The future of the entertainment industry

I figured it would be something like that (and I've heard the same sentiment expressed in different ways). And, I did say that this would be an issue.

~raises eyebrow~

So the rich and big business are evil, but government is worse? Seriously, I don't understand why I'm expected to trust businesses, big or small, with such things when I can't even vote for their owners.

I guess it could be like the BBC, where the government just funds it, but doesn't actually run it...

Edit: And where do you get "the government deciding how much artists get paid" from? I said that artists should get some baseline average (which is equal for every artist but should probably vary based on the medium of the art being produced), along with some bonus based on number of views/downloads/whatever. They could have unions, I guess, to negotiate exactly what amount these fees would be, and I wouldn't even think they'd be classified as government employees; the closest classification I can think of would be "freelance," but...

edited 18th Nov '11 4:54:50 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Giving artist tenure could reduce influence of politics on art, that's how they doing it on science and liberal arts.

Giving artist money for recording and copyright is actually new concept. before modern era, singer and musician only get money from live performances. Entertainment industry will just have to return to their past, depending on patronage, tenure, donation, and live performance. culture might be reduced, but certainly will not disappear.

I don't see why donations wouldn't work on a large scale. I agree with the person earlier in the thread who mentioned the fact that we already are living in a de facto donation system, because there is no scarcity anymore and nobody NEEDS to buy entertainment anymore. People who are buying things now will keep buying them even after law catches up with reality on the ground.

I don't expect my "No IP, ever" ideas become law because of the global dominance of western capitalist ideology, but I still think that enforced scarcity is absolutely ridiculous, especially since it's not very enforceable.

As for government support. I heard about orchestras in Finland being 50% funded by the government, so this could work. Germany is another country that provides lots of funding to the arts, but I have some vague recollections about some artists complaining that they are not being funded while somebody else is.

edited 19th Nov '11 3:14:28 AM by fanty

@USAF: Because the IS Ps get no say on which artists to fund either. Give that money to artist's associations on the basis of their membership or whatever other objective, content-neutral criteria.

That way you can have socialized art without censorship of any sort.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

^ Wouldn't that end with loads and loads of self proclaimed "artists" getting paid for producing nonsense nobody actually wants?

Sure, that's a problem: That's why I argue for having views by unique people as the criteria for how much each artist gets.

On one hand, you've got all American art. On the other hand, you've got all American views. You've got a limited amount of global license cash collected by American IS Ps: Make the chunk of that loot each artist get be simply dependent on their views/downloads, in a purely content-neutral way.

edited 19th Nov '11 4:41:19 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I think basing government/ISP tax/whatever support on how much an artist is already earning would be much more reasonable and much more simple. I like the 50% thing, so if you're an artist who earns 1000 dollars a month from merchandise/donations/concerts/whatever, then you'll be getting paid an additional 1000, and so on. *

edited 19th Nov '11 4:53:47 AM by fanty

What if the global license doesn't have revenues totalling 50% of what all artists earn through all other revenue streams?

edited 19th Nov '11 4:55:29 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Yeah, I forgot to add a caveat about not giving support to those who are already drowning in cash. (The withdrawal of support would have to be progressive, kinda like tax.)

Huh, nijaed by the edit. To answer the new question: I don't know. I suppose the amount of support would have to go down? If there's a genuine shortage of funds then there's not much you can do. Donations/merchandise/whatever should be the main thing artists rely on.

BY THE WAY, I don't think this support is as needed as some think. The "it's already a de facto donation system"-thing fits in here.

edited 19th Nov '11 5:04:36 AM by fanty

All of the extreme ends in this thread remind me of this old anecdote:

We all appear to have already accepted the legitimacy of entire mediums that are able to make profits, but not (solely) from seling copies (e.g. TV broadcasting, webcomics, online articles). We already established that it can work in theory and sometimes in practice. But as soon as we start haggling about specifically which (if any) more other mediums should use these business models, and in what execution, everyone makes a moral issue out of it, and starts screaming extremes about the "artist's inherent right to charge for everything", and "the people's inherent right to do whatever they want with content."

Savage Heathen: We already established, that copyright is neccessary if creators want to get any compensation from their work. You already established this, by suggesting ads, merch, and collectible physical copies, as ways to do that. All of these need some sort of "copyright" to work. Otherwise, TV stations could just make a copy of the rival station's show, and air it without the ads that supporte it's prduction. Or I could just collect all webcomics on allwebcomicshere.com, and also make my own merch for them.

In practice, you don't really believe that artists should have literally zero content control over their content, you are only haggling with them for relatively less copyright than others would. Or if you do, just admit that really, donations are the only way for any artist to get money, and you don't really believe in actually making any business from media.

USAF 713, Jeysie: We already established that copyright doesn't mean that creators don't literally have infinite control over their work. As I said earlier, there are entire mediums, that if you want to get into, you have to accept that they will only make a living for you you thrugh other means than selling copies. Sure, in theory, you could try to be the only TV show director who directly asks $10 from every viewer before giving them the show, or a webcomic artist with a similar system, but these attempts would fail. In practice, if you have a skill in TV show-making, or webcomic writing, you can choose between getting payed through ads, or flipping burgers in Mc Donalds. And this is not because all TV viewers and webcomic readers are entitled freeloading assholes, but because that's how those systems work: Not by limiting the number of copies, but by sharing them freely, and companies paying through ads.

Also, I assume that we all argee that Fair Use should exist, or that copyright should expire after a number of years: In other words, we agree that there are certain cases when it's OK to download paarts of an artist's work, without paying. So don't really objectively believe that every artist always has a right to take a toll toll if you touch their work. It only works at certain conditions. That's not "Total artist control".

So if others suggest that maybe video games, music, movies, etc, should also follow a similar system, then start haggling with them for relatively more copyright, argue why that system is more effective, instead of suddenly pretending that you are not "that kind of woman", and forgetting that you already gave up those rights when the price was right.

edited 19th Nov '11 5:13:21 AM by Ever9

I like how the clothing industry deals with this (there are no clothing copyrights). They know that their "target demographic" will keep buying their ridiculously overpriced clothes, regardless of all the cheap knockoffs. People see irrational intangible value in buying a certain thing in a certain shop for a certain price.

Which is also the reason why I don't buy bootlegged C Ds, regardless of the fact that the legit ones cost 10 times more (where I live). I know it makes no sense, people laugh at me, but my god, does it give me the warm fuzzies.

edited 19th Nov '11 5:25:41 AM by fanty

Noncommercial copyright infringement by private people is sacrosanct. Its legalization is non-negotiable.

As long as I can forward any content I access to whoever I wish, my free speech rights are upheld. As soon as there's a crackdown on noncommercial individual privacy, free speech gets raped up its butt.

Whether you should be allowed to commercially redistribute content you're not the author of without permission from the creator, I couldn't care less: Noncommercial free speech is sacred and any restriction at all is unacceptable.

edited 19th Nov '11 5:32:21 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

The scoffers are idiots. Much better to torrent, than buy, pirated stuff.

Enjoy the Inferno...

But exactly because people see a value in the brand, even when the branded cloth is made in the same factory as the non-branded, we could say that the brand is the product itself. So copying the whole clothing design, and adding a modified brand name, and selling it in stores like that, is like The Mockbuster, similar-looking but an openly lesser experience. Actually copying the whole the brand name with it, that is a trademark, can and will be sued.

Even with physical content piracy, like bootlegged C Ds, you could make that argument. What you get through official means, is a better content. But with online media, the content is exactly the same, regardless of where you download it from. The data in the file is the only content.

In my examples, commercially pirated content would be even superior to the original: allwebcomicshere.com would be a handy collection of everything that you want to read, at the same place, and my TV station would barely need a few ads to support the airing itself, unlike "those suckers" who actually try to support the whole production from their ads.

Then don't say that you want to "abolish copyright", if you only want to "abolish the pay-per-download model". If you use incorrect phrases, you will be misunderstood. For example Creative Commons is a form of copyright, and it allows free non-commercial sharing. If you don't want to abolish it, than you don't want to abolish all copyright.

edited 19th Nov '11 6:07:45 AM by Ever9

C Ds are not about the files on the disk, they are about looking pretty on your bookshelf, and knowing that you've sent some money the creator's way. I treat books the same way, which is why I only buy hardbacks, they look very pretty on my bookshelf.

(Legally downloading a music file is pretty much purely a donation, since, indeed, the content is exactly the same.)

edited 19th Nov '11 6:04:02 AM by fanty

There is that. I tend to buy stuff I end up liking, for similar reasons.

Enjoy the Inferno...

Exactly. That's why artists must get to keep their copyright on physical copies, so only they can sell them as a form of merchandize.

Otherwise no one has any reason to buy the artist's own pretty version of their books and discs, rather than every publisher selling identical or superior copies in the same shops, for less money. (The same way as they release classical books and music.)

Only a few hardcore fans would care to buy the "original" version, that would be more expensive to cover the production costs. And again, this would essentially be a donation.

edited 19th Nov '11 6:05:27 AM by Ever9

For me, knowing that I've sent some money the creator's way is a crucial part of this. Maybe I'd be one of those "hardcore fans" of stuff, I don't know, but somehow I don't think that (most) people would bother BYUING something when they know that their money isn't going to the creator.

(I get the physical copy, I get the warm fuzzies, it's not really a donation. But wait, what's wrong with donations?)

edited 19th Nov '11 6:12:45 AM by fanty

What you call "warm fuzzies" comes from three different ways. Some of it comes from getting a legal copy. Some of it comes from getting a nice-looking physical object. Some of it comes from knowing that you supported the developer.

The overall effect exists, because these three elements combined make it evident. Using it for veiled donations only, is problematic, because it's not as clear that the user wanted to donate, as if they would have clicked on a donate button.

What if we separate all these elements from each other?

For example, when World Of Goo had a "download the game for whatever price you want" event, several people grabbed the opportunity to download it for one cent. They didn't want to give money to the devs, they didn't want to get a disc, just avoid doing something illegal. Others paid even much more than the original price, obviously as a barely-even-veiled donation. And all of these payed even though they didn't get a disc. So this event was mostly influenced by the first and third elements. Maybe if they would have sold actual discs, the stats would be even more different, with some people paying enough to cover the disc's price, but wouldn't bother to reward the content itself.

Edit: Now that I think about it, there is example for popular unlicensed merch: Bronies. The official Hasbro My Little Pony merchandize sucks ass, so bronies make their own (technically illegal but Hasbro doesn't bother with bronies) T-shirts, pins, plushies, etc, and sometimes sell it to each other on ebay.

So there is a rather large demographic of "I just want ponies on my table, I don't care where they comme from" mentality.

edited 19th Nov '11 7:01:52 AM by Ever9

Because the technology didn't exist back then. If you wanted a performance from a creator, you needed to hope the creator was willing to perform in your area and that you could afford to go. Most culture could only be experienced by the rich and well-travelled.

But with the advent of technology and recording, suddenly everyone could experience a performance on their own terms. Suddenly creators could perform for everyone, not just for a select group of people. And people in return could get to experience culture even if they weren't rich or weren't able to travel to performance areas.

So I mean, listen to yourself. You say that "culture might be reduced" like we're supposed to take that as acceptable. Why we should accept it having to be reduced, when we could... I don't know... just stop being freeloaders and acknowledge that we have a duty to pay people for their work.

You also act like musicians only being able to pay for live performances is a good thing. I don't know about you, but I live in the middle of Podunk, USA. If I want to go view a live performance, I generally have to pay $60+ for a bus ticket to Boston or Albany, then $75 for a night at a hotel, then $50+ for the ticket itself. All to have to stand around in a middle of a crowd when I hate crowds and have the stereo system quite likely be much louder than I like my playback volume.

Or... the creator could say, "Hey, you give me $10, I give you this album you can play on any compatible personal playback device you like, at a sound level you like, in the privacy of your own quiet home." And I say, "Wow, awesome, this is way more convenient than having to spend ten times the amount to listen to you perform in person in an environment that I hate being in. I love technology."

Oh, and the sound quality is often better in recordings, and if I decide I'm a horrible pop culture person who actually likes Shiny Happy People only to find out that REM has decided they hate the song and refuse to play it live any more, well, I still have a way to listen to it.

So yeah. Why should a creator have to make their money all off live performances, when it's not even convenient or affordable for me as a consumer to have to go to live performances to be able to officially support an artist?

Same with t-shirts and other merchandise. Sure, I could spend $$$ on a t-shirt I'm probably not going to wear because I don't do logo or branded shirts, or buy merchandise that's just going to sit around collecting dust because I don't do knickknacks and I'd rather buy plain and simply designed practical things. Sure I could sit through obnoxious ads for things I'm never going to buy.

Or I could just spend $10 on the album directly and get the aspect of the artist that actually benefits me. Again, it's just as more convenient for me as it is for the artist.

And yeah, I could think up how much the album is worth and donate money... or I could just go, "Oh, they want $10 for the album through their store. Sure. Clink, here's your money, whoosh, here's my album. Thanks!" I have enough things to think about without haggling over donations.

And so on, and so on. Quite frankly all these "alternatives" people come up with sound inconvenient and/or more expensive for me, so they're not even a good deal for me let alone the creator.

And this is just talking about stuff that has live performances. There is no such thing as a live performance for film, TV, video games, books, etc. So it's either pay for a copy of the content, or pay for ads and merchandise that I don't care about or want any more than the creator likely does.

I already addressed how just because it's easy to steal the results of someone's work doesn't mean that work is actually worthless or that they're entitled to give you their work for free. Go back and read my posts.

Of course. The thing is though, this needs to be done in a controlled way that both creator and consumer agree to. Not a situation like now where only the creator dictates the terms (and sometimes it's not even the creator that gets to dictate them but the publisher), or a situation folks like Savage want where only the consumer dictates the terms. Neither one has the right to make unilateral demands over the other.

Copyright doesn't restrict your right to express your own ideas in any way. It just doesn't give you the right to express other people's ideas, or override the other person's right to decide who they want to express their ideas to, when, and how. You basically want to take away creators' right to their own free speech in favor of your free speech. It doesn't work that way; everyone gets the same rights.

*headdesk*

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13214765590A03882100&page=2#42

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13214765590A03882100&page=3#67

It's hilarious, really. The publishers pushing draconian DRM measures don't understand how society or technology works, while the consumers pushing for free content don't understand a single thing about how the creative process actually works. Meanwhile, those of us who DO understand how this all works want to slap the fuck out of both sides and tell you to grow brains and learn how things actually work before you go making any statements about it.

edited 19th Nov '11 7:16:26 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Reading comprehension failure. My sentence that you Quote Mined wasn't even talking about the effects of piracy, but mediums that were, since their very birth, based on some other type of profits than taking away money from everyone for experiencing it. For example TV Shows, Webcomics, or Online Journalism.

At first, when I pointed this out in post #38, about TV being pay-per-experience, you replied at #40 that

Later in the post you also pointed out that "you don't watch TV for free. You're expected to pay for it via either cable subscriptions or experiencing advertising" So watching advertising is a form of payment, huh?

Yet, when in #70, Savage Heathen suggested things "such as sale of merchandise, advertising" as a revenue sources, you replied this in #71:

So the TV model is giving artists "paychecks directly for their work", and audiences are allowed to experience it even if they pay for it solely through "experiencing advertising", yet at the same time, advertising has "nothing to do with their skill", so getting their paychecks through it is "essentially slave labor. "

Now which is it? Is Ad-supported media, like TV broadcasting essentially slave labor, or is it all about customers paying to the network by watching advertising, and the network paying artists directly for their work?

edited 19th Nov '11 8:27:32 AM by Ever9

Yes, it is a form of payment because that's how the creators themselves chose to do it.

I never once said creators couldn't choose to get money via advertising. I never once said that wasn't a valid way for creators to get money. Creators can choose to get money any way they like.

What I said was wrong was that advertising, merchandise, etc. should be only way creators should be able to get money. It's wrong that we should demand that creators only get money via advertising or merchandise. That while it's OK for creators to choose to make money in a way other than their main skill, it's wrong that they should have to do so.

See the word have in there? That's why I said that. Words mean things, and there's reasons why I use specific words. Yes, there are other possible revenue streams. Yes, creators can choose to use them. But Savage and other people say they should have to use only them, because they shouldn't also be able to choose to get money directly from their skill instead, and that is the wrong part that I take issue with.

A creator can certainly choose to record a song out of pocket and then play it for free in Times Square and get any money by having people donate for song-logo-branded underwear. That's all their choice. It's demanding that they do that, forcing it even on creators that don't want to peddle their performances that way, for no reason other than people think they're entitled to free stuff, that's the problem here.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Of course! You don't get to restrict the spreading of any idea, including yours. Once you've said it, it's on record.

Non-creative workers don't get paid each and every time one someone uses the products they sell. They don't get to restrict how you can use the property they've sold you, either. Why should artists have privileges that encroach on the people's freedoms?

I sure as Hell ain't paid every month for code I wrote years ago: I get paid when I write it, because I write it for a customer. Writing one book back in the day and expecting to profit from it all life long goes beyond garden variety greed: That's a disgusting entitlement mentality. If you used to make music, but don't make music anymore, I fail to see why you should get continued revenues for your past work unlike, say, a plumber.

edited 19th Nov '11 8:33:25 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Yes you do. All ideas have spreading restrictions on them. In all written mediums, for instance, there's entire formal rules about how much you're allowed to verbatim quote, when, how, and how to give appropriate credit to the original source, some of which are legally enforceable. Copyright and resulting proper usage and attribution of existing speech and ideas is far more than just a matter of whether or not you're paying for an mp3, and some of the attribution rules actually existed well before formal copyright did, even if only as a social convention you could be shunned by your professional community for ignoring.

Because otherwise you're encroaching on the artist's rights and freedoms. Freedom and rights are a two-way street; you don't get to have more freedom and rights than the artists.

I mean, that's what all your arguments boil down to really; you think you should have full freedom and rights at the cost of other people having their freedom and rights curtailed for your benefit. Uh-uh. Not gonna fly.

edited 19th Nov '11 8:38:46 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

There's entire formal rules that are on their last generation. Once the first generation entirely raised with Internet access and piracy get into power (and they will, since the old farts will eventually die off, Gods be thanked) copyrights will get axed. It's a matter of when, not if: The younger generation loathes copyright, and eventually they will be in a position to kill it.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.