4 ms·

This has never really been about whether or not it's okay to copy and use free what someone else created. This is why even companies like Napster eventually re

This has never really been about whether or not it's okay to copy and use free what someone else created. This is why even companies like Napster eventually reached out to artists. It's about the latter, that the artists didn't "allow to copy". Guess what? They can't stop people from copying digital material, ever, regardless of how much moralizing the industry backers do. This is happening/has happened, so they need to get on board.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
So in a sense everybody is committing a crime, and because everybody does it, artists need to evolve with the state of the world. I agree with this, but it does not change the fact that 'everybody' is committing a crime and harming the artist.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >So in a sense everybody is committing a crime What is or isn't a crime evolves with society. >harming the artist No, harming a specific type of artist who insists on maintaining a 30, 40, 50 year old business model. The biggest stars on the planet have their music on YouTube for free, and I'm sure their music is downloaded proportionately more as well. I'm talking about the Adeles, the Taylor Swifts, the Justin Biebers, the Drakes, the Wiz Khalifas. They are hardly harmed. They've "grown up" in the digital world, and have built their careers around it. And it isn't the "middle class" being harmed, either. I can have an album up on iTunes, or any other number of platforms, by tomorrow. At what point in history have independent artists have access to that sort of global reach and distribution? This is a great time to be a musician.
  - TimJYoung 11y ago
    Two problems here: 1) YouTube videos from major distributors are monetized (Vevo), and user-contributed versions are often taken down. So, they are still making money while also promoting the artist and maintaining control over the product. 2) Songs on iTunes cost ~$1, they aren't free.
    - forgetsusername 11y ago
      >Songs on iTunes cost ~$1, they aren't free. There are other platforms. The point is distribution is cheap and simple.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

So in a sense everybody is committing a crime, and because everybody does it, artists need to evolve with the state of the world. I agree with this, but it does not change the fact that 'everybody' is committing a crime and harming the artist.

forgetsusername 11y ago
>So in a sense everybody is committing a crime What is or isn't a crime evolves with society. >harming the artist No, harming a specific type of artist who insists on maintaining a 30, 40, 50 year old business model. The biggest stars on the planet have their music on YouTube for free, and I'm sure their music is downloaded proportionately more as well. I'm talking about the Adeles, the Taylor Swifts, the Justin Biebers, the Drakes, the Wiz Khalifas. They are hardly harmed. They've "grown up" in the digital world, and have built their careers around it. And it isn't the "middle class" being harmed, either. I can have an album up on iTunes, or any other number of platforms, by tomorrow. At what point in history have independent artists have access to that sort of global reach and distribution? This is a great time to be a musician.
- TimJYoung 11y ago
  Two problems here: 1) YouTube videos from major distributors are monetized (Vevo), and user-contributed versions are often taken down. So, they are still making money while also promoting the artist and maintaining control over the product. 2) Songs on iTunes cost ~$1, they aren't free.
  - forgetsusername 11y ago
    >Songs on iTunes cost ~$1, they aren't free. There are other platforms. The point is distribution is cheap and simple.