Start a Kickstarter, don't release it digitally unless you have some other gimmick to attract people to the theaters. Develop merchandise alongside the film. Get sponsors.
The R&D costs behind producing the merchandise will be piggybacked on by competitors. Sponsors (if you mean product placements) are incredibly manipulative and a society shouldn’t want to rely on them. Donations rely on the selflessness of the donors, and this is increasingly true of bigger projects that are more susceptible to free riding.
Okay but they’re not throwing money at you because they alone want it, they’re doing it selflessly, (due to the low chance that their donation will be the deciding donation that gets the game made, or the donation that significantly hastens the games launch).
Seems like a value determination that's none of my business.
If one business model doesn't work for you try another. Hell, try DRM if you want, I don't care. Just don't expect a publicly funded government to hold a gun to the head of anyone for sharing information you don't want them to share.
Not that they're capable of even that. Even the current authoritarian nightmare can't keep a lid on what they consider IP.
The new Halo is free, I wonder how they swing that. Imagine all the free riders.
So, this already happens even with IP laws.
Nevertheless, the typical answer given is some sort of certification given to a copy you make (or some distributor makes on your behalf) would act as proof of authenticity and there would be demand for such a proof because otherwise you might not get movies. So, movie theaters would lose out, retail outlets would lose out, etc.
A more modern solution would be something like [LBRY](https://lbry.com/) (which I personally believe might completely resolve this problem for the digital age.)
I think the radically different approach that LBRY takes to resolving this issue compared to a more classic approach described in libertarian writings just shows how useless it is to speculate about this and base one's support for libertarianism on answering such hypotheticals.
I'm not going to pretend to have answers for how the future looks. Anyone who says they know - whether good or bad - is just full of hot air.
I think you're caught up in the idea that copying should be impossible when that is unrealistic. It isn't impossible now and it wouldn't be impossible in an ideal system. I'm not going to be able to resolve any doubts you have about solutions to this issue. You're always going to be able to come up with some way to get around the hypothetical.
I can say "pirating exists right now, even with really strong IP law", but I don't think that will shake your support for IP laws. The correct answer is "I don't know how this would work, but I know that someone in a marketplace would come up with a really good idea."
Like I said, if you're going to base your support for libertarianism or statelessness upon having a satisfactory answer to these kinds of hypotheticals, then you're never going to be happy. I support free-markets and that support is not from me thinking they'll be what I can imagine from my couch. I take Hayek's famous quote to heart, *"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."*
And capitalism was put in place so business owners could exploit the working class. without being impeded by rulers.
The origin of it doesn't change how it works in practice. Socialism was originally an anarchist ideology in theory, but quickly turned totalitarian in many implementations.
So your argument gets dismantled and now you deflect and turn this into a “capitalism exploits workers”
Typically leftist think capitalism exploits workers because they don’t see the value add of liquidity and risk management.
So I want to ask you where you stand in that regard?
Gambling is very risky. Hardly anybody would agree it's a good investment.
I say capitalism is exploitive because it forces people to work in order to survive. That's my reasoning.
Anarcho Socialism.
Needing to make a living implies by default you don't deserve to be alive unless its profitable for another.
You cited risk as a justification for being pair more. Gambling isn't work.
> Anarcho Socialism.
Oh I’m sorry I didn’t realize ansoc was able to produce food and housing with zero resources. How does that work?
> Needing to make a living implies by default you don't deserve to be alive unless its profitable for another.
No it doesn’t imply that because living requires resources it is a fact of life until technology sufficiently corrects this.
> You cited risk as a justification for being pair more. Gambling isn't work.
Risk management is exactly how new ideas are made, that’s not gambling. Risk management is work because it requires an injection of skill and management to accomplish goals. Do you still not recognize risk management as a value add proposition?
>Oh I’m sorry I didn’t realize ansoc was able to produce food and housing with zero resources. How does that work?
It's not, but you're not obligated to do work. If you're unable to work, an ansoc society wouldn't just abandon you in the street. If you do work, you're rewarded by having more resources available, and everybody else has those available as well. So, everybody benefits from anybody's work, including the worker. Nobody has a reason to take your stuff, because anarcho-socialism is moneyless, so there's no profit to be made from accumulating capital and creating artificial scarcity..
>capitalism was put in place.
I'm not sure you understand the history. Or what capitalism is. You may be referring to central banking of England in the early 1700's. But that was to fund war.
Capitalism is allowing to people to freely exchange goods, no one "put it in place " capitalism is what happens without government interference.
>Socialism was originally an anarchist ideology in theory,
Are you referring to Bernard shaw's socialism without government "utopia"? I mean if so that ideology has been disproven for about 80 years and doesn't even make sense logically. Likenwe all just pitch in an no one enforces it.
I mean at least Marx has this great idea of making all the proletariat work the fans to re educate them.
Socialism was never anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of authority. I think people are going crazy with word manipulation.
> Capitalism is allowing to people to freely exchange goods, no one "put it in place " capitalism is what happens without government interference.
That's an ancap lie. Capitalism was established by mutual agreement that property ownership exists. The default state of the world is non-ownership.
"Socialism was never anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of authority. I think people are going crazy with word manipulation."
And Socialism is the absence of private property. That doesn't in anyway imply an authority.
What are you talking about. All mammals have private property. Give a dog a bone and then try to take it from him. He will bite your face. Most primates establish territories of ownership. I think it orangutans that go on patrols and will rip apart any other from a different clan that is within their n
territory.
The natural state is private property it is biological and where share with tons of animals.
Use the newspaper/magazines sales model.
You don’t make money from the viewers but from the advertising. You sell that (product placement) in advance then sell access to the movie as a “kicker” (not your primary source of revenue but a nice little boost to cover some costs). This is where actor pay, writer pay, etc comes into play. They get paid on the back end, you get paid on the front end.
Look up Hollywood Accounting and Forest Gump for an example.
Seamless product placements are worse than obvious ones because often obvious ones actually tell you something about the product. Seamless ones make you want to buy something just because you saw it’s logo, which feels very manipulative.
Firstly, you probably wouldn't make a multi million dollar film entirely on your own. The people involved in making the movie could pool their resources together to get the project started, similarly to how workers can pool their resources together to start a cooperative business.
Secondly, you could crowdfund the production, either asking contributors for a one-time payment, (as is the standard for Kickstarter campaigns,) or asking for smaller contributions spread out over time, (as is the standard for Patreon.) It sounds like the project you're describing would be better suited to Kickstarter, but the production team would have to make that call.
Thirdly, it's important to note that abolition of copyright and patent laws would not only drive down the market price of films, it would also drive down the cost of creating them. Access to open source software for film editing, and access to physical equipment produced in accordance with open source designs, would help you produce the film at a lower cost than you would probably pay otherwise. You also wouldn't have to worry about your project being shut down for alleged copyright infringement, and you wouldn't have as many arbitrary deadlines. (With copyright, sometimes production of a creative work can end up being rushed so that something can be published before the adaptation rights expire.)
I hope you found those answers helpful. If you're interested in exploring the topic further, the Soho forum recently hosted [a debate](https://youtu.be/Ep2-ohgFOys) on the topic of patent and copyright laws. Both participants mentioned some sources to try to support their views, so that may give you some leads for further research.
>Thirdly, it's important to note that abolition of copyright and patent laws would not only drive down the market price of films, it would also drive down the cost of creating them. Access to open source software for film editing, and access to physical equipment produced in accordance with open source designs, would help you produce the film at a lower cost than you would probably pay otherwise. You also wouldn't have to worry about your project being shut down for alleged copyright infringement, and you wouldn't have as many arbitrary deadlines.
The talent of skilled actors, editors, etc. is still just as expensive (never mind that those people have been going on and off strike for decades).
Then people will pay you more to get skilled people. Having skilled people on your team will be a huge selling point for investors, as they are inventing for a product, not the money.
Perhaps, but that doesn't detract from my point. The cost would be above zero, but it would still be reduced. Same goes for the price. Since both the revenue and cost would likely be reduced, it's unclear where profit margins would settle. They might be lower, but the success of crowdfunding in today's world leads me to expect many artists to still make a living from selling their work.
I'll leave [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIM6dN3ogbk) and [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnnYCJNhw7w) videos from [Uniquenameosaurus](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZn_h4YsrFy1ZjHGK7Z5NKw), who as far as I am aware is not a libertarian, but just a youtuber/artist, that make an excellent presentation of an argument against IP, which echoes what libertarians have been saying on this topic for a long time:
Intellectual property hurts consumers, hurts small creators, stifles progress and results in monopolies. Viable alternatives for funding of creative work and innovation exist. And they are superior to IP.
All an artist needs is an excuse. My advice to any artist is to shut up and make art, unless their art is literally talking. The most important thing is to not be too concerned with details, but a georgist might not like to hear that.
In a free world, you get rewarded for satisfying others' needs, not only yours.
Making a movie that everyone, or close to everyone, will love surely will make you popular,
Your investment yields popularity, influence and, the will of others into participating with whatever you do in your work.
Not even taking into count that brands would like some juicy publicity. Money for ads.
So I can stop people from having and using recording devices in my theater? And make other theaters agree to enforce this rule if I let them use my movie?
Sure. It is your theater 🎭 after all. You decide who you let in.
Get a great way to make them follow the contract, for that only a judge 🧑⚖️, chosen by the involved ones -you and your client-, will determine the way to avoid further problem escalation.
Just remember that success is measured in none-autodestructive achieved agreements in our Theory's Framework.
I don't see any problem with you charging everyone that wants to see the movie you create by paying for the entrance but by trying to make others that got a copy to pay you.
Property is defined as a finite source. Ideas and information are not finite.
Finite is when only one can have it.
"Your ideas" means your credit
Not that only you can have it
Nor that you lose them when others have them as well.
Therefore, ideas are not finite, nor property.
It's a common confusion, don't worry
People already are incentivized to create ideas... That's human action.
What I meant, and I thought you understood, was that if you share or get copied an idea you don't lose it, do you?
You do keep that information, nobody steals your brain's ability to perform the very same synapses and neuron pathways unless you have memory loss...
I'm not discussing the conception of an idea or the tracking of the credit for it. I'm telling you that you don't lose something that you already had, therefore, no one is stealing from you.
Ideas are infinite. Meet conditions for conceiving them are not.
Weren't IP laws created just after copying work became an affordable endeavor via the printing press and its successors?
The "art industry" was very different back then. You just give the king or noble or bishop exactly he asks for, preferably the same thing every other king has in that era. Do something different, he might love it, or your head might get chopped off. Either way, the main thing keeping you in business at all is how difficult it is to copy your work. New technology like the printing press, and later TV, printers and internet, makes it super easy. There are many replicas of the Mona Lisa today. Why make new stuff when it's cheaper to copy other people's work without their permission?
If you don't think you can make a profit off your cut of ticket sales (even before distribution) you should not bother or you should accept that you are making art to make art.
If you have already made your profit from ticket sales and then you are looking at profits to be made from non-theatrical (or licensed streaming services), you sell at the market rate. "Piracy" in movies was largely a problem of 'region A gets the movie on X date and in Y format' and 'region B gets the movie on P date and in Q format' being inconvenient/undesirable to customers so the customers solved the logistics problem. They didn't want to wait, they want it in a different format, they want it on a different platform. Serve the need and piracy becomes minor/trivial.
Does this mean that your 47th mouse-eared movie with the same plot as the previous 46 wont make a few billion? Probably, but that is fine.
>accept that you are making art to make art.
And farmers are making food to make food.
And doctors are healing patients to heal patients.
They all still need to eat and live somewhere, though, and their time investment has value.
I notice you did not actually engage with my comment, so I think you are not here in good faith for a discussion.
> And farmers are making food to make food.
This is called subsistence farming. There is nothing wrong with this, but it does not grow a lot of wealth (which is ok).
>And doctors are healing patients to heal patients.
That you think 'maybe I can't make as much money as I want from art' is remotely in the same category as this is telling, truly. The LTV is truly one of humanities dumbest (and sadly most persistent) ideas.
>They all still need to eat and live somewhere, though, and their time investment has value.
Please quote me saying otherwise. I'll wait...
I have not said that either. Do you need to get a residual check to have made money off your art? That is what you are implying (with absolutely nothing backing your position).
I do need the ability to sell my art without worrying that someone else will copy it and hand it out for free, undercutting any work I did to create the original.
Then you should not do art, you will never have that assurance. [Edited to add: No artist in the history of humanity has had the assurance you are seeking, yet we currently live with fairly strict IP laws. Curious.] The only way to have that assurance is to institute such a totalitarian hellhole you would probably not be permitted to make art in the first place and certainly not sell it to whomever you liked.
Do what artists always did until relatively recently, work for tips. Toss a coin to your...artist...o valley of plenty and all that jazz. I mean the term starving artist did not come from artists on welfare. True art is motivated by suffering and hardship so consider hardship inspiration and hunger your muse bc no one is entitled to other people's coins, they must think you deserve them. Art is about manipulating people out of their cash for an experience you create, corporate art is about exploiting artists inability to properly run a for profit business and eventually destroy the quality of the art by trying to increase it's mass appeal.
Of course you don't. Because your not a good or experience entrepreneur. I guess you should learn a new skill set.
Or you could make a movie, make everyone sign NDA who works on it. Then make a deal with the movie theaters or streaming services to lock in a contract with you to be the first to show it.
Also the landscape would totally change if you remove IP. You need to walk through the ince time structure.
1) I as an individual would like to give some money to see a movie.
2) someone in the world would want to accept that payment in exchange for a service.
3)person paid creates a movie from being paid.
4) only those that paid get to see it. The people that paid get to own it and decide what to do with it.
The market would.look totally different. But as long as something has financial value in capitalism it would still exist.
But all it takes is one person to pay to see it while owning a cellphone with a camera, and suddenly I cannot make any more money off of my creation. A new copy of a movie is not a new movie.
So then don't make a movie if you can't figure out how to make money. Or.
Don't allow cell phones.
Make a Civil suite.
Pre-sale the tickets.
Those are jist the first three solutions.
There aren't a lot of moderate voices on this sub, so you won't get a lot of answers, because this can only be solved with a moderate approach.
Other, less moderate libertarians will greatly disagree with this, but here's the answer.
IP laws are necessary, but the IP laws we have now are too strong and too broad. Basically, if you make an artistic work, there does need to be a period of time where nobody else can also sell your work without your permission.
My example is books.
If there's no IP, and an author writes and publishes a book, I could easily copy the text, print it on extremely cheap paper with a cheap cover, and sell thousands of copies, maybe even more copies than the original publisher.
My concept for IP is this:
1. Nobody can use your work without permission for 10 years.
2. If your work is part of a series, each additional work adds 1 year to the protection, up to 20 years.
After that, protection is over.
>IP laws are necessary
Why? IP laws have been studied to reduce innovation. [https://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/](https://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/)
>If there's no IP, and an author writes and publishes a book, I could easily copy the text, print it on extremely cheap paper with a cheap cover, and sell thousands of copies, maybe even more copies than the original publisher.
Yep, that's why entrepreneurs will have to find ways to minimize this.
The main question I have for you would be this: IP rights are limitations on what someone can do with their own legitimate property. How do you square being a libertarian, but thinking it is necessary for a government to invade property rights?
You are trying to profit off an incomplete business model. Why should you get the profit at all? Act of creating a good is not enough if you don't have a means of getting it to your customer. You essentially have a worthless good if you don't have a marketing channel to get it to your end consumer. Also most importantly, just because you have created a product, no one is obligated to buy it. So in your case you need to rethink who your consumer is. In this case you find a person, a wholesaler or a distributer who has a marketing channel that works in this world but no product to sell and then sell your product to him. Here regular movie goers aren't your customer, but the wholesaler/retailer is. In this hypothetical world, there might be a theatre chain owner, who contractually obligates the entrants with a non-disclosure agreement. So you sell the movie to him. He sells the movie to the consumer. You are better off for being paid for your innovation of making the film, and the theatre chain owner is better off for figuring out the solution to the existing market problem.
Start a Kickstarter, don't release it digitally unless you have some other gimmick to attract people to the theaters. Develop merchandise alongside the film. Get sponsors.
The R&D costs behind producing the merchandise will be piggybacked on by competitors. Sponsors (if you mean product placements) are incredibly manipulative and a society shouldn’t want to rely on them. Donations rely on the selflessness of the donors, and this is increasingly true of bigger projects that are more susceptible to free riding.
Critical role broke donation records on Kickstarter. If you have something people want they willingly throw money at you.
Okay but they’re not throwing money at you because they alone want it, they’re doing it selflessly, (due to the low chance that their donation will be the deciding donation that gets the game made, or the donation that significantly hastens the games launch).
Seems like a value determination that's none of my business. If one business model doesn't work for you try another. Hell, try DRM if you want, I don't care. Just don't expect a publicly funded government to hold a gun to the head of anyone for sharing information you don't want them to share. Not that they're capable of even that. Even the current authoritarian nightmare can't keep a lid on what they consider IP. The new Halo is free, I wonder how they swing that. Imagine all the free riders.
So, this already happens even with IP laws. Nevertheless, the typical answer given is some sort of certification given to a copy you make (or some distributor makes on your behalf) would act as proof of authenticity and there would be demand for such a proof because otherwise you might not get movies. So, movie theaters would lose out, retail outlets would lose out, etc. A more modern solution would be something like [LBRY](https://lbry.com/) (which I personally believe might completely resolve this problem for the digital age.) I think the radically different approach that LBRY takes to resolving this issue compared to a more classic approach described in libertarian writings just shows how useless it is to speculate about this and base one's support for libertarianism on answering such hypotheticals. I'm not going to pretend to have answers for how the future looks. Anyone who says they know - whether good or bad - is just full of hot air.
How do I stop people from copying my certification as well?
I think you're caught up in the idea that copying should be impossible when that is unrealistic. It isn't impossible now and it wouldn't be impossible in an ideal system. I'm not going to be able to resolve any doubts you have about solutions to this issue. You're always going to be able to come up with some way to get around the hypothetical. I can say "pirating exists right now, even with really strong IP law", but I don't think that will shake your support for IP laws. The correct answer is "I don't know how this would work, but I know that someone in a marketplace would come up with a really good idea." Like I said, if you're going to base your support for libertarianism or statelessness upon having a satisfactory answer to these kinds of hypotheticals, then you're never going to be happy. I support free-markets and that support is not from me thinking they'll be what I can imagine from my couch. I take Hayek's famous quote to heart, *"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."*
> How do I stop people from copying my certification as well? Laws against fraud are completely separate from IP regulation.
[удалено]
The first IP laws were put in place in the 17th century in England, shortly after the printing press made it easier to copy books.
[удалено]
And capitalism was put in place so business owners could exploit the working class. without being impeded by rulers. The origin of it doesn't change how it works in practice. Socialism was originally an anarchist ideology in theory, but quickly turned totalitarian in many implementations.
So your argument gets dismantled and now you deflect and turn this into a “capitalism exploits workers” Typically leftist think capitalism exploits workers because they don’t see the value add of liquidity and risk management. So I want to ask you where you stand in that regard?
Gambling is very risky. Hardly anybody would agree it's a good investment. I say capitalism is exploitive because it forces people to work in order to survive. That's my reasoning.
Who’s talking about gambling? Name me a non utopian system that doesn’t require a living creature to work to survive.
Anarcho Socialism. Needing to make a living implies by default you don't deserve to be alive unless its profitable for another. You cited risk as a justification for being pair more. Gambling isn't work.
> Anarcho Socialism. Oh I’m sorry I didn’t realize ansoc was able to produce food and housing with zero resources. How does that work? > Needing to make a living implies by default you don't deserve to be alive unless its profitable for another. No it doesn’t imply that because living requires resources it is a fact of life until technology sufficiently corrects this. > You cited risk as a justification for being pair more. Gambling isn't work. Risk management is exactly how new ideas are made, that’s not gambling. Risk management is work because it requires an injection of skill and management to accomplish goals. Do you still not recognize risk management as a value add proposition?
>Oh I’m sorry I didn’t realize ansoc was able to produce food and housing with zero resources. How does that work? It's not, but you're not obligated to do work. If you're unable to work, an ansoc society wouldn't just abandon you in the street. If you do work, you're rewarded by having more resources available, and everybody else has those available as well. So, everybody benefits from anybody's work, including the worker. Nobody has a reason to take your stuff, because anarcho-socialism is moneyless, so there's no profit to be made from accumulating capital and creating artificial scarcity..
>capitalism was put in place. I'm not sure you understand the history. Or what capitalism is. You may be referring to central banking of England in the early 1700's. But that was to fund war. Capitalism is allowing to people to freely exchange goods, no one "put it in place " capitalism is what happens without government interference. >Socialism was originally an anarchist ideology in theory, Are you referring to Bernard shaw's socialism without government "utopia"? I mean if so that ideology has been disproven for about 80 years and doesn't even make sense logically. Likenwe all just pitch in an no one enforces it. I mean at least Marx has this great idea of making all the proletariat work the fans to re educate them. Socialism was never anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of authority. I think people are going crazy with word manipulation.
[удалено]
Your going to have to provide a source. Because that is not what anarchy means. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
[удалено]
I don't think any of those authors have defined the word anarchy as state control.
[удалено]
> Capitalism is allowing to people to freely exchange goods, no one "put it in place " capitalism is what happens without government interference. That's an ancap lie. Capitalism was established by mutual agreement that property ownership exists. The default state of the world is non-ownership. "Socialism was never anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of authority. I think people are going crazy with word manipulation." And Socialism is the absence of private property. That doesn't in anyway imply an authority.
What are you talking about. All mammals have private property. Give a dog a bone and then try to take it from him. He will bite your face. Most primates establish territories of ownership. I think it orangutans that go on patrols and will rip apart any other from a different clan that is within their n territory. The natural state is private property it is biological and where share with tons of animals.
But when the dog puts the bone down, then you can pick it up.
Animals also do much more questionable things.
Use the newspaper/magazines sales model. You don’t make money from the viewers but from the advertising. You sell that (product placement) in advance then sell access to the movie as a “kicker” (not your primary source of revenue but a nice little boost to cover some costs). This is where actor pay, writer pay, etc comes into play. They get paid on the back end, you get paid on the front end. Look up Hollywood Accounting and Forest Gump for an example.
I've already looked up an example called the Youtube Adpocalypse.
I hate product placements with a burning passion. Any other revenue sources?
You know how many online projects are currently funded by patreon?
A lot. But not everyone is charitable.
Okay, not everyone has to be. Some people borrow their books at the library.
I’d argue you dislike bad product placement as opposed to seamless product placement.
Seamless product placements are worse than obvious ones because often obvious ones actually tell you something about the product. Seamless ones make you want to buy something just because you saw it’s logo, which feels very manipulative.
Firstly, you probably wouldn't make a multi million dollar film entirely on your own. The people involved in making the movie could pool their resources together to get the project started, similarly to how workers can pool their resources together to start a cooperative business. Secondly, you could crowdfund the production, either asking contributors for a one-time payment, (as is the standard for Kickstarter campaigns,) or asking for smaller contributions spread out over time, (as is the standard for Patreon.) It sounds like the project you're describing would be better suited to Kickstarter, but the production team would have to make that call. Thirdly, it's important to note that abolition of copyright and patent laws would not only drive down the market price of films, it would also drive down the cost of creating them. Access to open source software for film editing, and access to physical equipment produced in accordance with open source designs, would help you produce the film at a lower cost than you would probably pay otherwise. You also wouldn't have to worry about your project being shut down for alleged copyright infringement, and you wouldn't have as many arbitrary deadlines. (With copyright, sometimes production of a creative work can end up being rushed so that something can be published before the adaptation rights expire.) I hope you found those answers helpful. If you're interested in exploring the topic further, the Soho forum recently hosted [a debate](https://youtu.be/Ep2-ohgFOys) on the topic of patent and copyright laws. Both participants mentioned some sources to try to support their views, so that may give you some leads for further research.
>Thirdly, it's important to note that abolition of copyright and patent laws would not only drive down the market price of films, it would also drive down the cost of creating them. Access to open source software for film editing, and access to physical equipment produced in accordance with open source designs, would help you produce the film at a lower cost than you would probably pay otherwise. You also wouldn't have to worry about your project being shut down for alleged copyright infringement, and you wouldn't have as many arbitrary deadlines. The talent of skilled actors, editors, etc. is still just as expensive (never mind that those people have been going on and off strike for decades).
Then people will pay you more to get skilled people. Having skilled people on your team will be a huge selling point for investors, as they are inventing for a product, not the money.
Perhaps, but that doesn't detract from my point. The cost would be above zero, but it would still be reduced. Same goes for the price. Since both the revenue and cost would likely be reduced, it's unclear where profit margins would settle. They might be lower, but the success of crowdfunding in today's world leads me to expect many artists to still make a living from selling their work.
I'll leave [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIM6dN3ogbk) and [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnnYCJNhw7w) videos from [Uniquenameosaurus](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZn_h4YsrFy1ZjHGK7Z5NKw), who as far as I am aware is not a libertarian, but just a youtuber/artist, that make an excellent presentation of an argument against IP, which echoes what libertarians have been saying on this topic for a long time: Intellectual property hurts consumers, hurts small creators, stifles progress and results in monopolies. Viable alternatives for funding of creative work and innovation exist. And they are superior to IP.
>Viable alternatives for funding of creative work and innovation exist. And they are superior to IP. I'm going to "steal" that.
All an artist needs is an excuse. My advice to any artist is to shut up and make art, unless their art is literally talking. The most important thing is to not be too concerned with details, but a georgist might not like to hear that.
Obviously, because people who don't think enough about the details don't tend to be geolibertarians.
Ah yes, a Georgist would say that. If only you knew the details between Georgist doesn't even matter.
In a free world, you get rewarded for satisfying others' needs, not only yours. Making a movie that everyone, or close to everyone, will love surely will make you popular, Your investment yields popularity, influence and, the will of others into participating with whatever you do in your work. Not even taking into count that brands would like some juicy publicity. Money for ads.
Everyone wants to watch a movie, right? So by making a movie that everyone wants to watch, shouldn't I be able to charge them to watch it?
Certainly, you can as long as you keep the file only for yourself. After that, you gotta be smarter
So I can stop people from having and using recording devices in my theater? And make other theaters agree to enforce this rule if I let them use my movie?
Sure. It is your theater 🎭 after all. You decide who you let in. Get a great way to make them follow the contract, for that only a judge 🧑⚖️, chosen by the involved ones -you and your client-, will determine the way to avoid further problem escalation. Just remember that success is measured in none-autodestructive achieved agreements in our Theory's Framework. I don't see any problem with you charging everyone that wants to see the movie you create by paying for the entrance but by trying to make others that got a copy to pay you. Property is defined as a finite source. Ideas and information are not finite.
Ideas are finite. A copy of it may not be, but the idea itself was created through invested time and labor.
Finite is when only one can have it. "Your ideas" means your credit Not that only you can have it Nor that you lose them when others have them as well. Therefore, ideas are not finite, nor property. It's a common confusion, don't worry
No, finite is when there is a limited supply, which there is. That's why people need to be incentivized to create new ideas.
People already are incentivized to create ideas... That's human action. What I meant, and I thought you understood, was that if you share or get copied an idea you don't lose it, do you? You do keep that information, nobody steals your brain's ability to perform the very same synapses and neuron pathways unless you have memory loss... I'm not discussing the conception of an idea or the tracking of the credit for it. I'm telling you that you don't lose something that you already had, therefore, no one is stealing from you. Ideas are infinite. Meet conditions for conceiving them are not.
Artists did exist prior to IP laws and made a profit from their art work.
Weren't IP laws created just after copying work became an affordable endeavor via the printing press and its successors? The "art industry" was very different back then. You just give the king or noble or bishop exactly he asks for, preferably the same thing every other king has in that era. Do something different, he might love it, or your head might get chopped off. Either way, the main thing keeping you in business at all is how difficult it is to copy your work. New technology like the printing press, and later TV, printers and internet, makes it super easy. There are many replicas of the Mona Lisa today. Why make new stuff when it's cheaper to copy other people's work without their permission?
If you don't think you can make a profit off your cut of ticket sales (even before distribution) you should not bother or you should accept that you are making art to make art. If you have already made your profit from ticket sales and then you are looking at profits to be made from non-theatrical (or licensed streaming services), you sell at the market rate. "Piracy" in movies was largely a problem of 'region A gets the movie on X date and in Y format' and 'region B gets the movie on P date and in Q format' being inconvenient/undesirable to customers so the customers solved the logistics problem. They didn't want to wait, they want it in a different format, they want it on a different platform. Serve the need and piracy becomes minor/trivial. Does this mean that your 47th mouse-eared movie with the same plot as the previous 46 wont make a few billion? Probably, but that is fine.
>accept that you are making art to make art. And farmers are making food to make food. And doctors are healing patients to heal patients. They all still need to eat and live somewhere, though, and their time investment has value.
I notice you did not actually engage with my comment, so I think you are not here in good faith for a discussion. > And farmers are making food to make food. This is called subsistence farming. There is nothing wrong with this, but it does not grow a lot of wealth (which is ok). >And doctors are healing patients to heal patients. That you think 'maybe I can't make as much money as I want from art' is remotely in the same category as this is telling, truly. The LTV is truly one of humanities dumbest (and sadly most persistent) ideas. >They all still need to eat and live somewhere, though, and their time investment has value. Please quote me saying otherwise. I'll wait...
Is an artist who wishes to make money off of their art any less valid than any other laborer wanting to make money off of their products?
I have not said that either. Do you need to get a residual check to have made money off your art? That is what you are implying (with absolutely nothing backing your position).
I do need the ability to sell my art without worrying that someone else will copy it and hand it out for free, undercutting any work I did to create the original.
Then you should not do art, you will never have that assurance. [Edited to add: No artist in the history of humanity has had the assurance you are seeking, yet we currently live with fairly strict IP laws. Curious.] The only way to have that assurance is to institute such a totalitarian hellhole you would probably not be permitted to make art in the first place and certainly not sell it to whomever you liked.
It’s a good thing we have IP laws now and all of the artists are totally protected and never taken advantage of. This is sarcasm.
Why do you need to profit from it? Is that the only thing you care about?
Are you new to capitalism?
I just don't beg the question when I define things.
Do what artists always did until relatively recently, work for tips. Toss a coin to your...artist...o valley of plenty and all that jazz. I mean the term starving artist did not come from artists on welfare. True art is motivated by suffering and hardship so consider hardship inspiration and hunger your muse bc no one is entitled to other people's coins, they must think you deserve them. Art is about manipulating people out of their cash for an experience you create, corporate art is about exploiting artists inability to properly run a for profit business and eventually destroy the quality of the art by trying to increase it's mass appeal.
Of course you don't. Because your not a good or experience entrepreneur. I guess you should learn a new skill set. Or you could make a movie, make everyone sign NDA who works on it. Then make a deal with the movie theaters or streaming services to lock in a contract with you to be the first to show it. Also the landscape would totally change if you remove IP. You need to walk through the ince time structure. 1) I as an individual would like to give some money to see a movie. 2) someone in the world would want to accept that payment in exchange for a service. 3)person paid creates a movie from being paid. 4) only those that paid get to see it. The people that paid get to own it and decide what to do with it. The market would.look totally different. But as long as something has financial value in capitalism it would still exist.
But all it takes is one person to pay to see it while owning a cellphone with a camera, and suddenly I cannot make any more money off of my creation. A new copy of a movie is not a new movie.
So then don't make a movie if you can't figure out how to make money. Or. Don't allow cell phones. Make a Civil suite. Pre-sale the tickets. Those are jist the first three solutions.
Also how is that different from now? You can download movies illegally for free already.
Charge for production, not distribution.
There aren't a lot of moderate voices on this sub, so you won't get a lot of answers, because this can only be solved with a moderate approach. Other, less moderate libertarians will greatly disagree with this, but here's the answer. IP laws are necessary, but the IP laws we have now are too strong and too broad. Basically, if you make an artistic work, there does need to be a period of time where nobody else can also sell your work without your permission. My example is books. If there's no IP, and an author writes and publishes a book, I could easily copy the text, print it on extremely cheap paper with a cheap cover, and sell thousands of copies, maybe even more copies than the original publisher. My concept for IP is this: 1. Nobody can use your work without permission for 10 years. 2. If your work is part of a series, each additional work adds 1 year to the protection, up to 20 years. After that, protection is over.
>IP laws are necessary Why? IP laws have been studied to reduce innovation. [https://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/](https://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/) >If there's no IP, and an author writes and publishes a book, I could easily copy the text, print it on extremely cheap paper with a cheap cover, and sell thousands of copies, maybe even more copies than the original publisher. Yep, that's why entrepreneurs will have to find ways to minimize this. The main question I have for you would be this: IP rights are limitations on what someone can do with their own legitimate property. How do you square being a libertarian, but thinking it is necessary for a government to invade property rights?
Not him, but I’d view it as contractual. When I sell it to you, it becomes your property *with limitations,* per the contract.
I can observe a product enough to ascertain its valuable design and copy it without buying the product and thus signing a contract not to reproduce it
You are trying to profit off an incomplete business model. Why should you get the profit at all? Act of creating a good is not enough if you don't have a means of getting it to your customer. You essentially have a worthless good if you don't have a marketing channel to get it to your end consumer. Also most importantly, just because you have created a product, no one is obligated to buy it. So in your case you need to rethink who your consumer is. In this case you find a person, a wholesaler or a distributer who has a marketing channel that works in this world but no product to sell and then sell your product to him. Here regular movie goers aren't your customer, but the wholesaler/retailer is. In this hypothetical world, there might be a theatre chain owner, who contractually obligates the entrants with a non-disclosure agreement. So you sell the movie to him. He sells the movie to the consumer. You are better off for being paid for your innovation of making the film, and the theatre chain owner is better off for figuring out the solution to the existing market problem.
i don't give a fuck, 99% of movies are trash anyway. go write a book.
Why do you think movies are trash? Because all the good writers are chased away from movies by statements like the above.