People need to expect to pay for art and entertainment. People should. It's immoral and unethical to not pay for art and expect art to be there.
People also should be able to pay the artist directly and not some billion dollar company who continue to try to squeeze the artists and limit creativeness all in servitude to the almighty dollar (or any other currency)
Okay so what I'm hearing is you want companies to make investments in artists directly - so a form of profit sharing essentially. Why would a company invest in artists if artists get all of the profits when its successful and the company loses all of the capital if it fails? Why would any business want to partake in a system like that?
No, fuck the middle man, we don't need billion dollar conglomerates to distribute our media. The people have the tools and connection to create and share without these old business models trying to keep us in the 19th century as wage slaves, happy for the peanuts that their monopolies allow us to have.
I pirate things, and I also pay artists directly for their work when I can. Companies like Netflix manipulate the data and the market to ensure they are making the most profit possible. That is their entire goal as businesses. This exploitation should be separate from art altogether.
To be fair, the billion dollar conglomerates are the ones that fund the creation of the media. Without those billions, the media just doesn't get made.
They spend the majority of those billions on marketing, higher tier salaries, a very small portion goes to the artists. Without those billions media would still get made because there is always demand for entertainment and art.
Nobody is saying that. You made that up as a stupid alternative to what we're saying is bad to make the bad thing look like it makes sense.
Imagine paying $1 to each name that appears in the credits of a movie or tv show, which would be paying the artists directly for their work. It's not feasible, but that's what I read when folks toss out paying the artist directly.
Let's assume that this hypothetical movie had 2,000 people working on it, which isn't a crazy number to assume. You think people should pay $2,000 to watch a movie?
No, that's exactly the point they were making.
But if we assume a movie that made a billion dollars, and assume a high ticket price like $20, then that's 50 million tickets sold. That math only checks out if each person paid $0.01 per worker. If we cut out useless executives, that number goes way the fuck down. So yes, let's pay artists directly, and we'll save money at the same time. Even if it were a tenth of a penny to each credit per viewer, that's $50k on average, which is higher than the actual average wage for crew.. I know actors and directors make more, but that's why I'm not going so far as to say we should only pay $2 for a ticket.
So yes, let’s pay artists directly
Where does the money come from to actually make the movie?
Based on actual ticket prices, from producers that expect to triple their investment I guess. Us idiots are fantasizing about ~10% while they're hitting triple digit percentages.
The movie production has to be paid for before the movie hits theaters. Again, where exactly does that money come from?
Maybe start at a much lower number. If the movie is popular, then millions of people will watch it. Pay each person who worked on the film a penny per view. If the movie gets viewed by 10 million people in the movie theater, each person who worked on the movie gets paid $100,000. If the movie was made by 2000 people (a bit big for most films crews) then each viewer would have to pay $20 to see the movie, or roughly what a normal movie ticket costs anyway. The difference is the studio would make zero dollars and not have a marketing budget.
Wouldn't that just be a bunch of QR codes in the credits? That would be easier to automate than it is to pay middlemen.
People need to expect to pay reasonable prices on a reasonable basis for art and entertainment, and pretending everyone should be cool with fifty different streaming services and never owning anything again is its own sort of immorality and lack of ethics.
Exactly, we’re not paying for the art, we’re paying for a limited license to view art that has already been made.
Not to mention I don’t mind paying when I know the artists who do the work will get a bigger cut than the guy who owns the servers they’re hosted on.
I think most people would agree that artists should be fairly paid for their work. But when greedy, profiteering corporations are the ones commissioning and profiting from art, then IMO we have a moral duty to fuck with their exploitative business model.
I have no problem paying for such things.
But when the distributors block access, and tell me buying ain't owning by removing access to what I've paid for, well fuck 'em.
And art should be accessible to everyone, not just the wealthy. There's a reason that piracy almost died out completely and then came back with a vengeance. People don't mind paying a reasonable price for art, the prices and accessibility of art has just become unfeasible.
I disagree about art. Art exists for art's sake. It's not a commercial product. I don't have to pay to enjoy the Mona Lisa or the Bach. I might pay to enter a museum, or attend a performance, so I agree with you about entertainment, but art is different. Art enriches the world, improves life, expands understanding, and we should all of us pay for it with taxes. And we do!
I think your point about paying for museums touches on part of the issue.
It does cost to distribute art/entertainment. I have no problem paying for that.
It's that over the years distributors have gotten greedy (ads on a paid service, like cable did? Fuck you), and are telling us "buying ain't owning" by removing things we've paid for.
Art being for everyone, well, while I agree on an abstract level, there's a whole discussion we could have about that, starting with the range of "art" that's produced, from the mass-appeal art (so more base, simpler, becuae that has the broadest appeal), to the more niche.
At one time artists were supported by a patron (and now we have things like Patreon).
Then we have the players who get into the "art" business as an opportunity - consider things like the explosion of popular music in the 50's (that sounded similar courtesy of things like Rockola) and today's Autotuned music.
It's a big bucket of questions, ideas and concerns, and while philosophical me agrees with the basic premise of the value of art, the realist recognizes that art has a tangible value too, or people wouldn't be willing to pay for it.
It’s that over the years distributors have gotten greedy (ads on a paid service, like cable did? Fuck you), and are telling us “buying ain’t owning” by removing things we’ve paid for.
Not to mention they just eliminate shows and movies from their services without any regard to what the artist wants. I'm still mad about Final Space.
Where does this expectation come from?
I did not commission these works.
They created their art without a contract between them and I.
Their ability to recover their cost is not my responsibility.
Their right to obtain a profit is capitalist nonsense.
The force of government injecting a contract doesn't create a moral obligation.
So where does this moral obligation come from?
Is there some religious text indicating the divinity of copyright?
The concept was created from nothing.
The writers strike who has to fight over getting streaming royalties goes to show that the money doesn't even make it to the artists.
The issue isn't paying. It's how fractured the services are and how we don't even get to pay to own a copy of the art.
I don't disagree, but isn't there something to be said for denying people access to the popular culture based on their ability to pay for it?
Not particularly. Things generally cost money. It's not a human rights violation to say you can't see a movie if you have zero dollars.
So then we don't worry about people's ability to engage in their communities through shared experiences and exposure to arts and culture, we just leave people out? Exclude them if they're poor. I don't think I care for that to be honest.
Most places will still have OTA broadcasts of content, at least from the major networks. That is still "free" but cable/digital TV prices are ridiculous.
Where I live there are no digital broadcast stations available so expensive subscription TV or piracy are the best options.
It's a tragedy of the commons - as an economics problem it matters, sure, but copyright is an artificial monopoly, not a human right. We could provide these more efficiently with public funding of the arts or crowdfunds, without the need to make up imaginary property with imaginary ethics.
But if you want to sign up for a bunch of subscriptions because some might trickle down to the writers, be my guest.
I don't expect it to be there. It just is. I can't go about my day without them shoving ads about it in my face.
I expect the lot of them to get their own damn jobs making food and shit that we actually need so I don't have to work all the damn time just to not afford being able to do my own art.
People need to expect to pay for art and entertainment. People should. It's immoral and unethical to not pay for art and expect art to be there.
People also should be able to pay the artist directly and not some billion dollar company who continue to try to squeeze the artists and limit creativeness all in servitude to the almighty dollar (or any other currency)
Okay so what I'm hearing is you want companies to make investments in artists directly - so a form of profit sharing essentially. Why would a company invest in artists if artists get all of the profits when its successful and the company loses all of the capital if it fails? Why would any business want to partake in a system like that?
No, fuck the middle man, we don't need billion dollar conglomerates to distribute our media. The people have the tools and connection to create and share without these old business models trying to keep us in the 19th century as wage slaves, happy for the peanuts that their monopolies allow us to have.
I pirate things, and I also pay artists directly for their work when I can. Companies like Netflix manipulate the data and the market to ensure they are making the most profit possible. That is their entire goal as businesses. This exploitation should be separate from art altogether.
To be fair, the billion dollar conglomerates are the ones that fund the creation of the media. Without those billions, the media just doesn't get made.
They spend the majority of those billions on marketing, higher tier salaries, a very small portion goes to the artists. Without those billions media would still get made because there is always demand for entertainment and art.
Nobody is saying that. You made that up as a stupid alternative to what we're saying is bad to make the bad thing look like it makes sense.
Imagine paying $1 to each name that appears in the credits of a movie or tv show, which would be paying the artists directly for their work. It's not feasible, but that's what I read when folks toss out paying the artist directly.
Let's assume that this hypothetical movie had 2,000 people working on it, which isn't a crazy number to assume. You think people should pay $2,000 to watch a movie?
No, that's exactly the point they were making.
But if we assume a movie that made a billion dollars, and assume a high ticket price like $20, then that's 50 million tickets sold. That math only checks out if each person paid $0.01 per worker. If we cut out useless executives, that number goes way the fuck down. So yes, let's pay artists directly, and we'll save money at the same time. Even if it were a tenth of a penny to each credit per viewer, that's $50k on average, which is higher than the actual average wage for crew.. I know actors and directors make more, but that's why I'm not going so far as to say we should only pay $2 for a ticket.
Where does the money come from to actually make the movie?
Based on actual ticket prices, from producers that expect to triple their investment I guess. Us idiots are fantasizing about ~10% while they're hitting triple digit percentages.
The movie production has to be paid for before the movie hits theaters. Again, where exactly does that money come from?
Maybe start at a much lower number. If the movie is popular, then millions of people will watch it. Pay each person who worked on the film a penny per view. If the movie gets viewed by 10 million people in the movie theater, each person who worked on the movie gets paid $100,000. If the movie was made by 2000 people (a bit big for most films crews) then each viewer would have to pay $20 to see the movie, or roughly what a normal movie ticket costs anyway. The difference is the studio would make zero dollars and not have a marketing budget.
Wouldn't that just be a bunch of QR codes in the credits? That would be easier to automate than it is to pay middlemen.
People need to expect to pay reasonable prices on a reasonable basis for art and entertainment, and pretending everyone should be cool with fifty different streaming services and never owning anything again is its own sort of immorality and lack of ethics.
Exactly, we’re not paying for the art, we’re paying for a limited license to view art that has already been made.
Not to mention I don’t mind paying when I know the artists who do the work will get a bigger cut than the guy who owns the servers they’re hosted on.
I think most people would agree that artists should be fairly paid for their work. But when greedy, profiteering corporations are the ones commissioning and profiting from art, then IMO we have a moral duty to fuck with their exploitative business model.
I have no problem paying for such things.
But when the distributors block access, and tell me buying ain't owning by removing access to what I've paid for, well fuck 'em.
And art should be accessible to everyone, not just the wealthy. There's a reason that piracy almost died out completely and then came back with a vengeance. People don't mind paying a reasonable price for art, the prices and accessibility of art has just become unfeasible.
I disagree about art. Art exists for art's sake. It's not a commercial product. I don't have to pay to enjoy the Mona Lisa or the Bach. I might pay to enter a museum, or attend a performance, so I agree with you about entertainment, but art is different. Art enriches the world, improves life, expands understanding, and we should all of us pay for it with taxes. And we do!
I think your point about paying for museums touches on part of the issue.
It does cost to distribute art/entertainment. I have no problem paying for that.
It's that over the years distributors have gotten greedy (ads on a paid service, like cable did? Fuck you), and are telling us "buying ain't owning" by removing things we've paid for.
Art being for everyone, well, while I agree on an abstract level, there's a whole discussion we could have about that, starting with the range of "art" that's produced, from the mass-appeal art (so more base, simpler, becuae that has the broadest appeal), to the more niche.
At one time artists were supported by a patron (and now we have things like Patreon).
Then we have the players who get into the "art" business as an opportunity - consider things like the explosion of popular music in the 50's (that sounded similar courtesy of things like Rockola) and today's Autotuned music.
It's a big bucket of questions, ideas and concerns, and while philosophical me agrees with the basic premise of the value of art, the realist recognizes that art has a tangible value too, or people wouldn't be willing to pay for it.
Not to mention they just eliminate shows and movies from their services without any regard to what the artist wants. I'm still mad about Final Space.
Where does this expectation come from?
I did not commission these works.
They created their art without a contract between them and I.
Their ability to recover their cost is not my responsibility.
Their right to obtain a profit is capitalist nonsense.
The force of government injecting a contract doesn't create a moral obligation.
So where does this moral obligation come from?
Is there some religious text indicating the divinity of copyright?
The concept was created from nothing.
The writers strike who has to fight over getting streaming royalties goes to show that the money doesn't even make it to the artists.
The issue isn't paying. It's how fractured the services are and how we don't even get to pay to own a copy of the art.
I don't disagree, but isn't there something to be said for denying people access to the popular culture based on their ability to pay for it?
Not particularly. Things generally cost money. It's not a human rights violation to say you can't see a movie if you have zero dollars.
So then we don't worry about people's ability to engage in their communities through shared experiences and exposure to arts and culture, we just leave people out? Exclude them if they're poor. I don't think I care for that to be honest.
Most places will still have OTA broadcasts of content, at least from the major networks. That is still "free" but cable/digital TV prices are ridiculous.
Where I live there are no digital broadcast stations available so expensive subscription TV or piracy are the best options.
It's a tragedy of the commons - as an economics problem it matters, sure, but copyright is an artificial monopoly, not a human right. We could provide these more efficiently with public funding of the arts or crowdfunds, without the need to make up imaginary property with imaginary ethics.
But if you want to sign up for a bunch of subscriptions because some might trickle down to the writers, be my guest.
I don't expect it to be there. It just is. I can't go about my day without them shoving ads about it in my face.
I expect the lot of them to get their own damn jobs making food and shit that we actually need so I don't have to work all the damn time just to not afford being able to do my own art.