3 ms·

Wrong! Look at your computer. It's a mix-and-match of a bunch of different components designed to serve you. Every bit of technology in communications is about

Wrong! Look at your computer. It's a mix-and-match of a bunch of different components designed to serve you. Every bit of technology in communications is about sharing, and music is one of the most fundamental forms of communication known to our species. The only way technology changes the world for better is in its application. I honestly, genuinely believe YouTube/Google is not acting in a beneficial method for anybody but themselves/stakeholders. This would be a direct case of taking a net benefit for convenience for a handful of people (content creators) and the vast, vast world of humans (audience members) and going back to the Patronage system without any of the benefits whatsoever.

Kalium 12y ago
> Wrong! Look at your computer. It's a mix-and-match of a bunch of different components designed to serve you. It's an Apple machine bought by someone else for my use. I had exactly zero say in the matter. It's a mix-and-match, but my opinion doesn't matter. My choice is to use the machine or not. EDIT: As for the patronage model, what makes you think we ever left that system? The economics of art have always rested on patronage.
- 6stringmerc 12y ago
  But you're being blatantly ignorant on the mechanics of the world simply to suit your biased perspective. The machine won't work without many of the parts inside, that was my point. Go ahead and pull out the battery, because as you state, mix-and-match is not a viable system. I'm not going to bother with your postulation regarding the patronage system, because you're arguing from a false premise in a specific circumstance where this particular artist has successfully produced art and made income through a "fans-as-patrons" model that you claim is unworthy of further developing.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    I didn't say that alternate models aren't worth developing. I said we haven't moved away from a patronage model. Please don't mistake me. The items on offer aren't offered as mix-and-match for Zoe. That's unfortunate for her. It's also true of ever other market in which people wish to consume whole goods or services without crafting it in detail themselves. If Zoe wants a service that gives her the terms she wants, she can go build one. If I want a sandwich exactly the way I like it, I can go build one. I don't have the right to expect McD's to sell me a reuben and Zoe doesn't have the right to demand YouTube meet her on her terms. If she wants to try and build a mix-and-match system, I wish her good luck. I suspect she'll discover that there's a good reason such things are not common.

Kalium 12y ago

> Wrong! Look at your computer. It's a mix-and-match of a bunch of different components designed to serve you. It's an Apple machine bought by someone else for my use. I had exactly zero say in the matter. It's a mix-and-match, but my opinion doesn't matter. My choice is to use the machine or not. EDIT: As for the patronage model, what makes you think we ever left that system? The economics of art have always rested on patronage.

6stringmerc 12y ago
But you're being blatantly ignorant on the mechanics of the world simply to suit your biased perspective. The machine won't work without many of the parts inside, that was my point. Go ahead and pull out the battery, because as you state, mix-and-match is not a viable system. I'm not going to bother with your postulation regarding the patronage system, because you're arguing from a false premise in a specific circumstance where this particular artist has successfully produced art and made income through a "fans-as-patrons" model that you claim is unworthy of further developing.
- Kalium 12y ago
  I didn't say that alternate models aren't worth developing. I said we haven't moved away from a patronage model. Please don't mistake me. The items on offer aren't offered as mix-and-match for Zoe. That's unfortunate for her. It's also true of ever other market in which people wish to consume whole goods or services without crafting it in detail themselves. If Zoe wants a service that gives her the terms she wants, she can go build one. If I want a sandwich exactly the way I like it, I can go build one. I don't have the right to expect McD's to sell me a reuben and Zoe doesn't have the right to demand YouTube meet her on her terms. If she wants to try and build a mix-and-match system, I wish her good luck. I suspect she'll discover that there's a good reason such things are not common.