You are not logged in. Please login or register.
How do our views differ? Several paragraphs, please. I'm tired of chasing down point-by-points. Gimme a philosophy in total to compare to my own.
Look, the goal of the project is not to preserve the current system with its current funding levels. I'm not really interested in whether the studio system as it is currently conceived can continue in the 21st century any more than I am in whether the buggy whip industry as it was conceived in the 18th century could continue after the invention of the automobile.
It isn't my job to guarantee that any industry that ever made money can continue regardless of technological advances or social progress. I'm sorry - it's just not.
So you are saying it doesn't matter if movies or music or books stopped getting made because there is no money to sustain the industries as long as you get everything for free?
TheGreg wrote:Look, the goal of the project is not to preserve the current system with its current funding levels. I'm not really interested in whether the studio system as it is currently conceived can continue in the 21st century any more than I am in whether the buggy whip industry as it was conceived in the 18th century could continue after the invention of the automobile.
It isn't my job to guarantee that any industry that ever made money can continue regardless of technological advances or social progress. I'm sorry - it's just not.
So you are saying you don't care if movies or music or books stopped getting made because there is no money to sustain the industries as long as you get everything for free?
I think the massive benefit of having the entirety of human science, literature and entertainment freely available to all people to do what they want with far outweighs the short term goal of propping up the hollywood studio system. Yes.
I do not thing that this will result in nothing new being made, any more than I think nothing was created before copyright existed. Clearly, Shakespeare did not sit around saying 'I'd love to write plays, but since copyright doesn't exist, I can't'.
+1
How do our views differ? Several paragraphs, please. I'm tired of chasing down point-by-points. Gimme a philosophy in total to compare to my own.
I think the massive benefit of having the entirety of human science, literature and entertainment freely available to all people to do what they want with far outweighs the short term goal of propping up the hollywood studio system.
+1
Clearly, Shakespeare did not sit around saying 'I'd love to write plays, but since copyright doesn't exist, I can't'.
SHAKESPEARE.
WROTE.
FOR.
MONEY.
Come on man. I'm completely down for all of this if we start by assuming a worldwide socialist agenda, but seriously?
If my ass gets to sleep in a bed tomorrow, I'll work for free. If not, we're stuck with the people who make art not surviving or having the incentive to make it.
I think the massive benefit of having the entirety of human science, literature and entertainment freely available to all people to do what they want with far outweighs the short term goal of propping up the hollywood studio system. Yes.
I do not thing that this will result in nothing new being made, any more than I think nothing was created before copyright existed. Clearly, Shakespeare did not sit around saying 'I'd love to write plays, but since copyright doesn't exist, I can't'.
Yeah....uh-huh....yup......
It is invented - for digital media.
No it isn't. It is only distribution that is now easier (and even so, it still isn't free. At least my internet connection and my computer cost money, dunno about yours).
Media creation still requires time and resources in the real world, and your "if it exists then everyone deserves access to it" theory still doesn't account for how these things are generated in the first place.
Clearly, Shakespeare did not sit around saying 'I'd love to write plays, but since copyright doesn't exist, I can't'.
SHAKESPEARE.
WROTE.
FOR.
MONEY.Come on man. I'm completely down for all of this if we start by assuming a worldwide socialist agenda, but seriously?
If my ass gets to sleep in a bed tomorrow, I'll work for free. If not, we're stuck with the people who make art not surviving or having the incentive to make it.
Shakespeare wrote for money, but he didn't rely on copyright and sales of copies. His works were pretty freely copied and reproduced, and yet, somehow, he made a living.
+1
TheGreg wrote:It is invented - for digital media.
No it isn't. It is only distribution that is now easier (and even so, it still isn't free. At least my internet connection and my computer cost money, dunno about yours).
Media creation still requires time and resources in the real world, and your "if it exists then everyone deserves access to it" theory still doesn't account for how these things are generated in the first place.
I'm sorry - I thought you were talking about replicator technology, that allows the virtually free replication of something as many times as you like. Yes, there is a cost of raw materials (drives, bandwidth etc) but the marginal cost of replication is virtually nothing.
I point you again to Shakespeare, and every artist before copyright. If your theory is right, that nothing will be produced without the system we have now, then he would not have written anything.
Last edited by TheGreg (2012-11-30 07:22:11)
Shakespeare wrote for money, but he didn't rely on copyright and sales of copies. His works were pretty freely copied and reproduced, and yet, somehow, he made a living.
Pretty sure times have changed since then....things cost money more now and shit.
Last edited by Jimmy B (2012-11-30 07:21:53)
I hate this new modern attitude that just expects shit to be free. When I was a dumb teenager and didn't have any money I could maybe kinda justify that attitude, but if you still feel that way when you're an adult, why don't you come over and paint my house for free and see how you like it.
This is the reason proper PC gaming almost died out for about a 5 year span, when people just decided to stop paying for games so PC exclusives became non-existent. Only now with Steam and kickstarter are we seeing a resurgence as people have started paying again (though I'd argue it's still significantly been devalued, games drop by 50% in price after like a month).
You don't get to have physical goods for free, and you shouldn't be able to have digital goods for free, unless that is the creator's intent. I LIKE paying for stuff, and knowing I'm giving a vote of confidence and supporting a project with my dollars.
Edit: And on a historical note, artists being paid for their work is not some new miraculous thing. A big reason the Rennaissance happened was a bunch of rich Italian families paid talented artists to make produce works of art
Last edited by bullet3 (2012-11-30 07:25:02)
TheGreg wrote:Shakespeare wrote for money, but he didn't rely on copyright and sales of copies. His works were pretty freely copied and reproduced, and yet, somehow, he made a living.
Pretty sure times have changed since then....things cost money more now and shit.
Writing a book certainly doesn't cost any more, making an album not much more for sure. Making a film costs a bit more than putting on a play, although I'm not convinced it's a lot more, regardless, that's not the point. Any industry has to figure out a way to make its product viable in the environment it finds itself, not the one it would like to be in.
I hate this new modern attitude that just expects shit to be free. When I was a dumb teenager and didn't have any money I could maybe kinda justify that attitude, but if you still feel that way when you're an adult, why don't you come over and paint my house for free and see how you like it.
This is the reason proper PC gaming almost died out for about a 5 year span, when people just decided to stop paying for games so PC exclusives became non-existent. Only now with Steam and kickstarter are we seeing a resurgence as people have started paying again (though I'd argue it's still significantly been devalued, games drop by 50% in price after like a month).
You don't get to have physical goods for free, and you shouldn't be able to have digital goods for free, unless that is the creator's intent. I LIKE paying for stuff, and knowing I'm giving a vote of confidence and supporting a project with my dollars.
Once again, physical goods are not digital goods.
What's the difference?
Once The Matrix is on a DVD, what is the difference we're talking about between the DVD and the Quicktime? Is your contention that you simply pay for the price of a very expensive blank DVD with a file and some paper on it? A blank DVD is about fifty cents, The Matrix is $15. Where's that $14.50 going? Who gets paid?
Once again, physical goods are not digital goods.
As someone in the software industry, I call complete bullshit on that. Just because the means of production have changed, doesn't somehow nullify or invalidate their value. Hundreds/Thousands of people bust their asses for years to deliver a quality program like photoshop or windows or osx or whatever. The fact that the final product is made up of bits instead of atoms has no bearing on it's value, it's value is whatever a user is willing to pay for it, and whatever the creators want to charge for it.
+1
Writing a book certainly doesn't cost any more, making an album not much more for sure. Making a film costs a bit more than putting on a play, although I'm not convinced it's a lot more, regardless, that's not the point. Any industry has to figure out a way to make its product viable in the environment it finds itself, not the one it would like to be in.
No, dude, you are (purposely?) missing the point. Everything costs more now, everything. Back in Shakey's day, they didn't have to pay as much rent, there were no phone bills, no television, no cell phone bills, no cars, no health insurance, no life insurance, no house insurace, no vet bills, no music albums/downloads, no cinemas, no supermarkets...... do you get what I am saying? They didn't have all that shit to pay for and worry bout.
People who make films, books, music need to make money from them, they have to in order to bloody live. This is what you seem to be skipping over when you read everyone's posts. And I am not 100% sure that you are not taking the piss.....
Last edited by Jimmy B (2012-11-30 07:34:57)
Ok, shows over. You're all going to bed now. This has become endless, cyclical bullshit. It's like listening to drunk geeks arguing shit at a party.
Conceded. Good talk, everyone.
Ok, shows over. You're all going to bed now. This has become endless, cyclical bullshit. It's like listening to drunk geeks arguing shit at a party.
Wait, what?
And it's 7.40am here.
Respect the tribbles
Writing a book certainly doesn't cost any more, making an album not much more for sure. Making a film costs a bit more than putting on a play, although I'm not convinced it's a lot more, regardless, that's not the point. Any industry has to figure out a way to make its product viable in the environment it finds itself, not the one it would like to be in.
And here is where you demonstrate your complete ignorance to what goes into making film, television, and theater.
Last edited by Eddie (2012-11-30 08:15:00)
+1
Really? You think it was only just here?
+1
No, but it built like a symphony to that one perfect crystalized moment.
+1
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
