andrewducker

Can't speak for others but when I talk about content creators making a living it's an appeal to quantity & quality. </p>

I think a system where content creators or artists can't make a living or aspire to making a living means a reduction in the amount of content created and a reduction in the quality on offer.

I want content created by someone who spends every working hour on it. I'm happy to pay. I just require a way of directing & aggregating my share.

I want content created by someone who spends every working hour on it.

I'd rather read/watch/listen to something that was good. Whether or not the person spent all day on it or did it part time is neither here nor there to me. I honestly have no idea whether most of the books I read are written by authors who write full time. I know that a few specific ones are or aren't (and don't see a difference in quality) but I don't know about most.

I certainly don't subscribe to some kind of punk purist idealism where "selling out" or being professional is always bad, or that artists should struggle in order to be "real", but I don't see that quality necessarily follows from the lifestyle of the creator. Quantity perhaps, but then a reduction in the possibility for quantity could lead to a corresponding increase in the pride/care taken over the quality of what remains.

Some genres/types of media do have fulltime work from the creator(s) as a necessity though, I fully accept that (large scale film productions, constantly touring stadium acts, most episodic format TV dramas) and most of those and some others also require complex distribution networks

I’m going to out on a limb here and suggest there is a correlation between doing the job professionally and quantity and quality.