111–120 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You clearly didn't read the article either. The studios still control market access, as they control Spotify.
There’s tons of other ways to get to consumers besides Spotify.
Have you tried to reach customers these days to promote your art?
What this is saying is that creativity is privileged and (unlike other forms of labor) should be given more than the market says it's worth. Why should non-creatives go along with this?
>Why should non-creatives go along with this? We shouldn't. Art has historically been vastly overvalued and I like that its perceived/demanded value has been sharply declining over the past several decades and especially now with the advent of "AI". I'm sorry if anyone reading this is an artist and I just twisted your pantaloons, but artists don't serve any valuable role in society. Artists exist strictly because soc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In other words, that you get no value from art in any form? No value I could not do without, no. Art is a luxury, it's not strictly necessary for living. As such, the real inherent value of art will always be extremely low.
> No value I could not do without You're quibbling. If you aren't doing without it, then it has value. > Art is a luxury, it's not strictly necessary for living. Neither is the conversation we're having now, nor the medium in which we are having it. Yet I don't think anyone would say the Internet, or even this website, has no value. The vast majority of the wealth currently on this planet is "not strictly necessary f…
I never said there is no value, I'm saying art has low value (and thus no value I couldn't do without) compared to actually tangible, important things and that it has been overvalued to an extreme until recent decades when more supply (more artists) and better efficiency (digital technologies, "AI") finally started to slash perceived value.
>Neither is the conversation we're having now, nor the medium in which we are having it. Yet I don't think anyone would say the Internet, or even this website, has no value.
Plenty of people think the internet as it exists today is actually a net negative for humanity, let alone low value. While I don't agree to that extent, I do agree with a general notion that the internet is overvalued. Though not quite to what art has been, since the internet is still a communication tool with practical purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No value I could not do without You're quibbling. If you aren't doing without it, then it has value. > Art is a luxury, it's not strictly necessary for living. Neither is the conversation we're having now, nor the medium in which we are having it. Yet I don't think anyone would say the Internet, or even this website, has no value. The vast majority of the wealth currently on this planet is "not strictly necessary f…
>You're quibbling. If you aren't doing without it, then it has value. I never said there is no value, I'm saying art has low value (and thus no value I couldn't do without) compared to actually tangible, important things and that it has been overvalued to an extreme until recent decades when more supply (more artists) and better efficiency (digital technologies, "AI") finally started to slash perceived value. >Neithe…
You said "artists don't serve any valuable role in society".
> Plenty of people think the internet as it exists today is actually a net negative for humanity
I've never seen anyone say that. To me it's obviously false; the Internet has enabled huge wealth creation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This “people should be paid based on the value they create” myth comes up a lot on HN. Compensation is only tied to value creation as a maximum level. The actual compensation level is whatever people are willing to work for while doing good-enough work. If you want to price your work based on value, you need to run your own business.
Markets are how economic value gets defined. Trying to define it otherwise is fraught with often disastrous difficulty. This is one of the reasons central planning fails. I think one of the reasons so many creatives feel cheated is there's far too much creativity, so the marginal value of more is low. In that situation of overabundance, some other step in the value chain will deliver most of the value, and reap the r…
What this is saying is that creativity is privileged and (unlike other forms of labor) should be given more than the market says it's worth. Why should non-creatives go along with this?
> more than the market says it's worth. If you control the market, and have a direct way of influencing what the law considers the market, that is by definition not a competitive (and/or mostly free) market. The name for this scenario is known as "Hobson's Choice"[0]. Also, the word for a market where you have only a couple of buyers (all colluding with each other) is called a monopsony. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about two different things. One is the creative product of the artists themselves, the other is the packaged, delivered product purchased by consumers. The latter includes elements not in the former. The market is saying those elements can be worth more than the creative's output.
> The market is saying those elements can be worth more than the creative's output. No, customers aren't saying that. Customers are just saying that the final packaged, delivered product they receive (today a better description would be the overall service channel through which they receive the products) is worth what they pay for it. They aren't paying the various contributors separately so their payments say nothin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Majority of the so called creatives or influencers in the tech platforms produce sub standard material. There are cases of people like sssniperwolff etc whose entire content is rehashing on other peoples work and making money of it. And then there are people who produce life vlogs and shopping hauls. Are they worth more than a software engineer or a farmer who produces actual tangible assets for consumption?
And when you really get into it. What about factory workers producing high margin products? Don't they deserve larger cut as without them there would be no money coming in... Surely that is much more valuable than what is now paid?
See how easy it is to argue for the other side, that argument is so compelling that communists tend to focus more on robots over workers and keeping wages low than capitalist countries do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no value in music, books, movies, video games? Or did you just think about paintings?
I'd add all software to video games; despite all the optimization and mechanization it remains a creative endeavor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The barrier to getting paid is significantly higher though, so in the end it’s more or less the same: if you want to make a living off creative work you’re going to have a hard time
What are the barriers to getting paid, in this era of online streaming and PayPal?
And good luck surviving off the scraps you get for streaming fees