Daxter101

"Prodromou" is a Greek surname, with the rough meaning "the one who walks the road before others".

So him being "a visionary" is fun, lol

This is really interesting, but I got a bit confused by the language.

Can someone explain, what the "common mistake" being done by bad research until now is?

And what is the conclusion relating to alcohol use?

I see. Well, if I take what you're saying as fully correct, then it sounds like communism compared to anarchism, is just "a different path for how we reach the same utopia".

And this different path passes through more authority (quantity and quality), through the existence and emphasis of the state.

How much authority, is probably what makes the spectrum of Anarchy to Stalin-Lenin.

And well... As an anarchist, deafboy's comment might be polemic, but I get it. Any authority that can, will get corrupted.

What makes this thing you're describing, not anarchism?

I think you're thinking of anarchocommunism specifically. Which is "not all communism"(tm).

State-based communism is a thing, that many people usually called tankies by others, do believe in.

A "truly small" creator, would get , I dunno, let's say 5% of Disney's marketed sales, after being stolen from, from being known as the guy Disney stole from. Which would be enormously more than if he only had his "truly small" marketing.

A more successful and known creator, who would market himself more broadly on his own, would not be easy to steal from, since it would be quick enough for the stealing to be found out, to dampen Disney sales.

And all this, ignores the paradigm shift in monetisation (Uniquenameosaurus YouTube video), that could enhance this process immensely, and allow artist creativity to flourish even more, without even leaving the diseased economical rules of capitalism.

Disney wins in that scenario, because they have more resources to spend on getting their media out there.

As... Opposed to now?

If Disney does plagiarize small artists' work, and becomes known for it, they take a reputation hit, and the artist gets an explosion of exposure, as long as it is provable he made the original story. (Disney making million-dollar budget movies of your OC, isn't even that bad for you, to be honest, but let's assume that it doesn't market the fuck out of your small artist story. In real life, stories are not in competition.)

If Disney doesn't, then it's an undeniable positive for worldwide creativity.

The only thing copyright protects, is big companies' exclusive right to public-consciousness characters.

1. The current system doesn't protect small writers either. Look at the amount of money plagiarism gets you, with copyright law in effect.

And

2. at the stage where you're big enough for copyright to effectively protect you, provable publication dates take care of that problem through reputation. If you become known(read: found out) as a plagiarist, you get the boot from the public zeitgeist, never to receive public money again.

Copyright only protects the Mouse's bottom line, and strangleholds creativity.

Even to the (insufficient, overblown) extent that it happens, lifting "the poor" Han Chinese out of poverty by putting other populations (Uighurs) under slave labour instead, is not the moral win you're implying.

If an ethnic cleansing is part of the requirements, to stop committing humanitarian atrocities towards "the poor", that's still an atrocity.

Disclaimer, the USA, just like every authoritarian state, is also disgusting and criminal.

I'm 70% sure that the larger truck exists because exceptions have literally been made to the law on purpose due to lobbying, which is why every company pivoted to them.

I'm getting the sense that you didn't actually watch the whole video, because your only two points in this comment,

In the absence of IP laws, creatives would be able to create their works, but they'd also be competing against companies that have the resources to monetize, influence the general public, and kill the franchise through poor choices.

And

It's really important to know that the vast majority of people aren't going to have the goodwill to tip or otherwise support free works, and it's even less likely if a large company does enough marketing to overshadow an artist.

, are answered during the video, and I don't see you arguing the points made by him, you're just straight up stating the opposite.

And your first point,

Right now, a majority of creatives don't own their IP in the legal sense, and they can't stop large companies from milking their works dry as a result.

, is about how the current system doesn't work to protect actual artists, yet does work to protect large IP-pimping companies.

"Reasonable control" is only possible in the legal sense, not the real sense, so I doubt artists care about it, outside of monetisation, which is what we're attempting to replace.

Right now as we are speaking, the art of thousands upon thousands of those creators is being stolen constantly by legally gray AI scraping by huge companies, or illegally by smaller merch leeches.

The internet makes data protection impossible.

The law, only prevents the most egregious kinds of 'monetisation with someone else's art', and is unable to stop the rest, for practical reasons.

If artists didn't have to worry about being compensated enough... Would they still want to have "reasonable control"? Would we still "risk" them being "demotivated", from being unable to forbid others specifically from making money with their ideas?

I think the human drive to create isn't that neurotic. I think this kind of "demotivation" only happens for the kind of human who has been abused for years by the rules of the absurd economy we live in. And that's what we're saying should change.

But, as someone who hasn't followed it at all after launch... Is it actually fixed? What state is it in?