4 ms·

I always wince when I see statements like these. The implication that artists should be unpaid is completely absurd. How about, YOU, quick name a television/bo

I always wince when I see statements like these. The implication that artists should be unpaid is completely absurd. How about, YOU, quick name a television/book/movie you enjoyed , where every artist went unpaid. There is a reason Netflix PAID people to create content. There is a reason that today YouTube still pays people to make content for YouTube. Quality content comes from smart people who if not paid to make media, will gladly take their talent somewhere else. In your "solution" the outcome isn't that Destin makes content for free, its that he continues his dayjob as a missile engineer and the world misses out on great content like Smarter Everyday. We get great content when artists don't have to starve to produce it. How about you work entirely for free in your day job (Hey the kernel your program for was built for free, why should you get paid before Linus?), and see how long you last. We are already seeing the print industry go this way - with cheap, easily churnable content listicles and articles that may-or-may-not be written by PR firms at corporations. I don't know about you, but I vastly prefer the content on HBO than to cheap formulaic YouTube shorts and corporate pr films. We should be thinking about how we funnel the billions of dollars of the media industry to the best content creators and out of the hands of RIAA execs, not wiping it all away because "lol artists who needs to pay them?"

GhotiFish 11y ago
That post is stating that the way out society functions around the concept of data is incorrect. You're right in that some works do require significant budgets to complete. Is there absolutely no other possible way that such works could get funded without an individual person buying only one individual copy of that work to post-hoc fund it in aggregate? "No! Nothing but this system could ever possibly work. It's pointless to even speculate on anything else existing." I don't think that's your position, but you sure couch it in those terms. You sure ended that dialog in those terms. Did you mean to? I'd like to see real discussion around this topic, but before it even gets off the ground, the mere existence of such systems are assumed impossible and the seed of such a conversation is accused of what you accused the grandparent. I want to entertain the notion.
- nemothekid 11y ago
  >Is there absolutely no other possible way that such works could get funded without an individual person buying only one individual copy of that work to post-hoc fund it in aggregate? That has very little to do with the matter described in the article - the "system" that exists today that the channel in the OP used doesn't require an individual person buying one copy - users can already watch the content for free on YouTube. The "system" that you are assuming "the mere existence of such systems are assumed impossible" already exists, its called YouTube (at least in one version). What the poster was advocating is relinquishing IP, which is very different from "an individual person buying only one individual copy of that work". Consider that FOSS ecosystem is held together by licenses. Would it make sense if a movie exec came along and said "we are going to use his software, not give any credit, nor contribute changes because software developer's notion of IP is outdated?"
  - GhotiFish 11y ago
    It could. Yes. FOSS was always a hack, the desire was always that the content get released for the public good, and the intent was to use the licensing system to create an incentive for self-interested actors to release works to the public. Such a hack might not be necessary in the context of an economic system that incentivises the release of public works by it's nature. In such a system, the movie exec would not want to say "we are going to use this software, not give any credit, nor contribute changes because software developer's notion of IP is outdated?" Because it would not be in that exec's interest. Perhaps because releasing updates to the software in and of itself earns them money, or maybe something else? I dunno, these conversations never seem to get off the ground so I rarely get to see ideas discussed.

GhotiFish 11y ago

That post is stating that the way out society functions around the concept of data is incorrect. You're right in that some works do require significant budgets to complete. Is there absolutely no other possible way that such works could get funded without an individual person buying only one individual copy of that work to post-hoc fund it in aggregate? "No! Nothing but this system could ever possibly work. It's pointless to even speculate on anything else existing." I don't think that's your position, but you sure couch it in those terms. You sure ended that dialog in those terms. Did you mean to? I'd like to see real discussion around this topic, but before it even gets off the ground, the mere existence of such systems are assumed impossible and the seed of such a conversation is accused of what you accused the grandparent. I want to entertain the notion.

nemothekid 11y ago
>Is there absolutely no other possible way that such works could get funded without an individual person buying only one individual copy of that work to post-hoc fund it in aggregate? That has very little to do with the matter described in the article - the "system" that exists today that the channel in the OP used doesn't require an individual person buying one copy - users can already watch the content for free on YouTube. The "system" that you are assuming "the mere existence of such systems are assumed impossible" already exists, its called YouTube (at least in one version). What the poster was advocating is relinquishing IP, which is very different from "an individual person buying only one individual copy of that work". Consider that FOSS ecosystem is held together by licenses. Would it make sense if a movie exec came along and said "we are going to use his software, not give any credit, nor contribute changes because software developer's notion of IP is outdated?"
- GhotiFish 11y ago
  It could. Yes. FOSS was always a hack, the desire was always that the content get released for the public good, and the intent was to use the licensing system to create an incentive for self-interested actors to release works to the public. Such a hack might not be necessary in the context of an economic system that incentivises the release of public works by it's nature. In such a system, the movie exec would not want to say "we are going to use this software, not give any credit, nor contribute changes because software developer's notion of IP is outdated?" Because it would not be in that exec's interest. Perhaps because releasing updates to the software in and of itself earns them money, or maybe something else? I dunno, these conversations never seem to get off the ground so I rarely get to see ideas discussed.