>> That's like say a band getting an advance to record their album should be illegal.
> It should.
Mortgages and car loans can be seen as advances on future income.
Insurance is a way to split a risk from a property. For example, if I own a house there’s a risk it burns down. With fire insurance, you keep the house, but the insurer takes on the risk, in exchange for a fee.
Why shouldn’t a band be permitted to do something similar, getting money now in exchange for future income and, at the same time, transferring the risk of their future product being a flop to a third party?
>Mortgages and car loans can be seen as advances on future income
I'm against those as well. Buy stuff after you can afford it.
>Insurance is a way to split a risk from a property. For example, if I own a house there’s a risk it burns down. With fire insurance, you keep the house, but the insurer takes on the risk, in exchange for a fee.
I'm against insurance companies too. Have a public insurance fund instead.
> It should.
Mortgages and car loans can be seen as advances on future income.
Insurance is a way to split a risk from a property. For example, if I own a house there’s a risk it burns down. With fire insurance, you keep the house, but the insurer takes on the risk, in exchange for a fee.
Why shouldn’t a band be permitted to do something similar, getting money now in exchange for future income and, at the same time, transferring the risk of their future product being a flop to a third party?