3 ms·

> The concept that you simply cannot watch a show or movie if you haven't paid for it is genuinely foreign to many people, but it is the only reality that resul

> The concept that you simply cannot watch a show or movie if you haven't paid for it is genuinely foreign to many people, but it is the only reality that results in those shows in the first place. If you're genuinely curious why this view tends to be "so negatively moderated", it's this ridiculous notion. Lots of people want to listen to good music, watch good shows, and read good books. Some people are capable of producing those things. Supply, meet demand. You think that without IP everybody is just going to give up on making art happen? Even expensive, large scale art? It's absurd, and it's propaganda. Technological advancement has made this the best time in history for patronage of the arts. Subscription services would be perfect for this. Subscribe to get a vote on what gets made; subscribe to have your review of it count after it's done. Subscribe for ease of access. I don't know if these industries shrink (or even grow) with the elimination of IP. But the notion that any product people enjoy today just stops getting made at all is crazy.

Zetice 3y ago
I couldn't disagree more strongly. Artists can create the content you love because they get paid to do so. Without IP, these artists do not get paid, and therefore cannot create the content you love, full stop. The only reason you're able to pirate in the first place is because you rely on other people not to pirate, so the artist still gets paid. That seems to be working out, which is why I really don't see piracy as a meaningful problem, but if the scales tipped to where most people were obtaining content in violation of IP laws, then you would absolutely see a strong chilling effect on content creation. It's the underlying premise of capitalism; I focus on making art in exchange for a shared currency I can then use to buy housing and food from people dedicated to those things. Without the ability to depend on others to provide those services, artists will have to do other things besides create art to convince the people creating food to give them some.
- rcoveson 3y ago
  > I couldn't disagree more strongly. Artists can create the content you love because they get paid to do so. Without IP, these artists do not get paid, and therefore cannot create the content you love, full stop. But why? Why full stop? There's no argument here, just an assertion. I want artists to create things. I will pay them to do it! There are many others like me in this regard! > It's the underlying premise of capitalism; I focus on making art in exchange for a shared currency I can then use to buy housing and food from people dedicated to those things. Yes, we agree there. You should make art in exchange for currency. You should not make art and then try to extract currency from people for looking at it. In an alternate reality, Netflix produces shows that it streams to its subscribers. Subscribers review those shows which influences which shows continue to be developed. Just like in our reality, some people are "freeloaders" who watch the shows without paying for them (but it's not illegal). Still, many people subscribe because it's broadly understood that shows only get made if people subscribe. In this reality (much like our own), production houses release pilots. If nobody wants to watch the show that would follow the pilot, then it's a sunk investment. But if they do, then they have to pay for it to get made (which they do, because that's how capitalism works). The rest is just a coordination problem, which the Internet trivializes. Need $5 million to make a season? Don't make the season until you've got it. If you're on the other end of the transaction: Do you want that season to get made? Then do your best to get it paid for. I'm happy to listen to an argument for why this model would result in a smaller industry, and a subsequent argument about why a smaller industry is so unacceptable that we need IP law. But I won't accept proclamations like "...cannot creeat the content you love, full stop." The market is not so totally uncreative that it can't match up broadly distributed demand (I want to watch good TV) to concentrated supply (I can make good TV).
  - mikrotikker 3y ago
    "'Super Troopers 2' director talks about raising $4.6 million from fans and why critics don't seem to get its humor" https://www.businessinsider.com/super-troopers-2-crowdfunding-brought-a-cult-comedy-sequel-to-life-2018-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/super-troopers-2-crowdfundin... https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/super-troopers-2#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/super-troopers-2#/
- justinclift 3y ago
  > Without IP, these artists do not get paid ... That seems to come from a viewpoint of "everything must be controlled in order for things to work properly". The reality of the world is that it's messy, and it actually tends to work better for everyone when it's not overly controlled. Trying to be a control freak about things often just leads to bad outcomes for everyone involved. Both the people doing it, and the people on the receiving end of the control freak. :( Ironically though, control freaks still seem to blame everyone else but themselves after things turn to shit. Have seen this happen multiple times, unfortunately.

Zetice 3y ago

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Artists can create the content you love because they get paid to do so. Without IP, these artists do not get paid, and therefore cannot create the content you love, full stop. The only reason you're able to pirate in the first place is because you rely on other people not to pirate, so the artist still gets paid. That seems to be working out, which is why I really don't see piracy as a meaningful problem, but if the scales tipped to where most people were obtaining content in violation of IP laws, then you would absolutely see a strong chilling effect on content creation. It's the underlying premise of capitalism; I focus on making art in exchange for a shared currency I can then use to buy housing and food from people dedicated to those things. Without the ability to depend on others to provide those services, artists will have to do other things besides create art to convince the people creating food to give them some.

rcoveson 3y ago
> I couldn't disagree more strongly. Artists can create the content you love because they get paid to do so. Without IP, these artists do not get paid, and therefore cannot create the content you love, full stop. But why? Why full stop? There's no argument here, just an assertion. I want artists to create things. I will pay them to do it! There are many others like me in this regard! > It's the underlying premise of capitalism; I focus on making art in exchange for a shared currency I can then use to buy housing and food from people dedicated to those things. Yes, we agree there. You should make art in exchange for currency. You should not make art and then try to extract currency from people for looking at it. In an alternate reality, Netflix produces shows that it streams to its subscribers. Subscribers review those shows which influences which shows continue to be developed. Just like in our reality, some people are "freeloaders" who watch the shows without paying for them (but it's not illegal). Still, many people subscribe because it's broadly understood that shows only get made if people subscribe. In this reality (much like our own), production houses release pilots. If nobody wants to watch the show that would follow the pilot, then it's a sunk investment. But if they do, then they have to pay for it to get made (which they do, because that's how capitalism works). The rest is just a coordination problem, which the Internet trivializes. Need $5 million to make a season? Don't make the season until you've got it. If you're on the other end of the transaction: Do you want that season to get made? Then do your best to get it paid for. I'm happy to listen to an argument for why this model would result in a smaller industry, and a subsequent argument about why a smaller industry is so unacceptable that we need IP law. But I won't accept proclamations like "...cannot creeat the content you love, full stop." The market is not so totally uncreative that it can't match up broadly distributed demand (I want to watch good TV) to concentrated supply (I can make good TV).
- mikrotikker 3y ago
  "'Super Troopers 2' director talks about raising $4.6 million from fans and why critics don't seem to get its humor" https://www.businessinsider.com/super-troopers-2-crowdfunding-brought-a-cult-comedy-sequel-to-life-2018-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/super-troopers-2-crowdfundin... https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/super-troopers-2#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/super-troopers-2#/
justinclift 3y ago
> Without IP, these artists do not get paid ... That seems to come from a viewpoint of "everything must be controlled in order for things to work properly". The reality of the world is that it's messy, and it actually tends to work better for everyone when it's not overly controlled. Trying to be a control freak about things often just leads to bad outcomes for everyone involved. Both the people doing it, and the people on the receiving end of the control freak. :( Ironically though, control freaks still seem to blame everyone else but themselves after things turn to shit. Have seen this happen multiple times, unfortunately.