3 ms·

I have the same understanding regarding YouTubers and writers. There’s so much competition nowadays, almost no indie can achieve nearly enough sales for a livi

I have the same understanding regarding YouTubers and writers. There’s so much competition nowadays, almost no indie can achieve nearly enough sales for a living wage. And ironically, the best way to get more attention is to make your product free, hence more and more artists doing free + paid merch.

Aurornis 1mo ago
Going full time on YouTube as a primary and only job is unlikely to work out. The YouTube income for most small creators get folded back into the channel. Getting a $100 check from YouTube isn’t going to pay your rent, but it makes purchasing some better lighting or a new microphone for the channel an easy choice, which in turn helps them grow and enjoy their hobby channel more. The argument that the dollar amount is low and therefore it’s okay if we push it all the way to $0 is unconvincing for anyone familiar with how small time creators grow.
- armchairhacker 1mo ago
  It wouldn’t be $0, because creators make money without selling their work: Patreon, commissions, even ads/sponsorships (though not ideal). Most creators I know, all their main work is already free.
  - UtopiaPunk 1mo ago
    The artist still owns their right to distribute their videos. If someone copies their videos and uploads them to a place with no ads or no patreon subscription that eats into the profit the creator of the art could be making, because someone else is essentially giving it away for free. Only the artist has the right to copy their art.
    - armchairhacker 1mo ago
      Ad revenue is also subverted by seeing the original video with uBlock, which I think is fair, because I think ads are harmful and unsustainable - like copyright, only a small minority of indie creators get sustainable revenue from ads, and I'd be surprised if the number wasn't decreasing. Not linking the author's name and patreon is a problem, but I don't think it needs laws and definitely not copyright; if somebody gets the video on the other place to link the original author's patreon, even if they're not who uploaded it, it benefits them and I don't see any serious issue.

Aurornis 1mo ago

Going full time on YouTube as a primary and only job is unlikely to work out. The YouTube income for most small creators get folded back into the channel. Getting a $100 check from YouTube isn’t going to pay your rent, but it makes purchasing some better lighting or a new microphone for the channel an easy choice, which in turn helps them grow and enjoy their hobby channel more. The argument that the dollar amount is low and therefore it’s okay if we push it all the way to $0 is unconvincing for anyone familiar with how small time creators grow.

armchairhacker 1mo ago
It wouldn’t be $0, because creators make money without selling their work: Patreon, commissions, even ads/sponsorships (though not ideal). Most creators I know, all their main work is already free.
- UtopiaPunk 1mo ago
  The artist still owns their right to distribute their videos. If someone copies their videos and uploads them to a place with no ads or no patreon subscription that eats into the profit the creator of the art could be making, because someone else is essentially giving it away for free. Only the artist has the right to copy their art.
  - armchairhacker 1mo ago
    Ad revenue is also subverted by seeing the original video with uBlock, which I think is fair, because I think ads are harmful and unsustainable - like copyright, only a small minority of indie creators get sustainable revenue from ads, and I'd be surprised if the number wasn't decreasing. Not linking the author's name and patreon is a problem, but I don't think it needs laws and definitely not copyright; if somebody gets the video on the other place to link the original author's patreon, even if they're not who uploaded it, it benefits them and I don't see any serious issue.