So anyway, do you have those polaroids ... ?

On a related note - yes the studios do need to evolve their distribution model to adapt to new ways of consuming media. That doesn't mean that the content creators shouldn't be looking at ways to protect their time, money, and effort spent in the production of our entertainment.

This thread is exactly like my experience with Gangnam style. Apparently it happened, was a huge deal, I missed it, and I still don't get it.

Wow...just...wow. I leave for a day and this thread goes nuts. I'd tell everyone to calm down but I'd have to charge for it in order to get it in to this thread

I think it comes down to the definition of value in a terms of creative ventures. While not technically theft, it is plagiarism and fraud, which will at least get you kicked out of most major educational institutions as well as breaks several laws. The whole idea is that a creator's time is valuable, and that they are able to define what their time is worth, and others determine if they are willing to pay the price. Its the free market in a simplified form-are you willing to purchase the item at the price I offer it.

Here is a quote from "Starship Troopers" (the book) regarding value that I think is relevant:

Absolutely I do. We're at the stage of civilization where we are able to give everyone in the world access to every work of science, literature, and yes, entertainment, that has ever been created at a marginal cost of nothing at all. Just think of the potential for progress, education, and human happiness. And yet we're so limited in our imagination and creativity that the first thing that we try to do having created this miracle is to try desperately to re-invent scarcity.

That makes me very sad, and a little depressed about human nature.

Last edited by TheGreg (2012-11-30 05:52:20)

I just don't understand who's putting up the money to make films in this grand new utopia where everybody can have everything for free. Film became a business and stayed a business because you just can't make films unless they make money back. If nobody HAS to pay money for entertainment, most people WON'T. Yes, you have a certain type of person, like a lot of people on this forum, I'm sure, who would donate money to support their favorite artists. But they're going to be a minority. And if there's no money to be made in film, why would anybody make a film?

EDIT - Jimmy pretty much said the exact same thing, and better. Thunder-stealing asshat.

Last edited by C-Spin (2012-11-30 06:12:29)

I absolutely think that the benefit to humanity of the whole of literature, science, and entertainment being available for free to everyone in the world is so great that it outweighs the complaints of people who cannot possibly get their heads around a business model based on a scarcity that doesn't exist any more.

We have business models that are not based on scarcity now. We've had them in the past, and we've had them in the future. The benefit to humanity is too great to be held back by a small minded lack of imagination around business models.

But and you haven't actually answered the question- Who is paying for all this? The money that is needed to produce those projects has to come from somewhere. So many people in the film, book or music industries have to be paid, without this, nobody will want  to do the work any longer as it won't be beneficial for them financially.

You're not actually providing a solution, Greg, it's like saying 'ah, don't worry about it, it'll be fine' while the plane you're in is plummeting to the ground......

EDIT: Dammit Teague! So, this is how C-Spin, felt

Last edited by Jimmy B (2012-11-30 06:40:02)

Okay!

I'll play. I wrote and backspaced out an "I'm out, you're trolling" post, but I'll play.

Take the AGGREGATE TOTAL of funds you can vouch for having been appropriated to a single project through subscription, patronage, donations, and performance cost, and compare that to what gets put up for "just making a movie" in the studio system. (EDIT: You edited in "government subsidies, media levies," and I'm willing to fold those into the previous statement. Add those too.)

Are we in the same order of magnitude?

If the answer is yes, provide a lot of citation.

If the answer is no, then you now see what's so hard about this.

EDIT: Added clarity, we'll say a nice round (not-on-the-high-end) number for a studio movie is fifty million. Hit me.

Let's not bring facts into this, there's a principle at stake.

Yep, I'm out.

EDIT: Dude, just say "look, we're talking about different things, I may have been talking out of my ass in the places where we overlap, I'm sorry," and the conversation continues. But you're completely fucking trolling.

It is invented - for digital media.

Much of my work is actually freely available. If you want me to come to your house, you'll have to pay my daily rate, but if you want to download material I have made available, then be my guest.

At an 18th century pace.

Last edited by oTom (2012-11-30 06:52:28)