The value of content creation has dramatically declined because the barrier to entry has fallen so low. I find great new artists every week and would never have to listen to the same song twice (if I chose).
I can write a song, make a movie, and take photographs all from a pocket computer and publish globally instantly.
>The person I was replying to was trying to contend that content is scarce. I showed that, no, it indeed is not. Had they put in your caveat that undistributed content might as well not exist, I would've cheerfully argued and perhaps ceded the point. But, their statement, as given? Wrong.
It would be better if you spend some time to understand what they MEANT with by "content" in their statement, instead of attacking their statement "as given", i.e with only considering the more basic meaning of the word content.
Also: it's not just that "undistributed content might as well not exist", it's also that content not done to a level the public wants "might as well not exist". Even if you distribute (say, online, on YouTube) your "movie" made with a camcorder, it doesn't mean it will replace an actual, budgeted movie, for the majority of people.
>Also, you claim (as does everyone else in this debate, it would seem) that creators must be compensated or less content will result. You cannot prove this, or if you can, you have not shown a reasoning chain that results in it. Use logic.
Why don't YOU use logic? I don't have to "prove" anything, it's obvious.
1) People produce content for two reasons: for free and because they are paid to do so.
If they are not paid, the second reason ceases to exist. (If you don't believe that some of the professional content creators would not produce stuff if there were no money involved, talk to some of them). A lot of content is not produced "out of passion" at all, but solely for money. Justin Bieber songs, hollywood blockbuster, etc.
2) Content creation costs money. If content is not paid, expensive content will not be produced by anyone, even those that do it out of passion. A money, which can get to $100 million budget easily, is expensive content.
3) Content creation takes time. If professional creators cannot do it as a full time job, they will work some other full time job, and if they still feel the urge to do it out of passion, they would do it on their spare time. Again, volume will drop.
The same argument was made when player pianos came out, when records came out, when radio came out, when photography came out, when TV came out, yet there are likely more performers in every one of these categories than ever.
Making content production and duplication cheaper enables more people to consume it, requiring more of it, and more people end up working on the new systems. I suspect these tools will be no different.
Yeah; I agree. He would have a good argument except for the fact that the value of a single piece of content is declining across the board. That is fucking with a lot of established business models, specifically with the publishers.
The value of a music album has decreased significantly because anyone can create one in their bedroom with free software and under $1000 worth of equipment. Same with a book - all you need is a laptop and you can self-publish either through e-books or on-demand publishing. Even video content - you can film entertainment content with your cell phone and distribute it on YouTube.
It's a zero-sum game with entertainment, because the public only has so many hours in a day that they can spend consuming media content. So 30 minutes spent watching YouTube videos where the author makes MAYBE $0.05 per view means 5 minutes less to spend watching content with a higher value.
Publishers will never go away for "premium" content: they do serve a marketing function where they can spread risk among a number of options. But their importance in a highly segmented market like book publishing is likely to decrease.
People who otherwise wouldn't consider themselves content creators can be inspired to become such if their devices come with content-creation features. As the divide increases between content-consuming devices and content-creation devices, more and more people are going to opt for the less expensive consuming devices and just not get the other kind, as they don't anticipate in advance a desire to create. Thus the barrier for becoming a content-creator could go from "hey neat, look what I can make with this!" to having to buy a separate device first. If the creation abilities come packaged with the consuming device, more people are going to feel empowered make the easy leap, perhaps discovering a new passion in the process.
Content creators are still consumers. An artist can still read poetry, go the theatre, etc. So, if the vast majority of population goes into creative endeavors, the demand for creative labor isn't going to increase; all of the content creators are still content consumers.
The problem with digital creative industries is that they are essentially a zero sum game + zero marginal unit cost.
Example with music industry:
Zero sum: I as the average music listener will only be a fan of N artists. I can only listen to so many minutes of music per day. If I discover better artists it doesn't increase my total listening time. I instead have to kick another artist out of the rotation to bring in a new one. (same thing applies to people who only listen to playlists)
No marginal unit cost: adding more music listeners to the industry does not require more musicians to service them, Drake can supply the entire world with the same song for no unit cost
If you're making content or a site with content you've produced, it's probably very low margin at this point. If you're making a platform that can take everyone's content, there's probably still a lot of money to be made in it, if you have a new or compelling take on (because there's several big platforms now that most people go to, like most people just go to YouTube). Although that's true with everything, pretty much. Books, music, movies, video, etc.
It’s potentially nice for the consumer. If I could get personalised audio and video content created on demand for me, that would be pretty amazing. But it does disincentivise people from creating content rather than just consuming it, and I think that could end up taking away a lot of the magic from life.
People will make content as a hobby, but you won't see people doing it on the level (frequency or quality) they have been today. Internet likes and shares are nice but if they won't pay the bills, and a lot of creators will prioritize their time accordingly.
Interestingly, both problems could be happening _at the same time_! If before (say) 1% of all people got a chance to publish their work and the internet has increased that tenfold, there is still space for 90% of the population to be passive consumers. That 10% might still be 'too much' for some types of content of course (how many bands, standup comedians or indie game developers do you need before you hit diminishing returns anyway?)
In fact, I suspect that most people fall into both groups: They might be 'creators' for some types of content and only 'passively consume' some different types. For example, I sometimes contribute to OSS but have never uploaded a Youtube video in my life.
There's been a trend in all the mainstream entertainment divisions to avoid risks and maximise profitability. The result is bankable but bland and homogenised "content".
There used to be indie scenes in music and movies that would kickstart the careers of the next wave of creators. Ironically, making the tools affordable and accessible has killed that next wave, because success depends as much on access to mainstream distribution and monetisation as it does on creation - and there's far less money available to distribute, promote, and monetise non-mainstream projects than there used to be.
Not only is there no money in true indie originality now, there isn't even much chance of exposure.
Creative works such as music and writing have a similar scalability, but it can be more difficult to demonstrate value and it's nearly impossible to sell subscriptions to a single story or song.
The majority of people were always just content consumers not producers. The short form content platforms are probably reducing this gap but producing even just low quality content takes more effort than consuming.
This is a huge, well written article. I wish I found such an article everyday, but they are rare. I disagree with some of the points the author makes. It is clear that he is biased towards content creators and against sharing, but at least he mentions the opposing points of view and tries to be inclusive.
It might be true that music and media have been squeezed. I find it surprising, because a few years ago there were some articles stating record profits. But let's say it is true - many traditional domains are in decline, and creators are not creating quality content as much as they used to, because they receive less income.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. People stop using old media and forms of art because they are developing new forms. In the past we were talking about fishing, now about JavaScript. We used to get all our reading from books, now the lion share is taken by forums and online articles. We are developing new ways to create and enjoy, and that is why the old ways are in decline.
For example I spend more time reading arxiv articles (and their github repos when available) instead of newspaper articles. I prefer the commentary of a small subreddit to that of most newspapers. I take music discovery in my own hands and have never been happier (much more than in the age of CD and radio, when availability was scarce). I almost never need their guidance to discover music, or their articles to discuss events. I can get the gist of an evolving media event from Wikipedia, and it's much better structured. If I am interested in gaming, I can watch free live game streaming created by other players. That is why the old content creation for money is in decline - because we are creating new ways to get what we need.
I can write a song, make a movie, and take photographs all from a pocket computer and publish globally instantly.
reply