Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
It wasn't really an analogy actually. I was merely pointing out the reverse side of the logic that says "I wont pay you based on your effort or time, I'll pay you whatever I want based on whatever I think gives me the best outcome".
It's great to use that logic when it benefits us but it's a rare individual indeed who uses that logic when it comes to what others should pay them.
|
Makes no sense at all. If I could put a picture of myself here shrugging with a strange look on my face, I would, but I can't.
Quote:
And do you really see the individual in this world saying "hey that was my favourite book of all time so I'm going to pay $100 it was just so darn good"??
|
This has already happened, both Radiohead and NIN have recieved thousands of dollars for CD's that you could pay nothing, or whatever you felt like (and I'm talking thosuands of dollars in ONE donation). This is already proven with 'big names'. In the future this kind of after-enjoyment payment will sustain far more writers than are sustained by the greedy-corp-advance-miniscule percentage model we have now.
Quote:
What you are arguing is that the audience should have sole rights to determine the valuation of the work. Furthermore, you argue the audience should have sole rights to determine valuation after they have been able to enjoy the work obligation free!
You are not aruging "Creators and audience first" at all. You are arguing audience first, last and only.
|
YES!! and a thousand times YES!! I'd like to amend my earlier statement in favour of yours. Audience first when it comes to valuation. Because they're (after you've had your own creative enjoyment of course) the only ones who matter in all this. Without them creators are one hand clapping, they're the tree falling in the forest and nobody around to hear.