3 ms·

> Most of the profits of games and movies are made in the first few weeks. This is mostly straw man, it only applies to big-budget AAA titles, it doesn’t apply

by dahart 4y ago

> Most of the profits of games and movies are made in the first few weeks. This is mostly straw man, it only applies to big-budget AAA titles, it doesn’t apply to indie games & movies, it doesn’t apply to artists or musicians, especially most small-time artists. It doesn’t apply to books or to software or to journalism or to educational or corporate content. Your claim isn’t really even true for Marvel movies or whatever either, box office is complicated and movie profits are now based on global sales and streaming and ancillary rights and merchandising and all kind of things that don’t happen in the first few weeks. Copyrights might be too long now, but these laws have been around for many centuries, and ala Chesterton’s fence, you seem to be failing to consider the reasons that copyrights appeared in the first place, and the ramifications of significantly reducing or abolishing copyrights. The problem that led to copyrights is IP theft, unscrupulous people publishing work as their own and rent-seeking all the profit they can. This will happen at a massive scale if we cut the period down to 1 decade or less. You might want to consider the possibility that if copyright were shortened to less than a decade or abolished today, it might not really hurt Disney and other big media corps at all, it might just kill independent artists because large corporations can control the internet and legally steal your independent creative work before you can make money from it.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
> box office is complicated It's really not. It either makes more money than it cost or it doesn't. If it does, it's considered a success. If not, it's a flop. That's how everything I've ever read about the copyright industry puts it. I don't really see a need to complicate this. Yeah, corporations make additional money from licensing, merchandising and whatnot. Making toys and stuff is fine but this licensing bullshit really should end after a few years once the work enters the public domain. They've already made their money, they're done and it's time for the work enter the public domain. > The problem that led to copyrights is IP theft, unscrupulous people publishing work as their own and rent-seeking all the profit they can. And how is the copyright solution working out for them? Days ago I saw someone here posting about how their web game was cloned by someone else. Did they sue? No, it's too expensive. Meanwhile corporations will kill your YouTube videos and steal your advertising money if someone walks by on the street playing a song they own. You might consider the possibility that this trillion dollar copyright industry has already coopted this so called "system". They turned it against the very same people it was designed to protect.
- dahart 4y ago
  > It either makes more money than it cost or it doesn’t. You moved your own goal post, you were talking about when it makes it’s money, not whether. Your claim was that it reaches that point in a few weeks, which is 1) not generally true, and 2) irrelevant to most creative works. Copyrights aren’t only serving movies, they’re serving artists and musicians and magazines and websites and many other industries too. The amount of time it takes for a movie to recoup it’s costs has no bearing on what copyright terms should be. > this trillion dollar copyright industry has already coopted this so called “system” There’s no question terms are a bit too long and that big business is profiting, there’s no question whether things are messed up. They are, I’m not arguing with you there. I’m just not sure that tossing out the baby with the bath water and raging against the machine is going to be fruitful. Copyrights do protect many independent artists somewhat, despite your anecdote.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > Copyrights aren’t only serving movies, they’re serving artists and musicians and magazines and websites and many other industries too. Which is why I wrote "give them like five years of protection" instead of a few months. That ought to be more than enough for most if not all to make their money back and then some. Maybe 10 years at the absolute most. Certainly not this lifetime plus 70 years insanity. > there’s no question whether things are messed up. They are, I’m not arguing with you there. I'm happy you agree. > I’m just not sure that tossing out the baby with the bath water and raging against the machine is going to be fruitful. I'm sorry, it's just so hard for me to watch the copyright industry just destroy the computers I love so much because they harm their rent seeking. Every year it's some new DRM bullshit with new ways to usurp control of my computer for their own ends. They have such immense lobbying power they made it illegal to break into and take control of my own system. It just feels so hopeless. I really don't know what else to do at this point.
    - dahart 4y ago
      > five years […] That ought to be more than enough for most Why? You have not established this. The only example you gave is not valid for most content. Books and art and music frequently make the bulk of their return more than 5 or 10 years later. Why “most” and not all? Have you researched how many people make money on creative output? Personally I’m not very convinced by armchair opinions, this needs more careful reasoning. What if draconian copyright is today right now having the intended effect of encouraging people to make new work and not remix existing content? What you’re complaining about is the inability to legally copy current work, while there is no restriction on making new things (and you get legal protection if you do!) Maybe we should talk about what specific things you want to copy that you feel should be legal?

by dahart 4y ago

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> box office is complicated It's really not. It either makes more money than it cost or it doesn't. If it does, it's considered a success. If not, it's a flop. That's how everything I've ever read about the copyright industry puts it. I don't really see a need to complicate this. Yeah, corporations make additional money from licensing, merchandising and whatnot. Making toys and stuff is fine but this licensing bullshit really should end after a few years once the work enters the public domain. They've already made their money, they're done and it's time for the work enter the public domain. > The problem that led to copyrights is IP theft, unscrupulous people publishing work as their own and rent-seeking all the profit they can. And how is the copyright solution working out for them? Days ago I saw someone here posting about how their web game was cloned by someone else. Did they sue? No, it's too expensive. Meanwhile corporations will kill your YouTube videos and steal your advertising money if someone walks by on the street playing a song they own. You might consider the possibility that this trillion dollar copyright industry has already coopted this so called "system". They turned it against the very same people it was designed to protect.

dahart 4y ago
> It either makes more money than it cost or it doesn’t. You moved your own goal post, you were talking about when it makes it’s money, not whether. Your claim was that it reaches that point in a few weeks, which is 1) not generally true, and 2) irrelevant to most creative works. Copyrights aren’t only serving movies, they’re serving artists and musicians and magazines and websites and many other industries too. The amount of time it takes for a movie to recoup it’s costs has no bearing on what copyright terms should be. > this trillion dollar copyright industry has already coopted this so called “system” There’s no question terms are a bit too long and that big business is profiting, there’s no question whether things are messed up. They are, I’m not arguing with you there. I’m just not sure that tossing out the baby with the bath water and raging against the machine is going to be fruitful. Copyrights do protect many independent artists somewhat, despite your anecdote.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > Copyrights aren’t only serving movies, they’re serving artists and musicians and magazines and websites and many other industries too. Which is why I wrote "give them like five years of protection" instead of a few months. That ought to be more than enough for most if not all to make their money back and then some. Maybe 10 years at the absolute most. Certainly not this lifetime plus 70 years insanity. > there’s no question whether things are messed up. They are, I’m not arguing with you there. I'm happy you agree. > I’m just not sure that tossing out the baby with the bath water and raging against the machine is going to be fruitful. I'm sorry, it's just so hard for me to watch the copyright industry just destroy the computers I love so much because they harm their rent seeking. Every year it's some new DRM bullshit with new ways to usurp control of my computer for their own ends. They have such immense lobbying power they made it illegal to break into and take control of my own system. It just feels so hopeless. I really don't know what else to do at this point.
  - dahart 4y ago
    > five years […] That ought to be more than enough for most Why? You have not established this. The only example you gave is not valid for most content. Books and art and music frequently make the bulk of their return more than 5 or 10 years later. Why “most” and not all? Have you researched how many people make money on creative output? Personally I’m not very convinced by armchair opinions, this needs more careful reasoning. What if draconian copyright is today right now having the intended effect of encouraging people to make new work and not remix existing content? What you’re complaining about is the inability to legally copy current work, while there is no restriction on making new things (and you get legal protection if you do!) Maybe we should talk about what specific things you want to copy that you feel should be legal?