4 ms·
Sure, maybe huge productions like "Lost" would become comparatively rarer, but is that necessarily bad? More to the point, is it worth the other costs to societ
by jey 15y ago
Sure, maybe huge productions like "Lost" would become comparatively rarer, but is that necessarily bad? More to the point, is it worth the other costs to society to grant these monopolies?
I don't claim to have the answers at all, but I'm just pointing out that these questions should be asked. It's important to actually weigh the pros and cons and figure it out rather than assuming that the existing system is definitely the correct one.
- _dps 15y agoCompletely agree that the questions should be asked honestly and with an eye on social benefits and costs. I'm no fan of the copyright system as-is precisely because I think those tradeoffs are poorly balanced given modern technology. As for whether it is "bad" to lose capacity to do things like "Lost" I think (for my value system) it's clearly very bad even if 9/10 such projects are not of lasting value. These kinds of mega-projects allow us to push the frontier of what is possible as entertainment and human expression. If you don't particularly like "Lost" for artistic reasons (fair enough ;-), then perhaps substitute anything by Pixar; losing society's ability to make "Wall-E" or "Up" means a duller, less inspiring world. Of course, you could similarly disagree with the artistic merits of Pixar films as being a worthwhile tradeoff. But at some point that line of reasoning just becomes "I'm personally happy with art made on the cheap by a small group and no marketing or distribution costs; I'm ok sacrificing everything else."