3 ms·

That's a very naive way of looking at it. Why do you think artists historically have felt they had no other choice than to do so? (hint: they control the vast m

That's a very naive way of looking at it. Why do you think artists historically have felt they had no other choice than to do so? (hint: they control the vast majority of the distribution and PR) What about recoupment contract terms and similar unjust practices?

fauigerzigerk 10y ago
That is a very paternalistic way of looking at it. You are effectively saying to artists, shut up, you have no right to sign contracts or have your voluntary agreements respected because you are too exploited to know what's good for you. And now step aside and let me download all your stuff for free until we have sorted out all the warts of media business models, capitalism and the universe in general. We all face constraints and we are not completely free in the choices we make. That doesn't mean the choices we do make can simply be discounted.
- Natanael_L 10y ago
  Why are you calling it paternalistic, instead of anti-monopolist? You're essentially excusing slave trade where people sell themselves to become slaves "because they could choose not to", when they actually in the real world couldn't see any other viable option for survival. And while at it you're blatantly ignoring (or perhaps obscuring) the other option, of targeting the other side of the equation and banning such exploitative contracts, requiring that they offer reasonable terms instead. Are you claiming it is impossible for them, who keep making record profits, to afford to be fair?
  - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
    >Why are you calling it paternalistic Because you are talking over artists' heads like they were little children unable to understand how enslaved they are. If an artist says, I feel enslaved (and some probably do), I take that seriously, and I would have a very close look at those contracts. But if an artist says I am acting voluntarily and I demand restrictions on free music downloads, and a consumer of music such as yourself says no you are being enslaved and therefore I feel entitled to free music downloads in the name of fighting big bad media companies, then that is too obviously self-serving for me to take at face value.
    - Natanael_L 10y ago
      The artists are prioritizing their careers first, can't afford great lawyers when they're fresh (so they don't actually know how horrible the contracts are!), and everybody keeps telling them it is harder to succeed alone. How can't you understand the effects of that? Are laws against lies in advertisement also paternalistic? And why in the first place do you even believe that piracy is a problem that can be solved legally? Why do you believe it even should be solved using the law? Why should the mere request of the media companies be sufficient to put people in jail!? http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...
      - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        You are making a lot of unfounded assumptions about what I believe. I'm not defending any particular contractual structure. I'm not arguing against banning specific types of contracts. I'm not calling for excessive punishment for copyright infringement or for a surveillance state to enforce copyrights. I'm saying that artists can be trusted to understand their own situation and act in their own interest, possibly with the help of lawyers or organisations that support them. If some of them come to a conclusion that is different from yours, you can't just go ahead and declare them mentally incapacitated. That is what I call paternalistic and it is actually a rather moderate way of putting it. Artists are not enslved imbecils who need to be protected from themselves. They may need to be protected from others, but that is something they need to diagnose themselves and make demands accordingly (some certainly do that). Our societies are moving pretty quickly in a direction where we take away people's freedom to enter into voluntary agreements with other adults based on the claim that they are in a forced situation and can no longer be trusted to speak for themselves. Just look at prostitution, smoking, gambling, foreign currency loans, variuos fetishes, assisted suicide, etc. Yes there are situations in which people need to be protected from themselves and their inability to grasp their own situation. But these situations are exceedingly rare. There should be a very high threshold before coming to that conclusion.
        Natanael_L 10y ago

fauigerzigerk 10y ago

That is a very paternalistic way of looking at it. You are effectively saying to artists, shut up, you have no right to sign contracts or have your voluntary agreements respected because you are too exploited to know what's good for you. And now step aside and let me download all your stuff for free until we have sorted out all the warts of media business models, capitalism and the universe in general. We all face constraints and we are not completely free in the choices we make. That doesn't mean the choices we do make can simply be discounted.

Natanael_L 10y ago
Why are you calling it paternalistic, instead of anti-monopolist? You're essentially excusing slave trade where people sell themselves to become slaves "because they could choose not to", when they actually in the real world couldn't see any other viable option for survival. And while at it you're blatantly ignoring (or perhaps obscuring) the other option, of targeting the other side of the equation and banning such exploitative contracts, requiring that they offer reasonable terms instead. Are you claiming it is impossible for them, who keep making record profits, to afford to be fair?
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  >Why are you calling it paternalistic Because you are talking over artists' heads like they were little children unable to understand how enslaved they are. If an artist says, I feel enslaved (and some probably do), I take that seriously, and I would have a very close look at those contracts. But if an artist says I am acting voluntarily and I demand restrictions on free music downloads, and a consumer of music such as yourself says no you are being enslaved and therefore I feel entitled to free music downloads in the name of fighting big bad media companies, then that is too obviously self-serving for me to take at face value.
  - Natanael_L 10y ago
    The artists are prioritizing their careers first, can't afford great lawyers when they're fresh (so they don't actually know how horrible the contracts are!), and everybody keeps telling them it is harder to succeed alone. How can't you understand the effects of that? Are laws against lies in advertisement also paternalistic? And why in the first place do you even believe that piracy is a problem that can be solved legally? Why do you believe it even should be solved using the law? Why should the mere request of the media companies be sufficient to put people in jail!? http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...
    - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
      You are making a lot of unfounded assumptions about what I believe. I'm not defending any particular contractual structure. I'm not arguing against banning specific types of contracts. I'm not calling for excessive punishment for copyright infringement or for a surveillance state to enforce copyrights. I'm saying that artists can be trusted to understand their own situation and act in their own interest, possibly with the help of lawyers or organisations that support them. If some of them come to a conclusion that is different from yours, you can't just go ahead and declare them mentally incapacitated. That is what I call paternalistic and it is actually a rather moderate way of putting it. Artists are not enslved imbecils who need to be protected from themselves. They may need to be protected from others, but that is something they need to diagnose themselves and make demands accordingly (some certainly do that). Our societies are moving pretty quickly in a direction where we take away people's freedom to enter into voluntary agreements with other adults based on the claim that they are in a forced situation and can no longer be trusted to speak for themselves. Just look at prostitution, smoking, gambling, foreign currency loans, variuos fetishes, assisted suicide, etc. Yes there are situations in which people need to be protected from themselves and their inability to grasp their own situation. But these situations are exceedingly rare. There should be a very high threshold before coming to that conclusion.
      - Natanael_L 10y ago