PG is not using 'killing' in the sense of "finding ways [entertainment] that people prefer". To quote:"The people who run it are so mean and so politically connected that they could do a lot of damage to civil liberties and the world economy on the way down. It would therefore be a good thing if competitors hastened their demise."
I read that quote. It says competitors. Not assassins, lobbyists or lawyers. Competitors.
Trying to do things better than the next guy is a positivistic approach that I would applaud; excoriating a straw-man enemy with prejudicial overtones is tyrannical
How is it a strawman enemy? The MPAA is sponsoring bills like SOPA and PIPA. People like PG, but also Wikipedia, Reddit, Tumblr, and lots of others feel they are a threat to civil liberties. You may disagree, but that doesn't make it a strawman.
especially when coming from a person in a position of power.
Are you seriously saying PG is in a position of power compared to the MPAA? That's a joke, right?
The content from "Hollywood" forms the bulk of what people who file-share or pirate want. If there was no "Hollywood" there would be no piracy problem because there would be precious little content worth chasing after.
Or maybe without the competition from the millions of marketing from Hollywood, other content creators would appear. You need something to back up that claim.
As noted elsewhere, good content costs money - not because of copyright - but because it takes a lot of time, craft and people to perfect something. Anyone who has worked in the commercial creative arts knows this; espc. that the last 10% - the part that makes something really 'commercial' - takes 50% of the time and budget.
Maybe. Or maybe Hollywood is inefficient and behind the times. Everyone thinks they're doing things the best way possible until someone comes up with a new way to do it.
PG has a problem with this. A problem that apparently boils down to the fact that this creative work happens under the auspices of "Hollywood". What he is wishing for is that those 'creatives' would somehow come under the control of the tech-media universe instead:
"There will be several answers, ranging from new ways to produce and distribute shows, through new media (e.g. games) that look a lot like shows but are more interactive, to things (e.g. social sites and apps) that have little in common with movies and TV except competing with them for finite audience attention. Some of the best ideas may initially look like they're serving the movie and TV industries. Microsoft seemed like a technology supplier to IBM before eating their lunch, and Google did the same thing to Yahoo."
Come under the control of the tech-media conglomerates where I am sure they'll be much better treated:P
If you read it carefully, he's using MS, IBM, etc as examples. PG is a guy who invests in small startups that often compete with such conglomerates, so I don't see how you can assume he's defending putting them in control.
Trading one master for the next doesn't solve any of the problems of the creative individual in modern society - and THAT's the real problem I have with the PG post. A much better realization would be to say that if we could find a better way for the internet to equip and reward talented individuals so that they could exist outside of production systems - THAT would be a real accomplishment - and we wouldn't be stuck in the middle between the copyright and piracy.
One can't exist without the other. The anti-piracy bills sponsored by Hollywood give them the power to eliminate those potential Internet-based systems that you're proposing.