5 ms·

other sources of revenue exist, lot of creators get their revenue through donation, either one time or recurring (monthly, yearly, by release). On another leve

by choo-t 2y ago

other sources of revenue exist, lot of creators get their revenue through donation, either one time or recurring (monthly, yearly, by release). On another level, we could pivot to UBI instead of dedicating ressource to enforce fake scarcity.

Wytwwww 2y ago
> other sources of revenue exist > revenue through donation So what? Not everyone wants to engage in all of the PR/marketing stuff that's necessary to make any money from that and it would still generally result in significantly lower revenue. > On another level, we could pivot to UBI instead of dedicating And fund it how exactly? Even if that were sustainable why do you think that content creators should be fully content living of UBI + a few pennies in donations while people working in most other industries should be able to money the same way they previously did? IP protection (even if often implemented in a suboptimal way which of course should be improved) have been one of the primaries force behind human progress over that last 300+ years.
- choo-t 2y ago
  > Not everyone wants to engage in all of the PR/marketing stuff that's necessary to make any money from that That's not a difference, PR/Marketing is already used to profit over IP work. > Even if that were sustainable why do you think that content creators should be fully content living of UBI + a few pennies in donations while people working in most other industries should be able to money the same way they previously did? This is assuming creators are fully content on how stuff work now, and I'm betting that's not the case for the vast majority, most of them cannot make end meets with the current system, regardless of how hard they work on their book/song/game/etc, and they have to have a side job just to put food on the table. > IP protection (even if often implemented in a suboptimal way which of course should be improved) have been one of the primaries force behind human progress over that last 300+ years. That's a bold claim. Most of, if not all, human progress on this period is directly attributable to the use of fossil fuel, from the steam engine to the modern use of it, and how it empowered us to do so much more with less human-hour.
  - boltzmann-brain 2y ago
    Indeed, people didn't invent the telephone, television, or typewriter because they thought "wow this would be a great payout for the next 20-80 years for me and my subsequent heirs, let me invent something useful", they did it because they needed a telephone, television, or typewriter, and one didn't exist yet.
    - Wytwwww 2y ago
      Unless this is sarcasm, you base these claim on what exactly? Inventors in the late 1800s were often notoriously litigious and highly motivated by the fact that they could profit from their inventions through patents. The alternative option would have meant that individuals would have had to spend significant amounts of time and resources to "invent" new products, and the only ones to profit would be the companies that had the capacity to manufacture them (while keeping all of the profits for themselves). Does that seem like an environment that's highly conducive to innovation? > they did it because they needed a telephone, There is a pretty extensive section named "The race to the patent office" on Graham Bell's Wikipedia page. Do you think Watt would have successful at building his steam engine had there been no patents that allowed him to attract investors? Or he would have just spent all of his live working as an engineer or a surveyor because he couldn't have afford the significant capital required to develop the engine?
      - boltzmann-brain 2y ago
        > Does that seem like an environment that's highly conducive to innovation? people invent stuff and put it out in the public domain every day, not everyone is a robber baron. look at youtube or hackaday one day, maybe you'll learn something.
        Wytwwww 2y ago
        That's certainly a rational, well thought out and deep argument. Never thought it about it this way...
- boltzmann-brain 2y ago
  > And fund it how exactly? The work necessary to properly answer this question is a team of 100+ domain experts working for at least 5 years. There's no way you're getting a good answer to this question in a comment thread on a website for programmers. Why even ask that question - what value do you expect out of the responses?
  - wilsonnb3 2y ago
    It's reasonable to expect people who advocate for policy to have some idea of how they want it to be implemented.
    - boltzmann-brain 2y ago
      no, i can advocate for having public rail without knowing how to lay track, how to fund it, or how to run the schedules. i can also advocate for photovoltaics and heat pumps getting funded, and i can advocate for health care reform without even knowing where that reform would go, just by knowing that the current state of the health care system is bad. there's no burden of proof when stating a preference.
      - themaninthedark 2y ago
        If you are advocating for a position, with no idea of how to implement that position is implemented then you are just increasing the noise. It is all fine and well to say "We should have public rail" but with out any idea of how it should be implemented and what it will take to get there, the idea falls flat on it's face. You have to be able to support it with funding increases and possibly eminent domain. If you advocate for healthcare reform, great! So do I! And since you have no preference about how and what shape the reforms should take, you agree with me that we should abolish all health insurance companies! That would definitely reform the system but you might not like the outcome. A large number of our current issues come from law and policy that was passed to address issues of the day with no understanding of how or why things were happening. Let's not continue that trend.
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
johnnyanmac 2y ago
> lot of creators get their revenue through donation, either one time or recurring I keep hearing this, but I have yet to see one person truly live off of donations. Patreon is backed by expecting services in return, so most Patreons are definitely not donations. It is probably possible, but only for people making funds that are already at points many would call "wealthy". >we could pivot to UBI instead of dedicating ressource to enforce fake scarcity. I'm all for UBI. But I don't even see that in much talks in the US, just a few tests by private companies (how very American). Might as well have short term ways to survive while just blueskying entire economic models.

by choo-t 2y ago

Wytwwww 2y ago

> other sources of revenue exist > revenue through donation So what? Not everyone wants to engage in all of the PR/marketing stuff that's necessary to make any money from that and it would still generally result in significantly lower revenue. > On another level, we could pivot to UBI instead of dedicating And fund it how exactly? Even if that were sustainable why do you think that content creators should be fully content living of UBI + a few pennies in donations while people working in most other industries should be able to money the same way they previously did? IP protection (even if often implemented in a suboptimal way which of course should be improved) have been one of the primaries force behind human progress over that last 300+ years.

choo-t 2y ago
> Not everyone wants to engage in all of the PR/marketing stuff that's necessary to make any money from that That's not a difference, PR/Marketing is already used to profit over IP work. > Even if that were sustainable why do you think that content creators should be fully content living of UBI + a few pennies in donations while people working in most other industries should be able to money the same way they previously did? This is assuming creators are fully content on how stuff work now, and I'm betting that's not the case for the vast majority, most of them cannot make end meets with the current system, regardless of how hard they work on their book/song/game/etc, and they have to have a side job just to put food on the table. > IP protection (even if often implemented in a suboptimal way which of course should be improved) have been one of the primaries force behind human progress over that last 300+ years. That's a bold claim. Most of, if not all, human progress on this period is directly attributable to the use of fossil fuel, from the steam engine to the modern use of it, and how it empowered us to do so much more with less human-hour.
- boltzmann-brain 2y ago
  Indeed, people didn't invent the telephone, television, or typewriter because they thought "wow this would be a great payout for the next 20-80 years for me and my subsequent heirs, let me invent something useful", they did it because they needed a telephone, television, or typewriter, and one didn't exist yet.
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    Unless this is sarcasm, you base these claim on what exactly? Inventors in the late 1800s were often notoriously litigious and highly motivated by the fact that they could profit from their inventions through patents. The alternative option would have meant that individuals would have had to spend significant amounts of time and resources to "invent" new products, and the only ones to profit would be the companies that had the capacity to manufacture them (while keeping all of the profits for themselves). Does that seem like an environment that's highly conducive to innovation? > they did it because they needed a telephone, There is a pretty extensive section named "The race to the patent office" on Graham Bell's Wikipedia page. Do you think Watt would have successful at building his steam engine had there been no patents that allowed him to attract investors? Or he would have just spent all of his live working as an engineer or a surveyor because he couldn't have afford the significant capital required to develop the engine?
    - boltzmann-brain 2y ago
      > Does that seem like an environment that's highly conducive to innovation? people invent stuff and put it out in the public domain every day, not everyone is a robber baron. look at youtube or hackaday one day, maybe you'll learn something.
      - Wytwwww 2y ago
        That's certainly a rational, well thought out and deep argument. Never thought it about it this way...
boltzmann-brain 2y ago
> And fund it how exactly? The work necessary to properly answer this question is a team of 100+ domain experts working for at least 5 years. There's no way you're getting a good answer to this question in a comment thread on a website for programmers. Why even ask that question - what value do you expect out of the responses?
- wilsonnb3 2y ago
  It's reasonable to expect people who advocate for policy to have some idea of how they want it to be implemented.
  - boltzmann-brain 2y ago
    no, i can advocate for having public rail without knowing how to lay track, how to fund it, or how to run the schedules. i can also advocate for photovoltaics and heat pumps getting funded, and i can advocate for health care reform without even knowing where that reform would go, just by knowing that the current state of the health care system is bad. there's no burden of proof when stating a preference.
    - themaninthedark 2y ago
      If you are advocating for a position, with no idea of how to implement that position is implemented then you are just increasing the noise. It is all fine and well to say "We should have public rail" but with out any idea of how it should be implemented and what it will take to get there, the idea falls flat on it's face. You have to be able to support it with funding increases and possibly eminent domain. If you advocate for healthcare reform, great! So do I! And since you have no preference about how and what shape the reforms should take, you agree with me that we should abolish all health insurance companies! That would definitely reform the system but you might not like the outcome. A large number of our current issues come from law and policy that was passed to address issues of the day with no understanding of how or why things were happening. Let's not continue that trend.
- Wytwwww 2y ago

johnnyanmac 2y ago

> lot of creators get their revenue through donation, either one time or recurring I keep hearing this, but I have yet to see one person truly live off of donations. Patreon is backed by expecting services in return, so most Patreons are definitely not donations. It is probably possible, but only for people making funds that are already at points many would call "wealthy". >we could pivot to UBI instead of dedicating ressource to enforce fake scarcity. I'm all for UBI. But I don't even see that in much talks in the US, just a few tests by private companies (how very American). Might as well have short term ways to survive while just blueskying entire economic models.