IP, content, blobs - container words - a sure-fire indicator in any conversation that , that the parties involved areunable to accurately value, evaluate, organize and produce, the valuables that should reside inside the container. So here the daily reminder, that logistics is a commodity now, but producing something of value, is not.
I've always had an intense visceral distaste for referring to podcasts, videos, and long-form writing as "content," especially when creators use the term. No matter how well-meaning or neutral its usage might be, I always involuntarily picture an old-timey cartoon farmer dumping slop into a giant trough when I hear phrases like "bringing you better content" or "being an influencer producing the type of content you want to see." I think you've just helped me solve the puzzle — hopefully, this will help me shed my negative association with the term. Many actually respectable internet personalities I follow use it, and I don't like being "that guy."
I share your distaste for "content". To me the word speaks of a lack of interest, understanding, or even respect, for what creators are making.
To some extent it does serve a useful purpose in that it makes it clear that it is in fact the ads that are the main event on these platforms, and that the "content" is merely a palatable delivery mechanism for adverts... which is a pretty depressing realisation.
in 2024 there are so many one-click-install adblockers for your browser, phone's DNS, router... anyone still seeing a sizable amount of ads these days has to be the most complacent, easily manipulated, lucrative demographic imaginable
Viewing an ad is not “giving back” in any meaningful sense. Modern adtech primarily benefits the infrastructure providers, rather than providing a service to its “clients” or a revenue stream to site owners.
Adblocking is the only meaningful objection that the consuming public can raise to the inefficient and wasteful adtech situation. Depending on how you feel about your obligations with regards to civil society, you might view it as a moral imperative.
Your other option is not consuming ad-supported content. There's no natural entitlement you should be able to view all content in a form that suits you.
In the context of certain YouTube communities - a couple of examples I'm aware of are synthtube or watchtube - "content" is also an advertising term for advertising, since this is really what many of the demo or "review" videos are.
People hawking products on Instagram, TikTok, or wherever fall into the same category. The reality is that the whole influencer industry is pretty much just hawking products and services to people.
IP has pretty clear connotation in games. I don't really think it shows what you say. Characters and worlds are IP and that IP can be used across media types. Gameplay is not IP. A game project can swap or take in IP.
In context of the discussion here - people who are talking about "content" or "IP" mark themselves out as not having a nuanced understanding of what intangible assets they hold.
I think what you mean to say is:
- writing and depictions of characters are copyrighted
- writing and depictions of worlds are copyrighted
- some of the names involved can also be registered trademarks
They are intangible rights that someone can own. The insidious term "intellectual property" is used to reframe the understanding of rights granted by copyright, patent and trademark law by comparing them to real property, which they are not.
When was the last time someone was allowed to live in your house, legally, because they're making a parody of it? When was the last time someone was allowed to take your house apart to find out how to make something compatible with your house's design? Owning a copyright is not like owning property and does not give you carte-blanche control over your intangible asset like real property law more-or-less does.
Some examples:
- I can write a book or game about a boy wizard who goes to a magical school, as long as I didn't base it on Harry Potter. JK Rowling can't stop me.
- I can write about a pirate who acts like an aging rockstar, provided I didn't copy Johnny Depp's depiction of Captain Jack Sparrow. Disney can't stop me.
- I can write about a martial force voyaging through space by analogy to a similar force on the Earth's seas, so I can call them space marines. Games Workshop® can't stop me, provided I don't implicitly or explicitly claim they are Games Workshop® Space Marines®
Assuming that “property” is always short for “real property” will lead to some interesting errors, as illustrated above.
Proprietary rights are varied. If one kind of property relates to a kind of right that doesn’t apply to another kind of property, that’s not a good reason to decide that one kind is not actually property.
While property has a number of meanings, including "intrinsic quality of a substance" and "something that can be owned", I think it tends to bring about an image of tangible objects in the listener's head.
I prefer the term "asset" to describe owned intangible things of value, such as rights, licenses, financial instruments, etc.
> Criticism of the term intellectual property ranges from discussing its vagueness and abstract overreach to direct contention to the semantic validity of using words like property and rights in fashions that contradict practice and law. Many detractors think this term specially serves the doctrinal agenda of parties opposing reform in the public interest or otherwise abusing related legislations, and that it disallows intelligent discussion about specific and often unrelated aspects of copyright, patents, trademarks, etc
If you use a catch-all term like "content" when you could've said "prose", "video", "music" and so on I'll assume you either don't know about the difference or you don't care - or indeed both.
The same goes for "IP" when you could've said trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets and so on, whatever is actually relevant.
IP is the standard way of describing pre-existing content e.g. games, books that is available to turn into movies, TV shows etc.
You can go on and on about whether this is accurate or not but no one cares. Because this is the term that the entire industry has adopted because getting into the specifics of trademarks, copyrights etc is irrelevant for most parts.
I can assure you that the accountants and executives at these studios can absolutely value, evaluate, organise and produce the valuables that should reside inside the "container".
It's what the entire movie and TV industries have been about ever since the idea of sequels e.g. Aliens, Terminator and worlds e.g. Marvel took off.
? Everyone of these products, took of as a high risk venture- a risky bet, mostly guided by the assumption of the success inherited with a producer - aka the talent. The sure-fire successstory brand names they became after the risky bet paid off. Which makes them - yes, transportable, containerize-able, high-value "content", in hindsight.
And hindsight is not the same game, with all information revealed. And mass-producing them, has steadily deteriorated the value shipped in the containers. Which made more of them necessary, better organized, cheaper. Which looks like a great success until you realize that the value of anonymous goods traded in the standardized box has deteriorated and the impressive need for volume is a sign of decay.
