- 0 Posts
- 46 Comments
Not enough of the money goes to the artist, but money does go to the artists. If you’re not sure, ask literally any artist who has their content featured on netflix, or any of the other platforms.
Really depends on the industry. E.g for games: The devs were already payed their salary and usually don’t get residuals. Here the money goes to the publisher/studio. As I already said: I pay for the indie games I play singe I want these studios to be able to exist/pay their devs. But the money I’d spend on Call of Duty will mostly go to Bobby Kotick and his shareholders.
Money also goes to the marketing team, and software developers, and internationalization teams, and all the other people in the chain who actually do have a purpose and make that artist’s content more available to the world than it otherwise would be.
Those people don’t get residuals, but wages. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere. But the animators of a Netflix show I’m watching where already payed. Yes, the people currently working on stuff that will come out in the future still need wages, but let’s not forget that most of the money I’d pay will go to shareholders.
But they’re always going to take more than they should, that’s just called inefficiency, and is where competition can happen. But if it’s not generating enough income, the content simply won’t happen.
I don’t really care for this liberal narrative.
Which is honestly fine with me, lord knows we have too much garbage on these platforms.
So, people who make that “garbage” don’t deserve to pay their rent? Either be defending the poor workers or be a market extremist. Pick a lane, my dog.
that you should pay what you can afford.
I don’t think people should be ripped off though. Which is what I think is happening with the big platforms.
Don’t get me wrong: I pay for my indie games and don’t have the time for the so-called “triple-AAA” crap.
But the money I’d pay to Netflix or Spotify won’t actually go to the artists who worked on the stuff. That’s just not how this works.
Most imortantly: I don’t want to shame anyone for pay/not paying, as I usually don’t know their financial situtation.
When I steal a shoe, the shoe can’t besold anymore, because I have it. If I pirate a game, is there one less copy that steam can sell?
Piracy is categorically something else than stealing. Have you even read the original post?
Edit: If you really follow your logic strand, you would have to reach the conclusion that Sony stole content from their users.
Edit2:
No, I never said anything of the sort.
This u?
The origins of any movie you pirate come from theft, full stop.
We’re literally talking about piracy, so yes lmao
So, according to you, piracy is stealing, because it has to be stolen at some point. And the reason that it must be stolen is because it is connected to piracy.
Don’t act surprised if you’re downvoted, if you present your circular logic this plainly.
When you’re paying, you’re not buying the fuel nor are the salaries directly affected by one person is paying for riding a train.
What you’re describing is called “marginal cost” and reducing this is the reason why the economics of any large scale business is actually working. You could argue with these marginal costs, but you’d be entering a completely different model/domain of economics. And no one uses this model which is abstract/non-abstract in any aspect that happens to make your point valid.
I thought Nintendo will keep that voice actor a secret as to prevent him from having too much power over the brand (they’d have more freedom in replacing any VA and pay them less).
Now I imagine Afghani touring with Martinet and them having “Wahoo!”, “It’s-a me!”, “Yipiiiiieeeehhh!” conversations on stage.
ByteDance is still incorporated in the Cayman Islands. Not the PRC.
Edit: You still haven’t explained why the PRG has more of an incentive to spy on you personally than the NS government does.
Of course: China spies on the US. But as long as you’re not carrying government secrets, you’re a way more interesting target for the people in charge of the cops.
- They might not need to, since the NSA has quite an arsenal of tools.
- The companies might share all the info volutarily.
- They’ll definetly share the data if the price is right.
Google Amazon and Facebook have repeatedly worked with law enforcement in the past. You can still believe that the chinese goverment is sooo much worse than the US, but don’t call other people naive if you do.
Really? Because you could argue that targeted advertising lead to the January 6th riots.
The chinese government doesn’t really benefit from data collection on western citizens. At least not if they don’t work for intelligence agencies or want to proclaim that Taiwan is a country while being on mainland China.
The CIA has banned that stuff because their employees are high value targets for chinese intelligence agencies.
You don’t have any data collection restrictions in the US (thanks to the patrion act).
Law enforcement has coplete access to the ring doorbell cameras. Google and Facebook have repeatedly worked together with the CIA and FBI. It has been established that the US elections have been tampered with via targeted advertising in combination with misinformation. As a regular US citizen, you are simply not a target for China. The US government however has repeatedly proven that it spies on foreign and their own citieens.
And all that “dumbing down” conspiracy theory: It is far more likely that a profit driven corporation simply optimizes for maximum engagement for ad revenue.
The chinese government doesn’t have any say in tiktok. Tiktok isn’t even available in china. This is an attemt to please repuplican politicians all the way.
Correction: The PRC owns 1% and has one person in the board of directors of bytedance. Still: the fearmongering against the chinese government is just a smokescreen to draw attention away from the NSA.
Skill issue, asshole.