Technology

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

Minus the crypto (save for big maybe monero), I completely agree. I just don't want to primarily support the middle men and would rather support the creators. I don't mind giving them some money to distribute the media, but not even close to the lion's share they get now.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] xilliah@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

Ya I was actually hesitant to write that. Let's just say an open protocol for conveniently sending money.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

It's sad how certain words and technologies get saddled with reflexive opposition even when it makes perfect sense to use them. Nuclear power is another example.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] xilliah@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago

Yah that's unfortunate, because it's always more nuanced. Maybe there is a way that works with nuclear.

parent

[–] Squids@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

I know it sounds naive but honestly I just wish I could consume media and when I like it I can just send them some money without any hassle.

So the artist gets a cut of every stream? Isn't that just Spotify's model, which is infamously kinda shit for the actual artists?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] xilliah@beehaw.org 3 points 3 years ago

The artist can run their own website in this model. As long as it's easy for me to send money in whatever way I please, using my own program.

parent

[–] thystifi@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago

Spotify's model is basically how can we screw everyone, and keep the maximum for ourselves. Bandcamp is probably a better example, where artists actually get the bulk of the sales.