video cd's

Chat about collectables, videos
felice
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 11:14 pm

video cd's

Postby felice » Mon Nov 25, 2002 12:24 am

> OK, for starters I think you've gotta stop taking apart > others comments and criticising them piecemeal (very> easy to do), and put forward (and defend) a coherant> codified statement of your own views (not quite so> easy to do).Ok, for starters I think you've gotta stop responding with general statements of position (very easy to do), and start responding directly to specific points (not quite so easy to do).> The arguement that Ebay sellers are bootleggers is> equally valid for Simon - he is bootlegging, therefore he> is a bootlegger. True. Therefore any arguement > criticising Ebay bootleggers FOR BOOTLEGGING can also> be applied to Simon . True. Have I made that clear > enough?Yes, that's completely true. It's also true that Simon put significant work in to making the series available whereas the Ebayers didn't, and that it's immoral to imply that the VCDs have limited availability when they can easily be reproduced in any quantity required.> Incidentally, the copyright holders may well be loosing> FUTURE sales to Simon (if a DVD/VHS release does ever> come about ... as in the case of Terrahawks!!), so that> arguement isn't valid either.I still think it's valid. Yes, they may be loosing a small number of future sales; that's the price they pay for choosing not to make an official version available. Irrespective of the legalities of the situation, I don't think the copyright holders have a moral right to completely prevent people from obtaining copies of the series.> As for your comments relating to public libraries, you've> changed tack here a little, in fact my public library does> RENT out DVDs, along with music CDs, VHS tapes and> even some Playstation games, however, you were> originally talking about ownership, not renting. A big> difference.A minimal difference. If something is available to be borrowed as needed, how is that different from ownership in practical terms? > Yes, we do pay a TV license in Britain of around £150> though this varies according to circumstances, and yes,> we could as you suggest, in theory, extend this to> include subsidisation of other mediums such as DVD or> CD, however, the costs involved ON A NATIONAL SCALE> in Britain would be phenomenal. I couldn;'t even begin> to do the sums accurately, but I estimate that to> include the whole range of DVD VHS CD and other> media, we'd be looking at an "entertainment tax" of a> minimum of £20,000 per head(probably much more> when you consider the billions of individual copyright -> held medias), roughly equivalent to the average > household after tax income. Are you starting to see my> point?That would be a total tax of £1.2 trillion a year, which would be enough to make ten "Titanic"s, two thousand episodes of "Babylon 5", or ten thousand episodes of "Doctor Who". Just for Britain, in just one year. Probably a bit excessive, I'd say. Also, the cost of production could be offset by international sales (potentially to the point where it makes money instead of costing money), and it would be theoretically possible to buy the national rights for films and programs produced overseas for a lot less than the cost of production. In fact, I think that's often done already; one company will buy the local rights to a DVD for a flat fee, and can then sell as many copies as it likes. If the overseas producers weren't willing to sell their data on that basis, individuals could still purchase private copies as is done now. In any case, there's no need to spend any more than the current average expenditure on data; people would use more data if it was free, but it wouldn't cost any more to produce.An ideal system would be for Britain to trade its output of data for that of other countries; eg Britain gives the US a copy of all data it produces, and in return gets a copy of everything the US produces. Poor countries get access to more than they produce, yes, but they wouldn't have bought much anyway if they had to pay, and it doesn't cost the provider anything to supply them.> Even under a different system of government subsidy> we'd still have the problem of low capita users> subsidising high capita usersYou mean people who don't make use of much data would be subsidising those who do? Ideally, people would be free to decide how much of their tax bill went in to the Data Fund; those who didn't consider data to be a priority wouldn't have to pay for it.> this is acceptable in the essentail public services such> as the NHS but would not be in relation to > non-essential/luxury itemsWhy? It's the most efficient way to deal with products that aren't diminishable. Libraries are non-essential/luxury items, but I think they're a good thing.> So on a national scale its completely unfeasibleI disagree. You're massively overestimating the costs.> on a global scale in theory it might just work, but its so> unlikely to ever happen that there's not much point> even debating itIf you don't like debating implausible things, then why are you posting on a science fiction board?> My general problem with a lot of your views doesn't> involve the particularsSuch as?> it's that your ideas are so, I dunno, "leftfield"?, > "radical"? "absurd"?They're certainly radical, but that doesn't mean they aren't reasonable.> there really is no chance of ever implementing> them, or even of considering their implementation, in> todays advanced global-economic society/ies.Today's advanced society is precisely what makes it theoretically possible to implement. And all it would require would be expansion of existing systems; it wouldn't need a fundamental change. Of course, I expect the capitalist powers-that-be would strongly resist any attempt to implement such things.> Which makes them a bit pointless, I kind of feel you're> flogging a damp squib. May be a nice idea in theory, but> then again so is free gin and tonics to all miners whos> surname has the letter "p" in it. Like I say, nice idea but> utterly ridiculous in the real world.Your "nice idea" is utterly ridiculous; each gin and tonic has a significant production cost, unlike data which only has a development cost, and your method for allocating it is completely arbitrary and irrational. My ideas are completely feasible; the only real argument you've given is the cost, and I've answered that. "That's crazy" on its own isn't a valid argument; you need to explain _why_.

AndyThomas
Posts: 1666
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 12:42 am
Contact:

video cd's

Postby AndyThomas » Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:16 am

> If you don't like debating implausible things, then why > are you posting on a science fiction board?That... is just superb ;)There was a story on the BBC web site which said that Microsoft have effectively put their hands up and admitted that no Digital Rights Management scheme will ever be 100% effective.So, where does that leave the creators of copyrighted material?  Well, I think it leaves them having to have a long hard look at the products they produce.  I'm sure that the time will come where it'll be incredibly easy to download the contents of a DVD and make it into your own.  However, at the moment, it's probably far less hassle to just buy the film on DVD - particularly as you get the extras etc.  If music CDs are to continue selling, I think they'll have to have a hook - I'm thinking of my Dido CD, for example, which has an enhanced version for when you stick it in the PC.So let's return again to the question of funding.  Felice, you argue that a central pool of funding would, nominally, be viable.  You also state that people could pick and choose what they want to be made, and how much they contribute overall.Taking that last point, there's no way you could have a variable rate of tax set by end consumers.  People aren't that generous.  You'd end up with radical underfunding.  What might work is a base limit, with additional contributions being voluntary.  In that way, everyone would pay for some basic level of data provision whilst media buffs could contribute more.However, those media buffs would need some encouragement to contribute more to a national fund - i.e. they'd want some guarantee that the material made with their funds was something they were happy with.  For that you'd need a list of areas they could direct their funds to.  How do you come up with that list?  Even then, what guarantee is there that said media buffs will enjoy the shows that are eventually produced?Of course, the flat rate tax scenario is pretty much what happens in the UK as far as the BBC is concerned.  The BBC has government-imposed (I think) amounts of programming types it must deliver, some of which must be home grown.  However, all the decision making is done internally.  It's probably viewing figures, if anything, that have an influence on what gets made - not specific individuals.  I just don't think individuals, left to their own devices and not knowing the industry, could sensibly specify what they want made.  Particularly if they then didn't get what they wanted.So the conclusion here is that you could end up with signficant resources committed to shows which nobody watches.  Remember Eldorado, I think it was?  The BBC built a whole village for it in Spain and the show flopped.  Amplify that across all data formats and you'd be looking at a lot of lost expenditure.  People in jobs who might not otherwise be, of course, but a clear opportunity cost in that more popular shows couldn't be made because the unpopular ones got made instead.So let's consider the free market with the profit incentive.  Shows with good viewing figures succeed, and the producers of those shows are provided with funding to produce more shows.  Market research will also assist in identifying new interest areas.  Therefore, the odds of expensive flops being produced is lessened somewhat because the decision of what to make has to be more carefully considered than in the scenario where you just have a big guaranteed fund to spread about where you choose.  I know vetting will go on in the BBC, but I imagine that decision making is more... acute in the US TV market.I think there's something to be said for both avenues.  The BBC produces shows of social value which would not otherwise be made by virtue of its publically owned nature and directives.  This may well be of benefit to minorities.  Economically, the advertising/merchandising driven side of things probably results in a more efficient allocation of resources and production houses are not under any government-imposed restrictions on what they can produce.  Better for freedom of speech and expression, perhaps.Felice, let me just identify some weaknesses in your arguments.  Renting isn't the same as owning.  You've stated a preference for paying a flat fee for data - if I hired a film from BlockBuster three times, I might as well have bought it.  I'm paying multiple times for very limited windows of availability, which may cost me more than buying it outright.  So clearly there is a difference in cost terms.  I think I'm right in thinking that libraries charge for DVD rentals, they don't just loan them?  I imagine it depends on local policy.  Clearly if there's no rental fee then your argument is not unreasonable, but you're assuming a purely digital delivery system with no physical media - there'd always be an upper limit on the latter so a popular film would not necessarily be available for loan 100% of the time.Which brings me to my next point.  Whilst we've described data as non-diminishable, there are nevertheless costs associated with making data available.  DVDs do require resources to create and distribute.  Downloading something requires a server at the other end capable of meeting your demands and those of every other user; phone lines or cables need to be maintained.  So although the data is non-diminishable, there are resources being used for its transportation and transmission that are far from non-diminishable.  Could your computer store every film you're ever going to watch?  Of course not.  Equally, the supply of Star Fleet on CD could never be infinite - it requires human time and effort to burn the CDs, buy CDs, post them out and so on.I'm sure that at some point there may well be some global form of publically funded digital pool of data - many would argue the Internet is just such a pool, of course.  The only limitation is that certain types of data require incentives to produce, and so people need ownership rights for those incentives to exist.  National funds to provide compensation might work up to a point but I think you'd need a remarkably enlightened populace to go for it when they can choose commercial channels directly according to their tastes...
Andy Thomas - SFXB Webmaster and Forum Moderator

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

video cd's

Postby felice » Mon Nov 25, 2002 10:44 pm

> That... is just superb*curtseys*> If music CDs are to continue selling, I think they'll have> to have a hook - I'm thinking of my Dido CD, for> example, which has an enhanced version for when you> stick it in the PC.I don't think that sort of gimmick can work as a general solution to the problem.> Taking that last point, there's no way you could have a> variable rate of tax set by end consumers. People > aren't that generous. You'd end up with radical> underfunding. No, the total tax rate can't be variable (well, not individually variable - setting the tax rate at the average level wanted by the people might work). But I think it would be reasonable to allow the individual taxpayer to decide how their share of the tax is divided up, eg assign priorities to health, education, data, etc.> What might work is a base limit, with additional> contributions being voluntary. In that way, everyone> would pay for some basic level of data provision whilst> media buffs could contribute more.Yes, voluntary contributions to top up the fund would be useful.> However, those media buffs would need some > encouragement to contribute more to a national fund -> i.e. they'd want some guarantee that the material> made with their funds was something they were happy> with.I'd imagine such donations would be made directly to a particular show/software package/musician, generally after it's already in production and they _know_ they like it. If it goes in a direction they don't like, they can choose not to fund the next season/version/album.> For that you'd need a list of areas they could direct> their funds to. How do you come up with that list? Well, there'd be a list of current projects for a start, which would be requesting funding for additional episodes. And there'd also be a list of proposals, home-made trailers, etc, to which anyone (who is prepared to actually produce the thing) could submit, which would go in to production if enough people indicated that they liked the idea. Such a list could get very long, in which case there'd be people who'd go through the list and drew people's attention to particularly worthwhile proposals.> Even then, what guarantee is there that said media> buffs will enjoy the shows that are eventually> produced?None. Life's like that. Art by committee is a bad thing; it's good to give the people control, but not to the extent of interfering with the artistic vision of the creators.> The BBC has government-imposed (I think) amounts of> programming types it must deliver, some of which must> be home grown. However, all the decision making is> done internally. I think there should be government imposed defaults for people who can't be bothered specifying precisely what they want, but everything should be overrideable on an individual level.> It's probably viewing figures, if anything, that have an> influence on what gets made - not specific individuals.Probably. But that's not a very good guide. Timeslots and publicity affect the ratings enormously, and they're only directly useful for measuring the success of current programs, not potential new ones.> I just don't think individuals, left to their own devices> and not knowing the industry, could sensibly specify> what they want made.I disagree... if not specifics, they can at least say "more gameshows" or "more shows like that one with the cute dog that rescues people".> So the conclusion here is that you could end up with> signficant resources committed to shows which nobody> watches. Remember Eldorado, I think it was? > Amplify that across all data formats and you'd be> looking at a lot of lost expenditure.That happens now, under a capitalist semi-free market system. I can't see how my proposal would make things worse; if anything, it should significantly reduce the likelihood of such disasters, since nothing would get made unless a significant number of people said they'd like to watch it first.> People in jobs who might not otherwise be, of course,Not a good thing if they're not in _useful_ jobs.> but a clear opportunity cost in that more popular shows> couldn't be made because the unpopular ones got > made instead.I don't see how that could happen.> So let's consider the free market with the profit> incentive. Shows with good viewing figures succeed,> and the producers of those shows are provided with> funding to produce more shows.Pretty much the same as under my system. Except under capitalism, shows can be sabotaged (eg Crusade being cancelled before the first episode had screened - that obviously had nothing to do with viewing figures) or victims of bad luck (eg Legend of the Rangers running against a major sporting event).> Market research will also assist in identifying new> interest areas. Ditto.> Therefore, the odds of expensive flops being produced> is lessened somewhat because the decision of what to> make has to be more carefully considered than in the> scenario where you just have a big guaranteed fund to> spread about where you choose.I see no reason why Fund spending shouldn't be carefully considered. > Economically, the advertising/merchandising driven side> of things probably results in a more efficient allocation> of resourcesDebatable. It forces shows to aim for the lowest common denominator, since they have to make the biggest profit possible, not just break even. It causes popular shows to be screened against each other by competing networks. It results in vast sums being paid to stars. I don't see any ways in which it would be more efficient. Under socialism, people who actually cared about the art, not just the bottom line, would be in charge. They'd want to do the best job they could with the available resources.> and production houses are not under any> government-imposed restrictions on what they can> produce. Better for freedom of speech and expression, > perhaps.Yes they are. Plus they're also under greater financially imposed restrictions - they're reluctant to do anything that might offend viewers or financers.> Clearly if there's no rental fee then your argument is> not unreasonableThat's what I was thinking; I was making a comparison to books, which are lent out with no fee.> but you're assuming a purely digital delivery system> with no physical media - there'd always be an upper> limit on the latter so a popular film would not> necessarily be available for loan 100% of the time.True, but that's an arbitrary limit. Digital data _can_ be reproduced on demand, even though society isn't set up to do that at the moment.> Which brings me to my next point. Whilst we've> described data as non-diminishable, there are> nevertheless costs associated with making data> available. Yes, that's right. When I say "free", I mean "at cost", which is virtually free compared to current prices. People would still pay the cost of having a CD burnt, or downloading files.> National funds to provide compensation might work up> to a point but I think you'd need a remarkably> enlightened populace to go for it when they can choose> commercial channels directly according to their tastes...A national fund would also allow people to choose directly according to their tastes, only more so and for reduced cost.

AndyThomas
Posts: 1666
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 12:42 am
Contact:

video cd's

Postby AndyThomas » Tue Nov 26, 2002 12:24 am

> When I say "free", I mean "at cost"Ah, I see.  I say "potato", you say "banana". ;)Seriously though, you are expecting an awful lot of the general public if you think they're going to wade through a list of hundreds of possible shows just to pick out, say, five they'd rather their money went into!  You're also saying that disasters wouldn't happen because people will always enjoy what they've picked - but what if they don't like the casting?!  What if it doesn't get the right timeslot, or it's too short or too long?!  So my comment about opportunity cost was - if you have a public asking for a massive range of shows some of them are bound to be unpopular because resources will end up being spread thinner between them.So the more you cater to minorities, the more your ability to make really high quality shows diminishes.  In the system you're suggesting people would need such direct input for the spending of their tax to be "just" that you would end up with something you're against - art by committee.> It forces shows to aim for the> lowest common denominatorNot necessarily - and that's not necessarily a bad thing if it does happen if the lowest common denominator is in the majority.  You might not like it - but then, hey, you haven't paid for it in a commercial world!  Don't forget, commercial shows will be looking to as broad a range of tastes as they can in order to capture different advertisers.  So sci-fi fans will get Buffy, nature lovers will get their Attenborough documentaries.I also find it interesting that you assume publically funded directors/creators would be... more inspired, shall we say, than commercial ones.  You're obviously familiar with Babylon 5.  JMS fought tooth and nail to get his shows made.  To break through in a commercial setting you have to be really good, because the second you're not you're gone.  Whereas in a publically funded environment you could have a lot of mediocre creators constantly plying their trade.  Clearly budgets in general are a factor, but there is something to be said for competition for a limited number of posts.  You seem to agree with me on this:> Not a good thing if they're not in _useful_ jobs. What this all boils down to is - it's really, really difficult to please all of the people all of the time.  Communism didn't manage to pull it off because its publically funded factories had no way of knowing what to produce, and no real incentive to produce quality merchandise as opposed to mediocre merchandise - if you get paid regardless, why bother?  Another reason for having profit, of course, is that it allows for inward investment in capital.  Probably another area where publically funded institutions fall down - what they can invest in may well be restricted by the government.I think the reason the BBC does so well is that it doesn't have the monopoly on TV.  So although it's publically funded, it has to compete with other stations and in order to do that it has to create material it can sell abroad in order to boost its funding and remain competitive.  It's interesting that over here "ITV Digital" fell apart as a commercial venture but has in part been rescued by the BBC.Why?  Because there's a simple fact that hasn't been raised yet.  Data might be unlimited, but a human's ability to absorb it isn't.  So to use an overused phrase we probably are approaching "information overload" where we simply have too many choices.  In a publically funded scenario that would just continue and be wasteful, but eventually in a commercial environment there will be adjustment and fewer resources will be wasted on material that no-one is watching.Which brings us back full circle to the question - how much is data worth?  Data I have no time to watch/read/listen to is worthless to me.  It might not be to someone else.  Should I be charged for its production?  How do you put a value on subjective entertainment?  Do any of us really buy a film or a CD because it's "value for money"?Phew.  It's just as well it's my fingers debating this and not my voice otherwise I'd be hoarse by now!
Andy Thomas - SFXB Webmaster and Forum Moderator

AndyThomas
Posts: 1666
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 12:42 am
Contact:

video cd's

Postby AndyThomas » Tue Nov 26, 2002 1:49 am

Andy Thomas - SFXB Webmaster and Forum Moderator

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

video cd's

Postby felice » Tue Nov 26, 2002 5:28 am

> Seriously though, you are expecting an awful lot of the> general public if you think they're going to wade> through a list of hundreds of possible shows just to> pick out, say, five they'd rather their money went into! It doesn't have to be that complicated. For a start, specifying shows that you currently watch would be easy enough. The master list of new show candidates would be categorised and searchable; you wouldn't claim that it's expecting a lot of people to search for info on the internet, would you? And people would make shortlists of promising candidates, so you could confine your wading to lists compiled by people who have similar tastes to your own. Also, people could make less specific requests, eg "science fiction", and leave the details up to others to decide. Or they can ignore the process altogether, and just watch whatever appeals to them out of what gets produced - but then they'd have no excuse for complaining 8)> You're also saying that disasters wouldn't happen> because people will always enjoy what they've picked -> but what if they don't like the casting?! What if it > doesn't get the right timeslot, or it's too short or too> long?! That already happens, and would happen under any possible system (except timeslot would no longer be a such a major factor, since everything would be released on DVD straight away). My suggested system wouldn't be perfect, but I'm confident it would result in less disappointment than the current system.> So my comment about opportunity cost was - if you> have a public asking for a massive range of shows> some of them are bound to be unpopular because> resources will end up being spread thinner between> them.I'd imagine shows would specify a minimum budget that they'd require to produce. Any show not popular enough to meet at least that budget wouldn't be made,so resources would not be spread too thinly.> So the more you cater to minorities, the more your> ability to make really high quality shows diminishes. High quality popular shows would still be possible, but there'd also be more room for lower budget minority appeal productions.> In the system you're suggesting people would need> such direct input for the spending of their tax to be> "just" that you would end up with something you're> against - art by committee.I disagree that such extreme control is necessary for the system to be "just".> Not necessarily - and that's not necessarily a bad thing> if it does happen if the lowest common denominator is> in the majority. I have no objection to some shows being made for that audience, but I do object to the creators being forced to compromise their artistic vision to broaden the appeal of a show. > You might not like it - but then, hey, you haven't paid> for it in a commercial world!Yes I have. In the current system, shows are paid for by advertisers, who pay for their advertising by charging more for their products, which means a higher cost to me.> I also find it interesting that you assume publically> funded directors/creators would be... more inspired, > shall we say, than commercial ones. You're obviously> familiar with Babylon 5. JMS fought tooth and nail to> get his shows made. To break through in a commercial> setting you have to be really good, because the second> you're not you're gone. Wouldn't it have been better if JMS could have concetrated all his effort on making his shows as good as possible, instead of constantly fighting to be able to make them at all? You need certain qualities (and luck) to succeed commerically, but they don't necessarily have much to do with making good shows. I'd hardly hold up JMS as an example of the current system serving us well; his shows have been severely messed up by it.> Whereas in a publically funded> environment you could have a lot of mediocre creators> constantly plying their trade. How would mediocre creators convince the public that their shows were worth making?> Clearly budgets in general are a factor, but there is> something to be said for competition for a limited> number of posts. That would still be the case under a centrally funded system; not all proposals would be made, only the most popular.> What this all boils down to is - it's really, really difficult> to please all of the people all of the time. Communism> didn't manage to pull it off because its publically funded> factories had no way of knowing what to produceThere'd be no excuse for that with current technology.> and no real incentive to produce quality merchandise> as opposed to mediocre merchandise - if you get paid> regardless, why bother? Er, because you'll have to use that merchandise yourself? Because if you work quickly and produce quality goods, you won't have to work as much? (well made goods don't need to be replaced as often, so not as many need to be made) Because you take pride in your work?> Another reason for having profit, of course, is that it> allows for inward investment in capital. Probably> another area where publically funded institutions fall> down - what they can invest in may well be restricted> by the government.Unlimited investment in capital is not a good thing. There's no reason the government couldn't set sensible levels of investment.> I think the reason the BBC does so well is that it> doesn't have the monopoly on TV. I doubt that the BBC's quality would go down hill if the competition went away. Especially if the people in charge were subject to being fired if the people didn't approve of what they were doing.> there's a simple fact that hasn't been> raised yet. Data might be unlimited, but a human's > ability to absorb it isn't. So to use an overused phrase> we probably are approaching "information overload" > where we simply have too many choices. > In a publically funded scenario that would just continue> and be wastefulWhy? Shouldn't a publically funded system be equally or more capable of avoiding overproduction? If people thought too much data was being produced, they'd reduce funding for it. > Which brings us back full circle to the question - how> much is data worth? Data I have no time to > watch/read/listen to is worthless to me. It might not> be to someone else. Should I be charged for its> production? Data has no worth if you don't have access to it, so maximising accessibility maximises worth. Particular data might not be directly of value to you, maybe it is of value to someone who uses it for purposes that are useful to you. Everyone should contribute to the creation of data, and everyone should be able to contribute to deciding what data to create. That does not mean that data should not be created unless every single person agrees on it; some data will be created that is useless to you, some will be created that is useful to you but useless to others.> How do you put a value on subjective entertainment? > Do any of us really buy a film or a CD because it's> "value for money"?No, but we might choose not to buy something because it isn't.

AndyThomas
Posts: 1666
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 12:42 am
Contact:

video cd's

Postby AndyThomas » Tue Nov 26, 2002 4:12 pm

Hmm. Well, you do make some interesting points in reply there but let me pick up on just a few.> (except timeslot would no longer be a such a major > factor, since everything would be released> on DVD straight away).Seriously? You'd distribute a DVD of every single show to avoid timeslot being a factor? You're talking about a massive production run of DVDs, let alone the actual preparation of a disc in the first place. That's incredibly wasteful of finite resources. If you're going to say "that's just for popular shows" - well, that's what happens now of course, but I think the scale you're thinking of is much bigger. Distributing a DVD nationwide and pressing them in large quantities is not cheap.> Any show not popular enough to meet> at least that budget wouldn't be made, Yes, but how do they know how popular it'll be until they've made it which requires a massive start-up cost in hiring actors, building sets, writing scripts and so on? How rapidly does a show have to justify its existence? If it gets condemned after one episode, that's a lot of wasted resources. What I'm saying is that if the public have such direct input, they'll demand more shows to be made, which means greater potential for flops. Particularly where digital TV allows for a huge amount of content. The public are fickle - just because they voted for a show once doesn't mean their attitude won't have changed by the time it gets made. I frequently see a show and think "oh, I should watch that" and then don't!> In the current system, shows are paid for by> advertisers, who pay for their advertising by > charging more for their products, which > means a higher cost to me. Ah, but the wraparound argument is that by advertising the producers sell more products allowing them to take advantage of economies of scale, making their goods cheaper and increasing the efficiency of their factories, thus offsetting the cost to the consumer. ;)> Because if you work quickly and produce quality goods,I'm not sure that working quickly is necessarily conducive to producing quality goods!> Because you take pride in your work?Again, I think you're assuming an incredibly enlightened public/work force! For something complex like a tractor to be put together, you'd need everyone on the production line taking pride in their work. If however there's no competition, then as long as what you build vaguely gets the job done, that's fine. Why build quality? If it breaks down, your factory will be the one building another one and so your job is secure. If you think about it, no firm would want to produce a car with a life of, say, 50 years because they'd only be taking the factory out of mothballs every 50 years!> Why? Shouldn't a publically funded system be > equally or more capable of avoiding overproduction?> If people thought too much data was being > produced, they'd reduce funding for it. Well, it depends on the whole system you have set up. If, as you seem to be saying, every person in the country is a stakeholder in what gets produced then you're going to have many, many shows being produced. Some of which are bound to be surplus to need. Also, you're saying people would reduce funding - but the funding is government imposed, and governments are notoriously slow to react! What might happen, however, is that resources could be taken away from the fringe shows and redirected to make fewer, better shows. But again that would depend on the charter being worked to. This is the problem - in order for things to be efficient month to month, you'd have to be consulting the whole populace month to month! Technologically possible, perhaps, but then everyone can vote once every four or five years - not everyone does. Finally...> How would mediocre creators convince the> public that their shows were worth making? They wouldn't need to - all they have to do is make the idea of their show look convincing. Then it'll get made to see if people like it. If they don't, they just say "ah well, only 0.2% of the population wanted it anyway, let's pick something else." Anyway, in fairness, not every creator can be terrific, but a publically funded system would allow more mediocre ones to be in the business...The overall impression I have of your argument, Felice, is that it requires a massive amount of buy-in from the public - and their ongoing support - to make it work as efficiently as you'd like it to. Right now, I don't think the mind set of the average individual is sophisticated enough to contribute in the way you'd need them to. Certain cultures might be, perhaps; the Japanese work ethic you'd probably approve of, I suspect, but here in the UK... Correct me if I'm wrong, but the core doctrine of Communism is that everyone should be pretty much equal? But in life, people are never satisfied with that. We seem to be wired for self improvement, which means greed in some way in order that a hierarchy is established. Hence government control trying to do the best for everyone never quite works in isolation. There has to be the commercial element, the incentive element, to make things happen...
Andy Thomas - SFXB Webmaster and Forum Moderator

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

video cd's

Postby felice » Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:54 am

> Seriously? You'd distribute a DVD of every single show> to avoid timeslot being a factor? Not just for timeslots, but yes, certainly every show that anyone cares enough about to want to watch more than once, and probably most shows where people want to see every episode. Things like gameshows are probably disposable; people probably wouldn't care if they missed it one week.> You're talking about a> massive production run of DVDs, let alone the actual> preparation of a disc in the first place. That's incredibly> wasteful of finite resources. The cost of preparing a DVD is trivial compared to the total cost of the show, and the show has to be prepared in some format to give to the broadcasters; why not just supply them with the DVD? Fancy menus and extras wouldn't be necessary for shows without a devoted fan base. And broadcasting isn't an efficient means of delivering non-live data. Ideally people would use re-writable DVDs for shows that they didn't want to keep permanently.> Distributing a DVD nationwide and pressing them in> large quantities is not cheap.The bigger the quantities, the cheaper the per-unit price. And the viewers would be paying for them, so it wouldn't make any difference to the state.> Yes, but how do they know how popular it'll be until> they've made it which requires a massive start-up cost > in hiring actors, building sets, writing scripts and so on? That's impossible under any system. But they'll have a better idea of how popular it's likely to be.> How rapidly does a show have to justify its existence? > If it gets condemned after one episode, that's a lot of> wasted resources. I'd imagine a show would be comissioned for a batch of episodes. It's not efficient to make shows on a episode by episode basis; it's better to be able to shoot them out of order, have people working on different episodes simultaneously, etc.> What I'm saying is that if the public have such direct> input, they'll demand more shows to be made, which> means greater potential for flops. Will they? The fund will not be unlimited, so no matter what the public demand, they'll only get a certain number of shows. And if the fund is making so many shows that many of them aren't being watched, then the public is likely to vote to reduce the size of the fund, and redirect resources to health etc.> Particularly where digital TV allows for a huge amount> of content. The public are fickle - just because they> voted for a show once doesn't mean their attitude> won't have changed by the time it gets made. I> frequently see a show and think "oh, I should watch> that" and then don't!That applies under the current system; how would it be worse under my proposal? And you're more likely to watch a show if you can pick it up any time, and don't have to worry about when it's on.> Ah, but the wraparound argument is that by advertising> the producers sell more products allowing them to take> advantage of economies of scale, making their goods> cheaper and increasing the efficiency of their factories,> thus offsetting the cost to the consumer. Much of advertising is to convince people to buy one brand over another; that doesn't have a net benefit on economies of scale. And the rest is to convince people to buy stuff that they're not sure they want; being able to produce unwanted goods more cheaply isn't especially useful.> I'm not sure that working quickly is necessarily> conducive to producing quality goods!Rushing is no good, no, but working as swiftly as possible without sacrificing quality minimises both the total time that needs to be spent working and the cost of the item.> Again, I think you're assuming an incredibly enlightened> public/work force! For something complex like a tractor > to be put together, you'd need everyone on the> production line taking pride in their work. If however> there's no competition, then as long as what you build> vaguely gets the job done, that's fine. Why build> quality? Because if you build shoddy tractors, farming will be less efficient, so you'll pay more for your meals. Yes, it requires a certain amount of enlightenment, but I doubt the concept is beyond the ability of most people to grasp. Also, your coworkers and/or customers are likely to be unhappy with you if you do shoddy work. Nobody would be forced to make tractors; people would choose what work to do from the available jobs. If not enough people wanted to do a particular job, the pay rate could be increased to make it more attractive (with a corresponding increase in the cost of the final product).> If it breaks down, your factory will be the one> building another one and so your job is secure. If you> think about it, no firm would want to produce a car with> a life of, say, 50 years because they'd only be taking> the factory out of mothballs every 50 years!Under capitalism, yes. Under socialism, your income isn't dependent on a particular factory working at full capacity, so making things to last becomes sensible. When you've made enough 50-year cars for everyone, you can mothball the factory and move on to making tractors or vacuum cleaners or whatever is in demand; there is no insecurity.> Well, it depends on the whole system you have set up. > If, as you seem to be saying, every person in the > country is a stakeholder in what gets produced then> you're going to have many, many shows being> produced. Some of which are bound to be surplus to> need. Only the number of shows that can be afforded would be produced. Everyone gets a say in what gets produced, but if only a couple of other people agree with you about a particular show, it won't get made unless it can make do with a budget of 50p and a spare traffic cone.> Also, you're saying people would reduce funding - but> the funding is government imposed, and governments> are notoriously slow to react! That would have to be changed. There's no reason it couldn't be set up for relatively rapid adjustments (on a seasonal basis, say).> This is the> problem - in order for things to be efficient month to> month, you'd have to be consulting the whole populace> month to month! No. Viewing figures could be collected automatically for current shows more or less as is done now (rather more easily from DVD sales than from broadcasting), and when the budget became available, new shows would be comissioned from the most popular proposals. People could edit their preferred proposals list at any time online or via public computer terminals. It's not necessary to consult the whole population, just give the whole population the option to participate in decisions.> Technologically possible, perhaps, but> then everyone can vote once every four or five years - > not everyone does. If people choose not to participate, that's their problem. They're in no position to complain.> They wouldn't need to - all they have to do is make the> idea of their show look convincing. Then it'll get made> to see if people like it.If they can be more convicing than more talented creators, and people aren't put off by their mediocre track record, yes. That's a big "if", though. And mediocre creators often have more success than geniuses under the current system anyway.> Anyway, in fairness, not every creator can be terrific, > but a publically funded system would allow more> mediocre ones to be in the business...I don't see why.> The overall impression I have of your argument, Felice,> is that it requires a massive amount of buy-in from the> public - and their ongoing support - to make it work as> efficiently as you'd like it to. Right now, I don't think> the mind set of the average in
dividual is sophisticated> enough to contribute in the way you'd need them to. I think it would be very, very difficult to get such a system established in today's capitalist economy, but I do think it would work well if it could be established. Contribution from the people is enabled, but not required; people who prefered to remain mindless couch potatoes could do so, but I don't think it would require too drastic a change in mindset for people to start thinking "there's nothing decent on telly; I should tell the Fund what I'd like to see".> Certain cultures might be, perhaps; the Japanese work> ethic you'd probably approve of, I suspectNot really, no. Work is something that needs to be done to create desired products, and should be done to the best of your abilities; but it shouldn't be valued in itself, it's just a means to an end.> but here in the UK... Correct me if I'm wrong, but the> core doctrine of Communism is that everyone should be> pretty much equal? I'm not sure... I'm not an official Communist, I'm just figuring out for myself how the world should be run better. I'm in favour of equal opportunity, equal pay for equal work, equal input in to the running of society. But that doesn't prevent some people choosing to work more than others, or prevent people from excelling.> But in life, people are never satisfied with that. We> seem to be wired for self improvement, which means> greed in some way in order that a hierarchy is> established. I fully support self improvement. But the need to be better off than other people just for the sake of it isn't healthy, and isn't achievable for the vast majority of people. Under capitalism, the overwhelming majority _have_ to be worse off than under socialism, to support the minority of megawealthy individuals. Greed is understandable, but preferring a situation where you'll almost certainly be worse off in exchange for a tiny chance that you'll become rich is just stupid.> Hence government control trying to do the best for> everyone never quite works in isolation. There has to> be the commercial element, the incentive element, to> make things happen...I'm not convinced of that.

AndyThomas
Posts: 1666
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 12:42 am
Contact:

video cd's

Postby AndyThomas » Wed Nov 27, 2002 4:51 am

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? My understanding is that they were being distributed to make material available, not because there was a commercial argument to do so...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. What you're now saying is that it won't be enough to make shows for everyone who wants a particular type of show.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. 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. More artists may get a bite at the cherry - but then if the Fund is limited, even that may not be the case.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. Also, funds from people not voting must be spent somewhere - that's down to the government/organisation. Can we say 1984?Anyway, we could go round in circles for some time on this because we're coming from quite different standpoints. I don't believe that a wholly centralised system of media production would necessarily be efficient, or healthy. It runs the risk of becoming a propaganda machine. I do think that some state sponsorship is a good thing, because otherwise some shows that are in the public's interest just wouldn't get made. Similarly, funding from the lottery etc allows new directors to prove themselves and establishes them on their career path.I think the key is balance. Communism didn't work well because it was constantly imposing an artifical set of imperatives on the economy, effectively fighting the natural order that a free economy would establish. Similarly, when the Bank of England was under government control interest rate changes caused havoc because they were trying to use them to impose control - fighting changes. Now the economy is much more settled (to my mind) because the Bank of England is altering rates primarily in response to economic imperatives, not political ones. No economy is entirely a free market economy of course, because all governments impose an element of taxation which distorts things - with the aim being to promote the public good which the free market wouldn't otherwise provide. So there's a question - will data, and access to it, be considered a public good in the future? Would people be prepared to pay a tax for unlimited access to the BBC's archives? Perhaps. File sharing networks are symptomatic of the demand for that sort of resource.Of course, we've talked about DVDs for media storage here but you could do away with them once broadband gets, urm, broader. Video On Demand is edging closer - once server technology is there, everything you could want would be at your fingertips. Systems like TIVO could buffer hours of entertainment for you, from any of the channels you're subscribed to. Children can already vote for which show they want to watch on morning TV. The times they are a changing...BTW, if anyone else is still keeping up with this, feel free to jump in any time ;)
Andy Thomas - SFXB Webmaster and Forum Moderator

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

video cd's

Postby 10TimesMan » Wed Nov 27, 2002 8:51 pm

Right, well I've missed a bit so I'm gonna have to apologise for the backtracking...Anyway, Felice:OK, for starters I think you've gotta stop taking apart > others comments and criticising them piecemeal (very > easy to do), and put forward (and defend) a coherant > codified statement of your own views (not quite so > easy to do). ==============Ok, for starters I think you've gotta stop responding with general statements of position (very easy to do), and start responding directly to specific points not quite so easy to do). 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) and, because a single statement will generally have a much more limited scope than an entire theory, so whereas to defend a single statement requires a single counter-point, a unified and codified theory will contain (depending obviously on the type and nature of theory) potentially thousands of statements and positions, all of which must be mutually reinforcing and defendable as individual edicts and in terms of their relationship to every other statement AND the way in which every statement comes together to create the  unified theory . Furthermore, in propounding a theory you'll have to provide a full defense of all the specific suppositions upon which your logic is based (those related directly to the theory and its arguements), and perhaps even to provide justification for all the general suppositions within which framework your theory is formulated. By general suppositions I'm refering to the mores and conventions within which and from which your theory is born and takes shape, for example, social and political thought and theory in the Western tradition is most usually couched in terms of Kants logic of causation in terms of constant conjunction, a techniqiue  and method of logical reasoning which, in defending your theory, you may be called upon also to defend. These are "general suppositions", with potentially infinite scope. There's all sorts of other stuff that fits in the category aswell, such as, for example the very notion of  "fairness" (implicit in the notion of social justice) , which'll bring you absolute and relative morality and notions of "truth" and so on.So, you got that the wrong way round. Its actually much harder to propound and defend a unified theory than it is to tackle individual points piecemeal.> The arguement that Ebay sellers are bootleggers is > equally valid for Simon - he is bootlegging, therefore he > is a bootlegger. True. Therefore any arguement > criticising Ebay bootleggers FOR BOOTLEGGING can also > be applied to Simon . True. Have I made that clear > enough? ================================Yes, that's completely true. It's also true that Simon put significant work in to making the series available whereas the Ebayers didn't, and that it's immoral to imply that the VCDs have limited availability when they can easily be reproduced in any quantity required. I wasn't talking about morality, i was discussing legality, but anyway....To my knowlege no-one has ever even implied that Starfleet VCDs have limited avaliability - even if it weren't obvious enough I think its pretty much common knowledge amongst PC literates that with a CD burner and a set of masters the only real limitations are time and the supply of blank CDs (unless we're gonna be silly about it, then we'd have to include stuff like electricity, air (to breath), will to live etc etc). And yes, Simon did put more work in than the Ebayers, but thats a qualification, not a counter, so the original point stands. But since you mention morality that kind of takes me back to one of my original points; Question: is it immoral for Simon C to "grass up" Ebayers for bootlegging and potentially expose them to crimimal and other charges at the hands of the Inland revenue, when he does the same thing himself? Answer: MaybeQuestion: 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. (and I'm surprised they haven't done it - expect it's sure to happen if and when one of them figures out that it's Simon C interfering with their business.)> Incidentally, the copyright holders may well be loosing > FUTURE sales to Simon (if a DVD/VHS release does ever > come about ... as in the case of Terrahawks!!), so that > arguement isn't valid either. =====================I still think it's valid. Yes, they may be loosing a small number of future sales; that's the price they pay for choosing not to make an official version available. Irrespective of the legalities of the situation, I don't think the copyright holders have a moral right to completely prevent people from obtaining copies of the series. 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". Granted, as a percentile or percentage this could be expressed differently but either way I don't think Simon is really loosing out on many sales. The people buying on Ebay are either impulse buyers or "browsers" - people who surf Ebay media sections, see something they remember or like and decide to bid on it. They obviously aren't that massive fans of the show because if they were they would already have taken action to find it, discovered Simons StarfleetDirect.com (rather promninant due to beaing advertised with Googles "adwords") and bought the set for £23 as opposed to £60 plus, the price that some of the auctions on Ebay went up to.So I don't honestly think Simon is loosing many sales, and those few he does loose are due more to the conveniance and safety (insured credit card payments) of Ebay and little else. > As for your comments relating to public libraries, you've > changed tack here a little, in fact my public library does > RENT out DVDs, along with music CDs, VHS tapes and > even some Playstation games, however, you were > originally talking about ownership, not renting. A big > difference. ======================A minimal difference. If something is available to be borrowed as needed, how is that different from ownership in practical terms? Again, you're wrong, in fact it's very different, even massively different, in practical terms, on account of the logistics. 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 UKIn 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) In the public library scenario, we'd need say, one copy of each per 50,000 head (average population of a small to medium sized town), which is 60,000,000 / 50,000 multiplied by 250 ,which comes to 300,000. Now this  is plausible, though only just, considering that HERE IVE ONLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT 250 INDIVIDUAL COPYRIGHTED AUDIOVISUAL ITEMS OUT OF THE TENS OF MILLIONS COMMERCIALLY AVALIABLE.If we need 15 billion individual medias (CDs/DVDs etc)just to provide the population of the UK (62 million; tiny compared to say, China, Russia or the USA) with just 250 individual items 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 avaliableThis is why I think your ideas are daft, even ludicrous: aside from the natural resources / production capacity / pollution issues (which are very significant but should be obvious even to you), your position would place  millions of DVDs and
CDs in every shanty in Brazil, every mud hut in Botswana, every shack in Ethiopia, at the same time as worldwide:1.2 billion people dont have access to clean drinking water20 million people die yearly from treatable conditions, More than 80 million people are chronically undernourished10 million people die every year die of starvation, 2 billion suffer from nutrient-deficient caused illnesses. Need I go on?.... 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.(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).> Yes, we do pay a TV license in Britain of around £150 > though this varies according to circumstances, and yes, > we could as you suggest, in theory, extend this to > include subsidisation of other mediums such as DVD or > CD, however, the costs involved ON A NATIONAL SCALE > in Britain would be phenomenal. I couldn;'t even begin > to do the sums accurately, but I estimate that to > include the whole range of DVD VHS CD and other > media, we'd be looking at an "entertainment tax" of a > minimum of £20,000 per head(probably much more > when you consider the billions of individual copyright - > held medias), roughly equivalent to the average > household after tax income. Are you starting to see my > point? ======================That would be a total tax of £1.2 trillion a year, which would be enough to make ten "Titanic"s, two tousand episodes of "Babylon 5", or ten thousand episodes of "Doctor Who". Just for Britain, in just one year. =Probably a bit excessive, I'd say. Also, the cost of =production could be offset by international sales =(potentially to the point where it makes money instead of costing money), and it would be theoretically possible =to buy the national rights for films and programs =produced overseas for a lot less than the cost of production. In fact, I think that's often done already; one company will buy the local rights to a DVD for a flat fee, and can then sell as many copies as it likes. If the overseas producers weren't willing to sell their data on that basis, individuals could still purchase private copies as is done now. In any case, there's no need to spend any more than the current average expenditure on data; people would use more data if it was free, but it wouldn't cost any more to produce. I don't think my figures are over estimates, if anything they are likely to be underestimates. Either way I can't say for certain because they are completely wild guesses. The figures elsewhere in this post however, should be enough to justify my original point, and these are taken from actual United Nations figures and UK census data.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). 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==========================An ideal system would be for Britain to trade its output of data for that of other countries; eg Britain gives the US a copy of all data it produces, and in return gets a copy of everything the US produces. Poor countries get access to more than they produce, yes, but they =wouldn't have bought much anyway if they had to pay, =and it doesn't cost the provider anything to supply =them. What, apart from production  and refinement of raw materials and worldwide dissemination...?> Even under a different system of government subsidy > we'd still have the problem of low capita users > subsidising high capita users ====================You mean people who don't make use of much data would be subsidising those who do? Ideally, people would be free to decide how much of their tax bill went in to the Data Fund; those who didn't consider data to be a priority wouldn't have to pay for it. 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. (or if I did it'd be to the tiniest amount my cognitive dissonance could justify and rationalise to my superego - something most humans are pretty good at)Now you can say here that I'm wrong and that human beings are essentailly altruistic, not selfish, but I'd cite Darwin, Freud and a whole host of others to reinforce my arguement. (Which brings me back to my first point about suppositions)> this is acceptable in the essentail public services such > as the NHS but would not be in relation to > non-essential/luxury items ==============================Why? It's the most efficient way to deal with products that aren't diminishable. Libraries are non-essential/luxury items, but I think they're a good thing.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.> So on a national scale its completely unfeasible ========================I disagree. You're massively overestimating the costs. No I'm not, again, I've cited the figures on a national and ghlobal scale above. Read through em again.> on a global scale in theory it might just work, but its so > unlikely to ever happen that there's not much point > even debating it ===========================If you don't like debating implausible things, then why are you posting on a science fiction board? Didn't say I wasn't enjoying the debate (kind of satisfying in a morbid kind of way, like squatting a Mosquito thats just bitten you on the foot), I was just saying that your arguements are pointless in the extreme, for aforementioned reasons. Interesting though that you equate your ideas with the realm of make believe and absurdity.> My general problem with a lot of your views doesn't > involve the particulars ==============================Such as? We've been gong through those through the entire string and continue to do so, suggest you look back over this thread if you're unsure, as it saves me the effort of having to cut and paste it all down again> it's that your ideas are so, I dunno, "leftfield"?, > "radical"? "absurd"? ======================They're certainly radical, but that doesn't mean they aren't reasonable. Its not being "radical"  that makes your views unreasonable, its the views themselves  that do that (well hey, would ya look at that, I've just personified a viewpoint....must be getting tired )> there really is no chance of ever implementing > them, or even of considering their implementation, in > todays advanced global-economic society/ies. =========================Today's advanced society is precisely what makes it theoretically possible to implement. And all it would require would be expansion of existing systems; it wouldn't need a fundamental change. Of course, I =expect the capitalist powers-that-be would strongly =resist any attempt to implement such things. Wrong again! See below.> Which makes them a bit pointless, I kind of feel you're > flogging a damp squib. May be a nice idea in theory, but > then again so is free gin and tonics to all miners whos > surname has the letter "p" in it. Like I say, nice idea but
> utterly ridiculous in the real world. ============================Your "nice idea" is utterly ridiculous; each gin and tonic has a significant production cost, unlike data which only has a development cost, and your method for allocating it is completely arbitrary and irrational.Well, it was supposed to be a rather frivolous barb and nothing more but anyway......Although.....if we're to have state-supplied/subsidiseddigital data why not have state supplied/subsidised alcoholic drinks? I think in the  kind of system you're talking about that would have to be the case anyway (please don't mention Communist Russia and vodka chits). State subsidised DVDs, alcohol and clothes and everything in between. Well hey, thats Communism for ya....==================================My ideas are completely feasible; the only real argument you've given is the cost, and I've answered that. 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), although I honestly doubt that, in any case they're certainlky not feasible in terms of implementation - for the reasons and costs laid out above and below and throughout the debate..======================="That's crazy" on its own isn't a valid argument; you need to explain _why_. 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, and 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. OK, was that specific enough for you?
errrrr..........


Return to “The Merchandise”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron