3 ms·
If one could guarantee that the money paid were a "reward to content creators" I suppose I could agree with you. I find that description quite problematic becau
by drostie 15y ago
If one could guarantee that the money paid were a "reward to content creators" I suppose I could agree with you. I find that description quite problematic because there is very little transparency in these sorts of processes.
I find another aspect of your approach somewhat problematic, too, because you seem to view "economic feedback" as somehow distinct from "creating an interested customer who will buy from you." I might agree that you might be able to support people more by buying things at no advantage to yourself, but if the author really wanted to do something of that nature, I suppose he would just send the band money directly. Most bands don't ask for that sort of financial support, though, and don't provide any way to send it to them. Trying to hack an existing system to do such things would be so much less productive than doing it yourself manually.
Don't get me wrong, there are still usage cases to buy the old albums. People who liked Firefly bought many DVDs to donate to libraries and give as Christmas presents. But your objection sounds pretty contorted to me because they now have a customer who they didn't have before. Having a customer is all that there really is to economic stimulus; you don't make your next album based on how many buyers you used to have, but on how many buyers you think you will have today. Vanilla Ice can tell you all about this. ^_^
- pdonis 15y ago> If one could guarantee that the money paid were a "reward to content creators" I suppose I could agree with you. I find that description quite problematic because there is very little transparency in these sorts of processes. I agree, and I should have made that point clearer. There is a critical distinction between content creators and content distributors. See my response to saber3004.