4 ms·

> Why should the creator, or an agent of the creator of that work get that power over me? Well, you have no inherent right to the creator's work at all, so con

> Why should the creator, or an agent of the creator of that work get that power over me? Well, you have no inherent right to the creator's work at all, so consider it one of the terms of the agreement in which you get access to the content and the creator gets some form of compensation. But just to reiterate, this is how it would work under a use-based model. If you have something better to suggest, then by all means do, because I don't think we've uncovered the best solution yet. The comments about copyright require, as you noted, tracking too, but copyright itself only covers part of the problem, and that is not destroying the incentive to create and innovate in the first place (see below). > Traditional economics don't require this tracking. E.g. I buy a car off of a car lot--the car lot doesn't need to know where and when I'm using the car. Right, but traditional economic models also don't know how to deal with a situation in which you can buy a car, never have it wear out, and create an infinite number of exact duplicates for free that you could keep for yourself or turn around and sell to anyone else, which is basically the situation we have with digital works.

tenebrisalietum 5y ago
> Well, you have no inherent right to the creator's work at all, so consider it one of the terms of the agreement in which you get access to the content and the creator gets some form of compensation True and a creator has no inherent right to my physical property or location info. If I hear a song over public airwaves and record it, or download it from a consenting party using bandwidth I pay for, the fact that I'm supposed to obey some license terms that I haven't consented to is an infringement on me. Creators can limit how things are released if they care so much. Supposedly Wu-Tang Clan did it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_Shaolin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_Shaolin. > If you have something better to suggest, then by all means do The sustainable path is commission-based works which could extend to patronage. I want something from an artist, I ask them to do it, then pay them for it. Musicians are already doing this with concerts. For things that are beyond the reach of a single person, there's no reason why this can't be done group-style a la Kickstarter-type services. If the artist wants more money, they can make more works. The mass-market motion picture and TV industry might collapse, but with the advent of streaming services it doesn't matter anymore. FWIW I do think trademark and patents are needed and do benefit society. > Right, but traditional economic models also don't know how to deal with a situation in which you can buy a car, never have it wear out, and create an infinite number of exact duplicates for free that you could keep for yourself or turn around and sell to anyone else, which is basically the situation we have with digital works. That's because an economic model resolves scarcity and is the wrong tool/framework/mindset when scarcity doesn't exist. If the above existed, then everyone should have as many cars as they want.
- dbrueck 5y ago
  > The sustainable path is commission-based works which could extend to patronage I'd be curious to see how this would play out - maybe it'd be great, I dunno. I do wonder, though, if approaches like this discourage people from paying and instead encourages hedging their bets to see if everyone else pays. For example, if there is a Kickstarter for a movie idea you find interesting, but you know that once the movie is made that you can get a copy for free (since there is no control over media in this model), you are incentivized to wait and see if it will get funded without you. Similarly, without any content control, there is little incentive for anyone to sign up for streaming services, so relying on them for funding doesn't seem like it'd work either.
  - tenebrisalietum 5y ago
    > I do wonder, though, if approaches like this discourage people from paying and instead encourages hedging their bets to see if everyone else pays. Possibly, but for the people who really want it, they'll pay, and exactly two entities should be controlling this whole apparatus - the people who want it and the creators, not advertising or bloated-overhead distribution pyramids. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't. No, it's not going to produce the same volume of output as mass-market music, movies and TV that we have currently. Some people who are very passive media consumers may miss the old days and refuse to consume media that isn't handed to them on a silver platter, but the old days are dying anyway. US culture could be fracturing to the point where mass-market movies and TV may be impossible, something that was really obvious at least in music in the early 90's. > Similarly, without any content control, there is little incentive for anyone to sign up for streaming services This is only true if the experience is much worse than torrents, filesharing programs etc. and if people know someone who can get that in their preferred viewing/listening format. If there were no such thing as music copyright I'd still pay for a service where I can have a guarantee of getting specific music I want rather than rely on the goodwill of someone with that song to be connected on a p2p network.

tenebrisalietum 5y ago

> Well, you have no inherent right to the creator's work at all, so consider it one of the terms of the agreement in which you get access to the content and the creator gets some form of compensation True and a creator has no inherent right to my physical property or location info. If I hear a song over public airwaves and record it, or download it from a consenting party using bandwidth I pay for, the fact that I'm supposed to obey some license terms that I haven't consented to is an infringement on me. Creators can limit how things are released if they care so much. Supposedly Wu-Tang Clan did it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_Shaolin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_Shaolin. > If you have something better to suggest, then by all means do The sustainable path is commission-based works which could extend to patronage. I want something from an artist, I ask them to do it, then pay them for it. Musicians are already doing this with concerts. For things that are beyond the reach of a single person, there's no reason why this can't be done group-style a la Kickstarter-type services. If the artist wants more money, they can make more works. The mass-market motion picture and TV industry might collapse, but with the advent of streaming services it doesn't matter anymore. FWIW I do think trademark and patents are needed and do benefit society. > Right, but traditional economic models also don't know how to deal with a situation in which you can buy a car, never have it wear out, and create an infinite number of exact duplicates for free that you could keep for yourself or turn around and sell to anyone else, which is basically the situation we have with digital works. That's because an economic model resolves scarcity and is the wrong tool/framework/mindset when scarcity doesn't exist. If the above existed, then everyone should have as many cars as they want.

dbrueck 5y ago
> The sustainable path is commission-based works which could extend to patronage I'd be curious to see how this would play out - maybe it'd be great, I dunno. I do wonder, though, if approaches like this discourage people from paying and instead encourages hedging their bets to see if everyone else pays. For example, if there is a Kickstarter for a movie idea you find interesting, but you know that once the movie is made that you can get a copy for free (since there is no control over media in this model), you are incentivized to wait and see if it will get funded without you. Similarly, without any content control, there is little incentive for anyone to sign up for streaming services, so relying on them for funding doesn't seem like it'd work either.
- tenebrisalietum 5y ago
  > I do wonder, though, if approaches like this discourage people from paying and instead encourages hedging their bets to see if everyone else pays. Possibly, but for the people who really want it, they'll pay, and exactly two entities should be controlling this whole apparatus - the people who want it and the creators, not advertising or bloated-overhead distribution pyramids. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't. No, it's not going to produce the same volume of output as mass-market music, movies and TV that we have currently. Some people who are very passive media consumers may miss the old days and refuse to consume media that isn't handed to them on a silver platter, but the old days are dying anyway. US culture could be fracturing to the point where mass-market movies and TV may be impossible, something that was really obvious at least in music in the early 90's. > Similarly, without any content control, there is little incentive for anyone to sign up for streaming services This is only true if the experience is much worse than torrents, filesharing programs etc. and if people know someone who can get that in their preferred viewing/listening format. If there were no such thing as music copyright I'd still pay for a service where I can have a guarantee of getting specific music I want rather than rely on the goodwill of someone with that song to be connected on a p2p network.