Originally Posted by cdelena
I would guess the distaste is for residuals that drive up the price of 'creative' work. Of course the people that designed and built the bridge don't get payment every time a car passes over it, etc, etc. but that is how the world works. And instead of just a payment for the work it must cover licensing, copyrights, copy protection schemes, lawyers, law suits, etc. etc.
Your analogy is not a good one. If a bridge is built by private enterprise then it is entirely possible for the builders/designers to be paid by the amount of traffic which passes over it. This would be called a toll bridge. If the bridge is built from public funds, then everyone who passes over it does pay for it constantly through taxation. Movies are privately funded endeavors and as such those who create them have the right to be paid for their work. If this "drives up the price" to an unacceptable level then people have a simple choice: do not pay to see the movie. It isn’t compulsory.
But it isn't really open for discussion since the contracts between the creators of the work and the distributors, end-users, middlemen etc is laid out clearly in advance and it is what it is. I used to charge clients royalties on how many times they printed my advertising copy. If they used it for just, say, 100,000 impressions, they would pay $x. If they used it for 1,000,000 impressions they would pay $Y. And if they used it for more than that then they would pay an agreed price per 1000 impressions going forward. This was all agreed in advance and was fair to both sides. If my work was extremely successful, the client would want to use it again and again (some clients used the same work for 10 years or more) and as they made more money, so did I. If my work was not successful, the client had limited downside exposure and paid less for the work than if it had been a single price open-ended deal. You can imagine therefore if I discovered that the client had made 2,000,000 impressions but only paid for 1,000,000 that I would be pretty pissed, and would take steps to prevent the work being used again until payment had been made.
It is just the same in almost all fields of creative endeavor. Movies, literature, computer software, artwork, music etc. The fees which you think might 'drive up the price' don't seem to have harmed any of those businesses or priced many consumers out of the market. If artists are not fairly recompensed for their work, they will stop doing it. And then no more movies, no more music etc. Bad deal for everyone.
I say to those who object to paying for the content they consume - do you regularly work for free for your employer? Notice Dan didn't respond to that question when I asked it of him. My guess is the he doesn't. But he clearly believes others should.