3 ms·

"Each of us gets the right to download and play whatever we want, and in return we're legally obligated to pay an annual fee to some ASCAP-like organization tha

"Each of us gets the right to download and play whatever we want, and in return we're legally obligated to pay an annual fee to some ASCAP-like organization that divides the money up among music publishers. Now, I like this idea, but the obvious downside is: Who is a music publisher, and how do we figure out how to divide the money?" I don't like this idea at all. Why should I, as a non-artist, have to find a way to provide a work product or service that people are willing to pay me for and artists are allowed to create stuff that no one is willing to pay for? Or artists are allowed to create something which can not be marketed and an income stream can naturally be built around? If no one is willing (or able) to pay for your service, there is no market for it. And without a market, there's no way to determine which is the "good art" and which is the "bad art" and which artists should be encouraged and which should stop making art and get jobs flipping burgers. The very fact that it is massively gamable (as we've seen in other industries), as you point out, is reason enough, for me, to avoid even attempting it.

mechanical_fish 17y ago
Keep in mind that systems like this have been working for years. Composers get paid royalties via ASCAP and BMI, for example. And I believe all the schemes, both existing and proposed, divvy up the money based on the number of times certain compositions are played. Artists can't compose unlistenable music and then claim a check. It's a game, but it's not entirely unlike a market. The fact that it might be gamable doesn't seem like much of a scandal. What's our gold standard here? An imaginary fairyland? The existing, supposedly free market for music is not merely gamable... it's been corrupt since it was invented. Just try to get your tune on the radio without paying bribes.

mechanical_fish 17y ago

Keep in mind that systems like this have been working for years. Composers get paid royalties via ASCAP and BMI, for example. And I believe all the schemes, both existing and proposed, divvy up the money based on the number of times certain compositions are played. Artists can't compose unlistenable music and then claim a check. It's a game, but it's not entirely unlike a market. The fact that it might be gamable doesn't seem like much of a scandal. What's our gold standard here? An imaginary fairyland? The existing, supposedly free market for music is not merely gamable... it's been corrupt since it was invented. Just try to get your tune on the radio without paying bribes.