The distinction to me is one's work on open source is generally considered charity, pro bono, representing a fraction of one's total work.
Louis C.K. on the other hand, and digitally replicable artists generally, are not producing their work for free as a charitable gift to mankind, nor is this free work being produced within a small fraction of their total working time.
We here on HN, as producers and consumers, hope for the success of efforts like Spotify because it makes our lives better. Our own business plans become more likely to be realized, our own entertainment consumption becomes easier and fuller.
And yet efforts like Spotify require artists to accept that they must ask for voluntary donations.
The distinction to me is one's work on open source is generally considered charity, pro bono, representing a fraction of one's total work.
Louis C.K. on the other hand, and digitally replicable artists generally, are not producing their work for free as a charitable gift to mankind, nor is this free work being produced within a small fraction of their total working time.
We here on HN, as producers and consumers, hope for the success of efforts like Spotify because it makes our lives better. Our own business plans become more likely to be realized, our own entertainment consumption becomes easier and fuller.
And yet efforts like Spotify require artists to accept that they must ask for voluntary donations.