5 ms·

> It is however hard to know if it is overall better for society. Really? Have tried to stop and think about the pros vs cons? I would be surprised if someone

> It is however hard to know if it is overall better for society. Really? Have tried to stop and think about the pros vs cons? I would be surprised if someone did, and didn't conclude it's heavily in the pirate bay's favor. The pros are it makes it easier for people to access art. The primary con would be one weaker revenue channel for some artists. But there are so many means to fund arts. Specially in the kick stater era. Arts are still being funded, not only that. Are finding new brilliant ways to get funded. And on the other side, accessing art is easier than ever. It's just an obvious smashing win for the pirate bay. I mean, just look at how easy it is to access art today. Versus I don't think anyone would argue it's any harder to create arts today. Quite the opposite.

rayiner 14y ago
I disagree. There are lots of legal channels available for artists that want to publish their art for free. But by and large people on TPB don't want that. They want Hollywood movies, etc. Those Hollywood movies would not be created if it was legal to distribute them for free. They are purely commercial entertainment products.
- praxeologist 14y ago
  "Those Hollywood movies would not be created if it was legal to distribute them for free." I find this to be one of the most hilarious stances of IP advocates. Yes, $50+ million classics like Blade 2 might not be created without the monopoly system of copyright protection. IP apologists act like we would be in a movieless, art-free world if we got rid of copyright.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I didn't say we wouldn't have movies. I said we wouldn't have big budget Hollywood films. Which would be fine with me, but those are the subject of the major traffic on TPB. That's the part I find tremendously disingenuous. All this tall about art--there is a ton of great free or cheap art. Indie movies, music, etc. But people don't want that. They want the high budget entertainment products. Well, it's the copyright system that makes those products viable. Without copyright, you'd have lots of art, but not the kind the torrenters are interested in.
    - zxcdw 14y ago
      Do note that mostly what people go after is what they are being marketed with. If you give multi-million marketing budget to an indie film, do you honestly believe it would fare pale in comparison in popularity against a Hollywood product? You don't need lots of money to make good art. You need lots of money to make people aware of the said art. As you have noted, commercial art is made for the sake of making money, not for the sake of making art for people interested. This of course conflicts and clashes hard with the way TPB operates, the way indie works operate and the way the whole industry and business operates.
      - CJefferson 14y ago
        Yes, I do. Because Hollywood isn't stupid. If they could make just as much money from a one million dollar film, with the same sized advertising budget, they would. On average film takings are surprisingly closely related to cost.
        zxcdw 14y ago
        I doubt you'd get much funding for marketing if the movie itself is "cheap". Though it depends alot on the content. You simply don't produce something like the next blockbuster Bond-movie with a million. However, that doesn't man you need more than a million for an enjoyable decent movie. The same applies to games and other forms of entertainment too. Consider for example Minecraft or Terraria or Gangnam Style as examples. There's so much great stuff out there which nobody knows about, which is produced with a fraction of the cost it takes to produce "AAA" content. If only it were more accessible to people! Of course having more resources at your disposal means more opportunities to make good content(or inversely, decreases the risk to produce utter shit). However, markets in which supply is higher than demand(as in, more content is being produced than the consumer has time to consume) marketing grows into a greater role. This is exactly the case with entertainment - even more so in modern days. Never before has there been so much entertainment available for a consumer than today, as such it's not only movies fighting for consumer attention, but different forms of entertainment. Because the landscape has changed, big AAA producers have to change along too, or then forcefully try to keep their business models intact with attacking the change in forms of illogical and unfair legal means, see MPAA and RIAA as great examples of this. While the industries make more money than ever, these guys cry out loud for lost profit, how can this be true? You tell me. But luckily, if the progress continues as it has thus far, year by year we have more digital culture available to more people! More entertainment availale for sharing and consuming and filesharing and as such information sharing becomes more and more a cultural thing.
Brashman 14y ago
I'm not sure that blockbuster-type movies could get funded using kickstarter-type funding. Even if they could receive the needed funding, I don't entirely like the idea of moving to that model. Currently, producers front the initial money (and thus carry the risks and rewards) of the movie. After it's made, I can then decide based on trailers and reviews whether I want to spend money on it. Instead, with the Kickstarter approach, I need to front the money based on some short trailer and description for a movie that may or may not be finished and which I have very little information on whether I'll like the end product. I've mentioned movies here, but it extends to music, TV shows etc. I like the idea of Kickstarter and crowd funding, but I'm a bit too risk averse to fund many things.
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  I lost count how many times I wasted my precious money on an expensive movie ticket, on the fanciest theater around, for a heavily hiped movie. Just to walk out pissed off at how could they make it so bad. I'm sure so have you! So there is already the risk of losing your investment on crap today. I honestly don't see the difference :-P
  - Brashman 14y ago
    It's happened on occasion, but for the most part by looking at reviews I get a decent opinion of whether I would like the movie. I can think of only 3 movies in the last couple years that I regretted seeing, 2 of which I went to mostly because other people were looking for something to do. With an unmade movie, reviews of the finished movie don't exist. In addition, the movie may not even be finished.
- polshaw 14y ago
  >I'm not sure that blockbuster-type movies could get funded using kickstarter-type funding. I agree (for now), but i'm not sure this would be a bad thing. You might not be able to make Transformers 3, but you could make most (all?) of Hitchcock's movies. Extravagance is a fairly recent trend in movies, and-- whilst i love some of the high budget movies-- i'm not at all certain it provides a great deal of benefit as a whole; the story trumps the effects.
CJefferson 14y ago
This seems like it might be a classic case of the tragedy of the commons. It is very hard to know what the world would be like if we (greatly simplifying) gave up on copyright. It is certainly easier to create at than ever before, but will removing copyright kill that? I can't imagine how games, and films and TV series with the 20+ million pound budgets would ever get funded again. Maybe I don't have enough imagination.
- demetrius 14y ago
  The budget is so big exactly because of copyright. If there were no copyright, people could re-use the best of the previous work — so creating works will be cheaper.

rayiner 14y ago

I disagree. There are lots of legal channels available for artists that want to publish their art for free. But by and large people on TPB don't want that. They want Hollywood movies, etc. Those Hollywood movies would not be created if it was legal to distribute them for free. They are purely commercial entertainment products.

praxeologist 14y ago
"Those Hollywood movies would not be created if it was legal to distribute them for free." I find this to be one of the most hilarious stances of IP advocates. Yes, $50+ million classics like Blade 2 might not be created without the monopoly system of copyright protection. IP apologists act like we would be in a movieless, art-free world if we got rid of copyright.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I didn't say we wouldn't have movies. I said we wouldn't have big budget Hollywood films. Which would be fine with me, but those are the subject of the major traffic on TPB. That's the part I find tremendously disingenuous. All this tall about art--there is a ton of great free or cheap art. Indie movies, music, etc. But people don't want that. They want the high budget entertainment products. Well, it's the copyright system that makes those products viable. Without copyright, you'd have lots of art, but not the kind the torrenters are interested in.
  - zxcdw 14y ago
    Do note that mostly what people go after is what they are being marketed with. If you give multi-million marketing budget to an indie film, do you honestly believe it would fare pale in comparison in popularity against a Hollywood product? You don't need lots of money to make good art. You need lots of money to make people aware of the said art. As you have noted, commercial art is made for the sake of making money, not for the sake of making art for people interested. This of course conflicts and clashes hard with the way TPB operates, the way indie works operate and the way the whole industry and business operates.
    - CJefferson 14y ago
      Yes, I do. Because Hollywood isn't stupid. If they could make just as much money from a one million dollar film, with the same sized advertising budget, they would. On average film takings are surprisingly closely related to cost.
      - zxcdw 14y ago
        I doubt you'd get much funding for marketing if the movie itself is "cheap". Though it depends alot on the content. You simply don't produce something like the next blockbuster Bond-movie with a million. However, that doesn't man you need more than a million for an enjoyable decent movie. The same applies to games and other forms of entertainment too. Consider for example Minecraft or Terraria or Gangnam Style as examples. There's so much great stuff out there which nobody knows about, which is produced with a fraction of the cost it takes to produce "AAA" content. If only it were more accessible to people! Of course having more resources at your disposal means more opportunities to make good content(or inversely, decreases the risk to produce utter shit). However, markets in which supply is higher than demand(as in, more content is being produced than the consumer has time to consume) marketing grows into a greater role. This is exactly the case with entertainment - even more so in modern days. Never before has there been so much entertainment available for a consumer than today, as such it's not only movies fighting for consumer attention, but different forms of entertainment. Because the landscape has changed, big AAA producers have to change along too, or then forcefully try to keep their business models intact with attacking the change in forms of illogical and unfair legal means, see MPAA and RIAA as great examples of this. While the industries make more money than ever, these guys cry out loud for lost profit, how can this be true? You tell me. But luckily, if the progress continues as it has thus far, year by year we have more digital culture available to more people! More entertainment availale for sharing and consuming and filesharing and as such information sharing becomes more and more a cultural thing.

Brashman 14y ago

I'm not sure that blockbuster-type movies could get funded using kickstarter-type funding. Even if they could receive the needed funding, I don't entirely like the idea of moving to that model. Currently, producers front the initial money (and thus carry the risks and rewards) of the movie. After it's made, I can then decide based on trailers and reviews whether I want to spend money on it. Instead, with the Kickstarter approach, I need to front the money based on some short trailer and description for a movie that may or may not be finished and which I have very little information on whether I'll like the end product. I've mentioned movies here, but it extends to music, TV shows etc. I like the idea of Kickstarter and crowd funding, but I'm a bit too risk averse to fund many things.

vibrunazo 14y ago
I lost count how many times I wasted my precious money on an expensive movie ticket, on the fanciest theater around, for a heavily hiped movie. Just to walk out pissed off at how could they make it so bad. I'm sure so have you! So there is already the risk of losing your investment on crap today. I honestly don't see the difference :-P
- Brashman 14y ago
  It's happened on occasion, but for the most part by looking at reviews I get a decent opinion of whether I would like the movie. I can think of only 3 movies in the last couple years that I regretted seeing, 2 of which I went to mostly because other people were looking for something to do. With an unmade movie, reviews of the finished movie don't exist. In addition, the movie may not even be finished.
polshaw 14y ago
>I'm not sure that blockbuster-type movies could get funded using kickstarter-type funding. I agree (for now), but i'm not sure this would be a bad thing. You might not be able to make Transformers 3, but you could make most (all?) of Hitchcock's movies. Extravagance is a fairly recent trend in movies, and-- whilst i love some of the high budget movies-- i'm not at all certain it provides a great deal of benefit as a whole; the story trumps the effects.

CJefferson 14y ago

This seems like it might be a classic case of the tragedy of the commons. It is very hard to know what the world would be like if we (greatly simplifying) gave up on copyright. It is certainly easier to create at than ever before, but will removing copyright kill that? I can't imagine how games, and films and TV series with the 20+ million pound budgets would ever get funded again. Maybe I don't have enough imagination.

demetrius 14y ago
The budget is so big exactly because of copyright. If there were no copyright, people could re-use the best of the previous work — so creating works will be cheaper.