Quote:
|
Originally Posted by horn
the difference being that you don't film yourself playing mario expecting to get paid.
|
But if you did, then that would mean you should be paid? If I expect to get paid for my efforts here on GD (or indeed, for simply being awesome) - are you seriously advocating that this means I should?
Quote:
|
should there not be the ability for those who wish to, say, dedicate their lives to writing music, to be able to sell their produce safe in the knowledge that people have to pay for it?
|
In practical terms, no matter how much it ires you, it's very difficult to *make* people pay for your efforts. People can lend your music to their friends (or at least, can at present) - you want a system of regulation which makes that impossible? Well, good luck with that.
No-one is saying you can't release an album and scream from the rooftops that anyone who listens to it must send a thousand pounds to your goodself. What I object to is using violence (in the form of the state) to enforce your loopy business models.
Quote:
|
but quite why every musician should have to adhere to such a system isn't something immediately obvious to me.
|
You can choose to be a musician who only plays for the five richest kings in Europe. I'm not concerned with that. No-one has to adhere to anything (except the general liberty principle) and no-one is forcing you to behave in a set way.
Quote:
|
no not really but it'd help undermine any kind of unifiying sentiment that you're fighting against the venal greed of big business in the name of artistic paladinship by being a part of such an organisation.
|
I don't recall that was ever their claim though. Press hyperbole (which is laughingly inaccurate) aside, I doubt the site did that much better than break even (once you factor in capital costs as well as the bandwidth). I'm sure there's some people out there who think that accepting donations to cover site costs is "selling out" but I'm not sure how seriously one would want to take those sort of charges.