| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago |
| There is clearly a church-and-state issue with tech platforms owning studios. On the other hand, they have the cash. Not sure how we solve this without directly plumbing the cash to independent studios through a tax on tech funding a subsidy on independent studios. |
|
| ▲ | humodz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| In the 1940s it was common for studios to own movie theaters, but the Supreme Court ruled that this violated antitrust laws and forced them to sell off their theaters. To me it's the same situation again, but now the theaters (streaming platforms) owning the studios. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... |
| |
| ▲ | runevault 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sadly the era of government that split up studios and theaters is long gone. Hollywood is built on a different time between things like this and its flavor of unions that cover the biggest players in the industry. Closest thing we have to a Hollywood today is games, but game makers can also make consoles and industry wide unions would never happen. Is there some unionization in games? Yeah, but I haven't heard of any single one that cover a significant number of different studios | |
| ▲ | reactordev 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And a federal government openly encouraging it |
|
|
| ▲ | vovavili 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >a tax on tech funding a subsidy on independent studios Forcing consumers to subsidize an expensive taste sounds like a peculiar idea. |
| |
| ▲ | ok_dad 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | More like ensuring culture and art isn’t captured by the big conglomerate. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | nonethewiser 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How is it different than media companies owning studios? Or simply studios existing? Studios publish viewpoints. What you’re saying seems to completely ignore the first amendment. |
| |
| ▲ | ok_dad 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The first amendment is for humans fuck the corps | | |
| ▲ | nonethewiser 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But in practice no, the government cannot compel speech like this due to the first amendment | |
| ▲ | boca_honey 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Corporations are legally humans (in the US). You might not like it, but it is what has allowed our current tech infrastructure to flourish. It's the reason you're able to post this. | | |
| ▲ | ok_dad 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure but I’m not saying it’s not legal right now, I’m saying fuck the corps, free speech is for humans. Fuck the Supreme Court of a ~decade ago, too, for fucking this up. | | |
| ▲ | boca_honey 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Free speech is for anyone who has speech. That includes non-humans now. You might be in the wrong side of history. | | |
| ▲ | ok_dad 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | “Anyone“ A fucking clanker isn’t an anyone A loose grouping of humans isn’t an anyone Corps aren’t people |
|
| |
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Persons, not humans. | | |
| ▲ | ok_dad 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Persons == humans and all the arguments otherwise are dumb |
| |
| ▲ | vkou 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's also the reason a lot of crap has flourished, too. I'll take a bit less tech progress if it meant less of it. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There is no church-and-state issue because the state is not stopping anyone from distributing video to whoever wants it. It’s trivial to make and distribute a video (or text website or audio recording). Just because one business does not want to pay for it does not entitle the public to it, like any other media. |
| |
| ▲ | nonethewiser 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah the church and state comparison is funny. The principles guiding separation of church and state are why the government can’t stop or punish tech companies from having studios. What he’s suggesting is to violate the first amendment. You cant just tell tech companies they cant have studios. | | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | vkou 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yet we could tell the studio companies that they can't have theatres. How did that not violate it? Has the amendment changed in the past century? Were the judges just stupid? Maybe it's not so simple? |
| |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It’s trivial to make and distribute a video It's trivial to shout into the void It's nontrivial to get heard Freedom of speech is not sufficient in a world where it is so easy for the powerful to drown out all but the biggest voices | | |
| ▲ | cassonmars 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | This feels like a strange take to me. With the internet, it has never been easier for people anywhere in the (connected) world to find an audience, which we've seen to great and detrimental effects. Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters). Why do you feel differently? | | |
| ▲ | gAI 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | At least in the US, it seems like this viewpoint held more water before net neutrality died. | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters). I don't disagree I just don't think it has moved the needle that much. Powerful publishers still direct an enormous amount of the content available online And there are fewer of them, because they have been consolidating for decades now Edit: I think that a lot of people overestimate how much online publishing is independent. A vast majority of it is still backed/funded/owned by legacy media and publishers. I see this all the time with video games. People will say "look at how popular "New Release" is! Indie games are so successful nowadays!" But it turns out that the game they're talking about is backed by a huge publisher |
|
| |
| ▲ | newshackr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They already paid for it though. The movie was done. | | |
|
