3 ms·

Same reason it's silly to sell a digital song by trying to make the government enforce artificial scarcity. Contrast the artificial scarcity model with e.g. sp

Same reason it's silly to sell a digital song by trying to make the government enforce artificial scarcity. Contrast the artificial scarcity model with e.g. spotify that provides values by giving access to a centralized catalog. An example in the image space is Noun Project, which I subscribe to. They have a great model, where they provide everything free on an honor system asking for attribution, and for a subscription they give unencumbered higher quality images, and don't require attribution. But importantly, the value they provide is the central repository of icons, not that they "sell" me a given one.

motoxpro 4y ago
So I have to put my images/songs on a large aggregator that has a subscription business model that forces me to charge all my customers the same amount and forces me to have no relationship with my customer? I mean fair I guess. Seems strange to punish someone who makes a squarespace and wants to sell a photo or a site like https://www.rootsandrain.com/photos/ https://www.rootsandrain.com/photos/ that is small and sells event photos. I don't want ALL photos. I just one ONE of me. You're saying because you don't have this business model I have the right to steal your photos. Edit: Also, I always laugh with attribution. At some point you have to monetize that attribution or else it is meaningless. If you knowing my "name" or "photos" doesn't allow me to charge more (come to more concerts, sell more photos, do a speaking gig) then I don't make money off of it. By removing watermarks, you're just taking away one of the ways I would monetize that attribution that no one does anyway.