• LonelyWendigo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yeah that competition really did demonstrate what an awful service all those media monopolies provided.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      To be fair, the service they provide isn’t hosting the videos, it’s making them, which I assume costs a bit more

      • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        To be fairer nobody asked them to produce content. They decided to create it because it’s cheaper that licensing the actual good stuff.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          eh some of it is good, I personally wouldn’t want to just watched licensed shows from 50 years ago

          • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Hence why copyright was originally in the 10-20 year range.

            Movie star isn’t supposed to be a dream job that makes you fabulously rich, but a decent living.

            Interestingly, musical artists who work off the web will do exactly that: Tour and make hundreds of thousands instead of millions (in the aughts and 2010s, so pre-inflation), rather than rolling the dice with the record labels.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Movie star isn’t supposed to be a dream job that makes you fabulously rich, but a decent living.

              I mean, supposed to according to who?

              • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Capitalist ideologues, for one. I remember in Macroeconomics class that wealth desparity will destroy your economy and then your civilization if you let it get out of hand.

                So when (for example) we have eight guys that own more than the poorer half of the world population, that’s a bad sign for every economy on the planet, and is going to cause way more problems than merely discontent and social unrest.

                  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    That’s rather dismissive. Also vague. Are you saying that the notion that wealth disparity is bad is just some guy’s opinion, or that you’re not supposed to be able to get rich being a movie star (or a private equity investor, or a hedge fund manager, or a California gold miner)?

                    Usually when people are vague and terse, I assume they’re losing interest in the conversation. It’s okay to walk away.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The service they provide (from a perspective external to obligatory capitalism) is less about making them, but providing a framework by which people engaged in artistic expression and development get paid and permitted to survive.

        As the COVID-19 Lockdown furloughs demonstrated to us, art manifests so long as people are fed and need something to do. Healthy humans can’t couch-potato for two weeks without fidgeting and whittling wood into bears. And the great resignation that followed showed that enough people were able to make it lucrative (that is, work out marketing and fulfillment enough to make it profitable enough to quit their prior job) that it lowered worker supply that we were able to contest the shit treatment, low pay and toxic work environments that were normal before the epidemic.

        It gets worse in other industries like big pharma in which the state provides vast grants for R&D of drugs and treatments, but the company keeps all the proceeds. Contrast the space program, which is why memory foam (the material) is in the public domain, as is a fuckton of electronics and computer technologies.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The service they provide (from a perspective external to obligatory capitalism) is less about making them, but providing a framework by which people engaged in artistic expression and development get paid and permitted to survive.

          If it is art that other people value then that framework already existed(and there are many others who created similar tools for it) so I don’t see it as particularly valuable.

          Contrast the space program, which is why memory foam (the material) is in the public domain, as is a fuckton of electronics and computer technologies.

          There is a compelling argument that tens of billions of dollars being used productively to research anything would have at least some useful results. Memory foam, cordless drills, etc could have been developed much more cheaply than the Apollo program, GPS is extremely valuable, but Apollo wasn’t a necessary precursor to geostationary orbit.

          • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            If it is art that other people value then that framework already existed

            From Wikipedia on Vincent Van Gogh: Van Gogh’s work began to attract critical artistic attention in the last year of his life. After his death, Van Gogh’s art and life story captured public imagination as an emblem of misunderstood genius

            The art we get from pre-made frameworks emerged because people figured out they like art, and then someone capitalized on that. Or in cases of monarchs and governments, they created a fund to allow artists to do their thing instead of waiting tables.

            There is a compelling argument that tens of billions of dollars being used productively to research anything would have at least some useful results.

            For every $1 spent on the moonshots, we got $14. Feel free to look for other investments, but big science really has proven itself.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              From Wikipedia on Vincent Van Gogh: Van Gogh’s work began to attract critical artistic attention in the last year of his life. After his death, Van Gogh’s art and life story captured public imagination as an emblem of misunderstood genius

              I don’t really understand how this follows from what I said.

              For every $1 spent on the moonshots, we got $14. Feel free to look for other investments, but big science really has proven itself.

              Do you have a source for that? (And what that claim actually means), afterall, plenty of “essential” inventions in the modern day(including the base of modern rocketry) came from weapons development- does that make war a good investment? (Of course its not 1-to-1 because war is destructive, but my point is putting a lot of effort and smart people into almost anything will lead to a lot of innovation)

              • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I don’t really understand how [The bit on Van Gogh – that he was only posthumously appreciated in the art sector] follows from what I said.

                My following paragraph is about that. Art often happens before the framework made to create it. In fact, when we have set up studio, they’re already doing knock-offs, trying to repeat prior successes.

                For every $1 spent on the moonshots, we got $14

                Do you have a source for that?

                This came up during a TED talk on the benefits of investing in big science. On an unrelated research effort, I found the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 which Eisenhower signed during his freak out over Sputnik, and the big grant to Fairchild Superconductor which kicked off the electronics boom in Silicon Valley (~San Jose, California), so the $14 value is certainly plausible.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      As per Das Kapital our industrialists always move to capture regulation and seek to eliminate competition, which are the two aspects that can make capitalism work for the public. Then you have what we have today, late stage capitalism which is about tiers of rent, so everything is both shoddy and expensive.

      That’s how Disney and Warner Brothers (Warner Sister too!) end up owning all the franchises. It’s how Sony owns all the music and sues to take down dancing baby videos.

      The EU and California have both made in-roads to slowing down the steady takeover of regulatory bodies and the mulching and mass merging of megacorps into monolithic monopolies, but they can’t stop it, and both are seeing the bend into precarity that is symptomatic of late stage capitalism.

      That said, true post scarcity communism is realistically a pipe dream well beyond a few great filters we’ve yet to navigate, but we will see small victories, of which piracy – what is essentially crime against ill-gotten gains – offers more than a few.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      To be fair, the service they provide isn’t hosting the videos, it’s making them, which I assume costs a bit more