3 ms·
> [T]he other party has every right to tell them No Deal. Sure, but that's different than "You can't charge tech companies more than they themselves are making
by throwlogon 6y ago
> [T]he other party has every right to tell them No Deal.
Sure, but that's different than "You can't charge tech companies more than they themselves are making from the music." Of course you can, and you can do so long-term provided that new tech companies appear as existing ones fail.
- VikingCoder 6y agoYou're welcome to try. You're welcome to think that's reasonable. I enjoy watching news stories about new tech companies that die after making horrible deals and investors who lose their money after investing in them. People should know better than to accept loser deals like this.
- throwlogon 6y agoIf the alternative is artists not being paid enough to make a living, then one side has to push until the other side loses. The work is being given away so cheaply by tech companies trying to commoditize their complements that there isn't enough money to support both the creators and the distributors. Why should the creators lose by default?
- VikingCoder 6y ago> The work is being given away so cheaply by tech companies I disagree with your characterization: The work is being given away by artists, who are welcome to accept the terms that tech companies offer them. The artists are welcome to reconsider, renegotiate. > Why should the creators lose by default? The creators are offered terms by tech companies. They are welcome to turn down those terms, and seek better ones. If they lack the power to negotiate a better deal, then I suggest forming a negotiating block of some kind. The tech companies are welcome to think those negotiations are not favorable and not accept the terms. Or possibly the artists should form their own new tech company (cf. Patreon, Band Camp) It's not the job of tech companies to provide a living to artists. That's what your characterization implies, and it's just not the case.