I would think you'd only end up starving if not enough people wanted to voluntarily pay for your product, which is quite possible but not necessarily the outcome. Presumably it wouldn't be much different from starving as a result of not enough people paying for a `you must pay for the full copy` approach. Who knows, maybe it's possible to make greater earnings by letting reluctant purchasers set a lower price and still buy, than to lose that person's contribution altogether. This is probably an approach which has to be actually tried and tested to see how the public responds, rather than jumping to fearful conclusions.
I also agree the Radiohead thing is flawed because if you want to find a flaw in something you will, and pretty much all examples have the potential to seem flawed to someone. With so few really `good examples` of a sharing-based system it was just something `along those lines` which I thought people might relate to. Clearly they were doing what they were doing for additional capitalist reasons but there was also a measure of treating everyone equally and not imposing limitations on the customer, which are admirable.
Saying that someone can only have your product if they give you something of value that you want, is basically holding them to ransom. There's no two ways about it. It doesn't matter if they are perfectly happy to hand over the cash or if it's some kind of `adult consent` scenario, the underlying premise of the transaction is still one of mistrust, enprisonment, and serves only the ego.
And if the only two options you see in life are:
a) sell your soul and don't be happy so that you can survive, or
b) nurture your soul and be happy but die
then maybe you need to reconsider how you look at life because there is another way.
I also agree the Radiohead thing is flawed because if you want to find a flaw in something you will, and pretty much all examples have the potential to seem flawed to someone. With so few really `good examples` of a sharing-based system it was just something `along those lines` which I thought people might relate to. Clearly they were doing what they were doing for additional capitalist reasons but there was also a measure of treating everyone equally and not imposing limitations on the customer, which are admirable.
Saying that someone can only have your product if they give you something of value that you want, is basically holding them to ransom. There's no two ways about it. It doesn't matter if they are perfectly happy to hand over the cash or if it's some kind of `adult consent` scenario, the underlying premise of the transaction is still one of mistrust, enprisonment, and serves only the ego.
And if the only two options you see in life are:
a) sell your soul and don't be happy so that you can survive, or
b) nurture your soul and be happy but die
then maybe you need to reconsider how you look at life because there is another way.