This might be slightly off-topic, but I feel that removing economic incentive to create content could potentially weed out a lot of "crap" content that I see today.
I submit, for example, an extremely large percentage of book-to-movie adaptations, movie sequels, and gaming franchises (Call of Duty, anyone?). Most of this content is made purely for the economic incentive, and in my opinion, is mostly garbage. There's little-to-no innovation, just re-hash of stuff that people bought previously, so it's assumed that they'll buy it again. The fact that it works so well is... well, depressing. Then there's the music industry...
How many bands have "sold out" (defined as giving up rights/principles to other entities for economic incentive)? How much of the music that you hear sounds similar to everything else? Again, in my opinion, it's because "artists" are going for less of the "art" and more for the "economic incentive". "Let's do this type of thing because this is what's popular and people will pay money for". That's not how I prefer my "art" produced. Most of my favorite music are from bands *before* they've hit it big, or from independent game developers that are making games that *they* consider to be fun. I haven't seen many good movies from the independent sector, but I think that's because I just don't like movies - they're too passive for my tastes, but I digress!
This discussion is primarily about peoples' opinion (as are so many others), so, by definition, my point of view is going to be wrong. I just felt the need to chime in on the conversation. Flame on!:)
(hmm... preview mode is removing my line breaks - apologies if this is a wall of text!)
In addition to simple and cheap, there are NO commercials. At all. Hulu has "arguably" better content, but the constant commercials make me not want to subscribe. Cable has many things wrong with it, IMHO, but the biggest one is the commercials. I'm personally happy to pay less than cable to watch whatever I want (within allowable selection, which is quite large!) with no interruptions at all... no time compressed to fit a time slot... no content filtering or censoring. That's what's awesome about Netflix.
To bring this mini-rant on topic, I don't have any preconceived notions about what Verizon will do with Netflix if they end up purchasing it, but please for the love of god, make it commercial free!
That is CURRENTLY how they work. but if the advertisers change their tactics then the ad-blockers likely will as well.
This seems like the same paradigm that piracy/anti-piracy follows. The pirates will, by definition, always be one step ahead because anti-piracy is reactionary. Translating this to the current discussion, advertisers will always be one step ahead because anti-ad software is reactionary.
Just $0.02.
Sadly, both the public and the government seems to have forgotten that copyright is a government fiat made with the hope of driving artistic production and not a natural right.
Most insightful comment.
A corporation does not have the "right" to exist, or to make a profit, or to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The best thing that could happen is if every member of the RIAA was boycotted to the point of going out of business, just to show them who's boss. I know I'm doing my part.
How many movies, how many games are simply gone because whoever created them doesn't want to sell them to you? How many ideas, characters and plots cannot be brought back to life because those that had an idea to use them are not allowed to use them, and who may doesn't want to for whatever reason?
While I agree with the majority of your post, if I create something and decide to stop selling it, lock it away, and never let it see the light of day, that should be my right. At least until it becomes public domain anyway.
As already mentioned in earlier comments, League of Legends is another good one. The game play is based in strategy and teamwork and they have a strict "do not sell power" policy. While they are a for-profit company, real money is not required at all. In fact, nothing that gives you an in-game advantage can even be purchased with real money - only with points earned through game play.
The secondary difference is that games in the past ended. In fact, as a seller you wanted me to complete your game as fast as possible, while still being satisfied with it. That combination meant you were ready to buy the next game I released.
Of course, you're referring to games in the past like Asteroids, Pac Man, Dig Dug, and Donkey Kong, right? (Technically Pac Man and Donkey Kong "could" end, but only by glitch that could only be reached if you were super-awesome good at the game - they didn't end by design).
Slashdot Mirror
Yep... wall of text. :(
This might be slightly off-topic, but I feel that removing economic incentive to create content could potentially weed out a lot of "crap" content that I see today. I submit, for example, an extremely large percentage of book-to-movie adaptations, movie sequels, and gaming franchises (Call of Duty, anyone?). Most of this content is made purely for the economic incentive, and in my opinion, is mostly garbage. There's little-to-no innovation, just re-hash of stuff that people bought previously, so it's assumed that they'll buy it again. The fact that it works so well is ... well, depressing. Then there's the music industry...
How many bands have "sold out" (defined as giving up rights/principles to other entities for economic incentive)? How much of the music that you hear sounds similar to everything else? Again, in my opinion, it's because "artists" are going for less of the "art" and more for the "economic incentive". "Let's do this type of thing because this is what's popular and people will pay money for". That's not how I prefer my "art" produced. Most of my favorite music are from bands *before* they've hit it big, or from independent game developers that are making games that *they* consider to be fun. I haven't seen many good movies from the independent sector, but I think that's because I just don't like movies - they're too passive for my tastes, but I digress!
This discussion is primarily about peoples' opinion (as are so many others), so, by definition, my point of view is going to be wrong. I just felt the need to chime in on the conversation. Flame on! :)
(hmm... preview mode is removing my line breaks - apologies if this is a wall of text!)
In addition to simple and cheap, there are NO commercials. At all. Hulu has "arguably" better content, but the constant commercials make me not want to subscribe. Cable has many things wrong with it, IMHO, but the biggest one is the commercials. I'm personally happy to pay less than cable to watch whatever I want (within allowable selection, which is quite large!) with no interruptions at all... no time compressed to fit a time slot... no content filtering or censoring. That's what's awesome about Netflix. To bring this mini-rant on topic, I don't have any preconceived notions about what Verizon will do with Netflix if they end up purchasing it, but please for the love of god, make it commercial free!
Prophag.
That is CURRENTLY how they work. but if the advertisers change their tactics then the ad-blockers likely will as well.
This seems like the same paradigm that piracy/anti-piracy follows. The pirates will, by definition, always be one step ahead because anti-piracy is reactionary. Translating this to the current discussion, advertisers will always be one step ahead because anti-ad software is reactionary. Just $0.02.
That'd be pretty interesting to see, actually. :)
Most insightful comment.
A corporation does not have the "right" to exist, or to make a profit, or to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The best thing that could happen is if every member of the RIAA was boycotted to the point of going out of business, just to show them who's boss. I know I'm doing my part.
I've been doing it for years. :)
By the same token, are they required to sell devices that they don't want to sell (such as, devices that don't comply to internal standards)?
How many movies, how many games are simply gone because whoever created them doesn't want to sell them to you? How many ideas, characters and plots cannot be brought back to life because those that had an idea to use them are not allowed to use them, and who may doesn't want to for whatever reason?
While I agree with the majority of your post, if I create something and decide to stop selling it, lock it away, and never let it see the light of day, that should be my right. At least until it becomes public domain anyway.
As already mentioned in earlier comments, League of Legends is another good one. The game play is based in strategy and teamwork and they have a strict "do not sell power" policy. While they are a for-profit company, real money is not required at all. In fact, nothing that gives you an in-game advantage can even be purchased with real money - only with points earned through game play.
The secondary difference is that games in the past ended. In fact, as a seller you wanted me to complete your game as fast as possible, while still being satisfied with it. That combination meant you were ready to buy the next game I released.
Of course, you're referring to games in the past like Asteroids, Pac Man, Dig Dug, and Donkey Kong, right? (Technically Pac Man and Donkey Kong "could" end, but only by glitch that could only be reached if you were super-awesome good at the game - they didn't end by design).
So has Netflix... it's still included in the provider listing to make it look larger.
Honestly, I feel a professor shouldn't need to be a technical savant for this to become a reality. That's what we have IT departments for! :)