The air was stifling. The kind of air that sits on you, like a hot blanket made of water. The kind of air that makes you understand that the atmosphere is heavy, in a way your high school science teacher never really conveyed. Big, heavy, hot, wet air.

It engulfed ArcticPrincess, squeezed him from all directions with it’s sticky wetness. He curled up tighter in the strange hexagonal hole he’d found in one of the walls of the airport basement. There was work to do, but he wasn’t going to do it. At least today, the world could keep spiraling towards its populist, capitalist collapse without him.

The Fiji Airways Lounge at Nadi airport, incomplete and abandoned. Once, someone had a dream of what this place could be. An architect somewhere, a vision of this space filled with wealthy travellers, the sub-elites, the smaller masses who could afford slightly better treatment while the larger masses endured the gate-surrounded food court upstairs.

Something had gone wrong. Maybe it had been corruption. Maybe the fickle will of the shareholders. Maybe it had been a boondoggle all along, a scheme for furthering the career of a junior executive who’d already moved on to their next, higher paying position. Whatever the cause, the architect’s dream sat half-built. One half elegant workstations, elegantly curving divisions between contrasting flooring styles, elegant chairs and elegant partitions. One half abandoned construction materials, unassembled couches and unfinished, purposeless rooms.

The place felt like ArcticPrincess’s life, like the lives of all the old friends he’d seen on this trip. Grand dreams in the middle of a slow motion collision with reality. In the centre of it all, a weird hexagon cut into the wall in which you could momentarily try to hide. A retreat for writing fiction in style that had also bloomed and died, for a platform whose dream of freeing social media from corporate dominance was also wilting as quickly as it had blossomed.

ArcticPrincess’s phone rang. It looked like he was going to have to help the world collapse today after all.

The claim and evidence here are not logically consistent.

It’s like saying “cyanide won’t make you dead” because, look “people still get dead from falling and crocodiles, even if there’s no cyanide around”.

If everyone were doing it, it wouldn’t be piracy. It would be free, legal copying.

I just presented you with several models of how big budget movies could make money, even if everyone were freely, legally copying. You haven’t responded to that argument, you’ve merely ignored it and insisted on your original point.

While your claim is true—big budget movies, etc., need someone to pay for them—the unspoken corollary you’re implying isn’t true—that without the current economic model, no-one would pay for big budget productions, or that undermining the current model via piracy will reduce the rate at which they are funded.

The current model is: massive corporate copyright-holders can purchase the right the profit from an artistic production. They pay for its production up front. Even though we have a technology that can costlessly copy these products and very cheaply distribute them to almost everyone who wants them, the copyright holders maximise their profits by a) crippling this capacity by spend considerable money, labor and human expertise on technologies that artificially limit copying, and b) use state-supported coercion (e.g., fines, lawsuits, police, etc), to punish individuals who would circumvent these crippling technologies. To be clear, these copyright holders still make massive profits, vastly beyond what any individual they are persecuting for copyright infringement could ever dream of. Their policing of piracy is to make even greater profits.

Even though this is how big artistic productions are funded today, it is not true that in the absence of this economic model, big artistic productions would not be funded. The demand for these products would still exist, and if there’s one thing our society excels at, it’s directing capital to meet demand.

Alternative models that could fund big artistic productions:

• a centralised fund we all contribute to in proportion to our means (e.g., progressive taxation), that pays artists in proportion to how much their product is consumed (like the Spotify model, but publically administered, like TV licences)
• many small scale investors rather than corporate monoliths (like Kickstarter), whose investments are recouped by a) privileged access to get product and b) the still highly profitable cinema and dvd markets whose constraints (physical premises/media) are not compatible with free copying.
• a legislated solution that protects copyright until artists are sufficiently recompensed and then allows free distribution.

These are just some examples of the many possible alternative models for funding large art projects and deciding who should profit from them and how much. However the details aren’t nearly as important (many different models could work), as the ultimate driver: whether our actions/systems/laws enhance or undermine demand for the art.

Piracy does undermine the current (corrupt, exploitative, reprehensible) economic model but it also increases demand for the media it distributes more widely and equitably. It doesn’t, as you imply, reduce the likelihood of big budget media existing in the future, it increases the likelihood of it existing in a more fair and equitable way, that harness our ability to freely copy rather than crippling it for the benefit of the ultra-wealthy copyright-buyers.

Knowing the distribution of what entire households watch is very useful. It’s not about spying on you personally.

[citation needed]

Your and his age are gonna be major variables here. Conversations and relationships work very differently at different life stages.

You sound like you’re maybe a teenager? Try asking interesting questions that require some thought to answer, but still leave room for your friend to give an easy thoughtless answer if they want to. Where do you think we’ll be in X years? What’s something you thought you wanted but as you’ve gotten okay have realised you actually don’t? What do you think we do now thar future generations will think is crazy? Listen to his answers and ask followup questions.

Personally, I’ve always been most impressed by directness, honesty, intelligence and courage.

I very much agree with your take. I wish mature-thinkers had more influence on contemporary politics, instead of the populism and black-and-white moralising that seems to be dominating our world.

Also, the quality of discussion on lemmy is surprisingly good!

Yeah, the point that the musicians seem to be making, from the very brief quotes he shares (I haven’t been following this independently), is about the efficacy of music boycotts as a tool for political change. You can object to a nation’s political actions and still think that performing music for your fans in that country will make things better.

The author just insists that Israeli government genocide is bad and that the ordinary citizens are complicit. I think the implicit logic must be: bad people should be punished, depriving them of music punishes them. While it might satisfy a craving to hurt the bad guys, I think it’s much harder to claim that this would help stop the genocide.

I think the musicians have a stronger case that actually performing would be more likely to change people’s minds and improve the situation. Plus the broader benefits of keeping music and art apolitical, rather than trying to make everything in life a tool for political manipulation. I’d have actually been really interested to hear some substantive arguments about those points, but was disappointed to discover that, as you say, it was just a hit piece.

Wow, what a terrible article. The author doesn’t engage with any of the substantive points Radiohead and Nick Cave are making, he just disparages them and insists on his obvious moral superiority. It’s dressed up in some, admittedly, very nice writing, but this is just childish name calling.

Still, interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

Sounds amazing. Could you provide a link or at least enough names that I can google it?

I have been thinking about this problem recently and believe the solution may be a new fediverse protocol/service that provides:

• Federated Emergent Topic Taxonomies

That is, a model of the relationships (e.g., is the same as, is a type of, is related to, etc) between different communities (/groups/services/instances, etc.) that emerges from the way that users/servers interact with them, that different servers can maintain independently and merge or split by consensus if they choose. Then other services (like Lemmy instances or clients) can tap into this information to provide solutions to problems like the one you describe (e.g., a feed of all the photography communities, regardless of which instance they’re on).

I think there are several big conceptual and technical challenges to implementing this. I’m keen to discuss them.

Does anyone know where I would go to discuss this with the people who care, have struggled with developing new fediverse protocols and/or are best positioned to spot the flaws and possiblities in the idea? So far I see mostly w3c working groups taking behind closed doors.

“New lab rule: no Ph.D. defences in poetry form.”

Still passed and had a grand old time.

I read this as:

Wealthy, coddled city-dwellers—for each of whom thousands of animals, bred for fatness and compliance, are raised in factories and systematically slaughtered—upset to witness sustainable, traditional harvest practices. Floating corporate safety bubble apologises for failing to protect their naivete.