4 ms·

Similar sentiment from a musician to a fan. Fan writes he did something highly unusual - bought a record rather than pirating it: http://pwelverumandsun.tumbl

Similar sentiment from a musician to a fan. Fan writes he did something highly unusual - bought a record rather than pirating it: http://pwelverumandsun.tumblr.com/post/132240206696/fan-letter-and-response http://pwelverumandsun.tumblr.com/post/132240206696/fan-lett...

bmelton 11y ago
Thank you for posting that. I think it's definitely important to recognize that if you like art, and want it to continue to exist, then it should be worth paying for. Even acknowledging that musicians are exempt from a lot of what I consider good arguments in that piracy is effectively a marketing cost (because piracy does help them attract new fans, who might go to shows they can't pirate, etc., etc.), it just never seemed right to me to use other people's things in ways they did not want me to.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > it just never seemed right to me to use other people's things in ways they did not want me to. I think you let it go. You can't capture all the value you create. It's not how living in a society works. All our culture is based on taking someone else's work and changing it, combining with other works and sprinkling a little of your own insight. You can trace every movie ever made back through other movies, then through songs, performances and literature, pretty much back to earliest recorded history. This is partly because "nothing is new under the Sun", but mostly because works of art are enjoyed within a cultural context. If you quote Shakespeare in your movie, you don't do that just because the words feel kind of nice. You're both basing off Shakespeare's work, and - by doing so - you're purposefully making the audience evaluate your movie within the context of Shakespeare's writings, which you probably expect to bring them more enjoyment. And Shakespeare did the same by taking from the writings of his predecessors, etc. I like the response to the letter that 'hotgoldminer linked. I appreciate the reality, that artists want to earn money too. Personally, I pretty much don't pirate stuff anymore, and I'm happy to financially support authors (and middlemen, though I'm not happy about supporting those who are just rent-seeking). But I disagree on the fundamental moral principle. I think that expecting to be paid per copy of an information that's copyable pretty much for free is not a moral right. It's at best a temporary privilege, though one that people got used to before we had digital technology.

bmelton 11y ago

Thank you for posting that. I think it's definitely important to recognize that if you like art, and want it to continue to exist, then it should be worth paying for. Even acknowledging that musicians are exempt from a lot of what I consider good arguments in that piracy is effectively a marketing cost (because piracy does help them attract new fans, who might go to shows they can't pirate, etc., etc.), it just never seemed right to me to use other people's things in ways they did not want me to.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> it just never seemed right to me to use other people's things in ways they did not want me to. I think you let it go. You can't capture all the value you create. It's not how living in a society works. All our culture is based on taking someone else's work and changing it, combining with other works and sprinkling a little of your own insight. You can trace every movie ever made back through other movies, then through songs, performances and literature, pretty much back to earliest recorded history. This is partly because "nothing is new under the Sun", but mostly because works of art are enjoyed within a cultural context. If you quote Shakespeare in your movie, you don't do that just because the words feel kind of nice. You're both basing off Shakespeare's work, and - by doing so - you're purposefully making the audience evaluate your movie within the context of Shakespeare's writings, which you probably expect to bring them more enjoyment. And Shakespeare did the same by taking from the writings of his predecessors, etc. I like the response to the letter that 'hotgoldminer linked. I appreciate the reality, that artists want to earn money too. Personally, I pretty much don't pirate stuff anymore, and I'm happy to financially support authors (and middlemen, though I'm not happy about supporting those who are just rent-seeking). But I disagree on the fundamental moral principle. I think that expecting to be paid per copy of an information that's copyable pretty much for free is not a moral right. It's at best a temporary privilege, though one that people got used to before we had digital technology.