4 ms·

It's just that Patreon is financial agnostic. We need to treat these investments like fungible capital goods. And we need to invest in the intellectual property

It's just that Patreon is financial agnostic. We need to treat these investments like fungible capital goods. And we need to invest in the intellectual property that artists make, not the artists themselves. Why should we do that? Because it works and its a foundational element of a market economy. We're capable of much more than a simplistic patron model. That's how things were financed in the middle ages. We've got a few hundred years of modern finance to learn from.

kiba 11y ago
We need to...why? That's how things were financed in the middle ages In the middle ages, can you get thousand of people to essentially send you a small paycheck every month on an ongoing basis? And what exactly is wrong with that model?
- williamcotton 11y ago
  It's not as productive as it could be if people were instead engaged in the commercial activities of investing in intellectual property. Financial assets and intellectual property are not something I can teach you in a comment box. I recommend reading these two books and then we can start the conversation back up again. http://www.amazon.com/The-Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Everywhere/dp/0465016154 http://www.amazon.com/The-Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Everywh... http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Commercial-Culture-Tyler-Cowen/dp/0674001885 http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Commercial-Culture-Tyler-Cowen/... Tyler Cowen and Hernando de Soto are two economists that are held in incredibly high regard and have done a wonderful job explaining the core concepts of both what constitutes finance and how it applies to intellectual creativity in a market economy. Cue the knee-jerk rebuttal in 3... 2... 1... "But the internet changed everything!" Uh huh, ok, sure, whatever you say... yawn
  - lelandbatey 11y ago
    I do not intend this to offend, I truly would like to share some constructive criticism on this particular comment you've shared. First, I totally understand how it can feel to share opinions that frequently are not given the seriousness that you feel they deserve, where it seems people may dismiss what you're saying out of hand or disagree without engaging what you're saying at all. The frustration of "spitting into the wind" in this way is totally valid. However, I would invite you to leave off ending your comments with language decrying or dismissing those who disagree with you. As I was reading you comment, up to the end I really was thinking "I get the sense that the internet did change quite a lot, I would like to learn more about the reasons others may disagree or why others think it may not apply." But the moment I reached where you call what I was wondering about a "yawn inducing knee-jerk rebuttal" I completely moved from curious to hurt. I may very well have questions about what you've shared (and indeed, I do!) but disgruntled dismissal of alternative viewpoints makes me feel as though asking to learn more would yield only contemptuous or belittling comments. I suspect you'll convince many more people if you leave off the needling language.
    - williamcotton 11y ago
      I'm not going to convince anyone of anything on HackerNews. I'm up against the entire California Ideology on this forum. Every time you guys go to a conference or talk with a coworker or your boss this philosophy is being reinforced. I can't do shit but sit here and throw darts. It's really the only effective course of action. Sorry if it stings a little. If you actually are interested, I've previously said everything I ever need to say about these issues and if you read those two books you'll immediately understand what I'm talking about. It's just too much work to school someone on a fucking internet forum. I'm done. I don't have the patience. This is the exact opposite of preaching to the choir. Most people on these forums have been leading successful lives by toeing the party line in the tech industry. You all already think you know everything worth knowing and that the Internet has made the pre-networked world completely irrelevant. It is such a strongly reinforced ideology paired with addictions to touch screen devices that control your thoughts and actions so completely you can't seem to notice how ignorant and arrogant you've all become. I'm here to just plain tell you that you're wrong. I don't have the resources to roll back the brainwashing of 100,000 techies. I can't sit here and be your personal psychologists and hold your hands while I explain the fundamentals of intellectual property in a market economy. I'm up against 25 years of raging idiots screaming about the RIAA and the MPAA. I know this ideology well because I used to be a true believer. I figured out this was bullshit on my own, just by leading life, learning about love, and finding myself a real community, not some digital hideout for run-away teenagers like HackerNews and Reddit. Again, I used to be that, I used to be that kid sitting at home in small town American feeling really left out and finding a group of other rejects on IRC and Slashdot and the open source "community". So you just keep on thinking that "The Internet has changed everything!" and keep on ignorantly disrupting the entire known universe with your hair-brained schemes, and I'll sit here on the sidelines and call you all a bunch of jackasses, how's that? Also, I'm trying to get dang's attention because I really want to have a serious sit down talk with the dude in person but I've probably scared him away by cursing like a sailor and talking about hanging out with rednecks in a honky tonks bar. If I make a stink he normally shows up. So dang, buddy, let's get coffee in San Francisco sometime soon. I promise to be polite. Everyone, go listen to some Merle Haggard and actually try and listen instead of just talk talk talk talk talking the fuck all the time on your dumb ass devices.
  - kiba 11y ago
    Linking to books and telling people to read it is not an argument. Cue the knee-jerk rebuttal in 3... 2... 1... "But the internet changed everything!" Uh huh, ok, sure, whatever you say... yawn From my perspective, there's nothing to argue with or talk about.
    - williamcotton 11y ago
      You're right, it's not an argument. Those are the prerequisites to having an argument because I don't have the time nor energy to get you up to speed. I don't think you even remotely understand what the term "intellectual property" means outside of some narrow and lopsided definition of the term from something you read in Wired magazine or on Slashdot. From my perspective you're too ignorant to have this conversation and you need to go learn a few things before you should try and engage in a discussion about these concepts. Right now it's like I'm trying to discuss differential equations with someone who hasn't even studied grade school algebra.
metaphorm 11y ago
can we not financialize everything in the entire world? that seems like a great way to make extra work for brokers, traders, gamblers, accountants, and lawyers. I'm not convinced that this gets anywhere near the goal of making it easier to have sustainable business relationships between creators and their audience.
specialist 11y ago
Yup. Currently supporting a future working artist. How to make a living as a working artist is a big topic for her cohort. I've been optimistic for stuff like etsy.com and artsyo.com. I have some additional notions (use cases) that I probably won't ever have the gumption to tackle, but would love to see happen. Now I wonder about the marketing magic required for self-promotion and "multi-channel" content. Of her peers is a genius for self-promotion, self-publishing. Another does side gigs teaching art, running events like art parties for children birthdays. And everyone's chasing commissions, of course. Not so different from being a consultant or small biz entrepreneur , really. -- Big fan of de Soto. Thanks for the Tyler Cowen link.
ssalazar 11y ago
> we need to invest in the intellectual property that artists make, not the artists themselves At first approximation, this sounds like a worse scenario for the artist. > Why should we do that? Because it works and its a foundational element of a market economy. Modern finance has already created a model where music artists are beholden to financiers and middlemen. How and why do you expect this to turn out differently?
- williamcotton 11y ago
  Tyler Cowen wrote an entire book that answers your questions. It is called "In Praise of Commercial Culture". http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Commercial-Culture-Tyler-Cowen/dp/0674001885 http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Commercial-Culture-Tyler-Cowen/... I expect it to turn out differently because the legal and accounting costs for future digital contracts will drop drastically.

kiba 11y ago

We need to...why? That's how things were financed in the middle ages In the middle ages, can you get thousand of people to essentially send you a small paycheck every month on an ongoing basis? And what exactly is wrong with that model?

williamcotton 11y ago
It's not as productive as it could be if people were instead engaged in the commercial activities of investing in intellectual property. Financial assets and intellectual property are not something I can teach you in a comment box. I recommend reading these two books and then we can start the conversation back up again. http://www.amazon.com/The-Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Everywhere/dp/0465016154 http://www.amazon.com/The-Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Everywh... http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Commercial-Culture-Tyler-Cowen/dp/0674001885 http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Commercial-Culture-Tyler-Cowen/... Tyler Cowen and Hernando de Soto are two economists that are held in incredibly high regard and have done a wonderful job explaining the core concepts of both what constitutes finance and how it applies to intellectual creativity in a market economy. Cue the knee-jerk rebuttal in 3... 2... 1... "But the internet changed everything!" Uh huh, ok, sure, whatever you say... yawn
- lelandbatey 11y ago
  I do not intend this to offend, I truly would like to share some constructive criticism on this particular comment you've shared. First, I totally understand how it can feel to share opinions that frequently are not given the seriousness that you feel they deserve, where it seems people may dismiss what you're saying out of hand or disagree without engaging what you're saying at all. The frustration of "spitting into the wind" in this way is totally valid. However, I would invite you to leave off ending your comments with language decrying or dismissing those who disagree with you. As I was reading you comment, up to the end I really was thinking "I get the sense that the internet did change quite a lot, I would like to learn more about the reasons others may disagree or why others think it may not apply." But the moment I reached where you call what I was wondering about a "yawn inducing knee-jerk rebuttal" I completely moved from curious to hurt. I may very well have questions about what you've shared (and indeed, I do!) but disgruntled dismissal of alternative viewpoints makes me feel as though asking to learn more would yield only contemptuous or belittling comments. I suspect you'll convince many more people if you leave off the needling language.
  - williamcotton 11y ago
    I'm not going to convince anyone of anything on HackerNews. I'm up against the entire California Ideology on this forum. Every time you guys go to a conference or talk with a coworker or your boss this philosophy is being reinforced. I can't do shit but sit here and throw darts. It's really the only effective course of action. Sorry if it stings a little. If you actually are interested, I've previously said everything I ever need to say about these issues and if you read those two books you'll immediately understand what I'm talking about. It's just too much work to school someone on a fucking internet forum. I'm done. I don't have the patience. This is the exact opposite of preaching to the choir. Most people on these forums have been leading successful lives by toeing the party line in the tech industry. You all already think you know everything worth knowing and that the Internet has made the pre-networked world completely irrelevant. It is such a strongly reinforced ideology paired with addictions to touch screen devices that control your thoughts and actions so completely you can't seem to notice how ignorant and arrogant you've all become. I'm here to just plain tell you that you're wrong. I don't have the resources to roll back the brainwashing of 100,000 techies. I can't sit here and be your personal psychologists and hold your hands while I explain the fundamentals of intellectual property in a market economy. I'm up against 25 years of raging idiots screaming about the RIAA and the MPAA. I know this ideology well because I used to be a true believer. I figured out this was bullshit on my own, just by leading life, learning about love, and finding myself a real community, not some digital hideout for run-away teenagers like HackerNews and Reddit. Again, I used to be that, I used to be that kid sitting at home in small town American feeling really left out and finding a group of other rejects on IRC and Slashdot and the open source "community". So you just keep on thinking that "The Internet has changed everything!" and keep on ignorantly disrupting the entire known universe with your hair-brained schemes, and I'll sit here on the sidelines and call you all a bunch of jackasses, how's that? Also, I'm trying to get dang's attention because I really want to have a serious sit down talk with the dude in person but I've probably scared him away by cursing like a sailor and talking about hanging out with rednecks in a honky tonks bar. If I make a stink he normally shows up. So dang, buddy, let's get coffee in San Francisco sometime soon. I promise to be polite. Everyone, go listen to some Merle Haggard and actually try and listen instead of just talk talk talk talk talking the fuck all the time on your dumb ass devices.
- kiba 11y ago
  Linking to books and telling people to read it is not an argument. Cue the knee-jerk rebuttal in 3... 2... 1... "But the internet changed everything!" Uh huh, ok, sure, whatever you say... yawn From my perspective, there's nothing to argue with or talk about.
  - williamcotton 11y ago
    You're right, it's not an argument. Those are the prerequisites to having an argument because I don't have the time nor energy to get you up to speed. I don't think you even remotely understand what the term "intellectual property" means outside of some narrow and lopsided definition of the term from something you read in Wired magazine or on Slashdot. From my perspective you're too ignorant to have this conversation and you need to go learn a few things before you should try and engage in a discussion about these concepts. Right now it's like I'm trying to discuss differential equations with someone who hasn't even studied grade school algebra.

metaphorm 11y ago

can we not financialize everything in the entire world? that seems like a great way to make extra work for brokers, traders, gamblers, accountants, and lawyers. I'm not convinced that this gets anywhere near the goal of making it easier to have sustainable business relationships between creators and their audience.

specialist 11y ago

Yup. Currently supporting a future working artist. How to make a living as a working artist is a big topic for her cohort. I've been optimistic for stuff like etsy.com and artsyo.com. I have some additional notions (use cases) that I probably won't ever have the gumption to tackle, but would love to see happen. Now I wonder about the marketing magic required for self-promotion and "multi-channel" content. Of her peers is a genius for self-promotion, self-publishing. Another does side gigs teaching art, running events like art parties for children birthdays. And everyone's chasing commissions, of course. Not so different from being a consultant or small biz entrepreneur , really. -- Big fan of de Soto. Thanks for the Tyler Cowen link.

ssalazar 11y ago

> we need to invest in the intellectual property that artists make, not the artists themselves At first approximation, this sounds like a worse scenario for the artist. > Why should we do that? Because it works and its a foundational element of a market economy. Modern finance has already created a model where music artists are beholden to financiers and middlemen. How and why do you expect this to turn out differently?

williamcotton 11y ago
Tyler Cowen wrote an entire book that answers your questions. It is called "In Praise of Commercial Culture". http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Commercial-Culture-Tyler-Cowen/dp/0674001885 http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Commercial-Culture-Tyler-Cowen/... I expect it to turn out differently because the legal and accounting costs for future digital contracts will drop drastically.