Comments by "K X" (@kx7500) on "Hollywood Writers Strike: Abbott Elementary's Brittani Nichols Decries Streaming Era's "Gig Economy"" video.

@deidaranohits you’re mistaking me for the original commenter I believe. Who is a pathetic spammer pretending their know everything about politics while believing the political compass is an accurate description of the political spectrum lol
2
Ok bootlicker
2
@deidaranohits IMO there has to be a direct ownership of what value you create, and if you release it to the public, it is no longer yours and you can’t control that information, but you can be compensated for it. You’re also allowed to restrict access to the information to smaller circles, but as soon as you release something to people, you can’t reasonably restrict them from sharing that info.
1
@deidaranohits I think they can be paid for access to the information, but information can’t be gatekept and consent shouldn’t be able to be revoked afterwards. Basically whoever you release it to (presumably for money) has free access now, and people can make sure that credit goes to the actual creator of something, and therefore money that is made off the labour of the creator, without putting in their own labour wouldn’t be allowed as that would be capitalist an exploitative. I think the problem comes when giant media orgs get to strictly gatekeep their IPs beyond what is exploitation of the creators. After a certain amount of time, such as when a piece of media reaches popular culture and most have seen it, I don’t think it’s reasonable or creates a free society to build a ton of infrastructure that systematically enforces censorship on anyone that wants to share it. For one it’s impossible and two it’s authoritarian at that point, and third it actually hinders the benefit of the creator arguably. The larger scale a media release gets the more free it should get, because you are also more likely to get compensated for your labour to a very fair amount, but nobody should be making hundreds of millions or billions off one piece of art, nothing one person can make is that relatively valuable to other people’s labour. Basically what im saying is that one’s labour profits would and should grow with how many souls it touches but per person it should decrease as scale does. There’s no reason to charge 8 billion people $100 to watch a piece of media, there is nothing that valuable and after a certain scale it becomes impossible to enforce that. Pirating and torrenting can never be stopped
1
@deidaranohits wrong that is not how it works. You are not allowed to play fractions of it online or even in transformative ways often without being copyright stricken. People control their music well beyond when they’ve been compensated for it, decades and decades after. Corporations hold the avenues for publishing gatekept within the scope that serves them and with heavily limited options otherwise. Even if people have been compensated for their art ten times over, if someone wants to set up a playing of someone’s art and puts in the labour to do so and is compensated for that, the royalties they must pay are ridiculous. Fair use is not respected or very much how it works in existence.
1
Ok?
1