2 ms·
This used to bother me a ton, but now I'm thinking maybe we should have never put all these films on a pedestal in the first place as artistic achievements? As
by fullshark 3y ago
This used to bother me a ton, but now I'm thinking maybe we should have never put all these films on a pedestal in the first place as artistic achievements? As these corporations take control of cultural artifacts and treat them as merely intellectual property to be monetized, it all seems so uninspiring in retrospect, the whole industry and its accomplishments.
- tenebrisalietum 3y agoThis is the way. From the start it was about making money.
- Scoundreller 3y agoNot just to be monetized, but also to lobby for massive tax credits. Where are the tax credits for the bricklayer, plumber and electrician that creates structures and infrastructure?
- aidenn0 3y agoThe fact that the term intellectual property has become generally accepted is, IMO, already conceding too much to rights-holders. Disney does not (and should not) have complete control over its copyrighted works. This is also not limited to corporations; read almost any statement from e.g. the Authors Guild, and see there is an underlying assumption that long-term control over all aspects of one's creations is not a policy decision, but a moral axiom. If you really want to include the process in your determination of what is art, then what about independent films created as labors of love that have the rights purchased by a corporation? Do those cease to be artistic achievements when the corporation buys the rights? To be clear: I think we should have a robust copyright system, but what we have now is an absurd overkill and actively harmful towards encouraging creation of interesting new works.