3 ms·

I don’t see how this isn’t solved by swift having -more- streams.

• longerthoughts 8y ago
  Agreed. The Van Gogh vs kindergarten painting example is a poor comparison - that would be more in line with buying the rights to all future royalties of a Taylor Swift song vs that of an unknown tuba player. This does make me wonder though - is there any market for recorded musical works as there is for physical works of art? For example, could the collective stakeholders in a Taylor Swift hit sell their share of future earnings based on a risk adjusted valuation of projected earnings? There would be implications for earnings on tour but interesting nonetheless.
• ucaetano 8y ago
  Because the value of each of her streams is larger than the value of a single stream of another artist. It isn't the total $, it is the $/stream. Would you pay the same to see a Van Gogh painting that you'd pay to see your local 3rd grader's painting? (not you personally, think of the average person).
  • perfmode 8y ago
    This argument isn’t justified by the example you present.
    • ucaetano 8y ago
      Sure it is. If you had a museum with a single painting, and you charged $10 for the entry, would you rather have a Van Gogh or a 3rd grader painting? Which one do you think people will be willing to pay for? And if you had a museum with two painting, a Van Gogh and a 3rd grader, and you pay a % of your ticket price back to the artist. Would you pay the same % to Van Gogh as you'd pay to the 3rd grader?
      • perfmode 8y ago
        I'd pay based on the number of views. The Van Gogh is likely to get more views than the 3rd grader.