3 ms·

> If you eat a loaf of bread, someone else cannot. But if you perform or listen to a song, it's still there for others. OK, that's good for you and the "other

> If you eat a loaf of bread, someone else cannot. But if you perform or listen to a song, it's still there for others. OK, that's good for you and the "others", but what about the person who spent time and energy to write the song and perform? Just because it's "still there for others", it's ok to steal it? You are only thinking from the consumer's point of view and neglecting why people produce things of value in the first place. If they don't get rewarded, they will simply stop producing value.

robocat 6y ago
> If they don't get rewarded, they will simply stop producing value. Not in the case of music. The vast majority is given away for free (some in the hope of future financial success, but plenty just for the hell of it). If the vast majority were not addicted to popular tracks, the marginal price of music would drop to zero pretty quickly.
humanrebar 6y ago
Music predates currency systems by quite a bit. I'm sure the art would change quite a bit if charging to listen to a song was no longer practical. Though I'm unconvinced that music would disappear. I can think of many kinds of musicians that do not get compensated per se: small time streamers, buskers, student musicians, garage bands, amateur music clubs, and religious music leaders off the top of my head. To reiterate, I think it's fair for someone to ask for compensation for providing entertainment. Also I think considerate people will respect the wishes of creators in consuming content. But bottom line, I don't think people have natural rights to a particular business model or to control the expression of others (which is fundamental to copyright). Creators do have legal rights, but that's a whole other set of issues.
- cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
  > Creators do have legal rights, but that's a whole other set of issues. This is the main issue at hand that I've been talking about, while you're treating it as a "whole other set of issues". When Alice spends her time and energy to produce X AND sell it, and Bob finds a way to get it for free against Alice's will, that is called stealing, no matter how you spin it. This is THE problematic part and what I am talking about. Everything else is a non issue and irrelevant when discussing this issue, like you mentioned.
  - humanrebar 6y ago
    There's a difference between discussing what the law is and what the law ought to be. And if you want to get technical, you're describing copyright infringement, not theft per se. Anything else I'd probably type in response would mostly be reiterating my earlier points distinguishing between intellectual "property" and physical property, which haven't really been addressed. That is, "stealing" is the wrong word for it and people instinctively know it and make fun of it via "you wouldn't download a car" jokes.

robocat 6y ago

> If they don't get rewarded, they will simply stop producing value. Not in the case of music. The vast majority is given away for free (some in the hope of future financial success, but plenty just for the hell of it). If the vast majority were not addicted to popular tracks, the marginal price of music would drop to zero pretty quickly.

humanrebar 6y ago

Music predates currency systems by quite a bit. I'm sure the art would change quite a bit if charging to listen to a song was no longer practical. Though I'm unconvinced that music would disappear. I can think of many kinds of musicians that do not get compensated per se: small time streamers, buskers, student musicians, garage bands, amateur music clubs, and religious music leaders off the top of my head. To reiterate, I think it's fair for someone to ask for compensation for providing entertainment. Also I think considerate people will respect the wishes of creators in consuming content. But bottom line, I don't think people have natural rights to a particular business model or to control the expression of others (which is fundamental to copyright). Creators do have legal rights, but that's a whole other set of issues.

cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
> Creators do have legal rights, but that's a whole other set of issues. This is the main issue at hand that I've been talking about, while you're treating it as a "whole other set of issues". When Alice spends her time and energy to produce X AND sell it, and Bob finds a way to get it for free against Alice's will, that is called stealing, no matter how you spin it. This is THE problematic part and what I am talking about. Everything else is a non issue and irrelevant when discussing this issue, like you mentioned.
- humanrebar 6y ago
  There's a difference between discussing what the law is and what the law ought to be. And if you want to get technical, you're describing copyright infringement, not theft per se. Anything else I'd probably type in response would mostly be reiterating my earlier points distinguishing between intellectual "property" and physical property, which haven't really been addressed. That is, "stealing" is the wrong word for it and people instinctively know it and make fun of it via "you wouldn't download a car" jokes.