Quote:
Originally Posted by Charbax
Again I quote the legislative agenda from the current whitehouse.gov:
Quote:
|
Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.
|
Diversity in media, thus in the artists making contents on the different kinds of media, that is definitely part of the agenda for the US Government and always kind of has been part of the agenda. |
But that isn't the same thing as doing away with all publishing houses etc, and it doesn't even neccesarily mean that the Govt has any interest whatsoever in what the artists do, just what the corporations do. And I wouldn't have thought it was in the Govts best interest to do away with a potential source of income...
Quote:
|
But now if you introduce a solution to pay artists according to how popular their stuff is,
|
How do you get from the Whitehouse statement to that? The statement that you quoted looks like it's all to do with corporations, monopolies and so on, and nothing to do with the artists themselves.
Quote:
|
then obviously you want the correct type of diversity happening and you want fair an reasonable algorithms to be put in place to get the artists the audience that they deserve.
|
That is just about the scariest thing you've written. The "correct type of diversity" suggests that some person or organisation controls this. As you have been suggesting that the Govts lead on this, I'm assuming you want the Govts to control the diversity. I'm almost at a loss for words to describe just how scary I find that. Govts have enough powers as it is without making it even easier for them to censor material they find objectionable. Or do you really think that isn't what would happen? If so, you really need to open your eyes to what the various Govts around the world can already get up to.