Comments on: On Cheap Asses And Pandora

By: movieguyjon

movieguyjon — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:46:37 +0000

While I agree with that, I'd have to argue that every service on the web we use is entitled to compensation from it's users if they so felt inclined to ask. There's not a single web service out there that isn't deserving of our money. Pandora, Last.FM, twitter, facebook, google anything, linkedin, livejournal, all these web services have a lot of value to their users and with that I would say that their mere existence DOES merit revenue.

But yeah, in the meatspace, just existing doesn't entitle anyone to revenue.

By: movieguyjon

movieguyjon — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:46:37 +0000

But yeah, in the meatspace, just existing doesn't entitle anyone to revenue.

By: GBGames

GBGames — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:59:59 +0000

Right, but thinking that by making something that you deserve to make money is also a sin. There is a difference between making something of value and accepting that sometimes it won't sell ("that's the market for ya!"), and making something of value and whining if it doesn't sell ("I deserve to make money for what I created").

The latter is a sense of entitlement with the nuance that there is something to exchange. That something, however, might not appeal to the market.

Again, I agree with what you're saying, by and large, but the wording of that first statement I quoted in the first comment sounds just as much like entitlement to me. No one "deserves" compensation just for having created. You can argue that if someone takes something for free when they shouldn't that the creator deserves payment, but I wouldn't accept the argument that existence results in any entitlement to revenue.

By: movieguyjon

movieguyjon — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:33:49 +0000

I'm not sure I see how the two statements contradict. The first suggests that they (pandora) should get compensation for a service that they created that has considerable value to a lot of people who use it. You wouldn't work at your job if you weren't getting paid, correct? To the makers of Pandora, this isn't a hobby, this is a job. They shouldn't have to bite the bullet just so any shmoe can listen to music for free.

The second statement addresses this idea that a lot of people have that they shouldn't have to pay for services like this. When it comes down to it, all these free services that we use don't HAVE to be free. These companies have to monetize somehow or disappear. By thinking we in fact “deserve” free shit is where the real sin lies.

By: GBGames

GBGames — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:40:25 +0000

"These people need to get paid for what they’ve created just like people who work in any other job deserve to get paid for the job they’ve done. "
"The big mistake any of us can make is to assume that we deserve ANYTHING for free."

While I agree by and large with what you are saying, these two statements sound almost contradictory. I say almost because while the latter is just an entitlement mindset, the former is based on the idea that if you just create something, you are entitled to payment for it, which ignores the fact that the market determines what you "deserve". If you create something, and the market determines it isn't of value, then the idea that you deserve something for nothing, no matter how hard you worked on it, is still an entitlement mindset.

It's subtle, but I think it is just a poor choice of words that lots of people use, not just you. If you build it, people won't necessarily come, yet the way the argument is phrased, it is as if economics and business theory goes out the window for a lot of people all so they can say that others shouldn't illegally obtain media that has a price on it.