3 ms·
If the fund is distributed according to sales, how does any of that apply? They still have to compete for profits to get a share, their sales are just worth a
by SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
If the fund is distributed according to sales, how does any of that apply?
They still have to compete for profits to get a share, their sales are just worth a little bit extra to offset the cultural benefit of more freely available music. (Eg, for each dollar they take in, they actually get $1.01.)
In the sense you're using "luxury goods", they're still essential to human cultural and psychological well-being, even if not base survival.
- pedrocr 10y agoSo why don't they just raise their prices to 1.01 and not take money from people who have no interest in their content?
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoBecause it's a societal level adjustment to an existing market distortion -- ie, adjusting the market incentives to work better with existing laws and regulations. Society's interest in the market for arts isn't to just make money, and adjusting the pay structure as part of balancing competing interests (in this case, mandatory free use) is reasonable. Even people who aren't directly interested in a particular work have an interest in the overarching production of arts.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y agoIt baffles me there is anyone who would argue against this position.