Rysto wrote:The cost of voting is much lower, though. And voting rates are declining.
As it is now, yes. But if it were free, and people could donate as much as they like, that wouldn't be an issue. And while with voting people who would go at a higher cost to themselves still contribute the same amount to the system, with a donation system those who think it's worth more can contribute more. I mentioned the low voting rates in my previous post, but I'll go into some more detail here. With voting, very few people would actually say "you know, I'd like the government to keep going". Far more would say the same for an artist they enjoy. Falling voting rates are more indicative of a loss of faith in the government by the people than of a failure of the model. And keep in mind that it requires a fairly small fraction of those who enjoy the music to contribute for the artist to be comfortably supported..
Karrion wrote:But that's beside the point, anyway. The point is not this label/that label, or even promotion. The point is that there exists a gatekeeper somewhere rejecting 90% of the crap so that I don't have to waste my valuable time listening to it in order to decide that I hate it.
As I said above, the music that gets distributed - by filesharers - is the music that's liked. That's a far better
filtering system than the music labels choosing for you.
On the somewhat-less-on-topic issue of alternate methods of supporting artists, specifically by offering a high-def version for a price and a low-def version for free: another advantage of this system is that one of the main motivations for people to share things is that they want it to be able to reach as many people as possible. If a free version were available, very few people would bother distributing a better one. The number of people looking for it would also go down.
Personally, my favorite model would be artists releasing a song for a price and only distributing - online, of course, physically is another matter - for a few weeks. This would be done on the understanding that it would be shared. Thus distribution costs are kept quite low, supported by filesharers, who would be doing it anyway. After perhaps a year they offer it on the website again, still for a price, though likely a lower one. Thus everyone has access to it, and those who want it as a filesharers gradually begin to stop sharing it can still get at it. If a file was going to be freely and widely distributed, those who'd bother paying to get it fast are going to be those who like the artist enough to pay a higher than normal price, supporting the artist and allowing the music to be distributed freely later. Of course the artist would accept donations. And the donations would come from a wider range of people because the file would be made available to a wider range of people. Everybody wins.
I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated.