4 ms·

The infographic glosses over an important point - many of the production jobs are contract and as far as I could tell, not included in the job count. I wouldn't

The infographic glosses over an important point - many of the production jobs are contract and as far as I could tell, not included in the job count. I wouldn't rely on this as an indication that the MPAA lied although I wouldn't hesitate to say they "exaggerated" for sure. :-)

pasbesoin 15y ago
I guess we (here) could use some more insight into how BLS defines and rolls up these counts. If you're contract, are you still within the industry/category and so part of the count?
anigbrowl 15y ago
Correct. Even if you go with the 361k figure, that's still a lot of jobs threatened by failure of existing distribution models, which have caused a lot of job losses already. To win this argument, the tech infustry needs to offer a bettter explanation for how content creators can safeguard legitimate (economically efficient) revenue. Internet warriors don't appreciate how hypocritical it seems to champion full disk encryption and ironclad privacy while simultaneously demonising DRM or anything similar. It's like saying 'all data should be locked down at all times unless I want to use it, in ehich case it should be free.'
- ZenPsycho 15y ago
  You are conflating privacy with censorship and surveillance here. That is a bit dishonest. To put this in perspective, remember in the book "1984" that the dystopia included both a heavily controlled media, and complete surveillance and lack of privacy. It's not hypocrisy to see both of those things as bad. furthermore, I think it's a bit silly to claim that in order to win the argument, the tech industry must prove that its many millions of jobs are more important than the entertainment industry's 376K. That 376K may be important, but is it THAT important?
- nitrogen 15y ago
  Internet warriors don't appreciate how hypocritical it seems to champion full disk encryption and ironclad privacy while simultaneously demonising DRM or anything similar. It's like saying 'all data should be locked down at all times unless I want to use it, in ehich case it should be free.' It's hardly hypocritical to think that encryption and privacy should be in the control of the owner of a device, not the device's manufacturer or a third-party content producer.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- tripzilch 15y ago
  But I want all data to be locked down at all times unless I want to use it, in which case it should be free.

pasbesoin 15y ago

I guess we (here) could use some more insight into how BLS defines and rolls up these counts. If you're contract, are you still within the industry/category and so part of the count?

anigbrowl 15y ago

Correct. Even if you go with the 361k figure, that's still a lot of jobs threatened by failure of existing distribution models, which have caused a lot of job losses already. To win this argument, the tech infustry needs to offer a bettter explanation for how content creators can safeguard legitimate (economically efficient) revenue. Internet warriors don't appreciate how hypocritical it seems to champion full disk encryption and ironclad privacy while simultaneously demonising DRM or anything similar. It's like saying 'all data should be locked down at all times unless I want to use it, in ehich case it should be free.'

ZenPsycho 15y ago
You are conflating privacy with censorship and surveillance here. That is a bit dishonest. To put this in perspective, remember in the book "1984" that the dystopia included both a heavily controlled media, and complete surveillance and lack of privacy. It's not hypocrisy to see both of those things as bad. furthermore, I think it's a bit silly to claim that in order to win the argument, the tech industry must prove that its many millions of jobs are more important than the entertainment industry's 376K. That 376K may be important, but is it THAT important?
nitrogen 15y ago
Internet warriors don't appreciate how hypocritical it seems to champion full disk encryption and ironclad privacy while simultaneously demonising DRM or anything similar. It's like saying 'all data should be locked down at all times unless I want to use it, in ehich case it should be free.' It's hardly hypocritical to think that encryption and privacy should be in the control of the owner of a device, not the device's manufacturer or a third-party content producer.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
tripzilch 15y ago
But I want all data to be locked down at all times unless I want to use it, in which case it should be free.