The world would become a better place if there were no "entertainment industry".

notJim 5y ago
People who are in it for self-expression need to pay the bills too.
- grishka 5y ago
  They usually start self-expressing just for themselves, so they still have a job. Most video bloggers started this exact way — first a hobby, then they quit their job and turned their vlogging into a Serious Business™ with obnoxious sponsorships, a studio, a ton of ridiculously expensive equipment, and optionally a crew.
codyb 5y ago
No entertainment industry? So... nobody could sit and create a movie studio or a record label? What a weird thing to rail against. I'm certainly unconvinced the world would be magically better without people organizing to produce content. Maybe there's some issues with copyrights, but as far as I can tell, almost any organization would attempt to preserve profits. We, as a people, then go through and create legislation which curbs rampant abuses whether that's environmental pollution, or unsafe kids' toys, or overly lengthy copyright claims. But the idea people can't get together and make movies, that's a new one.
- grishka 5y ago
  > almost any organization would attempt to preserve profits. Often at the expense of everything else, including common sense. Despite their current revenues already covering their expenses, many times over. > But the idea people can't get together and make movies, that's a new one. They can, but they will own shares in them, either split equally or proportionally to their contribution.
  - californical 5y ago
    How are there shares if there’s no copyright? Do you own 10% of a movie that’s worth $0 since anyone can copy and distribute it for no cost?
    - grishka 5y ago
      There is copyright, but it's non-transferable and only lasts for 2-3 years. After that time, yes, anyone can copy and distribute it. My idea here is that you would have the option of either paying right now, or waiting when the copyright expires and getting it legally for free. In our current system people don't even consider that copyrights have an expiry date, they operate as if they're effectively indefinite. And the current system doesn't work anyway — the majority of the society just isn't having it. Everyone has pirated something at some point.
      - t-writescode 5y ago
        I think the big problem here is that 2-3 years is almost no time at all. With 2-3 years, basically everyone will wait for the next book in the Game of Thrones series to come out of costing money. Covid has been nearly 2 years, and for many of us it feels both like yesterday and also like forever ago, for example. And then you'll have people that want to watch the movie of something, so they're willing to pay the video company for instant access, but the movie is based off a script someone wrote, or a book someone wrote, and that book is at least 2 years old. RR Martin would make zero dollars from Game of Thrones, for example.
bena 5y ago
If you are in it for self-expression, you're entirely free to self-express to your heart's content. Copyright doesn't matter, publishers don't matter, studios don't matter. The minute you want to express yourself to others, you're no longer in it for self-expression. And regardless of your opinion on what should and should not exist, people should be fairly compensated for their endeavors, even if those endeavors are to create leisure activities for others. Copyright is an attempt to enable creators to get compensation for their work. This is one thing the people who rail about the ease of reproduction miss. It was never about the difficulty of reproduction, it was always about the difficulty of creation. How do we reward that when we are allowed to freely copy their efforts without the need to consider their contribution? It's one of the few things I like about a subscription or Patreon model. We're paying directly for the effort of creation.
- cgio 5y ago
  How were artists living before copyrights? We’ve had quite a few of them delivering masterpieces. So we can reward efforts the same ways as before, art will not die just be less profitable maybe. If reproduction is easy what do we as a society earn by making it harder artificially? I don’t believe any other worker is having these benefits. You do your job, paid for your effort by someone willing to do so, and then go on with your life. That includes other creative occupations and most of the employees of e.g. movie studios. Are we fairly compensating _them_ for their work?
  - andrekandre 5y ago
    > That includes other creative occupations and most of the employees of e.g. movie studios. Are we fairly compensating _them_ for their work? what i find really interesting is, why is it that a company owns what i make there automatically? afaik i didn't sign any copyright assignment in my work contract... i wonder what the legal basis is for that?
    - cgio 5y ago
      You most probably did. At least I know I did. And the point is exactly that, instead of protecting creative output copyright is locking it down by capitalising it. Rather than creativity being a flow of meaningful communication and exchange at the level of ideas and aesthetics, it’s becoming a stock with ongoing financial and not creative dividends. You will have trouble using your creative outputs when moving between companies. Unless you start all over again and from that perspective it is a weird motivator for creativity, albeit one oriented to getting you where you started from rather than one step further.
tomcam 5y ago
Is there something wrong with creating solely for money and not self-expression?
- account42 5y ago
  Not inherently. What is wrong is asking society to bend over backwards to enable that.
SpelingBeeChamp 5y ago
What if anything do you watch for entertainment?