[lostcolony]

'people buying NFTs are footing the bill for you to have that free information'

Where? All I see is people paying for works after the fact, that no one would pay for -except- buying into the idea of an NFT.

Where are the NFTs being sold for desirable creative works -prior- to their creation and distribution? Show me a movie being shot, by names good enough that they could otherwise sell tickets, that will release freely to everyone that was funded by selling an NFT to it, say.

[casi18]

Retroactive sales have long been the way most art (and most stuff in general) is funded. Art is made and then sold, then the artist can keep making things. Someone makes them then sells them then they can keep making more. There is also the smaller market of commissioned work, which is popular in illustration and graphic design, but not so much in fine arts as it strips agency from the artist (you are asking them to make a particular thing). Alongside that there is funding applications via arts councils and crowdfunding, the closest for that would be projects on https://mirror.xyz/

Here is a crowdfund for a musician who is releasing records on catalog: https://haleek.mirror.xyz/crowdfunds/0x8B38a9cbabC067ddEA968...

Also as he was mentioned before, here is the crowdfund for the documentary about Stuart Brand too that played with these ideas of free/expensive/public/private https://weareasgods.mirror.xyz/crowdfunds/0x69DdE2e4d81720AE...

[lostcolony]

Not really answering the question there, which was specifically in reference to "People need to be paid to do the work". Clearly, they don't. They do the work first. Maybe if they were not paid they'd not do -further- work (though "starving artist" being a thing tends to imply people create because of a desire to create, not because of how lucrative it is), but with NFTs...no one is actually paying them to do the work. There could be an NFT with no artwork attached (in fact, there is no artwork attached; there's just a link, pointing somewhere on the internet, that can be changed out at any time by the creator).

[casi18]

> "People need to be paid to do the work". Clearly, they don't.

im really not sure what you are arguing for here? It seems you just really dont want a person to give someone else money and that have exchange/relationship be tokenized?

because regardless of how you feel about it, clearly lots of other people do want this. many artists and musicians do want this, particularly with royalties on resales.

I make something, I put up a signed version for auction, it gets sold. That person has the version i signed, they like having that, maybe in the future they sell it again and i also get royalties from the future sales. This is a positive improvement for me selling my artwork/music, and i much prefer it to begging on patreon. Even just making/advertising a patreon account is seen negatively from my experience, people would much rather pay me for something than send me $5 a month. I guess the follow up is why crypto not paypal, and beyond the obvious dependancy/fees/region locks, well its just more fun :)

We know that people feel different when they buy things. We know that ownership brings with it a sense of care. We know the exchange of one token for another (be it crypto of pieces of paper or stones) builds relationships, builds community. And a record of those exchanges builds legitimacy. That legitimacy extends to the system, as more people use it the more accepted it becomes.

>that can be changed out at any time by the creator

that would be one quick way to destroy your legitimacy, future sales, and upset your audience, sure. not sure why you'd do that?