Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 07, 2016, 11:48:37 PM

Quote from: CoinCube on February 07, 2016, 10:52:22 PM

Bruce Charlton has an interesting blog where he argues against the idea of professional performers

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2013/12/against-professional-performers.html

Perhaps the distant future we will approach what he envisions. In the short to medium term, however, the continued existence of professional performers and enforceable copyright appears a safe bet. The current trend in society is towards increasing centralization and control not less.

Thanks for that example refutation.

That essay seems to have some non-sequitors.

He says people don't dance any more and somehow thinks that is because we pay for performers but never explains the connection. Afaics, we don't dance any more because we have a zillion other things to do that wasn't the case before electricity and combustion engines back on the farm. Nostalgia is nice, but it isn't a justification that we will necessarily revert.

He argues that we should all be our own performers but then doesn't explain how we will justify it when we have such a great opportunity cost these days given all the means for us to be occupied. Has he ever heard of the inexorable trend of maximum-division-of-labor. Afaics, if we want a diversity of good quality indie artists, then we need to gift something to the artists so they can pay their expenses while producing music. I listened to the YouTube Hangout videos for Synereo, and the musicians point out that creating music is not without effort, time, and expense.

He fails to discuss the point that I may only like a few songs from an artist and may only be willing to transfer a $1 for that music to help the artist produce music. So I can't buy a T-shirt or go to a concert for $1. As well, I can't travel to India just to attend a concert for the interesting Indian music I can hear instantly at songdew.com.

There is no way I want to listen only to the absolute best musicians. I want to listen to 1000s of songs of diversity. I get bored fast listening to the same song over and over. I think that is a critical error of the essay.

Henry Ford jumpstarted the USA manufacturing economy by paying his employees more so they could afford to buy Ford cars.

In a world with 7 billion people and a $40 trillion annual GDP, we can afford to pay 7 million musicians $24,000 a year. That is only $24 per person (on average) per year spent on music. That is only $168 billion per year.

The only question I really have in mind is who should/will pay so we end up with that roughly $24 average per annum per music consumer. Current distribution schemes seem to indicate only about 5% of the people will pay anything significant for music. The rest want it free. But maybe they would pay a little if it was reasonably insignificant and hassle-free. So if the 95% is paying 1/20th of the 5% (and not getting all the frills that the 5% get) then that cmputes as (95/20 + 5) x = 2400, so x = $246 for per annum for the 5% and $12 per annum for the 95%. See mathematically it doesn't make much sense to target the 5% as it requires 10X more spending from them just to double the revenue of the musician.

So perhaps the global economy can sustain 700,000 musicians (1/10,000 of the population-at-large) at $24,000 annually with every of the 7 billion expending $2.40 or $0.20 per month. As the developing world becomes wealthier then perhaps $24 per annum for 7 million musicians.

Be honest. I will not spend $246 per year on music. Will you? But I will surely spend $2.40 and probably $24 annually which is less than I spend on food in day or days.

But maybe the 95% just won't pay no matter the price. Then in that case focus on the 5% who pay, use free downloads to promote and be prepared to have 20X less musical diversity.

The issue that is being ignored here is that when one pays for "legal" music the actual amount to goes to the artist is in most cases zero and in those cases where there is an actual net royalty to the artist *the very famous" artists it is a minuscule percentage. The bulk of the revenue goes the "music industry" which has been made obsolete by changing technology. Digital distribution of music is fundamentally different than pressing vinyl or even pressing CDs, in that there is minimal up front up capital required so there is no need for a capitalist to provide this capital. A simple pay what you want approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_what_you_want will yield the artist way more by eliminating parasites such as "the music industry" or Apple with its 30% big brother tax. Of course the gross is far less, but would you rather as an artist receive 95% of say 2 USD or 0.0001% of 20 USD?

The same is also the case with book / ebook publishers and authors, and the parasitic scientific publishing industry, vs scientists in University Industry or Government. These dying parasitic corporate players are causing a lot of damage with "technologies" such as DRM that attempt to protect "intellectual property". DRM and the attempt to protect "intellectual property" is among the greatest threats to civil liberties and individual freedom in most western counties. It is also the ultimate cause of a very significant and rising portion of China's greenhouse gas emissions.

Edit: One only has to compare the relative Developer ranking in https://www.coingecko.com/en of Monero 81 (Pay what you want) vs Ethereum 74 (Traditional capitalist IPO model). Z.cash is following the Ethereum model with its 11% pre-mine to fund the venture capitalists. Those pictures of spinning diamonds did not come cheap.