3 ms·

The goal is Copyright promotes the Arts, patents promote technological progress, they are different systems with different goals. This line covers both: “To pr

by Retric 3y ago

The goal is Copyright promotes the Arts, patents promote technological progress, they are different systems with different goals. This line covers both: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” Arts > Authors > Writings > Copyright Science > Inventors > Discoveries > Patents It’s arguable how effective this is, but I doubt anyone is spending 100’s of millions making a movie if there’s no copyright protection or something similar.

johngladtj 3y ago
How much is the aggregate spending on YouTube videos?
- Retric 3y ago
  YouTube shares ~15 billion/year with its creators. A single video is never going to capture even 1% of that number because it would need to represent 1% of total watch time on the platform. Mr Beast is pushing the limits of what you can spend per minute of video to ~150-250k, but he’s subsidizing that with in your face advertisements. With just product placement you’re down to perhaps ~10-15 million for a 90 minute blockbuster which just isn’t enough.
  - johngladtj 3y ago
    I'm not asking about a single video, I'm asking about the aggregate spending. Mr. Beast spends over 2 million per video btw, not 250k The point I'm making is that while copyright based business models might be the prevalent for high expenditures productions, that doesn't mean aggregate spending is increased. It may just mean that copyright incentives higher spending inequality and higher concentration of production, while aggregate spending remains the same.
    - Retric 3y ago
      YouTube compensation is based on watchtimes, which is why I didn’t simply go 2.5m vs 300+ million wow it’s not even within 2 orders of magnitude. > that doesn't mean aggregate spending is increased But the actual spending does. An Olympic Games costs as much as total aggregate compensation from YouTube for an entire year. They have multiple revenue streams but it just shows the scale we are talking about. Netflix spends roughly as much on content as YouTube pays content creators. Add global OTA TV, cable, Movies, pay per view, and the other streaming services like D+ and you’ll get some idea of just how much is being supported by copyright. Hell, even some of YouTube’s compensation goes to old movies because of copyright.
      - johngladtj 3y ago
        Why are you ONLY considering the cash YouTube pays? Seems like that's an incomplete sample. I'm sure I can get lower revenue numbers for movies by ignoring major revenue sources.
        Retric 3y ago
        Without copyright YouTube could pay nothing for old movies because copyright doesn’t exist and they or someone else would upload any ‘exclusive’ content. Now YouTube itself might volunteer to pay something to actually get new content because that’s in its own self interest. But that’s going to be at roughly current levels rather than an extra “blockbuster” rate because again any website could trivially have the top 10,000 videos on YouTube so they can’t gatekeep the content behind a paywall etc.

by Retric 3y ago

johngladtj 3y ago

How much is the aggregate spending on YouTube videos?

Retric 3y ago
YouTube shares ~15 billion/year with its creators. A single video is never going to capture even 1% of that number because it would need to represent 1% of total watch time on the platform. Mr Beast is pushing the limits of what you can spend per minute of video to ~150-250k, but he’s subsidizing that with in your face advertisements. With just product placement you’re down to perhaps ~10-15 million for a 90 minute blockbuster which just isn’t enough.
- johngladtj 3y ago
  I'm not asking about a single video, I'm asking about the aggregate spending. Mr. Beast spends over 2 million per video btw, not 250k The point I'm making is that while copyright based business models might be the prevalent for high expenditures productions, that doesn't mean aggregate spending is increased. It may just mean that copyright incentives higher spending inequality and higher concentration of production, while aggregate spending remains the same.
  - Retric 3y ago
    YouTube compensation is based on watchtimes, which is why I didn’t simply go 2.5m vs 300+ million wow it’s not even within 2 orders of magnitude. > that doesn't mean aggregate spending is increased But the actual spending does. An Olympic Games costs as much as total aggregate compensation from YouTube for an entire year. They have multiple revenue streams but it just shows the scale we are talking about. Netflix spends roughly as much on content as YouTube pays content creators. Add global OTA TV, cable, Movies, pay per view, and the other streaming services like D+ and you’ll get some idea of just how much is being supported by copyright. Hell, even some of YouTube’s compensation goes to old movies because of copyright.
    - johngladtj 3y ago
      Why are you ONLY considering the cash YouTube pays? Seems like that's an incomplete sample. I'm sure I can get lower revenue numbers for movies by ignoring major revenue sources.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Without copyright YouTube could pay nothing for old movies because copyright doesn’t exist and they or someone else would upload any ‘exclusive’ content. Now YouTube itself might volunteer to pay something to actually get new content because that’s in its own self interest. But that’s going to be at roughly current levels rather than an extra “blockbuster” rate because again any website could trivially have the top 10,000 videos on YouTube so they can’t gatekeep the content behind a paywall etc.