4 ms·

So you want people to have to purchase cd rom players and be limited to whatever can be physically shipped, or else they’re not allowed to enjoy music at all?

So you want people to have to purchase cd rom players and be limited to whatever can be physically shipped, or else they’re not allowed to enjoy music at all? Those limitations were a hard cap years ago. Now they aren’t: if you put them on somebody, they are arbitrary. And you’re going on a weird-ass rant about capitalism yet you’re not seeing that this is a classic capitalistic problem? You’re expecting people to go a route that is more difficult, more expensive, more time consuming and has less choice, because a fraction of a percent of their effort and money will then maybe go to the original producer of the music? Let people pirate if it’s the easy route for them FFS. Blame the record labels and distributors, they’re the ones at fault here.

leehuffman 4y ago
> Let people pirate if it’s the easy route for them FFS. Blame the record labels and distributors, they’re the ones at fault here. Except I'm not referring to anyone who hasn't retained their masters/credits outside of their first record 20+ years ago. The rest of their catalogs are producing checks, but they're fractions of cents per play because streaming music services that everyone here hates. The flip side is not ganking their shit off the internet for free (they're available and doing numbers on public trackers FYI)... it's purchasing their shit... why is this so confusing and/or combative for y'all?
- scrollaway 4y ago
  And why is it so confusing for you that if convenience and accessibility tend towards piracy, then piracy will be picked over an inconvenient and inaccessible way of trying to pay for something? Where convenience and accessibility tend towards paying, that will be the preferred solution. Spotify, Steam and Netflix built billion dollar businesses on that assumption being correct, in three different areas where people pirate frequently. None of these businesses thought their time was best spent sending letters to individuals who were pirating. Not legal letters, not random HN comments talking about capitalism. Instead, they offered a solution.

leehuffman 4y ago

> Let people pirate if it’s the easy route for them FFS. Blame the record labels and distributors, they’re the ones at fault here. Except I'm not referring to anyone who hasn't retained their masters/credits outside of their first record 20+ years ago. The rest of their catalogs are producing checks, but they're fractions of cents per play because streaming music services that everyone here hates. The flip side is not ganking their shit off the internet for free (they're available and doing numbers on public trackers FYI)... it's purchasing their shit... why is this so confusing and/or combative for y'all?

scrollaway 4y ago
And why is it so confusing for you that if convenience and accessibility tend towards piracy, then piracy will be picked over an inconvenient and inaccessible way of trying to pay for something? Where convenience and accessibility tend towards paying, that will be the preferred solution. Spotify, Steam and Netflix built billion dollar businesses on that assumption being correct, in three different areas where people pirate frequently. None of these businesses thought their time was best spent sending letters to individuals who were pirating. Not legal letters, not random HN comments talking about capitalism. Instead, they offered a solution.