4 ms·

If the music industry shut down tomorrow you'd have a lot less quality music to listen to. Artists who rely on selling music, licensing it, playing live shows,

If the music industry shut down tomorrow you'd have a lot less quality music to listen to. Artists who rely on selling music, licensing it, playing live shows, etc. would have to get day jobs to support themselves, hence have less time to make good music. Why would you download a song from bittorrent if you have no interest in buying it? Are you just interested in collecting music you don't like? I don't see much difference between stealing physical goods and intellectual properties. I wonder why you, a music producer, would take the time to defend people who steal music?

klez 15y ago
About your first point, it's a bit surprising seeing someone on HN saying that. I'm sure we can agree that free software (as in freedom) is also made for free (as in free beer) and it's on average of good quality, if not better, compared to proprietary software. About not downloading music since you are not interested, well, I admit you have a good point. Personally it's been a while since I downloaded music last, so I'll make an example about movies. I download a movie, watch it, don't like it, never watch it again, delete it from my hard drive. How can I do this if I paid for a movie? Renting? Theater? Yes, that could work. The important thing, IMHO, is re-balancing the power between the entertainment industries and the consumers. -- About your last point, see the point about free software. But maybe it's just me. Maybe I don't see a problem in sharing music because it's not a source of income for me. But then I think about professionals like NIN or Radiohead who let people download their album and still manage not not to starve... My point is still that it's the revenue scheme that needs to change. If a business is not profitable because of technological changes, it needs to adapt or die. Or, as of today, we would have to listen just to live music, because the performers of the time thought that recording music was stealing.

klez 15y ago

About your first point, it's a bit surprising seeing someone on HN saying that. I'm sure we can agree that free software (as in freedom) is also made for free (as in free beer) and it's on average of good quality, if not better, compared to proprietary software. About not downloading music since you are not interested, well, I admit you have a good point. Personally it's been a while since I downloaded music last, so I'll make an example about movies. I download a movie, watch it, don't like it, never watch it again, delete it from my hard drive. How can I do this if I paid for a movie? Renting? Theater? Yes, that could work. The important thing, IMHO, is re-balancing the power between the entertainment industries and the consumers. -- About your last point, see the point about free software. But maybe it's just me. Maybe I don't see a problem in sharing music because it's not a source of income for me. But then I think about professionals like NIN or Radiohead who let people download their album and still manage not not to starve... My point is still that it's the revenue scheme that needs to change. If a business is not profitable because of technological changes, it needs to adapt or die. Or, as of today, we would have to listen just to live music, because the performers of the time thought that recording music was stealing.