3 ms·

Jumping the fence at a concert and sitting in an empty seat is not stealing. But that doesn't mean it is moral, legal, or to the benefit of the musicians + conc

Jumping the fence at a concert and sitting in an empty seat is not stealing. But that doesn't mean it is moral, legal, or to the benefit of the musicians + concert venue that invested in the act.

albertgoeswoof 5y ago
If that seat would remain empty otherwise, is it not more moral to fill it? After all who wants a concert with no fans
- moehm 5y ago
  Moreover, if the trespassing fan buys merchandise after the concert, you could argue it was better for the artists that they jumped the fence.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> Jumping the fence at a concert and sitting in an empty seat is not stealing. Of course not. That's trespassing, a real crime unlike copyright infringement. Physical space at the venue is limited and the actual artists are the most scarce resources there is. It makes sense to pay to see artists you love play live. No idea why you're applying physical world concepts to digital "content" which can be infintely copied. It doesn't work. Mental gymnastics like copyright exist purely to enable rent seeking monopolists. It's not even morally defensible. Artists receive what, 30% of the profits of their record sales?
- handmodel 5y ago
  Artists receive a fraction of their profits because the distribution network is immensely valuable to them. The 30% is pulled out of your ass. If I did all my own editing and released songs on Spotify without any assistance I would get a much higher cut. If I don't like Spotify I am allowed to sell mp3s on my own website. However - if I was trying to produce a high quality album a year and coordinate worldwide tours then it is worth it to me to share my profits with hundreds of talented artists/marketers/engineers on my team or in contract with my team.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > The 30% is pulled out of your ass. I pulled it off a search engine. And that was one of the better figures. Do you have better data?
    - edoceo 5y ago
      ASCAP, SEACAM and BMG I think are the big three licensing orgs (USA). When you buy licenses from them they give you some paperwork that explains where the fees go. They even have a person explain it to you on the phone. (They took steps to pre-emptively high prices) I've cancelled those contracts awhile ago so I don't have handy numbers. It might even be on their sites?
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
'Legality' of some actions is not a Sacred Cow. A lot of essential freedoms we now take for granted were once illegal. As famous quote goes, 'Slavery, Apartheid and Holocaust were legal'
- Lev1a 5y ago
  Or as Bill Burr said [0]: > (imitating a woman defending ridiculous divorce settlements): "That's what the law says!" > (himself): "A hundred years ago I could beat you with a mop handle, that's what the law said! Doesn't make it right!" [0]: https://youtu.be/x0gaYyNk7QA?t=603 https://youtu.be/x0gaYyNk7QA?t=603
stjohnswarts 5y ago
You're probably in the wrong place to get sympathy for billionaires and megacorps.

Jumping the fence at a concert and sitting in an empty seat is not stealing. But that doesn't mean it is moral, legal, or to the benefit of the musicians + concert venue that invested in the act.

albertgoeswoof 5y ago

If that seat would remain empty otherwise, is it not more moral to fill it? After all who wants a concert with no fans

moehm 5y ago
Moreover, if the trespassing fan buys merchandise after the concert, you could argue it was better for the artists that they jumped the fence.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> Jumping the fence at a concert and sitting in an empty seat is not stealing. Of course not. That's trespassing, a real crime unlike copyright infringement. Physical space at the venue is limited and the actual artists are the most scarce resources there is. It makes sense to pay to see artists you love play live. No idea why you're applying physical world concepts to digital "content" which can be infintely copied. It doesn't work. Mental gymnastics like copyright exist purely to enable rent seeking monopolists. It's not even morally defensible. Artists receive what, 30% of the profits of their record sales?

handmodel 5y ago
Artists receive a fraction of their profits because the distribution network is immensely valuable to them. The 30% is pulled out of your ass. If I did all my own editing and released songs on Spotify without any assistance I would get a much higher cut. If I don't like Spotify I am allowed to sell mp3s on my own website. However - if I was trying to produce a high quality album a year and coordinate worldwide tours then it is worth it to me to share my profits with hundreds of talented artists/marketers/engineers on my team or in contract with my team.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > The 30% is pulled out of your ass. I pulled it off a search engine. And that was one of the better figures. Do you have better data?
  - edoceo 5y ago
    ASCAP, SEACAM and BMG I think are the big three licensing orgs (USA). When you buy licenses from them they give you some paperwork that explains where the fees go. They even have a person explain it to you on the phone. (They took steps to pre-emptively high prices) I've cancelled those contracts awhile ago so I don't have handy numbers. It might even be on their sites?

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

'Legality' of some actions is not a Sacred Cow. A lot of essential freedoms we now take for granted were once illegal. As famous quote goes, 'Slavery, Apartheid and Holocaust were legal'

Lev1a 5y ago
Or as Bill Burr said [0]: > (imitating a woman defending ridiculous divorce settlements): "That's what the law says!" > (himself): "A hundred years ago I could beat you with a mop handle, that's what the law said! Doesn't make it right!" [0]: https://youtu.be/x0gaYyNk7QA?t=603 https://youtu.be/x0gaYyNk7QA?t=603

stjohnswarts 5y ago

You're probably in the wrong place to get sympathy for billionaires and megacorps.