5 ms·

Ok. What do you propose, how should we pay for digital content?

by Sandman 12y ago

glennsl 12y ago
To find the right answers, one needs to pose the right questions. In this case, the problem is not that it is difficult to get paid for digital content, but that it is difficult to make a living by producing digital content. The question you ought to be asking, then, is how do we encourage the production of quality digital content? To that question my answer would be a combination of basic income and crowdfunding.
- touristtam 12y ago
  or leave the system as it is an cap the copyright holder's right. I have nothing against Bigcorp making big bucks for the first 10 years of the said product, but when they have already made some substantial gain within those 10 years, who is then benefiting from the profit and to what aim should we consider rightful as a society? I am only pointing out to the fact the copyright is there not only to benefit the individual but as well the society as a whole.
  - tatterdemalion 12y ago
    This is not a solution because the problem is not moral, it is technical: the reproduction of digital content is not controllable in the long-term.
  - glennsl 12y ago
    Copyright is not a benefit to society. Copyright doesn't encourage content production, it actively discourages it. It doesn't allow anyone to do anything they couldn't have done without copyright, but forbids you to do a whole bunch of things you otherwise could. And even what's constituted "fair use" is often practically impossible because the various draconian enforcement schemes (e.g. Youtubes ContentID) don't understand the concept. Copyright doesn't give anyone any rights. It takes rights away from everyone other than the "rights holder". It doesn't protect, it punishes. Beware of the newspeak.
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      Copyright certainly does encourage content production. There are definitely people who create for the monetary reward, which decreases dramatically without copyright protection. Copyright also has effects that discourage certain types of creation, but that doesn't erase the encouragement it provides as well.
      - glennsl 12y ago
        It doesn't erase it, no, but certainly negates it. At least in terms of quantity and diversity. As for quality, I don't think I'd personally miss any content that would cease to exist without the monetary incentive. Though others may differ.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Basic income or crowdfunding aren't enough to create Game of Thrones. Maybe that's okay to you, but it's not okay for fans of the show. Now extrapolate from "Game of Thrones" to "Most entertainment experiences on the scale of Game of Thrones," and you quickly realize that neither crowdfunding nor basic income are adequate for pretty much any large-scale production. Hence, payment. You can rationalize not paying, but it doesn't change the fact that the experiences you enjoy wouldn't exist without people who do pay for them.
  - glennsl 12y ago
    Why would it not be adequate? What more is needed? The prospect of becoming a billionaire? And, assuming you are an advocate for copyright since you haven't proposed anything else, have you ever considered what we're missing out on because of it? Copyright excludes a metric ton of content production by definition. It doesn't allow you to do anything that would otherwise not be possible, but forbids a lot that otherwise would be possible. Of course it's somewhat harder to point to examples that cannot even exist under the current regime, but use your imagination. There's a huge advantage in cost and effort in being able to build on what came before, compared to making everything from scratch every single time. Open Source software and Wikipedia are perhaps the closest examples to what would be possible, but they're still very much hindered by copyright.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      They aren't adequate for Game of Thrones because the pilot episode alone cost between $5M and $10M, with the entire first season costing $60M. Crowdfunding does a lot of neat things, but it doesn't generate sixty million dollars. And even if it did, you wouldn't have the proper connections to do very much with that money except squander it. A lot of things had to come together to make Game of Thrones a reality, and money is just one part. Beyond that, it's telling that you set up a strawman belief system and then bashed it without asking whether I actually hold those beliefs.
      - glennsl 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Istof 12y ago
for one, the duration of copyright should be a lot shorter and not be extended everytime mickey mouse's copyright is about to expire (called the Mickey Mouse Protection Act) ...
neurobro 12y ago
Product placement, augment digital content with tangible products, live venues, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, build upon existing content (like Hollywood does every time they steal from Shakespeare or Homer), develop proprietary means of reducing production costs, sell cameo spots to fans, invest in the next wave of distribution infrastructure, interactive/custom content. I'm not particularly creative, so I'm sure a creative person could come up with a better list.

Ok. What do you propose, how should we pay for digital content?

by Sandman 12y ago

Ok. What do you propose, how should we pay for digital content?

To find the right answers, one needs to pose the right questions. In this case, the problem is not that it is difficult to get paid for digital content, but that it is difficult to make a living by producing digital content. The question you ought to be asking, then, is how do we encourage the production of quality digital content? To that question my answer would be a combination of basic income and crowdfunding.

touristtam 12y ago
or leave the system as it is an cap the copyright holder's right. I have nothing against Bigcorp making big bucks for the first 10 years of the said product, but when they have already made some substantial gain within those 10 years, who is then benefiting from the profit and to what aim should we consider rightful as a society? I am only pointing out to the fact the copyright is there not only to benefit the individual but as well the society as a whole.
- tatterdemalion 12y ago
  This is not a solution because the problem is not moral, it is technical: the reproduction of digital content is not controllable in the long-term.
- glennsl 12y ago
  Copyright is not a benefit to society. Copyright doesn't encourage content production, it actively discourages it. It doesn't allow anyone to do anything they couldn't have done without copyright, but forbids you to do a whole bunch of things you otherwise could. And even what's constituted "fair use" is often practically impossible because the various draconian enforcement schemes (e.g. Youtubes ContentID) don't understand the concept. Copyright doesn't give anyone any rights. It takes rights away from everyone other than the "rights holder". It doesn't protect, it punishes. Beware of the newspeak.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    Copyright certainly does encourage content production. There are definitely people who create for the monetary reward, which decreases dramatically without copyright protection. Copyright also has effects that discourage certain types of creation, but that doesn't erase the encouragement it provides as well.
    - glennsl 12y ago
      It doesn't erase it, no, but certainly negates it. At least in terms of quantity and diversity. As for quality, I don't think I'd personally miss any content that would cease to exist without the monetary incentive. Though others may differ.
sillysaurus3 12y ago
Basic income or crowdfunding aren't enough to create Game of Thrones. Maybe that's okay to you, but it's not okay for fans of the show. Now extrapolate from "Game of Thrones" to "Most entertainment experiences on the scale of Game of Thrones," and you quickly realize that neither crowdfunding nor basic income are adequate for pretty much any large-scale production. Hence, payment. You can rationalize not paying, but it doesn't change the fact that the experiences you enjoy wouldn't exist without people who do pay for them.
- glennsl 12y ago
  Why would it not be adequate? What more is needed? The prospect of becoming a billionaire? And, assuming you are an advocate for copyright since you haven't proposed anything else, have you ever considered what we're missing out on because of it? Copyright excludes a metric ton of content production by definition. It doesn't allow you to do anything that would otherwise not be possible, but forbids a lot that otherwise would be possible. Of course it's somewhat harder to point to examples that cannot even exist under the current regime, but use your imagination. There's a huge advantage in cost and effort in being able to build on what came before, compared to making everything from scratch every single time. Open Source software and Wikipedia are perhaps the closest examples to what would be possible, but they're still very much hindered by copyright.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    They aren't adequate for Game of Thrones because the pilot episode alone cost between $5M and $10M, with the entire first season costing $60M. Crowdfunding does a lot of neat things, but it doesn't generate sixty million dollars. And even if it did, you wouldn't have the proper connections to do very much with that money except squander it. A lot of things had to come together to make Game of Thrones a reality, and money is just one part. Beyond that, it's telling that you set up a strawman belief system and then bashed it without asking whether I actually hold those beliefs.
    - glennsl 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Istof 12y ago

for one, the duration of copyright should be a lot shorter and not be extended everytime mickey mouse's copyright is about to expire (called the Mickey Mouse Protection Act) ...

neurobro 12y ago

Product placement, augment digital content with tangible products, live venues, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, build upon existing content (like Hollywood does every time they steal from Shakespeare or Homer), develop proprietary means of reducing production costs, sell cameo spots to fans, invest in the next wave of distribution infrastructure, interactive/custom content. I'm not particularly creative, so I'm sure a creative person could come up with a better list.