4 ms·

Ah yes the infinitely reproducible digital content fallacy. If you watch a movie at the cinema, they still have the movie, do you expect that to be free too? P

Ah yes the infinitely reproducible digital content fallacy. If you watch a movie at the cinema, they still have the movie, do you expect that to be free too? Products have more than just marginal production costs, especially true for digital ones.

Telaneo 1y ago
> do you expect that to be free too? The seating and good screen and audio? No. The digital file? I don't expect Disney to provide that free of charge, or at all for that matter, but I do believe it should be free. Copyright has gone way too far of one end of the scale, and I'd like to pull it as far as possible to the other side, then hopefully we can meet in the middle in a position we can both respect. The current position taken by Society™ is one I don't respect.
- whatevertrevor 1y ago
  I agree copyright goes too far, but that doesn't mean we should just delete everything. Creative content producers still need food to eat. We still need mechanisms to pay them for it, the more direct the better. The value of digital content comes from more than just the final sequence of bytes.
  - Telaneo 1y ago
    > but that doesn't mean we should just delete everything. Where did this come from? This has nothing to do with anything. > We still need mechanisms to pay them for it, the more direct the better. Patreon is a good option, although I wish we had better ones. It's not like Youtube's paying any significant amount to any content creator other than maybe the top 0.01%. Anyone who's tried that has discovered that Youtube's payout is some extra pocket change rather than anything you can actually sustain a business with; hence why everybody who's on Youtube and does it as a business also has a Patreon or does sponsorships, or something else, as that's the only way to make ends meet. > The value of digital content comes from more than just the final sequence of bytes. I fail to see what else I would derive value from. I just want the damn file in most cases, with minimal interference., but Youtube seems to always want plop their schlong inbetween the content creator and their audience, to everyone's displeasure.
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      YouTube gives creators 55% of ad revenue once they get over 1k subscribers, it's pretty generous.
      - Telaneo 1y ago
        55% of basically nothing is still basically nothing. It's something stupid low like 0.001 cents per ad viewed, all depending on audience. Hence the need to not be reliant on youtube. If you donate $1 to any given creator, you've given them more than Youtube will probably ever give them for all your views ever.
        Workaccount2 1y ago
        The numbers are readily available, you don't need to make them up other than to prop up a bad argument. Youtube pays $5-$15 per 1000 views. Youtube premium gives a 55% cut of the monthly fee to creators. It's split among them based on who you watch and how long you watch them. If you watch one creator only, they will get the full 55% of your subscription cost. Creators readily acknowledge that yt premium viewers are by far the most valuable. Generally less than 5% of viewers ever donate, and less than 1% ever give more then $5. It's not a viable income method. I suggest following pitchfork mobs less, they are usually blind with rage and detached from reality, with a few kernels of truth in the middle.
        Telaneo 1y ago
        Given the reality of number of channels who prop up their Paterons and merch stores, and the slim to zero number of channels at any actual scale relying on Youtube, as well as and the constant cuts in ad revenue (how many Adpocalypses are we at now?), not to mention Youtube's hostility towards me as a user, I have no intention to throw Youtube even the smallest bone until they walk back most of the hostile changes they've made over the years. If Youtube was a platform that clearly cared about its creators, than a 55% split would be pretty fair. Youtube doesn't give a shit about most of them, and if they're just going to be a stupid bytepipe to the viewer, a hostile one at that, then them taking 45% is absurd.

Telaneo 1y ago

> do you expect that to be free too? The seating and good screen and audio? No. The digital file? I don't expect Disney to provide that free of charge, or at all for that matter, but I do believe it should be free. Copyright has gone way too far of one end of the scale, and I'd like to pull it as far as possible to the other side, then hopefully we can meet in the middle in a position we can both respect. The current position taken by Society™ is one I don't respect.

whatevertrevor 1y ago
I agree copyright goes too far, but that doesn't mean we should just delete everything. Creative content producers still need food to eat. We still need mechanisms to pay them for it, the more direct the better. The value of digital content comes from more than just the final sequence of bytes.
- Telaneo 1y ago
  > but that doesn't mean we should just delete everything. Where did this come from? This has nothing to do with anything. > We still need mechanisms to pay them for it, the more direct the better. Patreon is a good option, although I wish we had better ones. It's not like Youtube's paying any significant amount to any content creator other than maybe the top 0.01%. Anyone who's tried that has discovered that Youtube's payout is some extra pocket change rather than anything you can actually sustain a business with; hence why everybody who's on Youtube and does it as a business also has a Patreon or does sponsorships, or something else, as that's the only way to make ends meet. > The value of digital content comes from more than just the final sequence of bytes. I fail to see what else I would derive value from. I just want the damn file in most cases, with minimal interference., but Youtube seems to always want plop their schlong inbetween the content creator and their audience, to everyone's displeasure.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    YouTube gives creators 55% of ad revenue once they get over 1k subscribers, it's pretty generous.
    - Telaneo 1y ago
      55% of basically nothing is still basically nothing. It's something stupid low like 0.001 cents per ad viewed, all depending on audience. Hence the need to not be reliant on youtube. If you donate $1 to any given creator, you've given them more than Youtube will probably ever give them for all your views ever.
      - Workaccount2 1y ago
        The numbers are readily available, you don't need to make them up other than to prop up a bad argument. Youtube pays $5-$15 per 1000 views. Youtube premium gives a 55% cut of the monthly fee to creators. It's split among them based on who you watch and how long you watch them. If you watch one creator only, they will get the full 55% of your subscription cost. Creators readily acknowledge that yt premium viewers are by far the most valuable. Generally less than 5% of viewers ever donate, and less than 1% ever give more then $5. It's not a viable income method. I suggest following pitchfork mobs less, they are usually blind with rage and detached from reality, with a few kernels of truth in the middle.
        Telaneo 1y ago
        Given the reality of number of channels who prop up their Paterons and merch stores, and the slim to zero number of channels at any actual scale relying on Youtube, as well as and the constant cuts in ad revenue (how many Adpocalypses are we at now?), not to mention Youtube's hostility towards me as a user, I have no intention to throw Youtube even the smallest bone until they walk back most of the hostile changes they've made over the years. If Youtube was a platform that clearly cared about its creators, than a 55% split would be pretty fair. Youtube doesn't give a shit about most of them, and if they're just going to be a stupid bytepipe to the viewer, a hostile one at that, then them taking 45% is absurd.