"This is a bit rich" but it is still not what i am saying. its amoral, not moral/immoral!
"The need to and the costs of production.." but that is the thing, if there is no market for it then you can't do shit. if the market is not willing to pay for the costs of production, you push the cost of production down, find another way to push costs up, or you just starve. this is not me telling you this. this is just how it is for everyone.
"In economics there is supply and demand.." fair enough, i see we are saying the same thing here. tbh i just read your sentence as gibberish to impress how much you knew about economics. i understand the meaning if not the terminology, no need to be an arse.
"Well, now you know how I feel.." to be fair, i knew how you felt. i was just trying to disabuse you of the notion that there is anything fair about work and pay. it is power pure and simple. that is, in fact, why some people get the 10x income, and some do the 1x work.
"In what sense do you consider yourself a producer?" i am sorry, but i cannot help but read that as being a bit fucking condescending. so finding it difficult, but giving you the benefit of doubt, perhaps you are asking if i am a big p Producer? no. i am a designer. 1 x work for slightly less than 1x pay.. as it happens.
But the thing is, they're not. Distributors provide a lot of liquidity and a lot of their bets don't pay off. Even the big studios only make profit margins on the order of 5-7%. Besides liquidity, the distribution process itself involves significant logistical complexity; it essentially involves doing multiple product launches on different scales almost every week of the year.
"In what sense do you consider yourself a producer?" i am sorry, but i cannot help but read that as being a bit fucking condescending.
It's just a straight question, because I don't understand what your relationship to the industry is, if any. I do work in film productionand post-production, usually recording sound on sets or editing and supervising other editors in post production.
This is a bit rich coming from someone dictating what artists need to do to please you as a consumer.
the power dynamic exists purely because 'want' is your weak point in a trading situation, and my ability to keep that from you is my strong point (my weak point is my need to eat).
The need to and the costs of production still exist even when the ability to recoup investment by controlling distribution does not.
"This is simply not true - there is a fixed cost of supply." no, there is a fixed cost of creation. supply is unlimited (virtually).
In economics there is supply and demand, and fixed costs and marginal costs (ie the cost to produce one more unit of a given product). Creation is not treated as a separate thing from supply, since it is a necessary precursor. Some goods are supplied in single quantities. Please don't lecture me about economics if you are not familiar with the basic terminology of the field.
i get the feeling that you are trying to moralise not only about the existence of piracy (which imho is in itself a profound misreading of reality) but about me, about which you know nothing. i find this vaguely offensive.
Well, now you know how I feel about being told that because artists and publishers of the past have made lots of money from industrialized distribution, artists of today should not expect to get paid for supplying a product the market wants, which is a rather annoying fallacy of composition. Just because the industry has done well overall does not mean that everyone has been receiving '10x value from 1x work,' as you put it. The majority of people in the film industry work on fixed pay scales and see little or no residual income.
if you care to know, the existence of piracy, abundance of content, and the leverage of being one of thousands of eyeballs has allowed me to shift from being a powerless consumer to being a producer, and a patron, as i please. which is awesome.
In what sense do you consider yourself a producer?