6 ms·

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 pr

by 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
  Game of Thrones isn't actually made of dollar bills, it's ultimately made of labour. And a basic income would make that labour available without requiring that the project cover living costs. Which means most of the cost would just disappear. How do connections relate to paid content? Do they somehow come at a massive cost? I did point out that I might be constructing a strawman, but seeing as you have yet to propose any alternative and copyright is in fact the status quo, it seemed like a reasonable assumption. Perhaps I should have added a question mark for emphasis, but feel free to clarify your position at any time.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    The point of basic income isn't to cover everything one could want out of life. It's to cover basic living expenses. Basic housing, basic food, a basic life. If basic income existed, then people would want more. That's not a strike against basic income, but just the opposite: it's a reason why basic income is more likely to work than, say, socialism. People who want more out of life can have it, whereas people who are satisfied with little can have little. The cost of specialized labor will never disappear. I'd rather not subject my personal belief system to public analysis, because the average public opinion on beliefs is an average belief system, and the average belief system in any era has almost always been crazy.
    - glennsl 12y ago
      Sure people would want more than just the basic necessities, but it would still offset the cost by a significant amount. Having your living costs covered and being able to take a break from a job that pays well to work on something you are passionate about without having to fear homelessness and starvation makes a big difference. People have been forking up $3-4 million for very niche adventure and old-school rpg games. Star Citizen is closing in on $60 million. This is with crowdfunding still in its infancy and projects that have orders of magnitude less interest than Game of Thrones. If people, both producers and consumers, don't care enough about Game of Thrones to make it happen, then so be it. But I don't believe that would be the case.
      - sillysaurus3 12y ago
        Actually, if basic income is implemented, the cost will be much higher than the current costs, not lower. Basic income is a redistribution. You can't give a bunch of people money without also causing inflation. The question is whether basic income adds an acceptable amount of inflation. It definitely won't help with production costs, though.
        glennsl 12y ago
        How would redistribution cause inflation? In order to redistribute, you would need to collect the money to distribute through taxes, removing just as much money from the system as it injects, thus maintaining average purchasing power. If the money would just be printed, it would of course cause inflation, but that's not redistribution, it's just distribution.

by glennsl 12y ago

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
Game of Thrones isn't actually made of dollar bills, it's ultimately made of labour. And a basic income would make that labour available without requiring that the project cover living costs. Which means most of the cost would just disappear. How do connections relate to paid content? Do they somehow come at a massive cost? I did point out that I might be constructing a strawman, but seeing as you have yet to propose any alternative and copyright is in fact the status quo, it seemed like a reasonable assumption. Perhaps I should have added a question mark for emphasis, but feel free to clarify your position at any time.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  The point of basic income isn't to cover everything one could want out of life. It's to cover basic living expenses. Basic housing, basic food, a basic life. If basic income existed, then people would want more. That's not a strike against basic income, but just the opposite: it's a reason why basic income is more likely to work than, say, socialism. People who want more out of life can have it, whereas people who are satisfied with little can have little. The cost of specialized labor will never disappear. I'd rather not subject my personal belief system to public analysis, because the average public opinion on beliefs is an average belief system, and the average belief system in any era has almost always been crazy.
  - glennsl 12y ago
    Sure people would want more than just the basic necessities, but it would still offset the cost by a significant amount. Having your living costs covered and being able to take a break from a job that pays well to work on something you are passionate about without having to fear homelessness and starvation makes a big difference. People have been forking up $3-4 million for very niche adventure and old-school rpg games. Star Citizen is closing in on $60 million. This is with crowdfunding still in its infancy and projects that have orders of magnitude less interest than Game of Thrones. If people, both producers and consumers, don't care enough about Game of Thrones to make it happen, then so be it. But I don't believe that would be the case.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      Actually, if basic income is implemented, the cost will be much higher than the current costs, not lower. Basic income is a redistribution. You can't give a bunch of people money without also causing inflation. The question is whether basic income adds an acceptable amount of inflation. It definitely won't help with production costs, though.
      - glennsl 12y ago
        How would redistribution cause inflation? In order to redistribute, you would need to collect the money to distribute through taxes, removing just as much money from the system as it injects, thus maintaining average purchasing power. If the money would just be printed, it would of course cause inflation, but that's not redistribution, it's just distribution.