Slashdot Log In
The Next Social Revolution?
Posted by
michael
on Tue Aug 17, 2004 09:30 PM
from the big-ideas dept.
from the big-ideas dept.
Cryofan writes "In a recent interview, Howard Rheingold (author of Smart Mobs) discussed the possibility of a 'new economic system' born of 'unconscious cooperation' embodied by such technologies as Google links and Amazon lists, Wikipedia, wireless devices using unlicensed spectrum, Web logs, and open-source software. Rheingold speculates that 'the technology of the Internet, reputation systems, online communities, mobile devices...may make some new economic system possible....We had markets, then we had capitalism, and socialism was a reaction to industrial-era capitalism. There's been an assumption that since communism failed, capitalism is triumphant, therefore humans have stopped evolving new systems for economic production.' However, Rheingold is worried that established companies with business models that are threatened by these new technologies could 'quash such nascent innovations as file-sharing -- and potentially put the U.S. at risk of falling behind the rest of the world.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wait...are you saying... (Score:5, Funny)
It continues (Score:4, Interesting)
'New economy' (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh my, a 'new economy' based on 'unconscious cooperation'. My, that sounds like Capitalism.
Re:'New economy' (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Howard is a nice guy and has some interesting ideas, but like a lot of lefties he keeps hoping that there is some workable, "non-oppressive" alternative to the free market. Unfortunately, Churchill's statement about democracy as a political system applies here as well: capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.
Parent
Re:'New economy' (Score:5, Insightful)
The free market is well entrenched because it is, as far as I can tell, the most effective economic system for dealing with scarcity. It has its problems under some conditions (such as lack of competition [wikipedia.org] or information asymmetry [wikipedia.org]), but it generally works.
However, in the world of intelectual property, there is no such thing as scarcity, so it makes perfect sense to consider new forms of distribution. The hard part is to provide an incentive to create without limiting distribution.
-jim
Parent
Re:'New economy' (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? Is there a vast army of top-notch zombie programmers that you have stashed away on a small island somewhere? Do you happen to have a cloning machine that makes fully formed nobel-prize winning biochemists? There is most definitely scarcity in the world of intellectual property...it's called: The Labor Market.
Intellectual property has to be created by someone with talent. Lots of talent, that takes years of training and (as some would argue) a particular kind of mindset. Not everyone can perform these tasks, which means we have a limited resource that needs to be efficently allocated in the marketplace. To think that the rules of the free market do not apply just because you can copy software with little or no cost is missing the point. The scarcity isn't the software...it's the people. Software that's been well understood, and copied over and over, (open-sourced even) is a commodity, sure. But you can run an economy soley based on commodities!
Any sucessful economic system needs to grow...it needs to generate value. To do that, you need smart people making new software (and books, and movies, and graphic art, etc...). As long as the talent needed to create these things is in limited supply, Capitalism will apply to the IP market just as surely as it applies to everything else.
Parent
"Real" Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
This interview is especially interesting because it outlines some specifics about HOW this can proceed, using technology as a tool to force social progress. Hopefully governments won't start fucking with things to protect their client corporations and realise that everyone needs to adapt. Otherwise they might as well be full-blown communists.
Parent
An Original Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
The easy solution? Make the rest of the world quash innovations such as file-sharing too.
(Sadly, this seems to be too common the attitude, and seems to work somewhat...)
he misses his own point (Score:4, Insightful)
Since it looks like the only way to do the quashing is through the courts, doesn't that make it a government-managed economy? Only now, instead of "the people's" will, it's "the companies' will". No matter, it's still a club to beat people up with.
Meet the new Communism, [amost the] same as the old Communism.
Not Yet the magic kingdom (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole problem with other alternative systems, respect based, communism, or whatever is the simple fact that they require people to be better than they are. Unfortunately people are rotten in general. The typical person can convince themselves that any and all action they take is of the highest order. The current election where both parties seem to have betrayed every principle they espouse is a good example.
Untill you have a literally unlimited production capacity, there will always be incentive for people to take the other guys. If for nothing else people will take yours just to deprive you of having it. As long as their is shortage of desirable goods it doesn't matter wheather you call the currency the Dollar, ruble or the respect unit, the system will wind up looking rather similar.
If you would like to see society get better figure out how to make people a little less rotten.
Re:Not Yet the magic kingdom (Score:5, Interesting)
Right! You are! No one else would talk about the current election with two parties, leaving out the name of the country and other details, and assume to be understood- but an American. (Ok, I'll cut you some slack: this *is* slashdot, which is located in the US
Now, you know, a lot of the "rest of the world" isn't quite as paranoid about other people wanting to steal their stuff. A lot of us actually believe that the vast majority of the time, most people like to cooperate. And there are enough people that like to act ethically that things like wikipedia and open-source can actually work. Heck, not just work, they can work better than your cut-throat capitalism.
Oh, I should mention this while I'm ranting: the US economy's fortunes have very little to do with your brand of aggressive capitalism. If anything, you're doing well despite it. In the first part of the last century, you folks had a lot of oil, which is essential for fuelling an industrial economy and war machine. That's all. Just like England became wealthy with coal, you became wealthy because of oil- just an accident of history, really.
I believe St. Francis explained that having wealth made you fearful, and wanting to protect it. It was easier for him just to renounce material wealth, so he wouldn't have to worry.
Now, this is a crucial point: the US has been in decline now for some 30 years as an economic power. Your GDP goes up, but you people aren't any happier. This wealth that you accumulated is causing you some nasty "cognitive dissonnance", and you're choosing to resolve it by believing odd notions- like you're somehow superior, and the rest of the world is after you. Not so.
There is no problem with these other economic systems so long as they do not require coercion. People obviously ARE willing to contribute to things like wikipedia, distributed proofreaders, open source projects, peace brigades international, etc, etc... These things WORK. Who are you to say that human nature is evil, in the face of such feats? Humans sure are capable of incredible, unspeakable barbarity. But that's only human realization, quite distinct from human nature, which includes the possibility of either realization. And some systems invite certain types of realization: authoritarian systems invite barbary, systems that give status in exchange for contribution reward giving.
It's not selfless in the dualistic way that is present in judeo-christian (well, mostly christian) morality. The gift economy can't be seen as either selfless or selfish- more like enlightened self-interest. Contribute to a good OSS project, see your ability to charge high consulting fees go up. Neither selfless, nor selfish (or maybe both?)
Ah, there you have it: as far as IP goes, we do have nearly unlimited production capacity. Economists had to come up with the idea of augmenting returns; it's so damned cheap to copy bits that marginal costs keep decreasing. You can't deprive the other guy by making a copy (well, unless you're counting on licensing...).
There's no need. We only need a system that invites better realizations, and that's something that's become possible with a new mode of production. It's a rare thing in human history to be witnesses to such a massive change. That said, I'm afraid a lot of Americans are going to be too afraid to partake in this movement because your accidental wealth has warped your vision, making you see human nature as dark as your leaders manifest it.
Parent
Re:But the problem is (Score:5, Insightful)
A few years ago Stephen King was doing an experiment of an end-run around the publishing industry, and doing it wrong (possibly with the intention of poisoning that well for unknown authors, as a bone thrown to his publishing buddies). What he did wrong was to insist that a minimum percentage of downloaders should contribute. What he should have done was release each chapter in response to a total contribution for the previous one, regardless of the percentage. He required an honesty level that wasn't necessary for his business model, and which caused his experiment to "fail".
Most writers obviously don't have the creds of Stephen King. So suppose it's a few years ago and you're Cory Doctorow - you're a very good writer but you're not widely known (now watch as I get told that I was the only person on Earth not following his work for the last 20 years). You have a great idea for a wonderful book about immortality and Disneyland. I forget how many chapters it is, let's say twenty. You put the first four in the public domain and post them on your website. You announce you will post the next chapter when you've gotten contributions totalling some amount of money. If you're good, the contributions will roll in pretty quickly. Maybe you put a thermometer picture on your website to let readers know how close they are to seeing the next chapter.
If this works, the creator gets his money even though the entire work ends up in the public domain. It would be really interesting to see somebody try this.
Parent
Free-market capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Free-market capitalism: What this guy is describing. No corporations, true free trade (meaning the absence of subsidies, tariffs, embargoes, outsourcing bans, and other restrictions, NOT by agreements or organizations, but by lack of laws.) Whether there is intellectual property or not is debatable. I don't think that this has ever been fully put into practice.
Economic or Social Revolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
What geeks saw in the 80's. College students saw in the early 90s, and what the entire world is waking up to now is that by changing the extent of a single persons ability to communicate, we have a much larger base population for any one society.
It is interesting to note that while large corperations are throwing money at ways to resist economic change, governments and traditional cultures are also trying to resist a "global" society by protecting viewpoints,certain sentimentalities,and cultural identification. Are we seeing a unilateral changes in social-political power structures as well as economic systems?
My $.02, but I think I have change coming.
Kei
You mean .. it could all be like an invisible hand (Score:5, Insightful)
Best of all, gussy it up with some techie-speak and no one will ever notice you're repeating one of the best sellers of '76.
1776.
unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't it still be conscience since it's trying to, uhh, earn the most amount of money possible?
There's been an assumption that since communism failed, capitalism is triumphant
China isn't doing so badly. It seems most capitalistic societies are taking a more socialist turn - providing healhcare, welfare, education, etc. Seems capitalism sort of fused with the ideas of communism.
Rheingold is worried that established companies with business models that are threatened by these new technologies
Open source is superior to brand name any day. Linux > windows. Firefox > IE. However, the latter both dominate the market, but Linux and Mozilla still have their fair share. Open source is the only example of REAL capitalism - since it's based on rugged individualism and can compete with huge corperations. That being said, it also forces big companies to innovate their software. You can bet that IE 7 will closely resemble FireFox.
quash such nascent innovations as file-sharing -- and potentially put the U.S. at risk of falling behind the rest of the world.'"
That is a fairly valid assumption, however, file sharing seems to be as rampant as ever. Kazaa, Ares, Gnucleus, eMule... if you want it, it's out there.
Case in point, desire for profit still does give companies incentive to improve upon existing models. The best thing that has ever happened to big corperations was open source - free, creative innovations which they can utilize in their up and coming products. Most of it was way too technologically advanced for the average user (try and explain to your parents how and why you need a 3 partition drive to have Linux and Windows).
I think he is pretty perceptive (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that something like OpenOffice, for example, can be created and distributed without spending millions of dollars, is right out there for everybody to see. If the public eventually recognizes it, our long-held perception of the value of a copy of something might change, to the point where newer business models based on real costs are the only ones that will still work. Why should an industry exist to produce something that for all practical purposes grows on trees. The same goes for the recording industry. If bands can generate fame and get better performance gigs by distributing free copies of their songs, there's no need for them to sign away their rights to a record company.
One obvious way for the old gang to stop this evolution is to outlaw the means that will enable it. Like file sharing.
There are real issues, but these aren't them (Score:5, Insightful)
Some real trends worth following:
This isn't a new phenomenon. There are many tangible products where the manufacturing cost is a tiny fraction of the retail price. Soft drinks, for example. Bottled water. Jeans. Batteries. Printer ink. There are successful business strategies for pushing the price up, ranging from heavy brand promotion to lock-in. Just because it could be cheap doesn't mean it will be.
We're starting to see these strategies applied to the Internet. "SBC Yahoo DSL", and "AOL for Broadband" are examples.
Electric power is a striking example of an unstable market. There's no inventory. Demand is relatively inelastic. Producers have high fixed costs. The result is prices that change by three orders of magnitude within a single day. This huge volatility can be exploited by traders, which makes things worse.
There's much economic theology around this issue, and not enough theory with predictive power. This area needs more simulation and less pontification.
Now these are the real issues in postmodern capitalism. Not peer to peer networking.
Re:There are real issues, but these aren't them (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa. I hope that was a semantic error, and that you really meant, "This calls into the question the basic concept that higher education is an economic good [for the individual worker]. (I was about to mod you up but had to reply instead.)
Education offers important benefits other than increasing one's economic value. You need an education (by which I do not mean an indoctrination, an education-that-is-not-an-indoctrination being admittedly very, very hard to come by) to vote intelligently on issues like the economy, environment, energy, and foreign policy. Most of our voting populace is incompetent to make decisions as voters.
Note that I would never advocate actually restricting someone's right to vote based on whether they have a diploma, or any similarly-spirited criteria, but most of the people voting in the upcoming election will vote for the person who will "fix the economy" and "do the right thing in Iraq," not only without an understanding of the intricacies of those situations, but without an understanding that intricacies actually exist that need to be understood.
For a demonstration, go out on the street and ask about the relationship between Turkey and Iraq, or between interest rates and inflation, or the drop in biodiversity over the last 300 years, or the vulnerabilities in combat of the "Stryker" tank, or what happens if we never pay off the national debt, or what a nuclear winter is.
The irony, I think, is that while we're one of the most "over-educated" countries in the world, we're killing ourselves through our own ignorance. It's a catastrophe.
Parent
Re:Communism failed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:...but Hitler called himself a christian. (Score:5, Insightful)
And Ghengis Khan [hindunet.com]:
Parent
Re:...but Hitler called himself a christian. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, that's not true. The "Founding Fathers", such as Washington, Jefferson, etc. were most likely Deists, if they even considered themselves as following a religion. Of course, the current Christian revisionist historians will swear up and down that "America was founded on Christianity", but it isn't true.
Parent
Re:How about no economy. (Score:5, Interesting)
But then I looked around and all I saw was people clawing their way to the top, stepping on each other in a futile grab for something they couldn't reach: "enough." Nobody ever has enough in this society. Nobody has enough money, enough respect or enough love. We are a society of maximizers, always worried about what we're giving up for having something else. "I could take a sick day now, but I have to make my car payment." "I don't like my job, but I'll stay there and be miserable because other jobs don't pay enough."
It won't work on a global scale. All it would take is one person taking advantage of another for the whole thing to collapse.
Parent
Re:How about no economy. (Score:5, Funny)
Ok. We'll get right on that. Is next Friday soon enough, or do you need it earlier?
Parent
Re:How about no economy. (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds great. Tell ya what - you go first. I'll hold onto your property while you're busy on that abolish-the-state thing.
> And once the majority of the people are not coerced to wage slavery or unemployment (as under capitalism) and have most of their time off to do what they want to do in addition to what little is needed to produce the basic essentials of life, everyone will be much better off.
Yes, we went over this. Neither of us are wage slaves, and during my free time, I hold onto your property. And you go and abolish the state.
> And to make people work, no oppression machinery like the state is needed, just social pressure.
So what are you waiting for? Gimme your stuff! What are you, some kinda chicken? :)
Parent
Re:A New Economics System? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:A New Economics System? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll bet you're thinking of something like "The American Dream", which is the dream of a "fair" capitalistic society. Or Utopia, which is in theory where the socialism/communism/capitalism models are supposed to evolve to.
Capitalism by definition isn't necessarily supposed to be fair - it's an economic model that states that anyone is allowed to make money. It means that evil corporations are still allowed the make the same money in the same market that good ol' Joe is (substitute whatever David vs. Goliath story you wish - NewPunkBand vs RIAA, Consumers vs. BigCorporations, Linux vs. Microsoft, etc..etc.etc). It just so happens that currently (and many,many,many times in the past) politics are helping the bigger evil corporations make money easier than good ol' Joe, because they are big enough to get some law on their side.
Howard Rheingold is making the point that these big evil corporations are depending on what he believes is an outdated "version" of the capitalistic economic model, which is that since they need to control the distribution of their particular product/service in order to make money, the only way they can make that happen when technology gets in the way is to get laws passed against it. That can't "bail them out" forever, especially when other countries that aren't necessarily interested in following that economic model get involved.
If greed motivates the average human (which it does), then the way for this type of "social revolution" to work is for everyone involved have something to gain by the collective participation of everyone. The "greed factor" could be that people start to learn in an very Pavlov-like-way that the more they contribute to making the collective model work, the better it works for them. It might take some time, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
But then again I've had a few beers, so maybe I'm just dreaming...:)
Parent
Re:A New Economics System? (Score:5, Interesting)
Idealistic yes. Communism can have the same things, rewards for qoutas met ect.. like a unionized job. There is nothing inherintly better about capitalism. It has as much to do with circumstances, leaders, population behavioral patterns as it does the system.
Capatalism won, because computers happened along the scene and gave the capatalists a huge production increase, while the communists didn't anticipate this and didn't gear their production in a similiar fashion. They aimed for gaols that become superflous. They aimed to outprodous the US in steel. Which in the early and mid industrial era, meant they'd have more tanks, more guns, more eveything. The communists centralized planning methods failed to properly incorporate electronics and they become fell behind. The US had a decentralized system, so when they came along, they switched productions.
But the soviets accomplished a lot. So did the Americans. In no way did communism fail. No more then Democracy can fail. They are just idealogical systems. They are never implemented ideally and thus never behave ideally. The russians stopped supporting that system, and it is no longe rin use. But the achievements of the soviets is just as stagering as the achivements of the Americans, who both stole much of the base of these achivements formt he germans.
Capatalism is just an idea. There is no pure capatalist system because people will not stand for a purely greed driven society. Even the most capatalistic societies have some provisions for the poor and ample regulations. Marx was a interesting but idealistic hippie, and Smith was a idealistic moron. If you want a true economic system that works, try Keynes. As Nixon put it "We're all keynsians now".
Parent
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, don't worry at all.
Parent
There is need for concern... (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T's monopoly was dismembered.
Standard Oil's monopoly was dismembered.
The horrific child labor conditions of the Industrial Age were checked by laws.
Labor unions were established.
The weekend was created.
This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but the point is that business in the United States is not immune to pressure from the population at large. It just takes a lot of hard work and political activism to force change of any kind, and most Americans are for a variety of reasons singularly uninterested in exercising their political power.
Parent
Re:There is need for concern... (Score:5, Interesting)
And the ILEC's today cumulatively have more power than AT&T ever did, extending beyond POTS into cellular and broadband. All made possible by cash flow from their POTS monopoly.
> Standard Oil's monopoly was dismembered.
But the dismembered portions were all owned by the same people who owned Standard Oil. What's more, the dismembered portions together made more money that the original Standard Oil.
Identity decentralization != Financial decentralization.
> Labor unions were established.
Talked to the pilots' union at Delta recently? How about United Airlines? Their pensions are not looking too good -- coming soon to a union near you.
> The weekend was created.
Are you classified as a salaried technology professional? Then your hours do not qualify for overtime. In fact, they may not qualify for time, depending on your employer.
Americans in unions are very interested in excercising their political power, what's left of it. But don't stay up late waiting for your 401K to lobby Washington for your children's future.
Parent
Re:There is need for concern... (Score:5, Insightful)
What we're seeing now is interesting in that outmoded businesses are now receiving strong legal protection (with no popular support) in the form of bizarre laws that allow them to do very anticompetitive/anticapitalist things. From what I know of American history, we used to be very eager to embrace new technologies - indeed, technology has been the backbone of the USA since the industrial age, and that tradition is what's being threatened here.
The good news is, the USA has a remarkable "healing" ability and after a few years, once everybody sees what's going on, we usually correct our mistakes pretty quickly and move on to the next battle.
Parent
Re:There is need for concern... (Score:5, Insightful)
technology has been the backbone of the USA since the industrial age
Since, maybe. During, no. The USA's initial industrialization was largely founded on cotton, which in turn was founded on genocide (providing cheap land) and slavery (providing cheap labour).
after a few years, once everybody sees what's going on, we usually correct our mistakes pretty quickly
Erm... how can I put this delicately...
Parent
Re:There is need for concern... (Score:4, Informative)
its right there in the comment.
Parent
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)
Yes.
Can you build your own computer?
Yes
And I'm not talking some 8-bit micro controller thing you cobbled together from parts you picked up at RadioShack.
Well, yes, I've built on of those... [slimdevices.com] but I didn't get the parts at Radio Shack.
I'm asking, can you build, in your back yard from raw materials, a general purpose computer?
No I can not turn rocks, dirt, and dog feces from my yard into a computer.
I'm betting that, perhaps, one one-thousandth of the slashdot readership has even the beginnings of the capability to do that.
Everyone has the "beginnings of the capability" to do whatever the hell they want.
The rest of us are consumers however much we'd like to think of ourselves as somehow above the comman man.
Eh? Everyone consumes. No shame in that.
But the fact is we buy our equipment from big corporations.
You can buy all kinds of stuff from small corporations. Often better stuff than the big corps sell.
Those big corporations will take whatever steps are necessary to stay in business and prosper.
Good for them, but faced with a big enough threat, they won't.
If that means that the common computer goes the way of the dodo bird and more stringently controlled systems replace them, then that's what will happen.
Why does that have to happen?
Stop acting like you're some kind of god and that the rules of economics don't apply to you.
If I write you a check for a trillion dollars will you shut up? Or do I have to send a plague on you and your family?
Fucking moron.
Indeed. Sorry I piped up.
Parent
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)
Amateur...
Parent
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Small companies who are successful selling computers, become big companies or go out of business.
Why does it have to be like this though? Why is it that the stock market must go up, corporate profits must increase, and small companies must become large ones to survive?
Central Banks, that's why. They are so entrenched that just getting rid of them (Federal Reserve buy back) would cause much suffering for most of us.
I haven't heard anyone "pipe up" with a sensible plan to get ourselves out of this hole we've (our grandfathers) dug, but maybe this is it.
An alternative system evolves slowly and quietly alongside the old one, eventually replacing it. The final step would maybe not be a revolution but a collective decision to ignore the old system.
Parent
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls and you're going to get rightly modded down to oblivion after I'm done writing this, but...
Big companies of today will try to keep the way they do business unchanged, until such time as the consumer will grow tired enough of their attitude that they'll vote with their wallets. When that happens, those companies one of two things:
- They will evolve and adopt the way consumers want them to do business, simply because it's in their best interest, if nothing else to survive.
- If they can't evolve, they will go the way of the dodo.
You can see the latter happening to media companies. They had their hayday, and they used to have a purpose, which is distributing intellectual material (music, movies...) by distributing the media they're stored on. Now that technology allows people to share the intellectual material without exchanging the physical media, media companies find themselves with no business case. They're superfluous and struggling to stay alive, but they won't be able to adapt, simply because they aren't needed anymore.
Now, in your example, nobody will need to build computers from scratch, because computer-making companies will adapt to whatever new way of distributing goods emerges. That's because, as you point out, people have a need for someone to manufacture computers for them.
I don't know what the new way of distributing/selling computers will be, and how it will happen, but rest assured that it will happen. The RIAAs and MPAAs of the world however will not be part of the new world, that's for sure. The only question is, how many victims will they make in their downfalls...
Parent
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Interesting)
Free market economics only works in a free market. The United States isn't anywhere close to a free market, and hasn't been anywhere close since the early days of the Republic. The less free the market, the easier it is for vested interests to use the government to maintain their positions of power and status. They're so good at it, in fact, that they managed to take a commodity which is now anything but scarce and make it artificially scarce in the face of a technological tidal wave moving in the opposite direction.
The RIAA, MPAA, Disney, and others like them have proven that they can stand against both the market and technological advancement and at the very least win a reprieve. I can't think of a single other instance in U.S. history where a conglomeration of companies have had the power to stall technological advancement and changing economic structures, but this is precisely what they have done.
I'd put my faith in the free market if we actually had one. But we don't.
Max
Parent
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Informative)
This really isn't that unprecedented. There was a big effort by the riverboat lobby to stop the development of railroads back in the 1800s.
Parent
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps there will remain a niche for the blockbuster but hell these days a few thousand bucks will put on your desk the equipment you once needed a studio and production crew to do.
Music passed the point where a home studio can produce a quality production recording a while back.
Movies are not that far behind.
Before you say people will not do something for nothing you need to think about it. Open source is all about people doing something that they want to do without any immediate reward in place.
granted the signal to noise ratio will be worse with general people producing but with something like moderation communities the good stuff will get noticed, recognised and spread around.
Production companies perhaps have life left. Finding and promoting talent... real talent... could be a money making proposition. However they can't remain based on income from physical based media distribution, it is absurd... absolutly absurd in an age that becomes more digital with each passing day.
Parent
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
The ones that get to do nothing but acting and buy huge mansions in Beverly hills are the exception. Not the rule. And there is no assurance that these are even the best actors. I'd say your assurance these day is that they are the best looking people that have some acting ability. Not the same as saying they are the best actors.
As for how companies can make money promoting the best actors. Simple. They have to provide a service that the public wants and is willing to pay to have provided better than it can do for itself. Some of what they do will still be viable. Set up a web site as a major source of new material with a stamp of approval with a good image rep for having good stuff. Get the hits and make your money from ads, or perhaps people paying you to host your stuff. Hell google essentially gives away gargantuan amounts of bandwidth and makes money doing it. Why couldn't a movie house?
Are you suggesting the only way for them to make money is the way they do it now?
Parent
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
The nature of free markets (truly free markets) is that people will do what is possible. Once indy movies are possible at a reasonable quality (something that is subjective) they will find ways to be distribued. As technology for distribution increases (high speed web access, for instance) you will see interesting ways to distribute them.
In a truly free market the profit margin is always very thin -- which is why many don't like the idea of a truly free market...
Parent
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
perhaps (Score:5, Funny)
(yes I'm joking, and American.)
Parent
An extrapolation (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowing the classic American love of conspicious consumption, I think it had to do with the fact that, before refrigeration, the wealthy elites of American society could afford an icehouse or deliveries of ice. They put ice in their drinks; this was emulated by whomever in the middle class could afford it. Once refridgeration spread, everyone could 'look rich' for a penny's worth of water. Ice used to be valuable, and so it remains as a cultural preference to this day.
Parent
Re:I'd argue otherwise (Score:5, Interesting)
Is that a statement I somehow missed while reading Marxist literature?
A capitalist system, even a protective one such as the one found in the U.S., encourages corporations to maximize their profits, and even to be exploitive. In a communist economy, state owned monopolies protect the proletariat at the expense of profits and efficiency.
Parent
I'll tell you what's fictional (Score:5, Insightful)
either in the name of western Capitalism, or in the name of nature-unfriendly Communism (China and the former USSR has/had a HORRIBLE environmental record)
can go on forever
is science fiction.
Parent