Not enough of the money goes to the artist, but money does go to the artists. If you’re not sure, ask literally any artist who has their content featured on netflix, or any of the other platforms.
Really depends on the industry. E.g for games: The devs were already payed their salary and usually don’t get residuals. Here the money goes to the publisher/studio. As I already said: I pay for the indie games I play singe I want these studios to be able to exist/pay their devs. But the money I’d spend on Call of Duty will mostly go to Bobby Kotick and his shareholders.
Money also goes to the marketing team, and software developers, and internationalization teams, and all the other people in the chain who actually do have a purpose and make that artist’s content more available to the world than it otherwise would be.
Those people don’t get residuals, but wages. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere. But the animators of a Netflix show I’m watching where already payed. Yes, the people currently working on stuff that will come out in the future still need wages, but let’s not forget that most of the money I’d pay will go to shareholders.
But they’re always going to take more than they should, that’s just called inefficiency, and is where competition can happen. But if it’s not generating enough income, the content simply won’t happen.
I don’t really care for this liberal narrative.
Which is honestly fine with me, lord knows we have too much garbage on these platforms.
So, people who make that “garbage” don’t deserve to pay their rent? Either be defending the poor workers or be a market extremist. Pick a lane, my dog.
that you should pay what you can afford.
I don’t think people should be ripped off though. Which is what I think is happening with the big platforms.
But the money I’d spend on Call of Duty will mostly go to Bobby Kotick and his shareholders…Yes, the people currently working on stuff that will come out in the future still need wages, but let’s not forget that most of the money I’d pay will go to shareholders.
Yes, more than should, sure, we’re saying the same thing.
And then I said:
But if it’s not generating enough income, the content simply won’t happen…Which is honestly fine with me, lord knows we have too much garbage on these platforms.
To which you responded:
So, people who make that “garbage” don’t deserve to pay their rent? Either be defending the poor workers or be a market extremist. Pick a lane, my dog.
Which is a textbook straw man. And then there’s this gem:
Why are you mad that I call your stuff about “competition” and “inefficiencies” a “liberal narrative”? That’s what the liberal market economids are supposed to be. How did you interpret it exactly?
You ever find yourself in a discussion where it is abundantly evident that the other person is too ill-equipped to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, but also openly obstinate and reductive in the face of anything they don’t understand?
It’s impossible to not be condescending in that situation, I’ve already done it enough, and I’d rather not continue. Cheers.
Really depends on the industry. E.g for games: The devs were already payed their salary and usually don’t get residuals. Here the money goes to the publisher/studio. As I already said: I pay for the indie games I play singe I want these studios to be able to exist/pay their devs. But the money I’d spend on Call of Duty will mostly go to Bobby Kotick and his shareholders.
Those people don’t get residuals, but wages. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere. But the animators of a Netflix show I’m watching where already payed. Yes, the people currently working on stuff that will come out in the future still need wages, but let’s not forget that most of the money I’d pay will go to shareholders.
I don’t really care for this liberal narrative.
So, people who make that “garbage” don’t deserve to pay their rent? Either be defending the poor workers or be a market extremist. Pick a lane, my dog.
I don’t think people should be ripped off though. Which is what I think is happening with the big platforms.
Yes, more than should, sure, we’re saying the same thing.
And then I said:
To which you responded:
Which is a textbook straw man. And then there’s this gem:
So yeah, I think we’re done here. Bye.
Why are you mad that I call your stuff about “competition” and “inefficiencies” a “liberal narrative”? That’s what the liberal market economids are supposed to be. How did you interpret it exactly?
You ever find yourself in a discussion where it is abundantly evident that the other person is too ill-equipped to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, but also openly obstinate and reductive in the face of anything they don’t understand?
It’s impossible to not be condescending in that situation, I’ve already done it enough, and I’d rather not continue. Cheers.
Skill issue, asshole.