4 ms·

"Morality" is self-defined. No doubt they have their interpretation of morality on their side.

by RobAley 12y ago

espadrine 12y ago
Sure, but many share a similar definition of morality. More to the point, the economics are not relative to a point of view. Their project can only succeed, as it stands, if it is used marginally. If everyone used it instead of the competition, content creators would have to change the way they work drastically, and no new content would show up on PT.
- mehrdada 12y ago
  > no new content would show up on PT This does not logically follow from your argument.
  - ewzimm 12y ago
    We would have to look at similar areas where creators are not paid. For example, most YouTube videos are created with unpaid labor. This does not seem to affect their quantity. Quality varies, but payment does not seem to be the defining factor of quality videos.
- RobAley 12y ago
  There are many more economic models than pay-at-the-point-of-use, so its not clear at all that the project would fail.
  - sp332 12y ago
    espadrine did say "work on a better way to remunerate the content creators."
    - RobAley 12y ago
      He implied that was the job of the popcorn time team, it's unlikely that they could or would be able to implement or influence renumeration (beyond the influence of producing the popcorn time platform). It's also not clear that all content creators would need to be renumerated, certainly not to the level that some are today, and it's not clear that a delivery platform has or should have a direct role in the chain of consumer->artist payments. It's a "brave new world" out there, traditional models are changing and no one really knows what the new models will look like.
- argumentum 12y ago
  I dunno, Mozart kept producing great music without copyright. People would still go to movie theaters for the social experience .. they'd also keep going to concerts for the same reason.
- belorn 12y ago
  > If everyone used it ... no new content would show up This is to me a bit disturbing. When we say this, we are announcing to the world that culture has inherently no value what so ever. The only way to create value from culture is to prohibit poor people from participating, thus creating an artificial divide that benefits those who have over those who haven't. Governments are the one who enforces this divide with copyright law, so in the end its government that dictate that this philosophy is the one and only truth. I just don't believe that in 2014, we can't find value in culture beyond prohibit people of private, non-conflicting usage.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Copyright is free, and it protects poor people's work from being appropriated by rich people.
    - dublinben 12y ago
      >it protects poor people's work from being appropriated by rich people No it doesn't. Major corporations like Target and H&M rip off small designers all the time. Litigation is expensive, and unfairly favors wealthier parties.

"Morality" is self-defined. No doubt they have their interpretation of morality on their side.

by RobAley 12y ago

"Morality" is self-defined. No doubt they have their interpretation of morality on their side.

Sure, but many share a similar definition of morality. More to the point, the economics are not relative to a point of view. Their project can only succeed, as it stands, if it is used marginally. If everyone used it instead of the competition, content creators would have to change the way they work drastically, and no new content would show up on PT.

mehrdada 12y ago
> no new content would show up on PT This does not logically follow from your argument.
- ewzimm 12y ago
  We would have to look at similar areas where creators are not paid. For example, most YouTube videos are created with unpaid labor. This does not seem to affect their quantity. Quality varies, but payment does not seem to be the defining factor of quality videos.
RobAley 12y ago
There are many more economic models than pay-at-the-point-of-use, so its not clear at all that the project would fail.
- sp332 12y ago
  espadrine did say "work on a better way to remunerate the content creators."
  - RobAley 12y ago
    He implied that was the job of the popcorn time team, it's unlikely that they could or would be able to implement or influence renumeration (beyond the influence of producing the popcorn time platform). It's also not clear that all content creators would need to be renumerated, certainly not to the level that some are today, and it's not clear that a delivery platform has or should have a direct role in the chain of consumer->artist payments. It's a "brave new world" out there, traditional models are changing and no one really knows what the new models will look like.
argumentum 12y ago
I dunno, Mozart kept producing great music without copyright. People would still go to movie theaters for the social experience .. they'd also keep going to concerts for the same reason.
belorn 12y ago
> If everyone used it ... no new content would show up This is to me a bit disturbing. When we say this, we are announcing to the world that culture has inherently no value what so ever. The only way to create value from culture is to prohibit poor people from participating, thus creating an artificial divide that benefits those who have over those who haven't. Governments are the one who enforces this divide with copyright law, so in the end its government that dictate that this philosophy is the one and only truth. I just don't believe that in 2014, we can't find value in culture beyond prohibit people of private, non-conflicting usage.
- sp332 12y ago
  Copyright is free, and it protects poor people's work from being appropriated by rich people.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    >it protects poor people's work from being appropriated by rich people No it doesn't. Major corporations like Target and H&M rip off small designers all the time. Litigation is expensive, and unfairly favors wealthier parties.