Vulnerable. Not begging, vulnerable. This is prime blaming the victim. People who have an innate drive to make music or art are vulnerable to be exploited, but place the blame where it belongs: on those who would exploit them.

Most humans enjoy music and art. We want it to exist. It makes life better. We shouldn't be looking down on those who want to supply it.

> People who have an innate drive to make music or art are vulnerable to be exploited, but place the blame where it belongs: on those who would exploit them.

I don’t understand this.

Why are only people who make music or art special in this regard?

If I am someone who enjoys Software Engineering, am I also ripe to be exploited? If not, please explain.

>Most humans enjoy music and art. We want it to exist. It makes life better. We shouldn't be looking down on those who want to supply it.

Of course I agree with all your desires. I'm just saying how capitalism works in reality. You can pass moral judgements all you want, but capitalism doesn't care how many people want something. In capitalism, it's all about profit over time.

> you’re begging to be exploited

A “yes, and” pivot: you’re going to be exploited, you should be begging for a union.

I’ve been musing on what an open source (users/creators) union would look like. The best of us write software in this “no matter what” category. How could we collectively support them while they support us and we support each other?

If you’re only sellable skill is making music, and you have to put food on the table, that isn’t begging to be exploited; it’s grit

It simply seems like supply and demand to me.

There many, many people trying to be successful in arts and entertainment.

Why would someone overpay for something that may be seen as a commodity because of the overwhelming supply?