video cd's

Chat about collectables, videos
djdust
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 10:06 am

video cd's

Postby djdust » Wed Nov 27, 2002 9:52 pm

well, I started this whole discussion and I got lost about 2 pages back!  :P
F-Zero-One - the Star Fleet / X Bomber site.....http://www.starfleetxbomber.com

felice
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 11:14 pm

video cd's

Postby felice » Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:07 pm

> Hmm, I'm obviously not thinking quite the same thing> as you are in terms of how distribution is to take place. > I assumed that in your model the DVD availability would> come from the (now capitalised! ) Fund - you seem to> be saying that people would actually be paying for> these DVDs out of their own pockets? People would pay for the individual copies of the DVDs out of their own pockets, yes. But they'd be paying the same price that people currently pay to pirate them, ie bugger all compared to current retail price. I imagine people going down to the local DVD burner and picking up a few discs for 50p each or so; less if they use rewritables and return the ones they've finished with. Or downloading the files online at the standard per MB rate.> My understanding is that they were being distributed to> make material available, not because there was a> commercial argument to do so...All material should be made available, but only distributed in the quantities people actually want. You might have to wait a few days for something obscure that the local DVD burner doesn't have in its files.> But again, it all boils down to the real figures and> scope. If the Fund is intended to produce every bit of> TV going, for all tastes, then it's going to be HUGE. It won't be any huger than the agglomeration of the current commercial tv companies (which is what it would probably be created from if it actually happened).> Furthermore, as you've rightly said, it's a chicken and> egg scenario. Until a show is made you can't say> whether it was a good idea to commit resources to it. That's an unsolvable and universal problem, and has nothing to do with my specific system.> Regardless of how much notional choice viewers have> in saying what gets made, I see no reason to believe> that central funding will actually improve programming> quality over the commercial option. *shrug* Maybe, maybe not. I very much doubt it would make it worse, and it would definitely be more efficient. If it does improve overall quality as I would hope, that's just a bonus, not the fundamental reason for the system.> You're also forced to hope that the people putting> together the list don't have their own agendas. If> people can only vote for what's on the list then> anything missing from it can't be voted for._Anyone_ can contribute to the master list. And there would be a wide range of shortlists - anyone could go through the master list and create one.> Also, funds from people not voting must be spent> somewhere - that's down to the > government/organisation. Can we say 1984?I'd suggest a small portion to be allocated by the organisation directly, and the bulk to be divvied up according to the voters' wishes, no matter how few people actually choose to vote. Possibly the voters' portion could vary depending on how many people did participate, with a range of maybe 50% to 90% of the total fund.> I don't believe that a wholly centralised system of> media production would necessarily be efficient, or> healthy. The capitalist system _is_ necessarily inefficient and unhealthy. Any better ideas?> It runs the risk of becoming a propaganda machine. Yes, that would have to be strongly regulated against.> I think the key is balance. Communism didn't work well> because it was constantly imposing an artifical set of> imperatives on the economyWhich it shouldn't have done. The state should exist to serve the people, not decide for itself what they need.> So there's a question - will data, and access to it, be> considered a public good in the future? Hopefully, because restricting access reduces value, and can never be completely effective.> Of course, we've talked about DVDs for media storage> here but you could do away with them once broadband> gets, urm, broader. Yes. DVD is just an example.

AndyThomas
Posts: 1665
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 12:42 am
Contact:

video cd's

Postby AndyThomas » Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:55 pm

Hmm. I quite like the "local DVD burner" concept - weren't Virgin planning to do something similar in stores with CDs? A sort of burn-your-own-album thing? Did that take off? In fact, this is something you could see BlockBuster doing. Rather than renting from a limited selection of physical DVDs you just download one from a catalogue. And of course, if it was as easy as that to do, you couldn't get away with charging much for it - once one kid had the DVD at home you can imagine how quickly it would spread...! However, you're still looking at serious infrastructure costs to set it all up. It'd be a big burden on the Fund to maintain.> It won't be any huger than the agglomeration of the > current commercial tv companies (which is what it > would probably be created from if it actually happened). Ah, but remember that not all TV companies are necessarily making their own stuff. A lot is recycled material from abroad etc. If you want more home-grown stuff then the Fund must be bigger than local TV production currently is. So hey - there's another issue for you. Not only do people have to vote on new shows to be made, they have to vote for what foreign and old shows they want!> _Anyone_ can contribute to the master list. And there> would be a wide range of shortlists - anyone could go> through the master list and create one. Oh come on Felice! First it was broad areas of choice, then it was pick from a list of programmes, now it's a pick 'n' mix where you make up the flavours yourself?! You can't just have members of the public generating random titles of shows they want to see made like "cats doing aerobics while whistling Dixie"! The reality is far more likely to be that a list will be generated by "the Organisation" listing potential shows for a season with a synposis. People can then get a certain number of "picks" to allocate to shows they're interested in. That I could see working, perhaps, although again whether a show lives up to its synopsis is another thing...> I very much doubt it would make it worse, and> it would definitely be more efficient.You can't conclude that. You've accepted that there's a fundamental problem with the whole thing, in that you can't guarantee the popularity of something before it's made. That being a constant in both systems, there's exactly the same potential for flops in both systems. The only difference is that the Organisation's flops may have been selected by the public (based on recommendations by the Organisation) rather than commercial reasoning.> I'd suggest a small portion to be allocated by the> organisation directly, and the bulk to be divvied up> according to the voters' wishes, no matter how few> people actually choose to vote. Possibly the voters'> portion could vary depending on how many people did> participate, with a range of maybe 50% to 90% of the> total fund. Sorry, but "eh?!" So let me get this right. One person actually cares enough to vote and 50% of the fund goes on his wishes alone despite everyone in the country paying taxes?! It's all very well saying "tough, people should have voted" but this is entertainment we're talking about! I certainly wouldn't be happy if 50% of all material was sports related! I suppose in a sense it's an interesting incentive to make people vote, but...!> The capitalist system _is_ necessarily inefficient and unhealthy. > Any better ideas?Well, apparently not, as most nations seem to find it's the best way to go! I really don't think it's as inefficient as you think it is, either. The core principle is that products will only be made where demand exists. So once the market settles into a position where supply=demand you can't get much more efficient than that. I know, I know, you'd argue that demand for certain items is artificially created and so that's inefficient - but is that any worse than a communist state producing items for which there is no demand at all or failing to maximise use of resources by meeting demand that does actually exist? I mean, ####, we're arguing about demand and supply for entertainment here which is very artificial - can't we just play hop skotch and channel those resources elsewhere?!>> It runs the risk of becoming a propaganda machine. > Yes, that would have to be strongly regulated against.Riiiiight - by the same government that's running the propaganda machine. Gotcha ;)The interesting thing about technology as an enabler of choice is that it'll work for commercial organisations as well, of course. They already use viewing figures as a determining guide for what to produce to fill time slots, and when to kill shows off. Whilst it's not quite as direct as your method, it does involve the viewing public - the stakeholders. There's no reason why commercial channels couldn't introduce polls towards the end of a season to allow people to vote yes or no on whether a show continues, allowing people not otherwise captured by the viewing figures to get a say.The thing is, you can never have any guarantee that a particular show you like will continue. Take Farscape. It's a cult show. I'd quite like it to continue. So would some other people. Because those people are probably Net users, they can be very vocal about that. However, if you offer the whole public a choice between keeping Farscape on the air and, say, broadcasting the Ashes - cricket will win. Regardless of the system, what's popular will survive and what isn't - won't. That might be unfair from the point of view of the Farscape fan - but that's limited resources for you. Distribution might be doable, but it's got to get made in the first place, and that's seldom a cheap proposition.
Andy Thomas - SFXB Webmaster and Forum Moderator

felice
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 11:14 pm

video cd's

Postby felice » Thu Nov 28, 2002 12:34 am

> Actually it's very easy to reply to specific points because> there's a counter-arguement to pretty much every> position or statement (in the social sciences) I don't think you've provided very good counter arguments in this case.> To my knowlege no-one has ever even implied that> Starfleet VCDs have limited avaliabilityThen how can they be auctioned?> Question: Given Simon's actions, would it be immoral> for any one of the "Ebayers" to "grass up" Simon> Coverdale to the IR and/or copyright holders for> bootlegging and making undeclared business profits> Answer: Nope.After making use of his work themselves? I'd have to disagree with you there. And what makes you think they don't already know?> Well, if they're loosing a small number of future sales> then trhe same applies for Simon who can also only be> loosing a "small number of sales"."Sales" and "potential future sales" are very different things. At this point in time, Simon is trying to make sales, and the copyright holders aren't.> Lets take, say, just 50 DVDs, 50 VHS, 50 pieces of> software, and 100 CDs ( 250 in total out of the tens of> millions of items commercailly avaliable out there.> There are approximately 60 million people in the UK> In the individual ownership scenario ín the UK we'd> need 60,000,000 x 250, which is 15,000,000,000 items> of media(CDs/DVDs etc)Assuming every single person wants every single one of those items, yes. The number of such items in the UK at the moment is probably not too far off that.> HERE IVE ONLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT 250 INDIVIDUAL> COPYRIGHTED AUDIOVISUAL ITEMS OUT OF THE TENS> OF MILLIONS COMMERCIALLY AVALIABLE.Nobody wants tens of millions of items. There is no need to make a copy of every item for every person; only make enough to supply those who want them. We'd be talking tens of hundreds per person tops, not tens of millions. And the items are very cheap to produce; tens of pence each. So your argument falls down.> can you even begin to imagine the sheer scale of> proposing to provide every single one of the> 6,228,394,430 (62 billion) people worldwide with> ownership of every one of the billions of audio-visual> items that are commercially avaliableWhy would anyone want to do that? Now allowing every single one of the 6 billion people worldwide at-cost ownership of their chosen _selection_ of the billions of available items, that I can imagine.> This is why I think your ideas are daft, even ludicrousThen you were misunderstanding my ideas. Do you think they make sense now?> access to clean drinking water> people die from treatable conditions,> people are chronically undernourished> And, thats why I feel we could be debating much more> urgent and much more sensible issues than "free DVDs> for all" when we discuss international politics and social> morality.Then why are you debating it? But in short, socialism is the answer to all those problems.> Furthermore, if we take your figures as they are> expressed, it does seem a bit extreme, but in actuality> they come down to 10 Hollywood films (hundreds, even> thousands, have been released each year for the past> 50 years).Not at "Titanic" budget, and not in the UK. And who's paying for them now?> and about 4000 hours of mid-budget serial > entertainment - which is a massively less figure than> the total hours of "serial entertainment" produced> worldwie since the advent of colour TV or VHS, or> whenerver you want to place the markerWhat's total worldwide production throughout history got to do with it? We're talking about annual production in the UK.> What, apart from production That's already been done; not giving copies to poor countries wouldn't help pay for it.> and refinement of raw> materials and worldwide dissemination...?The recipients would have to pay for that, but it's a tiny figure compared to the cost of buying the same data at current market rates.> Now, again, thats just silly, because human beings are> essentially selfish - you tell people they can pay their> taxes as and when, and to the value they see fit, then> I for one wouldn't be paying taxes.No, everyone would have to pay the same tax, but people could choose how their tax was spent, eg they could allocate 5% of their taxes to the Data Fund, 25% to healthcare, etc.> Its acceptable in relation to the consequences of> action/non-action; the NHS is responsible for saving> lives and ensuring the populations good health, which> is essential for the succsessful functioning of a countrey> and its economy. Owning all 12 Buffy The Vampire> Slayer DVD Box sets isn't quite so functionally> important.No, it's not as important as healthcare, but it is of similar importance to the fiction sections of libraries, where are currently publicly funded. And it solves the problem of data not being diminishable; do you have an alternative solution?> Interesting though that you equate your ideas with the> realm of make believe and absurdity.No, you did that. I simply pointed out that it wouldn't matter even if you were right, which I don't think you are.> Its not being "radical" that makes your views> unreasonable, its the views themselves that do that Then why did you bring up their radicalness?> Well, it was supposed to be a rather frivolous barb and> nothing more but anyway......You mean it was an attempt to discredit my argument by making a false comparison.> Although.....if we're to have > state-supplied/subsidiseddigital data why not have> state supplied/subsidised alcoholic drinks? Because once produced, data can be copied indefinitely; drinks can't. You have to make each one from scratch.> They may be feasable in terms of a unified theory (I> wouldn't know as you refuse to lay out a codified> statement of your overall position)My overall position is obvious.> Well, firstly I didn't say they were crazy ideas, I said> they were absurdAnd how is that distinction relevant? You still need to explain why, not just apply a label without justification.> and I think I explained why; because your ideas have> absolutely no chance of being implemented now or in> the near future. How about medium or long term future, then? And "difficult to implement" is not the same as "absurd".> Debating social and political reform can be very> constructive, but you're not talking about reform, or> even renaissance, you're talking about replacement> and reversal, and complete reversal and replacement of> social, political and legal values, systems and statutesBoth replacement and reversal, _and_ complete reversal and replacement? Wow, yes, I see now how foolish my ideas were </sarcasm>. That's a very impressive way to describe expanding the BBC and making it more responsive to the public.> simultaneously both in a micro sense, in terms of every> country on EarthWhy should it happen simultaneously? Such a system is perfectly capable of operating in a single country.> as well as in a macro sense, in terms of a global system> of co-operation and exchange just is not feasibleA global system would be easy to implement. It would just be pairs of countries agreeing to pool their data.> and yes, I'd go as far as to suggest that expectation > of that level of variance from current and traditional > socio-economic forms is indeed, absurd.It's been done before. The current socio-economic forms are enormously different from those of a few hundred years ago, let alo
ne a few thousand years ago.

10TimesMan
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:07 am

video cd's

Postby 10TimesMan » Thu Nov 28, 2002 1:57 am

Well, you've picked out the more insignificant comments and left out the biggies (the ones you didn't have a counter to?), but anyway, whatever. (I'll take it that everything you didnt try to counter you either couldn't, cos I was right , or wouldn't because you agree with me)At least I have the courtesy to provide your comments in full alongside mine, not edited extracts that allow criticism via decontextualisation, not logic. > Actually it's very easy to reply to specific points because > there's a counter-arguement to pretty much every > position or statement (in the social sciences) I don't think you've provided very good counter arguments in this case. Great, so that means you've conceded my original point, now as for that theory.........(I'm waiting)> To my knowlege no-one has ever even implied that > Starfleet VCDs have limited avaliability Then how can they be auctioned? Huh? That arguement as it stands, can be aspplied to anything in a similar class that can be sold or auctioned. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but I don't need to know to be able to counter: then how can any digitsal media ever be sold?> Question: Given Simon's actions, would it be immoral > for any one of the "Ebayers" to "grass up" Simon > Coverdale to the IR and/or copyright holders for > bootlegging and making undeclared business profits > Answer: Nope. After making use of his work themselves? I'd have to disagree with you there. And what makes you think they don't already know? His work? HIS WORK? I've made this point a dozen times before, Simon put in a few hours converting the format, that does not make it his intellectual property. It is not his work. It is the work of the original creators of the show.> Well, if they're loosing a small number of future sales > then trhe same applies for Simon who can also only be > loosing a "small number of sales". "Sales" and "potential future sales" are very different things. At this point in time, Simon is trying to make sales, and the copyright holders aren't. They are different to a point, but they share the essential similarity that they exactly equate to revenue (or in this case, lack of)> Lets take, say, just 50 DVDs, 50 VHS, 50 pieces of > software, and 100 CDs ( 250 in total out of the tens of > millions of items commercailly avaliable out there. > There are approximately 60 million people in the UK > In the individual ownership scenario ín the UK we'd > need 60,000,000 x 250, which is 15,000,000,000 items > of media(CDs/DVDs etc) Assuming every single person wants every single one of those items, yes. The number of such items in the UK at the moment is probably not too far off that. In my last post I wrote:And please don't try and throw a potential avaliability vs actual demand arguement at me because it just won't wash, as I'll probably have to explain when you do bring it out) You ignored it so here we go.. Of course not everyone would want every single one of the billions of avaliable items (that was why i picked, being generous to your arguement) the 250 figure in the first place). But they would want enough to make the stystem untenave, personally I own about 200 CDs (pre-Napster mostly), and about 30 original films, plus about 5 original games. If they were free I could easily come up with 2 or 3 thousand CDs, and thousands of films. Work those kind of figures the numbers I provided earlier and you'll see the problem.Also, you're forgetting that humans aren't completely rational, they arent selfless, they'd have em for the sake of having em. > HERE IVE ONLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT 250 INDIVIDUAL > COPYRIGHTED AUDIOVISUAL ITEMS OUT OF THE TENS > OF MILLIONS COMMERCIALLY AVALIABLE. Nobody wants tens of millions of items. There is no need to make a copy of every item for every person; only make enough to supply those who want them. We'd be talking tens of hundreds per person tops, not tens of millions. And the items are very cheap to produce; tens of pence each. So your argument falls down. Well, again you've changed tack, I'm interpreting your arguement on the basis of what you write - I'm afraid you're either gonna have to be more precise, or decide you're position and stick to it. I've noticed your arguement has slowly changed throughout your posts, getting ever more reasonable - who knws, in a couple of years we may just have something workable.....Anyway, the arguement doesnt fall down for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph, lets just do the figues with 3 or 4 thousand pieces per capita. ( Could you even fit that many DVD's into a mud hut in Botswana?) > can you even begin to imagine the sheer scale of > proposing to provide every single one of the > 6,228,394,430 (62 billion) people worldwide with > ownership of every one of the billions of audio-visual > items that are commercially avaliable Why would anyone want to do that? Now allowing every single one of the 6 billion people worldwide at-cost ownership of their chosen _selection_ of the billions of available items, that I can imagine. We've been through this I think> This is why I think your ideas are daft, even ludicrous Then you were misunderstanding my ideas. Do you think they make sense now? I understand what you're driving at, I just think you're way of looking at it is somewhat half baked. Talking of "global free entertainment for all" against a backdrop of worlkd poverty and starvation. I think you might be applying a paintwork of socialism to subscription the idea of subscription based pay-per-view and kind of fudging the issues in the process.> access to clean drinking water > people die from treatable conditions, > people are chronically undernourished > And, thats why I feel we could be debating much more > urgent and much more sensible issues than "free DVDs > for all" when we discuss international politics and social > morality. Then why are you debating it? But in short, socialism is the answer to all those problems. Hah! Talk about sweeping statements! I think you criticised me elsewhere for this, and for making statements without backing them up (unified, codified theory please? Now's your chance!)> Furthermore, if we take your figures as they are > expressed, it does seem a bit extreme, but in actuality > they come down to 10 Hollywood films (hundreds, even > thousands, have been released each year for the past > 50 years). Not at "Titanic" budget, and not in the UK. And who's paying for them now? At what budget then, Star Wars? Spiderman? Men in Black 2? Fact is, budgets get bigger and bigger and blockbusters cost a lot - it's "blockbusters" that people wanna see> and about 4000 hours of mid-budget serial > entertainment - which is a massively less figure than > the total hours of "serial entertainment" produced > worldwie since the advent of colour TV or VHS, or > whenerver you want to place the marker What's total worldwide production throughout history got to do with it? We're talking about annual production in the UK. Well your implication, with references to Buffy, Andromeda or whatever, and particularly in the casde of Starfleet - the whole "free DVDs for everyone " thing, you seemed to imply that past present and future releases would be avaliable. Not just the ones released this year and from this day forth.> What, apart from production That's already been done; not giving copies to poor countries wouldn't help pay for it. No it hasn't, not on the scale you're suggesting, dont forget that these kind of industries only capture a maximum 30% share of world population. Your scheme would have to cater for a 100% share and also increased
demand, > and refinement of raw > materials and worldwide dissemination...? The recipients would have to pay for that, but it's a tiny figure compared to the cost of buying the same data at current market rates. Yes it is small in comparison, but still, producing (62 billion times 4 thousand ) 248 billion CDs/DVDs is pretty significant I'd say> Now, again, thats just silly, because human beings are > essentially selfish - you tell people they can pay their > taxes as and when, and to the value they see fit, then > I for one wouldn't be paying taxes. No, everyone would have to pay the same tax, but people could choose how their tax was spent, eg they could allocate 5% of their taxes to the Data Fund, 25% to healthcare, etc. That couldn't work, there's no way such services as the NHS could be effectively managed or budgeted without advance knowledge of projected income.> Its acceptable in relation to the consequences of > action/non-action; the NHS is responsible for saving > lives and ensuring the populations good health, which > is essential for the succsessful functioning of a countrey > and its economy. Owning all 12 Buffy The Vampire > Slayer DVD Box sets isn't quite so functionally > important. No, it's not as important as healthcare, but it is of similar importance to the fiction sections of libraries, where are currently publicly funded. And it solves the problem of data not being diminishable; do you have an alternative solution? I don't get what you're trying to say. As for a solution though, I don't really see there being a proiblem, therefpore no solution required. My only concern about copyright laws is plans to increase tenure to up to thousands of years - that'd mean no more £1 Penguin classics etc, and would represent a loss to society and academia.> Interesting though that you equate your ideas with the > realm of make believe and absurdity. No, you did that. I simply pointed out that it wouldn't matter even if you were right, which I don't think you are. (Well you haven't convincingly said why, and what makes me "wrong")You made the equation between the ideas you're propounding and the fact that its a science fiction message board (ie, deals with the realm of make believe and absurdity) Not me.> Its not being "radical" that makes your views > unreasonable, its the views themselves that do that Then why did you bring up their radicalness? Maybe I shouldn't have used the word, because it seems to have become somewhat of a red herring. I've explained in length why I think your ideas are absurd before and I'm not going to bother repeating myself (again)> Well, it was supposed to be a rather frivolous barb and > nothing more but anyway...... You mean it was an attempt to discredit my argument by making a false comparison. Well hey, by fair means or foul.......> Although.....if we're to have > state-supplied/subsidiseddigital data why not have > state supplied/subsidised alcoholic drinks? Because once produced, data can be copied indefinitely; drinks can't. You have to make each one from scratch. Again, you're picking out the morsels and leaving the meat...Anyway, you're off the mark I think - under Communism everything is state - sponsered (again, I'm thinking Vodka under Stalins Russia), though obviously its not couched in those terms.> They may be feasable in terms of a unified theory (I > wouldn't know as you refuse to lay out a codified > statement of your overall position) My overall position is obvious. Your overall broad approach is obvious, but there're so many inconsistancies and inadequacies in what you're saying I reallythink it waould be helpful if you'd lay out a codified and complete theoery Das Capita style (not that that was a theort strictly speaking, but anyway) , - may take you a while but hey, you've obviously got a bit of time on your hands otherwise you wouldn't be making ll these long winded posts...> Well, firstly I didn't say they were crazy ideas, I said > they were absurd And how is that distinction relevant? You still need to explain why, not just apply a label without justification. The distinction should be obvious to any native speaker of the English language, if not, get a dictionary (might aswell save you some time and quote from mine)Absurd: "absurd, adj, ridiculous; foolishly incongruous or unreasonableCrazy: "Crazy, informal, affected with or suggestive of madness, insane.Big difference in syntax.> and I think I explained why; because your ideas have > absolutely no chance of being implemented now or in > the near future. How about medium or long term future, then? And "difficult to implement" is not the same as "absurd". No, not likely in the long or medium term ether I'm afraid, short of a global disaster or catastrophe ( I'm told that within the nexct 5 million years an asteroid latge enough to wipe out 95% OF THE POPULATION WILL HIT THE eRATH, THEN MAYBE...)> Debating social and political reform can be very > constructive, but you're not talking about reform, or > even renaissance, you're talking about replacement > and reversal, and complete reversal and replacement of > social, political and legal values, systems and statutes Both replacement and reversal, _and_ complete reversal and replacement? Wow, yes, I see now how foolish my ideas were </sarcasm>. That's a very impressive way to describe expanding the BBC and making it more responsive to the public. Thats not what you were talking about and you know it (good to see you descend to these kind of tactics though as it means you're clutching at strwar - turning to lexicon and style over content.)Actually that kind of repitition is common throughout western traditions of political writing, philosophy and even poetry, its used to really hammer home a point generally, or to draw attention to the different nuances of the statement - but lets not go into that... Just so its not taken out of context or misinterpreted I'll write it again, this time using a comma instead of a full stop (and loosing the "and" :Well, firstly I didn't say they were crazy ideas, I said they were absurd, and I think I explained why; because your ideas have absolutely no chance of being implemented now or in the near future. Debating social and political reform can be very constructive, but you're not talking about reform, or even renaissance, you're talking about replacement and reversal. Complete reversal and replacement of social, political and legal values, systems and statutes simultaneously both in a micro sense, in terms of every country on Earth, as well as in a macro sense, in terms of a global system of co-operation and exchange just is not feasible, and yes, I'd go as far as to suggest that expectation of that level of variance from current and traditional socio-economic forms is indeed, absurd. And for the same reason not particularly constructive. Happy?> simultaneously both in a micro sense, in terms of every > country on Earth > as well as in a macro sense, in terms of a global system > of co-operation and exchange just is not feasible A global system would be easy to implement. It would just be pairs of countries agreeing to pool their data. Hmm, countries such as Malawi, Botswana, Finland, hmmm...> and yes, I'd go as far as to suggest that expectation > of that level of variance from current and traditional > socio-economic forms is indeed, absurd. It's been done before. The current socio-economic forms are enormously different from those of a few hundred years ago, let alone a few thousand years ago. This is a biggie - a good point. . Of course, the current socioeconomic and political forms are potentially instable, they've changed before and they'll change again. However, t
here's a consensus amongst a whole range of polemicists from political theorists to sociologists that what we have now is a much more stable system, thanks at least in part to time/space compression due to the digital age. Whilst the current system is likely to be (to quopte from Alan) "Evolution not revolution" though certain to change, over the generations, it's unlikely we'll see the kind of (your favourite phrase), complete reversal and rejection of current norms, values and socioeconomic forms, certainly not in such a complete and unquestioning manner as you seem to suggest possible(short of a global catastrophe such as aforementioned meteor strike or some other such event that is)
errrrr..........

felice
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 11:14 pm

video cd's

Postby felice » Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:47 am

>> You mean it was an attempt to discredit my argument>> by making a false comparison.>> Well hey, by fair means or foul....... In other words your purpose in this thread is to put down my argument, irrespective of whether or not it has any merit. Therefore nothing you have said is relevant, and there is no point to further discussion with you; any further posts you make will be ignored (unless I get really bored at work).I had an interesting conversation at lunchtime... someone agreed with me that my proposed system would make sense and increase the quality of TV production, but raised the question of whether this was socially desireable. Better programs could lead to people spending more time in front of the TV, and better catering to individual tastes would lead to loss of cultural cohesiveness, since people would be watching a wider variety of shows and not share the TV experience to the same extent. Personally I think people watch as much TV as they want to watch, irrespective of the quality, and there would still be shows with broad appeal. And the logical extension of the alternative is that the quality and quantity of TV show be minimised; just make a handful of shows that everyone could watch the same things, and not care too much about them.

10TimesMan
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:07 am

video cd's

Postby 10TimesMan » Thu Nov 28, 2002 10:50 am

Well no, like I said, the original comment was intented to be a frivolous barb, the second comment was just to wind you up. Looks like it worked. You American or something? Seem awfully sensitive for a British guy.Anyway. I've said what i had to say......
errrrr..........

felice
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 11:14 pm

video cd's

Postby felice » Thu Nov 28, 2002 9:36 pm

> Well no, like I said, the original comment was intented> to be a frivolous barb, the second comment was just to> wind you up. Oh? it seems to be a very accurate description of your overall strategy. I'm trying to have a serious conversation; I'm not interested in barbs or winding up, so your posts are irrelevant.> You American or something? Seem awfully sensitive for> a British guy. I'm not American, British, or a guy.

felice
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 11:14 pm

video cd's

Postby felice » Thu Nov 28, 2002 11:41 pm

> Hmm. I quite like the "local DVD burner" concept - > weren't Virgin planning to do something similar in> stores with CDs? A sort of burn-your-own-album thing?> Did that take off? I doubt it. They'd still be trying to recoup the production costs through the markup, so I doubt it would be much cheaper than pre-pressed CDs, and they'd lack the fancy packaging which is the only advantage official CDs have over pirated ones. But it's an indication that the idea is technically feasible, even if not economically viable under capitalism.> However, you're still looking at serious infrastructure> costs to set it all up. It'd be a big burden on the Fund> to maintain.It might seem big to us, but it's a drop in the ocean of total data production costs. And I expect the costs would mostly come out of the small per-unit charges; through economies of scale, it would still be cheaper than piracy.> Ah, but remember that not all TV companies are> necessarily making their own stuff. A lot is recycled> material from abroad etc. If you want more> home-grown stuff then the Fund must be bigger than> local TV production currently is. No, I don't want more home-grown stuff. There'd still be large-scale importing.> So hey - there's another issue for you. Not only do> people have to vote on new shows to be made, they> have to vote for what foreign and old shows they> want!Yep. I don't see that as being a problem. Old shows have already been paid for, so wouldn't need many people to request them to get a DVD release. And foreign shows could still be imported just as they are now (and sold for 20 times as much as locally produced DVDs), until other countries switch to the same system and do free trades.For the time being, imports could be partly paid for by exports.> Oh come on Felice! First it was broad areas of choice,> then it was pick from a list of programmesBoth options could exist; people could choose at which level of detail they wanted to vote.> You can't just have members of the public generating> random titles of shows they want to see made like> "cats doing aerobics while whistling Dixie"!No. I imagine there'd be a required format, including synopses, sample script extracts, etc. And a limit on how frequently people could make submissions. Also, people could vote for something to be removed from the list, which would happen if the ratio of removes to keeps got too high (eg 5 keeps, 1,000 removes and it goes, while 10,000 keeps and 1,000,000 removes and it stays). Too many removals would result in a permanent ban from submissions. Oh, and there'd be an age limit.> People can then get a certain number of "picks" to> allocate to shows they're interested in. That I could> see working, perhaps,Good 8)> although again whether a show lives up to its synopsis> is another thing...Again, that's a universal, unsolvable problem, and has nothing to do with my specific system.> You can't conclude that. You've accepted that there's a> fundamental problem with the whole thing, in that you> can't guarantee the popularity of something before it's> made. That's _not_ a flaw specific to the system; there is _no_ way to guarantee the popularity of a show before it's made under _any_ system, and if there was it could probably be used under my system. So there's no point in bringing up this argument; it's equivalent to me arguing that the current system must be abolished because it doesn't cure cancer.> That being a constant in both systems, there's exactly> the same potential for flops in both systems.It's only exactly the same potential if the public as a whole and a small group of network executives are exactly equally bad at predicting what they'll like. Personally, my money's on the public.> Sorry, but "eh?!" So let me get this right. One person> actually cares enough to vote and 50% of the fund> goes on his wishes alone despite everyone in the> country paying taxes?! It's all very well saying "tough,> people should have voted" but this is entertainment > we're talking about! I certainly wouldn't be happy if> 50% of all material was sports related! I suppose in a> sense it's an interesting incentive to make people vote,> but...!Yes, tough, people should have voted! People who don't vote have no right to complain about the outcome. Why didn't you vote, and get 25% of the fund devoted to making a big budget Star Fleet movie, or whatever you'd prefer over sport? I think it's a perfectly reasonable incentive, though in reality, you're very unlikely to get such a poor turnout. And if it did happen, it's only one season! If people were unhappy, they'd be more likely to vote for the coming season.> Well, apparently not, as most nations seem to find it's> the best way to go! It's certainly best for the capitalists, yes.> I really don't think it's as inefficient as you think it is,> either. The core principle is that products will only be> made where demand exists. So once the market> settles into a position where supply=demand you can't> get much more efficient than that. The problem with the core principle is that it assumes perfect knowldge, no barriers to entry, etc; practical impossibilities that mean it can never get close to the theoretical perfect efficiency.> I know, I know, you'd argue that demand for certain> items is artificially created and so that's inefficient - but> is that any worse than a communist state producing> items for which there is no demand at all or failing to> maximise use of resources by meeting demand that> does actually exist? No, it's not, but what you're talking about there is a Stalinist state, also known as State Capitalism, _not_ democratic socialism. The idea is to maximise democracy, give the people the greatest possible direct control over the running of the state, not having an elite in charge running things. State capitalism is what happens when a socialist revolution collapses; in Russia's case, due to war and famine leaving virtually no working class left.> I mean, ####, we're arguing about demand and supply> for entertainment here which is very artificial - can't we> just play hop skotch and channel those resources> elsewhere?!Under socialism, yes, if that's what people prefer. As you say, artifical demand, one of the many major problems with capitalism. A capitalist system _can't_ channel the resources elsewhere, because entertainment is more profitable for the capitalists than ending hunger etc.> Riiiiight - by the same government that's running the> propaganda machine. GotchaWhat stops the _current_ government from seizing control of the media and using them for propaganda purposes? For that matter, what stops the capitalist media owners using the media for capitalist propaganda? (Answer: nothing, and they do.) Socialism is intended to maximise people's control over the government; you could change your vote any time you liked, not just once every few years. If your MP starts trying to impose controls on the media, vote for someone else! They'll get kciked out of office immediately if they do something that the people don't like.> Whilst it's not quite as direct as your method, it does> involve the viewing public - the stakeholders. No, under capitalism the viewing public are the _product_, not the stakeholders, and the advertisers are the customers. TV programs are merely bait to attract viewers to the ads. The networks don't care _what_ the viewers think, as long as they continue to view.> There's no reason why commercial channels couldn't> introduce polls towards the end of a season to allow> people to vote yes or no on whether a show continues, >
allowing people not otherwise captured by the viewing> figures to get a say.Except there's no motive for them to do so; they're driven purely by revenue to expense ratios, and what the people do is all that affects that, no what they say.> The thing is, you can never have any guarantee that a> particular show you like will continue. Take Farscape.> It's a cult show. I'd quite like it to continue. So would> some other people. More than enough people to make it economically viable, I'm sure. It wasn't cancelled for being insufficiently popular; it was cancelled because someone at the network decided that they could make more profit by showing something less popular, but cheaper to buy or make. They don't care if their ratings drop by 30% if their costs drop by 70%; they're making more money. A program doesn't have to be good to attract viewers, just better than whatever's on the other channels.> However, if you offer the whole public a choice between> keeping Farscape on the air and, say, broadcasting the> Ashes - cricket will win. Yes, but there should be enough money to pay for both. And under capitalism, the cost of televised sport is grossly exagerated, with multiple companies bidding for exclusive rights (and pissing off the public if the rights go to cable instead of free-to-air).> Distribution might be doable, but it's got to get made in> the first place, and that's seldom a cheap proposition. An unrelated idea for cult programs... free DVDs in return for donations. Donate &#365+ an episode, and get the DVDs mailed out to you at no charge. That would help reduce piracy, too - who would be willing to let their copy be pirated?

10TimesMan
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:07 am

video cd's

Postby 10TimesMan » Fri Nov 29, 2002 3:47 am

Look...... Yes, I was trying to discredit your arguement (very succsessfully if we're honest about it), because it is nonsense and therefore deserves ridicule. It's nothing personal, so please don't take it personally.OK, I made an unfair comparison to try and lighten the tone and perhaps try and take the sting out of the fact that I'd just convincingly rubbished everything you believed in. Still, it was you who brought it down to this level "his arguements are irrelevant because he's tryihng to discredit my arguement" Hmmmmm....? Really? I bet Wittgenstein wished he'd thought of that while trying to justify Tractatus to a determined Russell) (ie. it's nonsense). Well if you cant reply intellegently then you might aswell reply with something irrelevant and trite, aint that right Felice?Well, I dont like the tone I'm taking or the way this thread's turned out so this'll be my last post. See ya.PS I really think you need to lighten up a bit. (And read a bit of Marx, maybe even go back to school, a degree in Sociology and Economics perhaps?)
errrrr..........


Return to “The Merchandise”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron