5 ms·

I hate it when people equate piracy with theft...it's copyright infringement, not theft. If someone breaks into my car and steals my iPod, that's theft. I, th

by byoung2 16y ago

I hate it when people equate piracy with theft...it's copyright infringement, not theft. If someone breaks into my car and steals my iPod, that's theft. I, the original owner, no longer possess the item. If instead the "thief" breaks into my car and copies all of the music from my iPod (let's say that all of the songs are recordings of my band to make things simple) and posts it on several torrent trackers, that's piracy (copyright infringement). I still have the originals, so no harm, no foul. In fact, I might be glad that someone is doing some free marketing for my band (or I might choose to cry about the billions in lost sales). I'd argue that piracy has done more to help the music industry than it has to hurt it. Back when people bought music on $17 CD's, they only bought a handful per year. And once you lost a CD or it got scratched, you stopped listening to it. You could also only carry 6 at a time in your CD changer. With illegal MP3 downloads (and later, legal ones), people could suddenly carry thousands of songs in their pockets, and they never get lost or scratched. Back in college, since music was now "free", my friends and I expanded our musical tastes beyond gangsta rap to include rock, country, trance, techno, classical, and jazz. With a new world of music open to us, we started going to local jazz clubs, raves, and concerts (which put more money in the record labels' pockets than CD sales ever did). I went to 2 Rage Against the Machine concerts in one weekend, even though I've never paid for one of their albums. Just the other day I listened to the first MP3 I ever downloaded (August, 1998, Eagle-Eye Cherry - Save Tonight). I backed up all of my old MP3's on CD-R back in the day, and they've been passed from desktop to laptop to XBox to iPod to phone ever since. Since all of these songs are always instantly available to me, these artists are still within reach, even the one-hit-wonders from yesteryear. If I hadn't downloaded Fastball's "Outta My Head" back in 1998, I would never have gone to see them perform at the Viper Room in 2008 (it was the illegal download of a B-side that made me appreciate them more than hearing "The Way" on the radio).

NateLawson 16y ago
The problem is there have not been big enough studies into the effects of piracy. It's very difficult to control for the various factors such as the overall economy, purchasing reasons, packaging and ease of use, etc. Anecdotally, it appears to vary widely from person-to-person, year, type of content, etc. But I find it interesting that technology-minded people tend to emphasize the positive aspects without any real evidence that on the whole they outweigh the negative. You've never bought $1 DVDs on the corner, but it's very common for others.
kapitalx 16y ago
First. Pirates, most of the time, take away from the potential revenue of a copyright owner. You can argue that you wouldn't have used that product otherwise anyway, but thats not always true. Second. The reason the music industry is booming with the likes of iTunes is the convenient access to it. In the past, it was more convenient to pirate, now its more convenient to buy than it is to pirate.
- byoung2 16y ago
  In the past, it was more convenient to pirate, now its more convenient to buy than it is to pirate. I'll agree with you there, but I don't think legal music downloads could have succeeded if they hadn't been illegal first, in the same way that freemium services become so popular based on the free option, only later to make money with the paid plan. Take my generation, who went to college from 1998-2002...we got so used to downloading illegally (the scour.net guys were in the next building over from me), that we still download today, just on iTunes since we have money now.
tptacek 16y ago
I love it that people who simply take anything sold under terms they disagree with also demand political correctness from the rest of the world and, particularly, from the industries who they're taking things from.
- alextgordon 16y ago
  Believe it or not, people don't like being called thieves, especially when they're not stealing anything. I may be a pirate, but if US TV companies actually gave me a choice to buy their programmes with some degree of timeliness, perhaps I wouldn't need to be.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Just so you know where I'm coming from: I actually think what you'd doing is a form of theft. I don't think the word is inappropriate. You are free to disagree. I think many objections to the word "theft" in this context are reasonable, even I don't agree with them. But I am genuinely amused that people expect political correctness from people whose livelihoods they are probably disrupting unlawfully. (I chose my words carefully there). It is especially interesting to hear this from a Cocoa developer, by the way, considering the rate at which Cocoa apps are pirated. (I'm not calling you a hypocrite; no, quite the opposite. "Suicidal" might be a better epithet here.)
    - jrockway 16y ago
      If you're someone who makes copyable content for profit, it's best to think of purchase rate instead of piracy rate. You make as much money from someone who pirates your Cocoa app as from someone who uses Linux. But the Linux users aren't "stealing" your revenue. Anyway, I wrote a book. It ended up on Scribd, Google Books, and the Pirate Bay. I still made plenty of money. Could I have made more? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly don't know what percentage of the pirates would have bought it had it not been available on TPB. My estimate is zero, which means piracy cost me nothing. Piracy, in my opinion, is just a scapegoat for "nobody wants my crap anymore". Yeah, piracy happens. But even in the absence of piracy, it's possible that nobody wanted to pay $50 for a season of a TV show anyway.
jeromec 16y ago
Devils advocate: there are obviously a lot of people that write programming code here. That is something created within each person's mind, and brought into existence -- just like a song. How would any of us view having our computers hacked into at the leisure of would-be users of our programs who sought to copy our code and then use it? Would we view this as theft?
- petercooper 16y ago
  It depends on the jurisdiction but other crimes are defined as taking place in such a system, such as trespass, gaining unauthorized access to a computer system, copyright infringement, and invasion of privacy. These things can be considered, in some cases, to be even more severe than theft. "Theft" is a highly charged word even though copying source code from a nuclear missile silo would be punished more severely than the theft of a chocolate bar from a 7 Eleven.
  - jeromec 16y ago
    Here I don't mean to focus on the methods to get the finished product, but rather copying the product for use. The OP explains that since nothing is actually removed it's not theft. I disagree. If I want to open source some of the code I write, I'll do it. Aside from that no one should be able to copy and use the code I've written (and open it up to possible distribution) without any regard for my opinion on the matter. To me I'd consider that theft.
    - petercooper 16y ago
      The OP explains that since nothing is actually removed it's not theft. I disagree. It depends whether you're referring to your own personal definition of "theft" or a legal or common definition (of which there are many). If the former, no-one can quarrel with you, of course ;-) If the latter, in some jurisdictions, permanent deprivation of property is required for "theft", so copying files would not count. Where permanent deprivation is not required and non-tangible property counts, then sure, it'd be theft. Even forgetting the definition of theft, sure, no-one should be able to obtain and use your code without permission, but if they were to do so, it doesn't necessarily mean they have committed the legal offence of "theft." You are free to consider it such but legally it may not be such.
fendrak 16y ago
The only problem with this argument is that it's made only with regard to you, the consumer, vs. the content creator/distributor. If theft is defined only as the removal of a physical good from one individual to another without consent, then indeed, it's not theft in that sense. However, if theft is defined as depriving an individual of what they are due for providing some product/service, then this is theft. One way or another, somebody took the time to learn to play some instrument, write a song, record that song, then get it distributed in some manner. All of that costs both time and money, just like designing and building a car or a laptop or any other physical good. If depriving someone of compensation for something they worked to create and distribute isn't theft, I don't know what is.
- niels_olson 16y ago
  You know, if it were theft, I think the cases would be tried as cases of theft. I love a semantic argument as much as the next guy, but I find I'm most successful in those arguments when I avidly defer to time-proven definitions. And when those definitions have been so thoroughly debated that they have been intrenched in law almost universally consistent across multiple nations and languages, I really defer to those. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparison_to_theft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparis... I hope you take the opportunity at some point in your life to revisit your opinion on this issue.
- wildjim 16y ago
  It's still not theft -- i.e. taking something from. It's explicitly a lack of compensation, which is still not "taking something from" -- though there are laws which require compensation for services provided, they vary hugely across the world, and can get people in trouble when they apply their local knowledge in other jurisdictions. Several countries don't apply copyright/patent/IP or even contract law(s) in anything remotely like a USA style (for want of a better sterotype). "Depriving" is a somewhat loaded term that implies a "take" behaviour to you, but it's just not strictly true.
AlexC04 16y ago
| Since all of these songs are always instantly available | to me, these artists are still within reach, even the | one-hit-wonders from yesteryear. If I hadn't downloaded | Fastball's "Outta My Head" back in 1998, I would never | have gone to see them perform at the Viper Room in 2008 | (it was the illegal download of a B-side that made me | appreciate them more than hearing "The Way" on the | radio). While that may be true that the piracy had an unintended benefit for the band. I think you're making an appeal to the fallacy "the ends justify the means". In this case, the record label and by extension the employees of the record label lost out on their share of the $1 you should arguably have spent on the track. (assuming an itunes download at approximately market price). So that works out to say $0.80 cents not paid to the workers at the store, the marketing department etc... In the end, the band might have benefitted on balance, but in an alternative scenario, you PAID for that song, liked it and still went to see the band at the Viper room. I'm fully aware that there are a number of people who violently disagree with me on this. In my own opinion, the question of whether it's "better for the music industry overall" or not is irrelevant. The people who own the rights to the music, own the right to decide whether it's OK to get the song for free or not. If that costs them a customer at the viper room in 2008, it's their choice. "Theft plain and simple" is probably an overstatement - but (again, in my opinion) - there is definitely some moral ambiguity to this. Let's imagine that for some reason at YC11 a band shows up. In their pitch meeting PG and team feel suitably Rocked and Rolled so he decides to throw in the seed money for their studio time. The terms are that YC gets to keep 80% of the money from record sales (come to think of it, this happened on an episode of Dragon's Den UK). You download the song. Go to the concert. What happens to the share owned by YC? Do they make money? Do they deserve money? I do understand where you're coming from... but I also disagree.
- ABrandt 16y ago
  Let's imagine that for some reason at YC11 a band shows up. In their pitch meeting PG and team feel suitably Rocked and Rolled so he decides to throw in the seed money for their studio time. The terms are that YC gets to keep 80% of the money from record sales (come to think of it, this happened on an episode of Dragon's Den UK). You download the song. Go to the concert. What happens to the share owned by YC? Do they make money? Do they deserve money? You're addressing a whole other issue here. First off, there is a movement among record labels to grab a portion of revenues beyond record sales (the 360-deal [1]). Second, you raise the question of whether record labels are needed at all in the first place. Similar to bootstrapping a startup, a musician can take a very DIY approach to their careers. In fact, one could argue that a musician is virtually identical to an entrepreneur. They build their band/company by creating music/a product that fans/people want. Startups are incredibly cheap to do today because of changes in technology--open source, cloud computing, etc etc. In that same regard, starting out as a musician does not require the millions of dollars from Warner Bros. execs that it once did either. Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs) can produce quality recordings, social networks allow for cheap marketing, CD pressing isn't required for distribution, and on and on and on. As "founders", musicians deserve to be rewarded for their work. Not to be screwed over by record labels ("VCs")[2]#. --- # I am in no way suggesting that VCs regularly screw over startup founders [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360_deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360_deal [2]http://www.negativland.com/albini.html http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
tvon 16y ago
> If someone breaks into my car and steals my iPod, that's theft. I, the original owner, no longer possess the item. Theft covers more than just the taking of physical property. You can steal an idea, for example.
- bediger 16y ago
  > You can steal an idea, for example. How so? I can't even really write about it without getting mired in semantics, but here goes... Suppose, one icy winter, I see you scraping your car's windows with an inverted plastic coffee mug. I'm having a lot of trouble with my store-bought flat, shovel-shaped scraper. I copy your idea: I bring a plastic mug out to my car, and use that mug to scrape frost off my car's windows the next day. Did I "steal" your idea? How did I do that? You still have use of your plastic coffee mug. What's missing? And then there's the issue of independent invention which happens a lot more than "copying == theft" folks ever admit. I invented the round windsheild frost scraper in the mid-80s. Unfortunately, someone else did, too: I found a round scraper in a K-Mart once, with a patent number on it. Did I steal his/her idea? On my mother's grave, I did not. I invented it independently. Similarly, I invented the same propulsion system that Freeman Dyson did in the 60s for "Project Orion". My sister claims to have invented "curtain walls" in high school, a long time before she went to college for an architecture degree. Describe how I can "steal" an idea.
  - tvon 16y ago
    You steal an idea by passing it off as your own.
    - bediger 16y ago
      A facile answer. How can you tell if I invented the circular ice scraper, or the folks who hold a patent on it invented it? If they invented it, why do I still scrape frost and ice off my car's windshield with a yellow plastic coffee mug, manufactured by "Tupperware"?
- kemiller 16y ago
  Stealing an idea is metaphorical. And generally speaking, I'd say it refers to taking credit for the idea, not simply taking it and understanding it for yourself. Credit as originator is scarce. Instantiations are not.
cynicalkane 16y ago
I would like to see something like a Netflix or Hulu for music. Something where you have unlimited access to all the music you want to listen to, but musicians are fairly compensated for their work. The Internet has made the information cost of music distribution vanishingly small, but there's no way for producers or consumers to take advantage of this. Actually, now that I think about it, there were once services like this... anyone know what happened to them? The closest thing I can think of is Pandora, but having to be at the mercy of the site's RNG only suits certain listening patterns.
- semanticist 16y ago
  I think you've described Spotify.
- tuacker 16y ago
  If you're not in a country where Spotify is available check out Grooveshark instead.
kyro 16y ago
Do you hold the same opinion when it comes to software? And by software I mean code you've spent months laboring over that you perhaps hope to make some sort of living off of.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  I do.

by byoung2 16y ago

NateLawson 16y ago

The problem is there have not been big enough studies into the effects of piracy. It's very difficult to control for the various factors such as the overall economy, purchasing reasons, packaging and ease of use, etc. Anecdotally, it appears to vary widely from person-to-person, year, type of content, etc. But I find it interesting that technology-minded people tend to emphasize the positive aspects without any real evidence that on the whole they outweigh the negative. You've never bought $1 DVDs on the corner, but it's very common for others.

kapitalx 16y ago

First. Pirates, most of the time, take away from the potential revenue of a copyright owner. You can argue that you wouldn't have used that product otherwise anyway, but thats not always true. Second. The reason the music industry is booming with the likes of iTunes is the convenient access to it. In the past, it was more convenient to pirate, now its more convenient to buy than it is to pirate.

byoung2 16y ago
In the past, it was more convenient to pirate, now its more convenient to buy than it is to pirate. I'll agree with you there, but I don't think legal music downloads could have succeeded if they hadn't been illegal first, in the same way that freemium services become so popular based on the free option, only later to make money with the paid plan. Take my generation, who went to college from 1998-2002...we got so used to downloading illegally (the scour.net guys were in the next building over from me), that we still download today, just on iTunes since we have money now.

tptacek 16y ago

I love it that people who simply take anything sold under terms they disagree with also demand political correctness from the rest of the world and, particularly, from the industries who they're taking things from.

alextgordon 16y ago
Believe it or not, people don't like being called thieves, especially when they're not stealing anything. I may be a pirate, but if US TV companies actually gave me a choice to buy their programmes with some degree of timeliness, perhaps I wouldn't need to be.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Just so you know where I'm coming from: I actually think what you'd doing is a form of theft. I don't think the word is inappropriate. You are free to disagree. I think many objections to the word "theft" in this context are reasonable, even I don't agree with them. But I am genuinely amused that people expect political correctness from people whose livelihoods they are probably disrupting unlawfully. (I chose my words carefully there). It is especially interesting to hear this from a Cocoa developer, by the way, considering the rate at which Cocoa apps are pirated. (I'm not calling you a hypocrite; no, quite the opposite. "Suicidal" might be a better epithet here.)
  - jrockway 16y ago
    If you're someone who makes copyable content for profit, it's best to think of purchase rate instead of piracy rate. You make as much money from someone who pirates your Cocoa app as from someone who uses Linux. But the Linux users aren't "stealing" your revenue. Anyway, I wrote a book. It ended up on Scribd, Google Books, and the Pirate Bay. I still made plenty of money. Could I have made more? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly don't know what percentage of the pirates would have bought it had it not been available on TPB. My estimate is zero, which means piracy cost me nothing. Piracy, in my opinion, is just a scapegoat for "nobody wants my crap anymore". Yeah, piracy happens. But even in the absence of piracy, it's possible that nobody wanted to pay $50 for a season of a TV show anyway.

jeromec 16y ago

Devils advocate: there are obviously a lot of people that write programming code here. That is something created within each person's mind, and brought into existence -- just like a song. How would any of us view having our computers hacked into at the leisure of would-be users of our programs who sought to copy our code and then use it? Would we view this as theft?

petercooper 16y ago
It depends on the jurisdiction but other crimes are defined as taking place in such a system, such as trespass, gaining unauthorized access to a computer system, copyright infringement, and invasion of privacy. These things can be considered, in some cases, to be even more severe than theft. "Theft" is a highly charged word even though copying source code from a nuclear missile silo would be punished more severely than the theft of a chocolate bar from a 7 Eleven.
- jeromec 16y ago
  Here I don't mean to focus on the methods to get the finished product, but rather copying the product for use. The OP explains that since nothing is actually removed it's not theft. I disagree. If I want to open source some of the code I write, I'll do it. Aside from that no one should be able to copy and use the code I've written (and open it up to possible distribution) without any regard for my opinion on the matter. To me I'd consider that theft.
  - petercooper 16y ago
    The OP explains that since nothing is actually removed it's not theft. I disagree. It depends whether you're referring to your own personal definition of "theft" or a legal or common definition (of which there are many). If the former, no-one can quarrel with you, of course ;-) If the latter, in some jurisdictions, permanent deprivation of property is required for "theft", so copying files would not count. Where permanent deprivation is not required and non-tangible property counts, then sure, it'd be theft. Even forgetting the definition of theft, sure, no-one should be able to obtain and use your code without permission, but if they were to do so, it doesn't necessarily mean they have committed the legal offence of "theft." You are free to consider it such but legally it may not be such.

fendrak 16y ago

The only problem with this argument is that it's made only with regard to you, the consumer, vs. the content creator/distributor. If theft is defined only as the removal of a physical good from one individual to another without consent, then indeed, it's not theft in that sense. However, if theft is defined as depriving an individual of what they are due for providing some product/service, then this is theft. One way or another, somebody took the time to learn to play some instrument, write a song, record that song, then get it distributed in some manner. All of that costs both time and money, just like designing and building a car or a laptop or any other physical good. If depriving someone of compensation for something they worked to create and distribute isn't theft, I don't know what is.

niels_olson 16y ago
You know, if it were theft, I think the cases would be tried as cases of theft. I love a semantic argument as much as the next guy, but I find I'm most successful in those arguments when I avidly defer to time-proven definitions. And when those definitions have been so thoroughly debated that they have been intrenched in law almost universally consistent across multiple nations and languages, I really defer to those. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparison_to_theft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparis... I hope you take the opportunity at some point in your life to revisit your opinion on this issue.
wildjim 16y ago
It's still not theft -- i.e. taking something from. It's explicitly a lack of compensation, which is still not "taking something from" -- though there are laws which require compensation for services provided, they vary hugely across the world, and can get people in trouble when they apply their local knowledge in other jurisdictions. Several countries don't apply copyright/patent/IP or even contract law(s) in anything remotely like a USA style (for want of a better sterotype). "Depriving" is a somewhat loaded term that implies a "take" behaviour to you, but it's just not strictly true.

AlexC04 16y ago

| Since all of these songs are always instantly available | to me, these artists are still within reach, even the | one-hit-wonders from yesteryear. If I hadn't downloaded | Fastball's "Outta My Head" back in 1998, I would never | have gone to see them perform at the Viper Room in 2008 | (it was the illegal download of a B-side that made me | appreciate them more than hearing "The Way" on the | radio). While that may be true that the piracy had an unintended benefit for the band. I think you're making an appeal to the fallacy "the ends justify the means". In this case, the record label and by extension the employees of the record label lost out on their share of the $1 you should arguably have spent on the track. (assuming an itunes download at approximately market price). So that works out to say $0.80 cents not paid to the workers at the store, the marketing department etc... In the end, the band might have benefitted on balance, but in an alternative scenario, you PAID for that song, liked it and still went to see the band at the Viper room. I'm fully aware that there are a number of people who violently disagree with me on this. In my own opinion, the question of whether it's "better for the music industry overall" or not is irrelevant. The people who own the rights to the music, own the right to decide whether it's OK to get the song for free or not. If that costs them a customer at the viper room in 2008, it's their choice. "Theft plain and simple" is probably an overstatement - but (again, in my opinion) - there is definitely some moral ambiguity to this. Let's imagine that for some reason at YC11 a band shows up. In their pitch meeting PG and team feel suitably Rocked and Rolled so he decides to throw in the seed money for their studio time. The terms are that YC gets to keep 80% of the money from record sales (come to think of it, this happened on an episode of Dragon's Den UK). You download the song. Go to the concert. What happens to the share owned by YC? Do they make money? Do they deserve money? I do understand where you're coming from... but I also disagree.

ABrandt 16y ago
Let's imagine that for some reason at YC11 a band shows up. In their pitch meeting PG and team feel suitably Rocked and Rolled so he decides to throw in the seed money for their studio time. The terms are that YC gets to keep 80% of the money from record sales (come to think of it, this happened on an episode of Dragon's Den UK). You download the song. Go to the concert. What happens to the share owned by YC? Do they make money? Do they deserve money? You're addressing a whole other issue here. First off, there is a movement among record labels to grab a portion of revenues beyond record sales (the 360-deal [1]). Second, you raise the question of whether record labels are needed at all in the first place. Similar to bootstrapping a startup, a musician can take a very DIY approach to their careers. In fact, one could argue that a musician is virtually identical to an entrepreneur. They build their band/company by creating music/a product that fans/people want. Startups are incredibly cheap to do today because of changes in technology--open source, cloud computing, etc etc. In that same regard, starting out as a musician does not require the millions of dollars from Warner Bros. execs that it once did either. Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs) can produce quality recordings, social networks allow for cheap marketing, CD pressing isn't required for distribution, and on and on and on. As "founders", musicians deserve to be rewarded for their work. Not to be screwed over by record labels ("VCs")[2]#. --- # I am in no way suggesting that VCs regularly screw over startup founders [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360_deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360_deal [2]http://www.negativland.com/albini.html http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

tvon 16y ago

> If someone breaks into my car and steals my iPod, that's theft. I, the original owner, no longer possess the item. Theft covers more than just the taking of physical property. You can steal an idea, for example.

bediger 16y ago
> You can steal an idea, for example. How so? I can't even really write about it without getting mired in semantics, but here goes... Suppose, one icy winter, I see you scraping your car's windows with an inverted plastic coffee mug. I'm having a lot of trouble with my store-bought flat, shovel-shaped scraper. I copy your idea: I bring a plastic mug out to my car, and use that mug to scrape frost off my car's windows the next day. Did I "steal" your idea? How did I do that? You still have use of your plastic coffee mug. What's missing? And then there's the issue of independent invention which happens a lot more than "copying == theft" folks ever admit. I invented the round windsheild frost scraper in the mid-80s. Unfortunately, someone else did, too: I found a round scraper in a K-Mart once, with a patent number on it. Did I steal his/her idea? On my mother's grave, I did not. I invented it independently. Similarly, I invented the same propulsion system that Freeman Dyson did in the 60s for "Project Orion". My sister claims to have invented "curtain walls" in high school, a long time before she went to college for an architecture degree. Describe how I can "steal" an idea.
- tvon 16y ago
  You steal an idea by passing it off as your own.
  - bediger 16y ago
    A facile answer. How can you tell if I invented the circular ice scraper, or the folks who hold a patent on it invented it? If they invented it, why do I still scrape frost and ice off my car's windshield with a yellow plastic coffee mug, manufactured by "Tupperware"?
kemiller 16y ago
Stealing an idea is metaphorical. And generally speaking, I'd say it refers to taking credit for the idea, not simply taking it and understanding it for yourself. Credit as originator is scarce. Instantiations are not.

cynicalkane 16y ago

I would like to see something like a Netflix or Hulu for music. Something where you have unlimited access to all the music you want to listen to, but musicians are fairly compensated for their work. The Internet has made the information cost of music distribution vanishingly small, but there's no way for producers or consumers to take advantage of this. Actually, now that I think about it, there were once services like this... anyone know what happened to them? The closest thing I can think of is Pandora, but having to be at the mercy of the site's RNG only suits certain listening patterns.

semanticist 16y ago
I think you've described Spotify.
tuacker 16y ago
If you're not in a country where Spotify is available check out Grooveshark instead.

kyro 16y ago

Do you hold the same opinion when it comes to software? And by software I mean code you've spent months laboring over that you perhaps hope to make some sort of living off of.

steveklabnik 16y ago
I do.