What about an OPEN creative media company???????

See:

http://e-texteditor.com/blog/2009/opencompany

what do you think?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!?!? :evilgrin:

Yet another person rediscovers the marginal disutility of labor and comes up with some half-baked scheme to ‘solve’ it…

um, Durian is pretty open, and it is in business to make media…

Good Idea! Off to the next thread!

I’d say that durian is the exact opposite of what they’re proposing here being they have a Big Boss Man that cuts everyone a paycheck for their labor as they perform it while this guy proposes that everyone work for free until they earn enough ‘street cred’ to be compensated for their past and future work.

Like I’ve said too many times before, all this is doing is turn ‘employees’ into ‘entrepreneurs’ which – for the most part – only really benefits the head honcho who then doesn’t have to risk their own capital on the project.

Can’t even remember how many times I’ve heard this exact same business plan over the years…

silly kittens…

think about actually money. roflz.

hahahaahaahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahah

I don’t know about a ‘TOTALLY open’ company, as this article suggests. But a lot of companies meet the open idea halfway, or even quarterway.
Promotion studios licenses a few of their character rigs under cc, for that Kajimba show.

And as Papasmurf points out, Durian does have some money involved, as well as open content.

Yeah, sounds great if you’re naive, but the blog from the guy hasn’t been updated since he wrote that article and since he released the source to his program, and people on the forums are complaining about lack of updates, bugs and lack of communication.

If you ask me, this was just a hopeless way to try getting other people to work for him, so he could save his ass. So much for being an “open company”.

It did not work in the past, it does not work right now and it won’t work in the future.

The business model…

It might require a new license…

perhaps something like…

Creative Commons Limited License … hmm…

I’m just brain storming here…

In essence…

Let’s say that there was a 3d movie collaboratively produced…

Let’s say it was a web show… with episodes…

and each episode was… 44 minutes long…

Now …

There would be writers… sculptors… audio …

and if they produced something together of high quality…

instead of just giving everything away… maybe…

They sold the finished product… if someone wanted to watch an episode, it might cost 2 dollars to download… lets say 4000 humans on the internet bought 2 episodes each on average…

4000 x 2 x2 = 16000…

then it would be split up between the creatives humans who created it…

this is all just hypothetical brainstorming…

…which is why i mention Durian…as was pointed out, there is a boss man that cuts a paycheck to the silly kittens, while others who have no risk and no real commitment or expense get to participate and earn brownie points (practical experience, stuff for a demo reel, credibility, and network/connections/imdb credit) which has value.

it seems you are either satisfied with the status quo, or you don’t think things can be improved.

I’m satisfied with getting paid. I’ve done work for a couple indie film makers, if they can pay me, then I don’t see why that would be a problem for others. The ‘status quo’ works for a reason.

the poster above, to which i posed the questions stated that many creatives should be satisified with NOT being paid - unpaid work…

So you’re saying I should be satisfied with not being paid? Why don’t you just handcuff me to the desk and hit me with a whip while you’re at it.

I am saying that if are you are satisfied with not being paid then that is fine. However, if you would like to be paid for your work, then you should be. I am not saying that you should or should not be satisfied. It seems to me that it would be more logical to want to be compensated due to current economic realities.

Oh, heh, sorry. I didn’t realize you were joking. Sarcasm on the internet is difficult to discern.

That said, anyone with experience in their trade should not work for free, as it reduces the monetary worth of the work we do, and that affects everyone. If you work for free on a successful movie, and the next producer to come along might expect that out of the rest of us.

Just look up the controversy surrounding the VFX work done for Journey to the Center of the Earth.

this is why i propose an open media company…

currently, probably hundreds of not thousands of artists are here… and they could in theory, be compensated for their practice and work

People routinely confuse “open” with “free.”

In this ol’ world, nothing’s free. Everybody wants to eat, so they do something (that they probably would prefer not to have to do …), in exchange for money (which is why they do it), and with that money they buy food and super-dooper computers :stuck_out_tongue: and the other essentials of life.

So … why do people invest time and money on “free” open-source products? Because there is no cheaper and more-effective way to “pay” for the very expensive tools that you need in order to do other interesting (or at least, remunerative…) things.

Think about it: none of us could generate the business and revenue to produce Blender “on our own.” NaN started the ball rolling, but went bankrupt. Blender could very well have died then and there. But all of us, working together, can do it if we do not demand monetary compensation for that effort. In return, all of us get a fabulous tool that all of us can use to do the things we do get paid for.

Does that extend, then, to “a free company?” Nope. Because it flies in the face of why companies exist. Companies exist not only for their owners, but for their customers as well. Companies provide something that they legally agreed to provide, but they are also become obligated to make good on that agreement. If they fail to do so, the customer has recourse against them.

Paradoxically, “open source” works because money did not change hands. “The exchange of value,” even one dollar or one rupee, is the cement of a contract. We promise nothing to one another; we place no restriction upon one another; we all benefit. But open-source cannot, by itself, enter into any world in which the existence of a contract is a necessity.

I think certain ‘open content’ could benefit companies. But not all of it. I released a few rigs about 2 years ago cc - but few have used them. Probably because they’re very specific, and many artists have their own vision, and ideas anyways.

But today I was looking at this face rig, thinking I should just retrofit it into my rigs, for now on. Its modular, manageable, and saves me the effort of re-doing face rigs each and every time. That open content there would save boatloads of time in a production.

I know that doesn’t solve all the injustices that occur in entertainment, but its practical, down-to-earth, and could work tomorrow.