Writing in The Register, Andrew Orlowski points out that "the sharing economy" doesn't always share.
For instance, Amanda Palmer used Kickstarter to raise $1.2 million to fund an album and a tour, but then tried to get volunteer musicians to play for "hugs and beer" instead of money, saying the $35,000 fee for musicians was too high and the money had gone on recording sessions, promotion, etc. Leaving aside the money she raised on Kickstarter, as Mrs. Neil Gaiman she's not short of a penny or two anyway. Fortunately, once the press got hold of the story she relented.
He also points to companies that use crowdfunding to get started and then are sold for millions or even billions don't share with the people who allowed them to launch their businesses.
The point isn't that this is illegal, and you can say that the people who contribute to crowdfunding know in advance that they're not going to get anything when the company has a big payday. The real issue as Orlowski says, is hypocrisy. We're sold the idea that the new economy spreads the wealth; in fact, it may spread the love but the wealth stays with the usual suspects.
One more example he cites: Spotify, which pays musicians and songwriters a pittance for having their music on the site. When it goes public for a huge amount don't expect them to up the payments to the creative people without whom they wouldn't have a service. Maybe they'll offer hugs.
