4 ms·

What does this drivel even mean? What interest does the music industry specifically have against anything but "passive consumers"? It's a shallow attempt to rec

What does this drivel even mean? What interest does the music industry specifically have against anything but "passive consumers"? It's a shallow attempt to recast people not paying for their music as some sort active citizenry? What's the music industry's fear? People making their own remixes and becoming too powerful, rhythmically? No. They don't like people not paying. People don't like paying. Therefore they avoid it. It's not courageous nor morally repugnant, but the motivation is entirely self-interested and the result is mildly negative for the actual people working in creative industries.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tonguez 5y ago
What does this drivel even mean? Everyone likes to be paid. Everyone does not like to pay. Digital technology has eliminated media scarcity. Some people want to artificially create scarcity so that other people are forced to pay them. Fortunately it is pretty obvious to most people that there is no real advantage to anyone in society to artificially create this scarcity.
Kaze404 5y ago
> People making their own remixes and becoming too powerful, rhythmically? No. Yes, actually. It's not uncommon for remixes to be taken down.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> What does this drivel even mean? This "drivel" means exactly what I wrote: there is no acceptable explanation for anything they do. Nothing they say will ever change the fact that copyright is fundamentally incompatible with the 21st century, the age of free flowing information. > It's a shallow attempt to recast people not paying for their music as some sort active citizenry? Shallow? These corporations have robbed the whole world of our public domain rights. They lobbied the US government multiple times until they made copyright duration functionally infinite. They use the US government to impose their copyright on the rest of the world. They work on DRM which means they are completely opposed to the computing freedom we all enjoy today and are atively working to undermine it. And on and on. Of course copyright infringement is active citizenry. It's civil disobedience and at this point it's a moral imperative. To pay them even one cent is to empower them to do even worse.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tonguez 5y ago

What does this drivel even mean? Everyone likes to be paid. Everyone does not like to pay. Digital technology has eliminated media scarcity. Some people want to artificially create scarcity so that other people are forced to pay them. Fortunately it is pretty obvious to most people that there is no real advantage to anyone in society to artificially create this scarcity.

Kaze404 5y ago

> People making their own remixes and becoming too powerful, rhythmically? No. Yes, actually. It's not uncommon for remixes to be taken down.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> What does this drivel even mean? This "drivel" means exactly what I wrote: there is no acceptable explanation for anything they do. Nothing they say will ever change the fact that copyright is fundamentally incompatible with the 21st century, the age of free flowing information. > It's a shallow attempt to recast people not paying for their music as some sort active citizenry? Shallow? These corporations have robbed the whole world of our public domain rights. They lobbied the US government multiple times until they made copyright duration functionally infinite. They use the US government to impose their copyright on the rest of the world. They work on DRM which means they are completely opposed to the computing freedom we all enjoy today and are atively working to undermine it. And on and on. Of course copyright infringement is active citizenry. It's civil disobedience and at this point it's a moral imperative. To pay them even one cent is to empower them to do even worse.