Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

The problem is the attitude, "I want to get everything and pay for nothing with no sacrifice while being paid as much as possible!" ~ Everyone. It really is what's killing us. If people wouldn't listen to ignore 30 seconds of commercial for about 30 minutes of entertainment (some songs are longer than others), then we really are screwed.

Honestly, I don't think that's what's killing us.  I think it's fine when the poor want that, because they're already sacrificing, and wanting to gain money with little sacrifice isn't a fundamental problem.  The problem is when the people who aren't poor take that route.

The fact remains that I do not want to listen to a 30-second ad for 30 minutes of TV, and that an ad placed there is doing nothing but wasting people's time.  I'm not going to buy the product, I'm not going to look at the product, I'm not going to think about the product.  The company gets the illusion that they're getting something, and I get a little bit more weariness and irritation added to my day with no positive result, save perhaps resentment to whoever is bothering me with an unimaginative and boring ad (note: I have no problems with most of the ads on Japanese television, possibly because they're usually vastly shorter)--which is not something that people should be funding for its own sake.

Which is where we lead into...

Piracy is completely theft and is directly related to how anonymity, ease, and peer-pressure are known to loosen an individual's moral standards on things like theft.

This is not about the right or wrongness of piracy, but about the proposed business model.  I agree with Nadaka on the idea of copyright.  In the era of mass production and mass distribution, the fact remains that we will have piracy, right or wrong, and the smart creators are going to be thinking just about now about how to make money in different ways.  We know that DRM doesn't work, because the American public is not lazy and will crack it.

Truean, you're right.  You don't get something for nothing.  The price for gaining access to X artist's work is supporting the artist so that they can continue work.  But we have all this stuff obscuring that, and making it unclear, places where large distribution companies are taking an undeservedly large cut.

When the public creates a relationship with a creator and understands that they are responsible for his or her continued ability to create, then either

a. They will support that creator or
b. They won't.

And the thing is, that if that creator is doing good work and works hard to also create a relationship with the fans (to create for their audience, that is to say society, to pass a message, to say "there is someone here behind the product," that is to say--to turn themselves into a brand), people will funnel them money to keep the art coming.  Many of them will go out of their way to crowd-control knockoffs of the creator's work, and organize boycotts.  They also often create a fanworks machine, which is excellent for both the creator and for the fans: the creator gets a huge proliferation of advertisement which doesn't feel at all obtrusive, often from heavy supporters of their work, and up-and-coming new artists plug into an audience that will likely also support their transition into original work.

Not everyone is going to get to be a big name artist whose livelihood will be entirely supported by the public.  Most people shouldn't be, and that's fine.  The attitude of entitlement for everything we do is what's killing us, Truean.  It's silly, and it heavily restricts the flow of ideas, of creation.  The poor should have the same right of access to inspiration as the rich, as anyone else.


Oh, and one more thing: if we're all against viewing without paying, then are we going to abolish libraries?  That's where I get most of my ad-free viewing!  You might say it's different because you don't get to have something checked out for more than three weeks (or whatever), and because you have to wait until other people are done with the physical copy of a book or DVD sometimes, and due to late fines... but all those are due to the scarcity model of informational transfer.

What we have here is the new model of the Library of Alexandria, and we're trying to make it pay-per-view.

[Truean]

The attitude of entitlement for everything we do is what's killing us, Truean.

Yup, please see:

The problem is the attitude, "I want to get everything and pay for nothing with no sacrifice while being paid as much as possible!" ~ Everyone.

That's part of it.

So if I understand you, you're saying that it should be pretty much voluntary donation basis for an artist's support via fans? The key component is the fans,who are allowed to do fan works as a sort of advertisement system? My concern with that is the free riders reaching critical mass. In the US, it tends to be everyone thinking, "O someone else should pay for it." The problem with everyone thinking that way, is that then no one pays for it, because 'someone else' should.... Look at our basic infrastructure in this country. We all use it and yet it crumbles as I type.... Some of our water lines are 80 years old with no maintenance. They rupture beneath public square in Cleveland every winter when it snows (thankfully this year it has not really snowed much here so far).

What you're talking about is a lovely system Vector. You place far more faith in people than I do. I fully confess I'm jaded and cynical, but I submit I am not that way without reason.... Please forgive my having an extremely hard time believing that the American Public will williingly pay for something voluntarily when the option of not paying for it is cheaper and right in front of them. There's a difference between being unable to pay and being able but unwilling to pay too. I get it.

The term I believe is "starving artist...." I fear for this. I am an agent for three bands. They are all college graduates with university degrees in music and quite good. It is incredibly difficult to get them anything.

Please excuse my cynical views. I do not trust people. I have seen that trust broken many times for no reason as a rule.

I am in a library right now, as I often am. I am alone here long after the librarians leave. I plan to stay until 10PM or so tonight. I do not pretend to know the reason, but those libraries are closing or downsizing or having funding cuts....

[GlyphGryph]

Except, there will eventually be a balance. Either no one has to pay for it and everyone is happier if most art is created as a hobby (and I'll be honest, I don't see this as something all that miserable), or eventually someone realizes they won't get something without paying for it and art ends up being created that is driven by commissions (which exists, and works, and his how much of the greatest art in history was created), or artists find ways to get people to give them donations to support their work (which happens, and is the way Dwarf Fortress works - it's obviously viable), or artists create enough of an audience willing to experience their work that they can sell the audiences eyeballs to make cash (hello, tv), or artists manage to make their money selling additional experiences on top of the creative work, like merchandise or seminars or concerts or live shows.

Or, more likely, some combination of all the above.

Believe it or not, the arts would probably continue along just fine. The form may change, the distribution model may change, the compensation and number of artists may change, but it's not some sort of death knell for the arts if the corporate model fails.

[Frumple]

... how are donation-ran radio stations still going? It's mostly a tangential thought, but we do have cases of things being supported wholly voluntarily. Maybe NPR isn't actually being supported by donation, somehow Wikipedia is getting cash from somewhere else, and I'm guessing most of the churches in the US are, uh. Not sure, there. But it seems to happen, here and there.

Not saying what's around is sufficient to support as many artists as would like to be full time artists, but there are (at least seemingly) cases of it working out, at least to limited degrees.

[GlyphGryph]

Really, Truean, the extent of what your saying amounts to "If people value entertainment less highly, there will probably be less quality entertainment".

I'm.. not entirely sure why that is a bad thing. There's certainly a lot fewer horse drawn buggies around nowadays, and I'm sure they miss their jobs, but that's not really how economics works.

[Truean]

Really, Truean, the extent of what your saying amounts to "If people value entertainment less highly, there will probably be less quality entertainment".

I'm.. not entirely sure why that is a bad thing. There's certainly a lot fewer horse drawn buggies around nowadays, and I'm sure they miss their jobs, but that's not really how economics works.

I should certainly hope quality entertainment does not go the way of the horse drawn buggy....

If 100,000 people would give an artist $0.50 a year, that'd be $50,000.... Could produce a lot of art for that....

[Frumple]

... personally, I haven't turned to a commercial venue for entertainment, often of solid quality, outside of games for the last several years. Webcomics, fanfiction/original works, various homemade video, etc. Most of the stuff I consume for entertainment neither costs me anything nor is anything asked for by the creator. Donations are sometimes welcome but rarely needed to keep going.

So, uh. I doubt quality entertainment's going anywhere. The TV might be dying a slow death (Thank every god ever, because I hate the noisebox with a passion), but entertainment's sticking around.

[Nadaka]

Really, Truean, the extent of what your saying amounts to "If people value entertainment less highly, there will probably be less quality entertainment".

I'm.. not entirely sure why that is a bad thing. There's certainly a lot fewer horse drawn buggies around nowadays, and I'm sure they miss their jobs, but that's not really how economics works.

When people feel entitled to be highly payed for any shit they poop out, there will be less high quality entertainment because they can do a half assed job without consequence.

I used to love movies and tv. Now, everything is crap and the very few things I enjoy are always canceled in their first season.

[GlyphGryph]

Well, if enough people are like you and feel the same way, I'm pretty sure people will find a way for it to continue.

The fact that it IS continuing and some of the highest quality entertainment I've ever discovered has been produced in the last decade, in the height of the 'piracy problem' leads me to believe it won't disappear any time soon. Others may disagree, but I'd point more towards shifting tastes than any of these other sources being the key to this problem.

But if the population of the world eventually decides that high quality entertainment simply isn't worth it unless its free? (Perhaps they have other better things to do with their time?)

Well, that's how it is. I don't think it will happen, but its not an outcome I think is abhorrently horrible.

And frankly, the best entertainment I've experienced continues to be from the comedy club down the road who, from what I understand, are doing pretty well money wise, and from the various free internet sources. So I really don't think quality entertainment faces any risk of going extinct, though its form may well change.

[Vector]

What you're talking about is a lovely system Vector. You place far more faith in people than I do. I fully confess I'm jaded and cynical, but I submit I am not that way without reason.... Please forgive my having an extremely hard time believing that the American Public will williingly pay for something voluntarily when the option of not paying for it is cheaper and right in front of them. There's a difference between being unable to pay and being able but unwilling to pay too. I get it.

Right, the point is: people are not water mains, and they talk, and they say: "Look, I'm not going to be able to artist for you full-time anymore, because I just do not have the money, and all my time is going to be spent job-hunting and trying not to starve."  And sometimes, this will be because the artist just didn't make it in the market, and that will be okay.

Homestuck fandom keeps track of how haggard the artist looks in photographs and videos that pop up on the internet.  The fans are dedicated to the creator, because he's special and does something they can't.  He is entirely unique.  I could list off example after example to you, but I figured I'd leave you this sem

The American Public is smart enough to understand the idea that "if I, as a fan with enough money to put funds into this artist, do not pay for them, then I will not be able to enjoy their art anymore.  Period."  They can't move elsewhere, to a place with better water mains, that do exactly the same thing (provide water).  The artist is totally unique and irreplaceable.

We want to engineer a system that is entirely certain, with no tragedies, where the artist is always fully compensated for their work, where no trust is necessary, where one never has to fall back on the largesse of friends and family, where we can string society together by force.  But we don't come into the world that way.  And in a world without certainty, distrust breeds more distrust.  The simple act of continuing to have faith and hope while recognizing the absolute chaotic uncertainty of the universe we have been thrown into is a radical one--but it is the only way we can live without constantly deluding ourselves.  Opening oneself to the infinite possibilities of what might be and residing within them, humbly, is the only sensible thing to be done, terrifying as it is.

[Truean]

And, in come the Conservative Religious Police in America.... Yes, it's your constitutionally protected right to discriminate against people you don't like religious people, this certainly includes gays and same sex marriage..... Religions should be allowed to "compete" for state funding. Abortion should be outlawed/all sorts of restrictions and of course, learning institutions should accept faith based thoughts as constitutionally protected.

"But few students are taught to appreciate thereligious convictions that motivated those first Americans to risk everything, and often to paythe ultimate price, to secure that freedom. And fewer still are taught the actual origins of somany of the ideas that produced the American Revolution."

In other words, you want your religion taught in school and if people don't like it, their grades suffer....
"God did it!" A+ Johhny Jimmy, whatever the crap your name is....

What you're talking about is a lovely system Vector. You place far more faith in people than I do. I fully confess I'm jaded and cynical, but I submit I am not that way without reason.... Please forgive my having an extremely hard time believing that the American Public will williingly pay for something voluntarily when the option of not paying for it is cheaper and right in front of them. There's a difference between being unable to pay and being able but unwilling to pay too. I get it.

Right, the point is: people are not water mains, and they talk, and they say: "Look, I'm not going to be able to artist for you full-time anymore, because I just do not have the money, and all my time is going to be spent job-hunting and trying not to starve."  And sometimes, this will be because the artist just didn't make it in the market, and that will be okay.

Homestuck fandom keeps track of how haggard the artist looks in photographs and videos that pop up on the internet.  The fans are dedicated to the creator, because he's special and does something they can't.  He is entirely unique.  I could list off example after example to you, but I figured I'd leave you this sem

The American Public is smart enough to understand the idea that "if I, as a fan with enough money to put funds into this artist, do not pay for them, then I will not be able to enjoy their art anymore.  Period."  They can't move elsewhere, to a place with better water mains, that do exactly the same thing (provide water).  The artist is totally unique and irreplaceable.

We want to engineer a system that is entirely certain, with no tragedies, where the artist is always fully compensated for their work, where no trust is necessary, where one never has to fall back on the largesse of friends and family, where we can string society together by force.  But we don't come into the world that way.  And in a world without certainty, distrust breeds more distrust.  The simple act of continuing to have faith and hope while recognizing the absolute chaotic uncertainty of the universe we have been thrown into is a radical one--but it is the only way we can live without constantly deluding ourselves.  Opening oneself to the infinite possibilities of what might be and residing within them, humbly, is the only sensible thing to be done, terrifying as it is.

The American Public is smart enough to understand the idea that "if I, as a fan with enough money to put funds into this artist, do not pay for them, then I will not be able to enjoy their art anymore.  Period."

.... I'm going to really work to keep in check here, because I can't begin to state how much I disagree with that notion specifically. No, I'm sorry. I'm really sorry but no, they are not. I just can't make that leap. http://www.kfvs12.com/story/16201834/home-burns-while-firefighters-watch The residents of that city refuse to pay for basic firefighting protection in taxes, though doing so would be quite affordable. With no other way to pay for equipment and dare I say, something for the firefighter's time, which may include risking their lives and expensive qualifications training, they instituted a voluntary $75/year fee.

There are people who do not pay it and as you can see, their houses sometimes burn down. They then get furious that the fire department refuses to put out the blaze.

If people won't pay to have basic fire protection services, which you really, really can't do without, then I'm just sorry, but voluntary payment for an artist's services seems.... Nevermind the Congressional budget debacle, local services for mental health getting cut, and everything else....

I just don't see it working. I'm sorry. 

[Vector]

*shrug*

And nothing's going to make me stop feeling like it's the duty of the rich, who have been exploiting the poor at every turn, to provide for the welfare of the people they have been screwing over.

[GlyphGryph]

I think there's a bit of a difference between something crucial to life and happiness and a bit of entertainment. And the people of the city were more than happy to pay for fire service for themselves, they just wanted the people outside the city to pay more.

I really don't see how it is relevant.

[Willfor]

If people won't pay to have basic fire protection services, which you really, really can't do without, then I'm just sorry, but voluntary payment for an artist's services seems.... Nevermind the Congressional budget debacle, local services for mental health getting cut, and everything else....

I just don't see it working. I'm sorry.

http://bandcamp.com/

Seems to be working well so far.

[Truean]

I think there's a bit of a difference between something crucial to life and happiness and a bit of entertainment. And the people of the city were more than happy to pay for fire service for themselves, they just wanted the people outside the city to pay more.

I really don't see how it is relevant.

Cause the people outside the city often don't want to pay ANYTHING for it and just want the other city to provide it for free at their expense....

*shrug*

And nothing's going to make me stop feeling like it's the duty of the rich, who have been exploiting the poor at every turn, to provide for the welfare of the people they have been screwing over.

O, o yeah. I agree with the above. Rather soundly.