4 ms·

I think a lot of people intuitively understand that there's a difference between pirating the works of JRR Tolkein, him being wildly successful and not alive an

I think a lot of people intuitively understand that there's a difference between pirating the works of JRR Tolkein, him being wildly successful and not alive anymore, and doing the same to an up-and-coming author who's eating ramen a lot. There's no difference legally, though, which is a great object lesson in how there are sharp topological differences between the world of ethics and the world of human law. If you pay for Spotify rather than hacking it, you're really not supporting artists financially very much, right? Paying someone a millionth of a dollar to stream their music seems to me like kind of an insult, actually, and recording their song to a cassette from the radio like kind of a compliment.

jmye 3y ago
> If you pay for Spotify rather than hacking it, you're really not supporting artists financially very much, right? Paying someone a millionth of a dollar to stream their music seems to me like kind of an insult, actually, and recording their song to a cassette from the radio like kind of a compliment. This is absurd. One is paying them, the other isn’t. It’s not a “compliment” to not receive income, even if you think the income received is meaningless. Further, the radio argument is flawed - the radio station paid to play that music for people who might record it. Johnny Torrent didn’t. I dunno, every one of these arguments always comes down to “but I want it” and other nonsense to try to pretend that it’s ok to steal from artists. It’s the same justification I used when I was twelve and stole a pack of gum from 7-11, and it’s no less lame when the people making it are ostensibly adults.
- john-radio 3y ago
  I'm sorry that your gut disagrees with the ethical conclusion that most people, including nearly every musician I have talked to, have arrived at - I know that is a crappy feeling to have - but here we are.
bhelkey 3y ago
> If you pay for Spotify rather than hacking it, you're really not supporting artists financially very much, right? The majority of your money goes to the artist/right holder, "[Spotify has] an approx revenue split of 70/30 - so that’s 70% to the artist/rights holders and 30% to Spotify."[1] [1] https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/how-much-does-spotify-pay-per-stream/#:~:text=Spotify%20pays%20artists%20between%20%240.003,holders%20and%2030%25%20to%20Spotify https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/how-much-does-spotify-pay-per....
- john-radio 3y ago
  70%/30% doesn't sound bad, if true; that's comparable to what Bandcamp was acclaimed for their fairness in paying their artists, if I recall correclty. I wonder what the "trick" is (if any), because I have to doubt the reality of that number. If you know and talk to musicians, it's almost absolutely unanimous that nobody ever earns a dime from any streams even if you are really popular on their platform.
  - bhelkey 3y ago
    Spotify is a public company. They publish their financials.[1] [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/370618/spotifys-cost-of-goods-sold-share/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/370618/spotifys-cost-of-...

jmye 3y ago

> If you pay for Spotify rather than hacking it, you're really not supporting artists financially very much, right? Paying someone a millionth of a dollar to stream their music seems to me like kind of an insult, actually, and recording their song to a cassette from the radio like kind of a compliment. This is absurd. One is paying them, the other isn’t. It’s not a “compliment” to not receive income, even if you think the income received is meaningless. Further, the radio argument is flawed - the radio station paid to play that music for people who might record it. Johnny Torrent didn’t. I dunno, every one of these arguments always comes down to “but I want it” and other nonsense to try to pretend that it’s ok to steal from artists. It’s the same justification I used when I was twelve and stole a pack of gum from 7-11, and it’s no less lame when the people making it are ostensibly adults.

john-radio 3y ago
I'm sorry that your gut disagrees with the ethical conclusion that most people, including nearly every musician I have talked to, have arrived at - I know that is a crappy feeling to have - but here we are.

bhelkey 3y ago

> If you pay for Spotify rather than hacking it, you're really not supporting artists financially very much, right? The majority of your money goes to the artist/right holder, "[Spotify has] an approx revenue split of 70/30 - so that’s 70% to the artist/rights holders and 30% to Spotify."[1] [1] https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/how-much-does-spotify-pay-per-stream/#:~:text=Spotify%20pays%20artists%20between%20%240.003,holders%20and%2030%25%20to%20Spotify https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/how-much-does-spotify-pay-per....

john-radio 3y ago
70%/30% doesn't sound bad, if true; that's comparable to what Bandcamp was acclaimed for their fairness in paying their artists, if I recall correclty. I wonder what the "trick" is (if any), because I have to doubt the reality of that number. If you know and talk to musicians, it's almost absolutely unanimous that nobody ever earns a dime from any streams even if you are really popular on their platform.
- bhelkey 3y ago
  Spotify is a public company. They publish their financials.[1] [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/370618/spotifys-cost-of-goods-sold-share/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/370618/spotifys-cost-of-...