That should be a great band name!
The NFTs
Non-Fungible Taylor Swift
201–210 of 245 posts
Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would anyone pay for a Taylor Swift subscription if that meant she could relax and produce music as she sees fit? I have a (completely speculative) theory that the "support the artist to keep creating the work they're giving away for free" model has a ceiling when artists become visibly a lot richer than their fans. After all, what kind of sucker would charitably donate to a multimillionaire's private jet running c…
Suckers or not, but people do donate to visibly rich people, e.g. Trump.
Spread the love around: Nancy Pelosi has a net worth of about $120M, and even Joe Biden is worth $9M. Donating to a national political campaign is usually a donation to a rich person.
Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Would anyone pay for a Taylor Swift subscription if that meant she could relax and produce music as she sees fit? I have a (completely speculative) theory that the "support the artist to keep creating the work they're giving away for free" model has a ceiling when artists become visibly a lot richer than their fans. After all, what kind of sucker would charitably donate to a multimillionaire's private jet running c…
> After all, what kind of sucker would charitably donate to a multimillionaire's private jet running costs?
Millions of people currently support many televangelists in precisely this way, so this isn't rhetorical.
Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift
#204The quote from Nilay Patel's Vox article hits on one of my pet peeves. > Nilay Patel wrote in Vox: > "Taylor makes a nice little argument in favor of paying for music. 'Music is art,' she says, 'and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for.' > This is an impressively-constructed syllogism. It is also deeply, deeply wrong.... On the internet, there’s no scarcit…
> 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:…
Another way of solving this problem is to first make sure every person in society has what they need for survival without needing to pay for it. Then you don’t have to pay artists anything and they can do what they enjoy and survive and we can all benefit from the way that computers can duplicate value for free.
It’s a kind of inside out or upside down economics that I have been thinking about a lot lately. And personally I think this can be done in a totally voluntary way without a state drawing taxes and paying a UBI (though a UBI may help cut a path towards this future).
Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's not ironic if you really understand socialism.
Many socialist-adjacent philosophies are anticapitalist. Hence, the irony. Yes, yes, I know that it's not hypocrisy for anticapitalists to use money. I also know that not all socialists are anticapitalist. Still ironic.
I bet they subsist on food that was produced via capitalist enterprise too. Not ironic.
Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift
#206Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift
#207The quote from Nilay Patel's Vox article hits on one of my pet peeves. > Nilay Patel wrote in Vox: > "Taylor makes a nice little argument in favor of paying for music. 'Music is art,' she says, 'and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for.' > This is an impressively-constructed syllogism. It is also deeply, deeply wrong.... On the internet, there’s no scarcit…
Yes. Is music rare?
Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Do socialists not deserve to earn the value of their work?
It's not that they don't deserve it, it's that it's ironic.
Yet they participate in society. Curious!
Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I pay about 10€/mo for Spotify. Consider not; the majority of that money just goes to Spotify. If, every month, you paid 10€ to a random artist you liked (or split 10€ between all of them), the artists would receive probably more than two orders of magnitude more money. (If I remember correctly, anyway.) Of course, this assumes you can get the music elsewhere. If Spotify's too convenient to give up, there are sever…
A quick google says that spotify pays at least $0.003 per stream to an artist. So your $10 pays for 3333 streams per month, or just over 100 a day. I probably don't average 100 streams per day, but I definitely average over 10. I'm not sure its as bad a deal for the artist as you may think. It's not two orders of magnitude bad, at least.
The problem with this math is you're assuming a roughly even distribution for paying out to artists, when in fact the Spotify pay model wildly favors the popular artists in terms of paying out money. Basically if you aren't already famous, Spotify isn't going to pay you any meaningful money.
https://qz.com/1660465/the-way-spotify-and-apple-music-pays-...
I should probably mention I haven't really looked into Spotify's business model in about a year, so if something has changed and my information is outdated someone please let me know.
Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically, you cannot download an NFT. It's a distributed consensus that you cannot ever truly put your arms around (unless you're running a testnet and operate all of the nodes).
Wait. Isn't the blockchain operating on the assumption that everyone can, and should , download all NFTs? That's the "distributed" part in "distributed consensus".
Sure, you can download the result of the consensus, but you can't download the, err... consensors?