4 ms·

I kinda wish they get what they wish for and pirating movies becomes impossible. I think modern Hollywood movies are somewhere between poison for your brain and

I kinda wish they get what they wish for and pirating movies becomes impossible. I think modern Hollywood movies are somewhere between poison for your brain and propaganda. The world is going to be a bit better if people stop spending time watching them. I also think they are cutting the branch they are sitting on. If kids and young adults lose access to piracy they will develop other interest and won't spend money on movies once they have disposable income. One way or another I support them. It's a win-win if their wish is granted.

insickness 3y ago
> If kids and young adults lose access to piracy they will develop other interest Entertainment is a lot more fungible than these companies realize. Pour cold water on movies and people will watch TV. Dampen that and people will play video games. Make me hate Reddit and I'll go to youtube. Start forcing ads on youtube and I'll go to instagram. etc.
drdaeman 3y ago
> I kinda wish they get what they wish for and pirating movies becomes impossible. If only movies would be magically impossible to watch without paying, without any catches, I'd agree. Sadly, there's no magic out there and the side effects from the implementation are going to be... a very big problem, to say the least. And I'm sure movie industry understands it (to some extent) - they won't dig their own grave, they're going to boil the frog at well controlled pace.
dhx 3y ago
There is an underlying "tragedy of the anticommons"[1] problem that will be exasperated even if kids and young adults stop consuming mass media. For example, Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia communities almost refuse to believe any performer, label, TV/film/game studio, etc would ever release their work under a CC-BY license, even though some of these parties (as large as Warner Bros and Amazon) have a pattern of doing so in the past, probably for marketing purposes. Typical attempts to justify why an entity is unable to distribute copyrighted content as CC-BY include: 1. Someone pressed the wrong button and marked the audio/video as CC-BY. 2. A separate marketing company may be responsible for social media accounts or website and they didn't have permission of their client to upload certain audio/video, or didn't have permission to distribute with a CC-BY license. 3. The copyright is owned by a production company which is a subsidiary of a parent company. The distribution and marketing of the copyrighted content is handled by a separate subsidiary company of the parent company. Both companies may even be led by the same vice president / CEO of the parent company. However, the theory goes that one subsidiary may not have the permission of the other subsidiary to use a CC-BY license. The CEO of the parent company also may not have the permission of the subsidiary companies. 4. A performer or label may not have gained the permission of ALL rights holders of a work to release under a CC-BY license. What if the movie studio did not get the permission of one of the multiple script writers, the person holding recording rights of a background song, the writer of the lyrics to the background song, etc. In an extreme case, perhaps a random person comes along later to claim that the movie contains a background song, the background song contains a sample, and the sample they consider to be a copyright infringement from another work. The problem is that if you're an indie filmmaker and release a trailer to your film or excerpts from your film with a CC-BY license, the tragedy of the anticommons situation means that people won't believe you meant to or were allowed to use a CC-BY license. Even releasing all the complex web of contracts between rightsholders in your film wouldn't stop people from disbelieving in your ability to distribute with a CC-BY license. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons
GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
> I think modern Hollywood movies are somewhere between poison for your brain and propaganda Where does this hyperbolic rhetoric come from? Is this just your standard appeal to tradition? It's not like the movies of the 70's, 80's and 90's were any less "propaganda". They're entertainment, it's not that deep or serious.
- zemnl 3y ago
  They are propaganda, the CIA and Pentagon had/have their hands in many movies, Marvel's Captain Marvel is a prominent example [1] [1] https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/is-captain-marvel-military-propaganda/ https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/is-captain-marvel-military-p...
  - GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
    I should clarify that the "poison for your brain" remark is what I was considering hyperbolic. Also this is coming from someone who saw his friends join the Air Force after watching the original Top Gun in theaters :)

insickness 3y ago

> If kids and young adults lose access to piracy they will develop other interest Entertainment is a lot more fungible than these companies realize. Pour cold water on movies and people will watch TV. Dampen that and people will play video games. Make me hate Reddit and I'll go to youtube. Start forcing ads on youtube and I'll go to instagram. etc.

drdaeman 3y ago

> I kinda wish they get what they wish for and pirating movies becomes impossible. If only movies would be magically impossible to watch without paying, without any catches, I'd agree. Sadly, there's no magic out there and the side effects from the implementation are going to be... a very big problem, to say the least. And I'm sure movie industry understands it (to some extent) - they won't dig their own grave, they're going to boil the frog at well controlled pace.

dhx 3y ago

There is an underlying "tragedy of the anticommons"[1] problem that will be exasperated even if kids and young adults stop consuming mass media. For example, Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia communities almost refuse to believe any performer, label, TV/film/game studio, etc would ever release their work under a CC-BY license, even though some of these parties (as large as Warner Bros and Amazon) have a pattern of doing so in the past, probably for marketing purposes. Typical attempts to justify why an entity is unable to distribute copyrighted content as CC-BY include: 1. Someone pressed the wrong button and marked the audio/video as CC-BY. 2. A separate marketing company may be responsible for social media accounts or website and they didn't have permission of their client to upload certain audio/video, or didn't have permission to distribute with a CC-BY license. 3. The copyright is owned by a production company which is a subsidiary of a parent company. The distribution and marketing of the copyrighted content is handled by a separate subsidiary company of the parent company. Both companies may even be led by the same vice president / CEO of the parent company. However, the theory goes that one subsidiary may not have the permission of the other subsidiary to use a CC-BY license. The CEO of the parent company also may not have the permission of the subsidiary companies. 4. A performer or label may not have gained the permission of ALL rights holders of a work to release under a CC-BY license. What if the movie studio did not get the permission of one of the multiple script writers, the person holding recording rights of a background song, the writer of the lyrics to the background song, etc. In an extreme case, perhaps a random person comes along later to claim that the movie contains a background song, the background song contains a sample, and the sample they consider to be a copyright infringement from another work. The problem is that if you're an indie filmmaker and release a trailer to your film or excerpts from your film with a CC-BY license, the tragedy of the anticommons situation means that people won't believe you meant to or were allowed to use a CC-BY license. Even releasing all the complex web of contracts between rightsholders in your film wouldn't stop people from disbelieving in your ability to distribute with a CC-BY license. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons

GaryNumanVevo 3y ago

> I think modern Hollywood movies are somewhere between poison for your brain and propaganda Where does this hyperbolic rhetoric come from? Is this just your standard appeal to tradition? It's not like the movies of the 70's, 80's and 90's were any less "propaganda". They're entertainment, it's not that deep or serious.

zemnl 3y ago
They are propaganda, the CIA and Pentagon had/have their hands in many movies, Marvel's Captain Marvel is a prominent example [1] [1] https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/is-captain-marvel-military-propaganda/ https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/is-captain-marvel-military-p...
- GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
  I should clarify that the "poison for your brain" remark is what I was considering hyperbolic. Also this is coming from someone who saw his friends join the Air Force after watching the original Top Gun in theaters :)