3 ms·

No worries, I knew using the buggy whip analogy was a bad example but just went with it for arguments sake. To better analogize, hollywood right now has a bunc

by mitchty 14y ago

No worries, I knew using the buggy whip analogy was a bad example but just went with it for arguments sake. To better analogize, hollywood right now has a bunch of screen related guilds that have contracts that stipulate for example that a production can only use workers from that guild/etc... What I'm arguing or positing is that as technology improves, the need for as many as there are will decrease just like manufacturing. That or more independent filmmakers will start brokering deals with unaffiliated professionals. The overall market will get bigger most likely, but the monolithic employment in the current market is unlikely to survive. Sorry for conveying that hollywood would be obsolete, that isn't quite what I was intending though I worded it poorly. My only worry is the current copyright regime is seeming to be ignoring the rather stark changes in overall cost of "copying" digital files. A lot of our current law rests upon copying itself being a prohibitive process and only possible by a limited few. Until we address that fundamental difference I don't see much point in debating the conflict between technology versus current producers. There is blame enough to go around on both sides, but that isn't productive. I really don't want producers to go out of business but adapting current copyright to the digital era seems misguided unless you establish that it makes sense to do so. I'm just rambling now with wild abandon and i'll shut-up, hopefully I conveyed things a bit better, back to work for moi.

tptacek 14y ago
What does the marginal cost of another copy have to do with anything, though? The marginal cost of copying any Nx1000 lines of code in the world is also zero. But if all code should be freely available to anyone, a lot of HN readers who pirate are going to be making a lot less money.
- mitchty 14y ago
  The copy cost directly feeds into the cost of production. Take the recent machinima for Halo Forward Unto Dawn. Microsoft produced this web miniseries, which looks as good as any other tv or movie series, much cheaper than if they had to deal with the current Hollywood apparatus. They worked with the director directly and hired other film experts for say erection/lighting/etc... on direct contract. If it costs less than 50% or more by avoiding the current hollywood way of doing things, how could that not be disruptive to the overall cost of a copy of a film for example? Take Primer, which only cost about $60,000 to "produce", it is much easier to charge less than $20 for a copy of the film when it is simple to produce and recoup your cost than if you invested over $100 million into a film total. I know this last example is really stretching it but the costs for production are going down and in doing so creating a market that will be offering up competition to drive down costs. Note I'm not talking at all about piracy here. I rent videos from itunes/amazon all the time mainly due to only watching them once. But not having to pay $20 is the primary motivating factor, I don't personally think "owning/leasing" a copy to watch makes financial sense.
chc 14y ago
> My only worry is the current copyright regime is seeming to be ignoring the rather stark changes in overall cost of "copying" digital files. A lot of our current law rests upon copying itself being a prohibitive process and only possible by a limited few. This is backwards. If copying were a prohibitive process, we wouldn't need laws to stop people from doing it. Copyright rests on the opposite premise: That making copies of creative works is relatively easy and cheap. It was originally a response to the printing press making it really easy for anyone to publish bootleg books, which meant that actually paying an author for the rights to his or her work was a sucker's game. Copyright legislation was introduced to prevent people from taking advantage of how easy it was for anyone with a press to copy an author's work.
- mitchty 14y ago
  Right, but at the same time the ability to copy was restricted. That is what has changed, the cost to copying digital files is almost zero. The cost to copy even with a printing press is not nearly the same. In addition the equipment required can be regulated much easier. That too is almost impossible to do with computers.
  - chc 14y ago
    But that doesn't make a difference. It's like objecting to gun control legislation by saying, "Actually, guns are even more dangerous than you think." Copyright exists to counteract how easy it is to copy a creative work. The fact that it's even easier now just makes the original rational even stronger if you accept it in the first place.

by mitchty 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

What does the marginal cost of another copy have to do with anything, though? The marginal cost of copying any Nx1000 lines of code in the world is also zero. But if all code should be freely available to anyone, a lot of HN readers who pirate are going to be making a lot less money.

mitchty 14y ago
The copy cost directly feeds into the cost of production. Take the recent machinima for Halo Forward Unto Dawn. Microsoft produced this web miniseries, which looks as good as any other tv or movie series, much cheaper than if they had to deal with the current Hollywood apparatus. They worked with the director directly and hired other film experts for say erection/lighting/etc... on direct contract. If it costs less than 50% or more by avoiding the current hollywood way of doing things, how could that not be disruptive to the overall cost of a copy of a film for example? Take Primer, which only cost about $60,000 to "produce", it is much easier to charge less than $20 for a copy of the film when it is simple to produce and recoup your cost than if you invested over $100 million into a film total. I know this last example is really stretching it but the costs for production are going down and in doing so creating a market that will be offering up competition to drive down costs. Note I'm not talking at all about piracy here. I rent videos from itunes/amazon all the time mainly due to only watching them once. But not having to pay $20 is the primary motivating factor, I don't personally think "owning/leasing" a copy to watch makes financial sense.

chc 14y ago

> My only worry is the current copyright regime is seeming to be ignoring the rather stark changes in overall cost of "copying" digital files. A lot of our current law rests upon copying itself being a prohibitive process and only possible by a limited few. This is backwards. If copying were a prohibitive process, we wouldn't need laws to stop people from doing it. Copyright rests on the opposite premise: That making copies of creative works is relatively easy and cheap. It was originally a response to the printing press making it really easy for anyone to publish bootleg books, which meant that actually paying an author for the rights to his or her work was a sucker's game. Copyright legislation was introduced to prevent people from taking advantage of how easy it was for anyone with a press to copy an author's work.

mitchty 14y ago
Right, but at the same time the ability to copy was restricted. That is what has changed, the cost to copying digital files is almost zero. The cost to copy even with a printing press is not nearly the same. In addition the equipment required can be regulated much easier. That too is almost impossible to do with computers.
- chc 14y ago
  But that doesn't make a difference. It's like objecting to gun control legislation by saying, "Actually, guns are even more dangerous than you think." Copyright exists to counteract how easy it is to copy a creative work. The fact that it's even easier now just makes the original rational even stronger if you accept it in the first place.