>> 9145

I will need to answer briefly, because I am
at dinner. So I'll be limited to just answer
your question:

YES, my behaviour, and the general
philosophy that I am advertising clearly
aims to motivate artists to
(at least) paywall their
works.

Nowadays,
an artist who is only supported
by donations has to rely heavily on his
fandbase to feel responsible for financial
support.

Problem is,
that nowadays only very few feel
responsible any more and even less folks
put their money where their mouth is.

Furthermore,
An artists is not a beggar, he/she does not
need donations/welfare.
An artist is a craftsman,
who deserves to get paid for his work.
Like your plumber, pilot, taxi-driver etc.
——————————————-
The CUSTOMER, willing to pay content that
is paywalled is very unlikely to withold
donations an a voluntary basis.
Therefore the CUSTOMER makes no difference,
if he shops in the 'free' store or in
the 'protected' store. Statistically he will
spend a comparable amount of money on a
similar product in the 'free' store as he
would be forced to in the 'protected' store.
- Unless he's a bitch.

The Problem I see, when I look at the
(popular) web is:
WHERE ARE THE CUSTOMERS?

- maybe I'm blind,
but I don't see them.

But what I see instead are people ripping
artists work off and artists that struggle
to make a living.

** the few exceptions on both sides
** confirm the rules.


chicken wings, avocado, cheese and grapes.
yummbummbumm…