5 ms·

The overall good? The overall good of what? Your right to listen to music for free? That's not good overall for the artists who created that music. Why shou

The overall good? The overall good of what? Your right to listen to music for free? That's not good overall for the artists who created that music. Why should they have to make 2nd and 3rd products that you "approve of" in order to be compensated? People already use lack of easy access as their excuse for piracy. Now you want them to make some hard to crack app just for people to be able to listen to it? How about people just stop taking what's not theirs and treat artists with respect? And in regard to your last statement, it's not your right to determine whether exposure alone should be the reward of their hard work.

wazoox 15y ago
> The overall good? The overall good of what? If you swallow a cost of 10, but that 11 people gets 1 from your contribution, the society as a whole wins. > How about people just stop taking what's not theirs and treat artists with respect? When something that used to be hard becomes totally simple, obvious and costless, there is absolutely no sense trying to stick to the previous state of the matter. When Gutenberg invented the printing press, what used to be a complex, tough and expensive endeavour (copying books by hand) instantly became worthless. Too bad, but the net gain for the society as a whole was immense. Similarly, the net gain we could enjoy from being able to copy, transfer, duplicate, mix, rehash, transform existing digital goods is world-changing. Some will lose at some point, but they'll have to get over it. Nowadays large parts of the copyright laws are only manacles impending progress, defending soon to be dead practices and business models. > And in regard to your last statement, it's not your right to determine whether exposure alone should be the reward of their hard work. Did you read me? As a musician composer and arranger, I've earned a living by teaching and live performance, but a net loss on recordings; and it was back in the 90s, when CD-R was unheard of. The hard true fact : only artists aired on radio and TV make money on recorded music. They are a minuscule minority of musicians. Same goes for actors, painters, etc.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  If you swallow a cost of 10, but that 11 people gets 1 from your contribution, the society as a whole wins. It sounds to me like you're saying "so long as society sees a net gain, it's ok to exploit other people"
  - wazoox 15y ago
    Yes, that's the justification for taxes, for instance.
    - earbitscom 15y ago
      Everybody pays taxes that are invested in products and services for all to share, not one person.
      - orangecat 15y ago
        A large proportion of taxes are for the purpose of wealth redistribution. We do it because giving $900 to a poor person (arguably) results in more of a benefit than the harm caused by taxing a rich person $1000 and spending $100 in overhead.
alexqgb 15y ago
"Artists" would get a lot more respect from society if they didn't display such (deliberate?) ignorance of the basic conventions that make society function in the first place. Those wanting the crash-course could start with the very real difference between actual human rights and artificial privileges. They could continue their educations by developing some appreciation for the (very substantial differences) between tangible and intangible goods. And they could demonstrate their commitment to civil society by NOT supporting the development of law in ways that would - inevitably - lead to an astonishingly omniscient police state. And that's not something that any artist worth the name would be okay with.

wazoox 15y ago

> The overall good? The overall good of what? If you swallow a cost of 10, but that 11 people gets 1 from your contribution, the society as a whole wins. > How about people just stop taking what's not theirs and treat artists with respect? When something that used to be hard becomes totally simple, obvious and costless, there is absolutely no sense trying to stick to the previous state of the matter. When Gutenberg invented the printing press, what used to be a complex, tough and expensive endeavour (copying books by hand) instantly became worthless. Too bad, but the net gain for the society as a whole was immense. Similarly, the net gain we could enjoy from being able to copy, transfer, duplicate, mix, rehash, transform existing digital goods is world-changing. Some will lose at some point, but they'll have to get over it. Nowadays large parts of the copyright laws are only manacles impending progress, defending soon to be dead practices and business models. > And in regard to your last statement, it's not your right to determine whether exposure alone should be the reward of their hard work. Did you read me? As a musician composer and arranger, I've earned a living by teaching and live performance, but a net loss on recordings; and it was back in the 90s, when CD-R was unheard of. The hard true fact : only artists aired on radio and TV make money on recorded music. They are a minuscule minority of musicians. Same goes for actors, painters, etc.

sliverstorm 15y ago
If you swallow a cost of 10, but that 11 people gets 1 from your contribution, the society as a whole wins. It sounds to me like you're saying "so long as society sees a net gain, it's ok to exploit other people"
- wazoox 15y ago
  Yes, that's the justification for taxes, for instance.
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    Everybody pays taxes that are invested in products and services for all to share, not one person.
    - orangecat 15y ago
      A large proportion of taxes are for the purpose of wealth redistribution. We do it because giving $900 to a poor person (arguably) results in more of a benefit than the harm caused by taxing a rich person $1000 and spending $100 in overhead.

alexqgb 15y ago

"Artists" would get a lot more respect from society if they didn't display such (deliberate?) ignorance of the basic conventions that make society function in the first place. Those wanting the crash-course could start with the very real difference between actual human rights and artificial privileges. They could continue their educations by developing some appreciation for the (very substantial differences) between tangible and intangible goods. And they could demonstrate their commitment to civil society by NOT supporting the development of law in ways that would - inevitably - lead to an astonishingly omniscient police state. And that's not something that any artist worth the name would be okay with.