Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

Post by zabzonk » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

speedyapoc wrote: post #65

zabzonk wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would this have more, equal, or less value Surely it depends on how much you like the music? > However, I feel like many people argue that the digital release via NFTs would be worth less because all you have to show for your ownership is a digital token Correct. I value my vinyl copy of "Live Dead" by The Grateful Dead because I have had it for nearly 50 years, have played it countless times, rolled joints on it,…

I appreciate the perspective. > Having said that, most of my music is on MP3s, but the idea that referring to them via some block chain crap will give them "value" is just silly. I think the point here is that verifying ownership of digital goods is hard, because they are so easily reproduced identically. Blockchain technology and NFTs are one way to solve this problem because it allows you to have a verifiable chain…

Post by paxys » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #5

What this piece leaves out is that given this reasoning, Taylor Swift can simply declare another piece of art the "New Taylor version," thus completely devaluing the previous "Taylor version."

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

imwillofficial wrote: post #47

packetslave wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call it a money grab (TSwift already has a net worth of over $400 million. She's not worried solely about money). I think it's more of a giant, public middle finger to Scooter Braun: "you won't sell me my masters? Fine, I have enough money and spare time to re-record them AND it won't hurt my career a bit, because my fans love me enough to buy something I've literally already released." edit: TS probably w…

“Person has a net worth of over $xxx million, they are not worried about money.” Stop and think that through. If this were true the banking industry as we know it would not exist. I’d like to think above some dollar amount I’d stop worrying about money and just do what I love, but who knows? I’ll tell you when I make my first $400 million.

Post by bombcar » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

Post by michaelt » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

lopis wrote: post #76

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does such an obvious fallacy command such purchase among smart people? Swift is talking about "music" as an original work. Patel responds with an irrelevant point about digital copies of music. Obviously these are two different things! Yes, they are two different things. The problem is that artists (and record labels) want to get paid for the non-scarce thing: the copies, and not for the actually scarce thing:…

That's the reason why many youtubers on patreon switch to a monthly subscription rather than charging per video. It makes it clearer that we are supporting the creator's livelihood, not buying a token that they produced. Would anyone pay for a Taylor Swift subscription if that meant she could relax and produce music as she sees fit? Higher subscription tiers could include merchandising and concert tickets.