"Content" is uninteresting unless it can be monetised. I mean, why would anyone write a blog post or piece of software, much less a book or a song if there were no money attached?

philanthropy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropy

I've written many blog posts, pieces of software, and songs, that have all made exactly $0.

And I'm glad you have!

I was complaining that in public discourse, anything not monetizable is disregarded, despite it making up (IMHO) the bulk of human activities and creation.

So you forgot to add /s to your original post.

I added the second sentence of the post instead.

What do you mean by “new”?

Superman and Batman have been around for almost 80+ years. Pokémon is approaching 30 years.

Hollywood movies made in the 1920s were remade in the 1930s which were remade in the 1940s which were remade in the 1950s and so on.

People have also been writing articles that mention this “new” normal for decades. But when does it stop being “new” lol?

How were those new-ish Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings shows marketed? (I didn’t watch them.)

A Star is Born has been remade four times or so

Yep

The only thing more offensive than calling a book, movie, or TV show "intellectual property" is calling it "content". The former turns creative work into something you buy and sell on Fidelity[0] and the latter turns it into TikTok. Either way, the end result is human culture being made disposable.

[0] As far as I'm aware, nobody has actually tried selling fractionalized derivatives of copyright, patent, or trademark interest on an open market. The closest you can do is buy shares of a media conglomerate. I assume it would at least be legally possible if you could get the SEC to sign off on it and write up a contractual structure for how the fractional owners of the work would agree on licensing it out.

This isn’t new. It’s been happening for decades. Right?

What’s different now?

A decade getting too much (frankly poor) content instead of not enough of beloved characters/worlds/etc totally devaluing the product.

That doesn’t sound like what GP was saying.