3 ms·

> The people who made the disks got paid, too. Interesting point. Did the people who made the content get paid too? And is the value of the DVD in the physical

> The people who made the disks got paid, too. Interesting point. Did the people who made the content get paid too? And is the value of the DVD in the physical object or the content?

ui4jd73bdj 5y ago
> Did the people who made the content get paid too? No, they chose to opt-out of this market.
indigochill 5y ago
> Did the people who made the content get paid too? Usually yes, because those would be the actors/cameramen/directors/editors/etc who would be paid for their work before the finished work then would be sold on to consumers. The question here is really "Did the people who fronted the money for the content get paid?" For simplicity I'm ignoring royalties here. > And is the value of the DVD in the physical object or the content? If we agree that copies of digital content are zero-cost, then the monetary value of the DVD is in the physical object. Obviously that's only half the argument because nobody's watching blank DVDs. But how do we fairly compensate the group that fronts the money for the content to be created? IMO, this is the genius of crowdfunding and why I'm bullish about it being the economic future of content. If a content creator can convince enough people to give them money to make something, then there is nobody who needs to profit from distribution. The content is fully paid-for up-front. It's also not a new idea. Rich patrons funded works of art in the Renaissance. Rights management would have actually been counterproductive because the point of the art was the aggrandizement of the patron.
- oriolid 5y ago
  > The question here is really "Did the people who fronted the money for the content get paid?" For simplicity I'm ignoring royalties here. I admire your intellectual honesty about admitting that royalties exist. Anyway, the question here is where did the money for up-front salaries come from and does does it keep coming when the if the publisher's profits are reduced? I have participated in a few crowdfunding campaigns and I agree that it could work for a specific niche: where the content creators are already well known enough that they can attract a sufficient audience that trusts them to do something sensible with their money. It's going to be hard for newcomers. Just look at failed kickstarters: there is a lot of trash there but there could be some unpolished gems there. > Rights management would have actually been counterproductive because the point of the art was the aggrandizement of the patron. This is kind of the point. If I have to choose blindly between a show that's made because Jeff Bezos wants to fund it and meddles with it personally or a show that Jeff's firm funds because some professionals believe it's going to attract paying viewers, my bet is on the latter.

> The people who made the disks got paid, too. Interesting point. Did the people who made the content get paid too? And is the value of the DVD in the physical object or the content?

ui4jd73bdj 5y ago

> Did the people who made the content get paid too? No, they chose to opt-out of this market.

indigochill 5y ago

> Did the people who made the content get paid too? Usually yes, because those would be the actors/cameramen/directors/editors/etc who would be paid for their work before the finished work then would be sold on to consumers. The question here is really "Did the people who fronted the money for the content get paid?" For simplicity I'm ignoring royalties here. > And is the value of the DVD in the physical object or the content? If we agree that copies of digital content are zero-cost, then the monetary value of the DVD is in the physical object. Obviously that's only half the argument because nobody's watching blank DVDs. But how do we fairly compensate the group that fronts the money for the content to be created? IMO, this is the genius of crowdfunding and why I'm bullish about it being the economic future of content. If a content creator can convince enough people to give them money to make something, then there is nobody who needs to profit from distribution. The content is fully paid-for up-front. It's also not a new idea. Rich patrons funded works of art in the Renaissance. Rights management would have actually been counterproductive because the point of the art was the aggrandizement of the patron.

oriolid 5y ago
> The question here is really "Did the people who fronted the money for the content get paid?" For simplicity I'm ignoring royalties here. I admire your intellectual honesty about admitting that royalties exist. Anyway, the question here is where did the money for up-front salaries come from and does does it keep coming when the if the publisher's profits are reduced? I have participated in a few crowdfunding campaigns and I agree that it could work for a specific niche: where the content creators are already well known enough that they can attract a sufficient audience that trusts them to do something sensible with their money. It's going to be hard for newcomers. Just look at failed kickstarters: there is a lot of trash there but there could be some unpolished gems there. > Rights management would have actually been counterproductive because the point of the art was the aggrandizement of the patron. This is kind of the point. If I have to choose blindly between a show that's made because Jeff Bezos wants to fund it and meddles with it personally or a show that Jeff's firm funds because some professionals believe it's going to attract paying viewers, my bet is on the latter.