Like, publishers are right that, regardless of the merits of ebooks to the consumer, ebooks have been very damaging to the industry in terms of price point People *perceive* the cost of an author's time and labor as being tied up in the physical book
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @lawnerdbarak and
And people *perceive* that a digital file is "free" (because it's so easy to copy and share, or it feels like it should be) and paying for it is a "tip" It somehow *feels different* to copy a file than to steal an actual book Even though that's total fucking nonsense
3 replies 1 retweet 24 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @lawnerdbarak and
But you know the argument here! If I take a physical thing someone else can't have that thing. But me having a copy of the Mona Lisa doesn't mean the copy in the Louvre is at risk.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @phyphor @lawnerdbarak and
The consumer-focused standpoint that the reason to put a price tag on something is that your consumption creates scarcity for other consumers is the whole problem here The issue is not the consumer, either way, it's the producer
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @lawnerdbarak and
Right, and I'm saying that if the producer has been paid a fair amount for their art then why should they have to worry about the number of people accessing it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @phyphor @arthur_affect and
We have successfull models for people to make creative works, and get paid for it. It's not the greatest, because Patreon taking a massive cut for doing nothing is a problem, but it works for lots of people.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @phyphor @arthur_affect and
Now, sure, maybe it's not millions of dollars, but maybe your work isn't with that much. Or, if it is, maybe you'd get it if your tried that model.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @phyphor @arthur_affect and
But, again, musicians have been fighting this battle for longer than authors. Remember when Limewire was the thing? But now we have at least three models for streaming music backed by big players.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @phyphor @lawnerdbarak and
Yeah and the money you make from streaming is awful Like, so so bad, it's ridiculous Actively insulting to a level that no one would've tolerated in the "bad old days" of dealing with record labels and radio stations
2 replies 1 retweet 26 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @phyphor and
I don't think people realize this Your favorite obscure indie artist you found on Spotify makes *literally no money* from Spotify Like *literally* a few hundred bucks, max, for the sum total of all the time they've been on it
3 replies 2 retweets 36 likes
People who have moderately large followings who cut an album tend to delay releasing on streaming as long as they possibly can and they get yelled at for their fanbases over it and the response is always "Look I just want to make *some money* selling the album *if I can*"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @phyphor and
Taylor Swift had a whole big thing about this, she revealed that the reason she didn't put her music on Spotify for so long is that she's fucking Taylor Swift and their percentage meant she'd make less in a year for her whole catalogue than if she spent it working at Arby's
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @lawnerdbarak and
So what you're saying is that the biggest of stars can't rig the game if we use a new model? That seems like a feature, not a bug.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.