5 ms·

The Internet broke the whole idea of charging for a digital copy of something. We’re seeing a struggle of powers as old power tries to cling on to the idea of c

The Internet broke the whole idea of charging for a digital copy of something. We’re seeing a struggle of powers as old power tries to cling on to the idea of charging people for digital copies but it will end sooner or later. One needs to think outside the box of capitalism being an appropriate system for all aspects of society.

manigandham 11y ago
What does that even mean? We have to switch the entire economic paradigm we live in so that people can be paid for their work?
- camgunz 11y ago
  The problem is having to be paid at all. There ought to be a system whereby people can exist at a reasonable standard of living and still do the work they want to do, i.e. Basic Income. There's enough food, shelter and medicine to accommodate everyone on the planet right now, but the top 10% hoard way more than their share. Do they deserve it because they work harder? No, they're just born into luxury, and there's nothing capitalistic or meritocratic about it. You ought to be able to make a show or a film without having to leverage everything you own. You ought to be able to work on making cameras and stages if you like to do that stuff. You ought to be able to watch one of these shows/films made using those cameras/stages for free, and then go to your house and work on a project of your own, and not worry about whether that project will be profitable enough to allow you to eat or be housed. The key point is we have the resources. Eventually we'll get there, but it's gonna take a long, long time.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    I'm not sure where to begin with your comment and all the strange and inaccurate things it says... but this kind of idyllic utopia (which to me seems like some horrible mind-numbing lifestyle) will never exist. Economic incentive is the cornerstone of modern effective society. Basic Income might work but it's far more complicated than you make it seem and it's not something that just lets everyone do whatever they want, it's a way to raise living standards and equalize some of the disproportions in power and wealth but there will need to be industry and incentive to create the income in the first place.
    - camgunz 11y ago
      Well yeah I mean, I'm not gonna write a dissertation on HN. I like to think the future is more Star Trek (do whatever you want, free food/shelter/awesomeness) than Star Wars (pretty much what we have now with some new toys and psychic powers). But I disagree that "there will need to be industry and incentive to create the income in the first place". I think people largely just do stuff because either they're coerced, they need to survive, or they think it's cool. Open source is a good example of #3, and I think that's gonna be the chief motivator as the world continues to develop.
      - ohitsdom 11y ago
        I did immediately think "Star Wars" when I read your original comment. This is very off topic, but something I've been thinking about lately. Will basic needs ever be taken care of for everyone, so we can work on whatever we want? I get that economic incentive is the "cornerstone of modern society", but what about the society of the future? It's hard to imagine, but then again I also have a hard time imagining only 150 years ago (in the US) we were lining up and shooting each other for the right to own other people.
        ohitsdom 11y ago
        Excuse me- Star Trek.
        camgunz 11y ago
        Yeah it might happen sooner than we think. Maybe with the advent of really cheap power (fusion) we'll start to let up on things... but I'm guessing all that will mean is the rich will get richer. The problem, unfortunately, is both technological AND political, so that's why I'm leaning towards "long time". But you're right though, 150 years ago the world was unrecognizable so, who knows what will happen in just the next 50?
- yellowapple 11y ago
  This wouldn't be the first time. It probably won't be the last. All that's required in this case is a shift away from traditional per-copy earnings toward more modern earnings via content/trademark licensing and streaming/broadcast rights, supplemented with box office earnings (for movies) and ad revenues on free streaming/broadcast services (for television shows).
  - manigandham 11y ago
    That I'm fine with, and consider more of a business model change. I'm taking in regards to the other comments with the "capitalism is no-good/evil" nonsense.
anigbrowl 11y ago
Well do get in touch when someone sets up a postcapitalist film company that's willing to pay for camera rental, meals, wages and all the other expenses that go into making a film, because the fixed costs of making the original work haven't gone away. I find discussions like this one really aggravating to read because there seems to be total indifference to the fact that producing a movie to entertain you for two hours while you sit on the couch or wherever involves a massive amount of time, hard work, and risk from a large number of people.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  And the hand-over-fist profits from box office earnings, merchandising deals, content/trademark licensing, etc. have been insufficient since... when, exactly? Those are the places that the Internet Age hasn't really usurped yet. The old "record a theater showing with a camera" trick is nowhere near desirable quality for most people, and piracy does nothing for those hoping to use a particular trademark in order to make money on some product based on Elsa the Snow Queen or Luke Skywalker or Winnie the Pooh or whatever other character one wants to plaster on a backpack or notebook or turn into an action figure. Those are the realms where the future of capitalist film production lies (TV is a slightly different story; merchandising is still an effective monetization strategy, but box office earnings are nonexistent unless you make movie spinoffs (se also: My Little Pony), yet are replaceable with ad revenues in both online streaming and conventional broadcasting, both of which are incredibly popular).
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    Hand-over-fist profits? Only at the very top of the market. If you're producer of one of the top 50 or so films, yes people are shoving money at you. In the top 100, you probably broke even and people will be shoving money at you when it hits the home video market. In the top 101-200 films, You'll most likely make your money back and enjoy a modest profit. Outside of the top 200 films? Then your box office takings were certainly under $1 million (except for about 10 films), and more to the point most people haven't heard of your film. Have a look at yearly box office #s on a site like boxofficemojo, and look at some of the other 6-800 films that get a US theatrical release each year. Many good films have box office numbers that are measured in thousands, and remember that box office numbers are gross - as a rule of thumb, only 1/3 of the box office goes back to the distributor, the rest stays in the theater. What you seem to be overlooking here is that while some films do indeed make money hand over fist, for the many more than don't, piracy is just as big a problem - not because so many people are pirating an obscure or somewhat unpopular film who would otherwise have paid for it (although this is a problem for quite a few films, eg Terry Gilliam's last film had dreadful box office because they didn't have much money to advertise, but was very popular on file-sharing sites), but because piracy makes it increasingly difficult to come up with any kind of meaningful estimate about a film's long-term earning potential. that in turn makes it much harder to raise financing for a film. It's definitely tougher than it was 10 years ago when I got into the business. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?page=1&view=releasedate&view2=domestic&yr=2014&p=.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?page=1&view=relea...

manigandham 11y ago

What does that even mean? We have to switch the entire economic paradigm we live in so that people can be paid for their work?

camgunz 11y ago
The problem is having to be paid at all. There ought to be a system whereby people can exist at a reasonable standard of living and still do the work they want to do, i.e. Basic Income. There's enough food, shelter and medicine to accommodate everyone on the planet right now, but the top 10% hoard way more than their share. Do they deserve it because they work harder? No, they're just born into luxury, and there's nothing capitalistic or meritocratic about it. You ought to be able to make a show or a film without having to leverage everything you own. You ought to be able to work on making cameras and stages if you like to do that stuff. You ought to be able to watch one of these shows/films made using those cameras/stages for free, and then go to your house and work on a project of your own, and not worry about whether that project will be profitable enough to allow you to eat or be housed. The key point is we have the resources. Eventually we'll get there, but it's gonna take a long, long time.
- manigandham 11y ago
  I'm not sure where to begin with your comment and all the strange and inaccurate things it says... but this kind of idyllic utopia (which to me seems like some horrible mind-numbing lifestyle) will never exist. Economic incentive is the cornerstone of modern effective society. Basic Income might work but it's far more complicated than you make it seem and it's not something that just lets everyone do whatever they want, it's a way to raise living standards and equalize some of the disproportions in power and wealth but there will need to be industry and incentive to create the income in the first place.
  - camgunz 11y ago
    Well yeah I mean, I'm not gonna write a dissertation on HN. I like to think the future is more Star Trek (do whatever you want, free food/shelter/awesomeness) than Star Wars (pretty much what we have now with some new toys and psychic powers). But I disagree that "there will need to be industry and incentive to create the income in the first place". I think people largely just do stuff because either they're coerced, they need to survive, or they think it's cool. Open source is a good example of #3, and I think that's gonna be the chief motivator as the world continues to develop.
    - ohitsdom 11y ago
      I did immediately think "Star Wars" when I read your original comment. This is very off topic, but something I've been thinking about lately. Will basic needs ever be taken care of for everyone, so we can work on whatever we want? I get that economic incentive is the "cornerstone of modern society", but what about the society of the future? It's hard to imagine, but then again I also have a hard time imagining only 150 years ago (in the US) we were lining up and shooting each other for the right to own other people.
      - ohitsdom 11y ago
        Excuse me- Star Trek.
      - camgunz 11y ago
        Yeah it might happen sooner than we think. Maybe with the advent of really cheap power (fusion) we'll start to let up on things... but I'm guessing all that will mean is the rich will get richer. The problem, unfortunately, is both technological AND political, so that's why I'm leaning towards "long time". But you're right though, 150 years ago the world was unrecognizable so, who knows what will happen in just the next 50?
yellowapple 11y ago
This wouldn't be the first time. It probably won't be the last. All that's required in this case is a shift away from traditional per-copy earnings toward more modern earnings via content/trademark licensing and streaming/broadcast rights, supplemented with box office earnings (for movies) and ad revenues on free streaming/broadcast services (for television shows).
- manigandham 11y ago
  That I'm fine with, and consider more of a business model change. I'm taking in regards to the other comments with the "capitalism is no-good/evil" nonsense.

anigbrowl 11y ago

Well do get in touch when someone sets up a postcapitalist film company that's willing to pay for camera rental, meals, wages and all the other expenses that go into making a film, because the fixed costs of making the original work haven't gone away. I find discussions like this one really aggravating to read because there seems to be total indifference to the fact that producing a movie to entertain you for two hours while you sit on the couch or wherever involves a massive amount of time, hard work, and risk from a large number of people.

yellowapple 11y ago
And the hand-over-fist profits from box office earnings, merchandising deals, content/trademark licensing, etc. have been insufficient since... when, exactly? Those are the places that the Internet Age hasn't really usurped yet. The old "record a theater showing with a camera" trick is nowhere near desirable quality for most people, and piracy does nothing for those hoping to use a particular trademark in order to make money on some product based on Elsa the Snow Queen or Luke Skywalker or Winnie the Pooh or whatever other character one wants to plaster on a backpack or notebook or turn into an action figure. Those are the realms where the future of capitalist film production lies (TV is a slightly different story; merchandising is still an effective monetization strategy, but box office earnings are nonexistent unless you make movie spinoffs (se also: My Little Pony), yet are replaceable with ad revenues in both online streaming and conventional broadcasting, both of which are incredibly popular).
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Hand-over-fist profits? Only at the very top of the market. If you're producer of one of the top 50 or so films, yes people are shoving money at you. In the top 100, you probably broke even and people will be shoving money at you when it hits the home video market. In the top 101-200 films, You'll most likely make your money back and enjoy a modest profit. Outside of the top 200 films? Then your box office takings were certainly under $1 million (except for about 10 films), and more to the point most people haven't heard of your film. Have a look at yearly box office #s on a site like boxofficemojo, and look at some of the other 6-800 films that get a US theatrical release each year. Many good films have box office numbers that are measured in thousands, and remember that box office numbers are gross - as a rule of thumb, only 1/3 of the box office goes back to the distributor, the rest stays in the theater. What you seem to be overlooking here is that while some films do indeed make money hand over fist, for the many more than don't, piracy is just as big a problem - not because so many people are pirating an obscure or somewhat unpopular film who would otherwise have paid for it (although this is a problem for quite a few films, eg Terry Gilliam's last film had dreadful box office because they didn't have much money to advertise, but was very popular on file-sharing sites), but because piracy makes it increasingly difficult to come up with any kind of meaningful estimate about a film's long-term earning potential. that in turn makes it much harder to raise financing for a film. It's definitely tougher than it was 10 years ago when I got into the business. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?page=1&view=releasedate&view2=domestic&yr=2014&p=.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?page=1&view=relea...