3 ms·

"That sort of presupposes that your wants should be satisfied as a matter of course, no?" no.. 'should' is such a misleading term. like i said, this is not a mo

by cam_l 12y ago

"That sort of presupposes that your wants should be satisfied as a matter of course, no?" no.. 'should' is such a misleading term. like i said, this is not a moral issue. 'wants' as a matter of definition 'want' to be satisfied. and from experience, once you remove impediments from peoples 'wants' (en masse) they have no natural inclination to limit themselves. the power dynamic exists purely because 'want' is your weak point in a trading situation, and my ability to keep that from you is my strong point (my weak point is my need to eat). your example of the coconut is perfect in fact, it dehumanises or de-moralises the idea. the coconut evolved with its fruit/seed high up, hard to crack, heavy and slow germinating. however it came to be, it is resistant to birds eating it and germinates near the shoreline dispersed by the tides. other fruit evolved to be eaten and dispersed by birds. no morals, just different distribution methods. different power differential. "This is simply not true - there is a fixed cost of supply." no, there is a fixed cost of creation. supply is unlimited (virtually). the media industry got rich precisely due to the fact that a fixed cost of creation could scale up to massive increase in distribution virtually for free (at scale). and here we are only talking about that small percentage of artists who seek to leverage their fix cost of creation to make the same money time and time over. it is arbitrage on an artificially limited supply. now the industry is feeling the flipside of this 'free' distribution. "So what you're saying is that you want to be entertained and have your ego stroked" no. but reading back, i see how you thought that. what i mean is that artists have to respect what consumers pressure points, and their understanding of value is and respond to that rather than to keep pushing shit uphill, so to speak. understand that perhaps the time is gone when an artist can receive 10x value from 1x work. because now to put that 1x work out to a market where the market decides whether it will pay or not completely changes the power dynamic. it forces the artist to foster a relationship with their patrons. also, as an aside, i put forward a point of view about power dynamics in trade and about the non-existence of morality in this issue. i get the feeling that you are trying to moralise not only about the existence of piracy (which imho is in itself a profound misreading of reality) but about me, about which you know nothing. i find this vaguely offensive. if you care to know, the existence of piracy, abundance of content, and the leverage of being one of thousands of eyeballs has allowed me to shift from being a powerless consumer to being a producer, and a patron, as i please. which is awesome.

anigbrowl 12y ago
* no.. 'should' is such a misleading term. like i said, this is not a moral issue.* This is a bit rich coming from someone dictating what artists need to do to please you as a consumer. the power dynamic exists purely because 'want' is your weak point in a trading situation, and my ability to keep that from you is my strong point (my weak point is my need to eat). The need to and the costs of production still exist even when the ability to recoup investment by controlling distribution does not. "This is simply not true - there is a fixed cost of supply." no, there is a fixed cost of creation. supply is unlimited (virtually). In economics there is supply and demand, and fixed costs and marginal costs (ie the cost to produce one more unit of a given product). Creation is not treated as a separate thing from supply, since it is a necessary precursor. Some goods are supplied in single quantities. Please don't lecture me about economics if you are not familiar with the basic terminology of the field. i get the feeling that you are trying to moralise not only about the existence of piracy (which imho is in itself a profound misreading of reality) but about me, about which you know nothing. i find this vaguely offensive. Well, now you know how I feel about being told that because artists and publishers of the past have made lots of money from industrialized distribution, artists of today should not expect to get paid for supplying a product the market wants, which is a rather annoying fallacy of composition. Just because the industry has done well overall does not mean that everyone has been receiving '10x value from 1x work,' as you put it. The majority of people in the film industry work on fixed pay scales and see little or no residual income. if you care to know, the existence of piracy, abundance of content, and the leverage of being one of thousands of eyeballs has allowed me to shift from being a powerless consumer to being a producer, and a patron, as i please. which is awesome. In what sense do you consider yourself a producer?
- cam_l 12y ago
  fuck.. you have an agenda, i get it. i am not attacking you. i pay for films and art and music and other real stuff. i made a simple observation about the power dynamics of media sales. the fact that content producers are not noticing they are being fucked sideways by the distribution companies, killing their art to maintain their profits, while the ground is being pulled out from under them by the public. the market is collapsing and they are attacking their customers. "This is a bit rich" but it is still not what i am saying. its amoral, not moral/immoral! "The need to and the costs of production.." but that is the thing, if there is no market for it then you can't do shit. if the market is not willing to pay for the costs of production, you push the cost of production down, find another way to push costs up, or you just starve. this is not me telling you this. this is just how it is for everyone. "In economics there is supply and demand.." fair enough, i see we are saying the same thing here. tbh i just read your sentence as gibberish to impress how much you knew about economics. i understand the meaning if not the terminology, no need to be an arse. "Well, now you know how I feel.." to be fair, i knew how you felt. i was just trying to disabuse you of the notion that there is anything fair about work and pay. it is power pure and simple. that is, in fact, why some people get the 10x income, and some do the 1x work. "In what sense do you consider yourself a producer?" i am sorry, but i cannot help but read that as being a bit fucking condescending. so finding it difficult, but giving you the benefit of doubt, perhaps you are asking if i am a big p Producer? no. i am a designer. 1 x work for slightly less than 1x pay.. as it happens.

by cam_l 12y ago

anigbrowl 12y ago

* no.. 'should' is such a misleading term. like i said, this is not a moral issue.* This is a bit rich coming from someone dictating what artists need to do to please you as a consumer. the power dynamic exists purely because 'want' is your weak point in a trading situation, and my ability to keep that from you is my strong point (my weak point is my need to eat). The need to and the costs of production still exist even when the ability to recoup investment by controlling distribution does not. "This is simply not true - there is a fixed cost of supply." no, there is a fixed cost of creation. supply is unlimited (virtually). In economics there is supply and demand, and fixed costs and marginal costs (ie the cost to produce one more unit of a given product). Creation is not treated as a separate thing from supply, since it is a necessary precursor. Some goods are supplied in single quantities. Please don't lecture me about economics if you are not familiar with the basic terminology of the field. i get the feeling that you are trying to moralise not only about the existence of piracy (which imho is in itself a profound misreading of reality) but about me, about which you know nothing. i find this vaguely offensive. Well, now you know how I feel about being told that because artists and publishers of the past have made lots of money from industrialized distribution, artists of today should not expect to get paid for supplying a product the market wants, which is a rather annoying fallacy of composition. Just because the industry has done well overall does not mean that everyone has been receiving '10x value from 1x work,' as you put it. The majority of people in the film industry work on fixed pay scales and see little or no residual income. if you care to know, the existence of piracy, abundance of content, and the leverage of being one of thousands of eyeballs has allowed me to shift from being a powerless consumer to being a producer, and a patron, as i please. which is awesome. In what sense do you consider yourself a producer?

cam_l 12y ago
fuck.. you have an agenda, i get it. i am not attacking you. i pay for films and art and music and other real stuff. i made a simple observation about the power dynamics of media sales. the fact that content producers are not noticing they are being fucked sideways by the distribution companies, killing their art to maintain their profits, while the ground is being pulled out from under them by the public. the market is collapsing and they are attacking their customers. "This is a bit rich" but it is still not what i am saying. its amoral, not moral/immoral! "The need to and the costs of production.." but that is the thing, if there is no market for it then you can't do shit. if the market is not willing to pay for the costs of production, you push the cost of production down, find another way to push costs up, or you just starve. this is not me telling you this. this is just how it is for everyone. "In economics there is supply and demand.." fair enough, i see we are saying the same thing here. tbh i just read your sentence as gibberish to impress how much you knew about economics. i understand the meaning if not the terminology, no need to be an arse. "Well, now you know how I feel.." to be fair, i knew how you felt. i was just trying to disabuse you of the notion that there is anything fair about work and pay. it is power pure and simple. that is, in fact, why some people get the 10x income, and some do the 1x work. "In what sense do you consider yourself a producer?" i am sorry, but i cannot help but read that as being a bit fucking condescending. so finding it difficult, but giving you the benefit of doubt, perhaps you are asking if i am a big p Producer? no. i am a designer. 1 x work for slightly less than 1x pay.. as it happens.