3 ms·

> we have to pay Spotify execs with this money for something that should be a public service based on free software and p2p infrastructure. The reality is, the

by Chris2048 5y ago

> we have to pay Spotify execs with this money for something that should be a public service based on free software and p2p infrastructure. The reality is, the software and infrastructure isn't what we pay Spotify for. It's the licensing, and the legal work. Maybe we shouldn't have to. Maybe no one should have to. Maybe the whole copywrite system needs reworking - if if anyone had the means to do that, I would pay more than a Spotify sub (as would the many corps who don't want reform). But until such a solution is available, and the US/world operates under the corrupt system that it does, there is only large corps capable of filling legal coffers to do so. Corrupt? yes, but it starts from the government down.

southerntofu 5y ago
> Corrupt? yes, but it starts from the government down. Sure, but that's precisely the problem. So-called intellectual property is a scam, like all forms of so-called private property. How come there's empty houses and people sleeping on the streets? Noone should have to pay ANYTHING to live. Let's abolish money and government and suddenly things will be a lot easier for everyone :)
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Assuming you're serious; Who should pay for someone to live? Houses (and utilities) don't build themselves. Judicial systems don't grow on trees. Money is merely a token representing value, intended to ensure fair compensation: value for value. To flip this around: why should ANYONE pay for music?
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    > Who should pay for someone to live? Why should anyone pay for anything? The simple fact that you have to pay to live is a pretty modern invention. > Houses (and utilities) don't build themselves. True. It's a good thing then that some people are interested in doing that. And if there's a task that noone wants to do (washing dishes?) we can share the burden in a fair way: i'd be happy to collect trashes for my community once a year or once a month, if others do the same. Also, while houses don't build themselves, you'll note that money doesn't build them either. It's intended as a motivational force for people to work. However people can "work" (if we can call it that) out of conviction/ideals as well. We could collectively abolish money from one day to the next and housing would still be there, fields would still grow... Life would go on, except the capitalist bloodsuckers wouldn't know how to extract value from their wage slaves anymore. (Also, most people would probably quit their job because it doesn't make sense or actively hurts others/nature. See David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs on this phenomenon) > why should ANYONE pay for music? Well as long as you pay for housing and food you probably should pay for music, too. But money doesn't make any sense to "ensure fair compensation". It does make sense to extract value from the poor to the rich in a very abstract way... it's basically "grow food for your king all year long and they'll come with soldiers and take 90% of your production" but with layers of subtlety added over the centuries.

southerntofu 5y ago

> Corrupt? yes, but it starts from the government down. Sure, but that's precisely the problem. So-called intellectual property is a scam, like all forms of so-called private property. How come there's empty houses and people sleeping on the streets? Noone should have to pay ANYTHING to live. Let's abolish money and government and suddenly things will be a lot easier for everyone :)

Chris2048 5y ago
Assuming you're serious; Who should pay for someone to live? Houses (and utilities) don't build themselves. Judicial systems don't grow on trees. Money is merely a token representing value, intended to ensure fair compensation: value for value. To flip this around: why should ANYONE pay for music?
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > Who should pay for someone to live? Why should anyone pay for anything? The simple fact that you have to pay to live is a pretty modern invention. > Houses (and utilities) don't build themselves. True. It's a good thing then that some people are interested in doing that. And if there's a task that noone wants to do (washing dishes?) we can share the burden in a fair way: i'd be happy to collect trashes for my community once a year or once a month, if others do the same. Also, while houses don't build themselves, you'll note that money doesn't build them either. It's intended as a motivational force for people to work. However people can "work" (if we can call it that) out of conviction/ideals as well. We could collectively abolish money from one day to the next and housing would still be there, fields would still grow... Life would go on, except the capitalist bloodsuckers wouldn't know how to extract value from their wage slaves anymore. (Also, most people would probably quit their job because it doesn't make sense or actively hurts others/nature. See David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs on this phenomenon) > why should ANYONE pay for music? Well as long as you pay for housing and food you probably should pay for music, too. But money doesn't make any sense to "ensure fair compensation". It does make sense to extract value from the poor to the rich in a very abstract way... it's basically "grow food for your king all year long and they'll come with soldiers and take 90% of your production" but with layers of subtlety added over the centuries.