Text for the visually impaired:
Post by lestatlestits
I see Hollywood is now very into the idea of buying something once and then owning it forever and being able to make infinite copies. Which. Isn't quite the message they imparted upon me in my childhood. I the spirit of their own long-held stance:
A photoshopped version of the "You wouldn't download a car" ad saying: "You wouldn't download an actor"
The United States has the most comprehensive social safetynet and system of redress on Earth.
...exclusively for the tiny sliver of the population that already owns everything and controls our government through institutionally legalized bribery.
As has happened for all of human history, we have devolved back to the golden rule: those with all the gold make the rules, and surprise surprise, the rules say they can't lose and you can't win.
Me neither but I'll do an ignorant take and invite someone more knowledgeable to correct me:
The tech to make films without human actors is available, and Hollywood studios think that they have unlimited rights forever to the digital likenesses of the actors they have contracts with. Which is pretty fucking rich from the same corporations that think we should pay for the same film on dvd, on blu ray, on blu ray in a different region, on the apple store, on the play store, and reserve the right to revoke our access to any of these where possible.
And the ad was one of their anti piracy ads ("you wouldn't download a car"), from the time where they made the nonsense claim that every pirate download was equal to lost revenue, as they tried to erode Internet privacy and bankrupt people who didn't have enough money to defend themselves in court.
Back then™ actors would mostly get contracts that contain residuals this recurring money assured a steady cash flow for actors and actresses throughout and even after their careers.
But nowadays, the pay is worse (because inflation) and most contracts even for well known actors/actresses don't include residuals.
Sure, but in the case of a show dealing with the question of what would happen if the general public could download celebrities despite the non-consent of the celebrities involved, literally Futurama did it.
Holding onto anger is drinking poison expecting the other person to die.
Spez is garbage, and yes never participate in whatever he's selling, but he isn't worth your anguish. He doesn't know you and he wouldn't care about your anger if he did.
I don't mean to sound anti-woman, but I have often fantasized about a world in which men have sex robots and can program them to have whatever personality and body type they want.
So maybe downloading actors from the bay will be a reality in our lifetime. I know they already have 3d porn games like this. I've even seen them hooked up to fleshlighta that are attached to a motor.
I mean maybe we're already there if you're rich enough.
Before we get there, it is wise to re-examine what we lose when everything is commodified. You might not mean to sound anti-woman, but you do sound anti-woman, anti-personhood even, because what you're saying is that a person's body (regardless of gender and sex) and likeness can be commodified without the person's consent, or even knowledge that it is happening. You might be interested in reading Michael J. Sandel's "What Money Can't Buy" and examine your fantasy from an economic-political point of view.
Companies would be happy to sell it if that is profitable. But we aren't prepared for that. Imagine what hole would create a working and accessible sim where you can just copy a person into a porn. Being spammed with a livestream of anon doing your underaged children or a dead grandmother is not that far from now. One another Pandora's box.
While TERFs are mad at transwomen for "replacing woman", AI pretty much could replace them, especially in the arts. Won't be very good, but would be good for whatever theocratic fascist governance, that see problem with not all women being relegated to be incubators.