4 ms·

Imo it’s not about you accessing things you want for free. If your family purchased a disc copy of the goonies before you were born and you watched it as a kid,

Imo it’s not about you accessing things you want for free. If your family purchased a disc copy of the goonies before you were born and you watched it as a kid, your accessing of that content you wanted for free has no moral bearing. The core question is what impact does your consumption have, and I don’t think that participating in the streaming landscape is making things any better for anyone but their ceos.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ericyd 2y ago
The comment I was responding to certainly seemed to be advocating uninhibited free access via torrents, but your point is reasonable. I don't think streaming is a great way to support artists either, though I do think it's better than nothing.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  I just don’t think streaming is really working for anybody. Artists are being given less and less creative control as time goes on as each streaming company attempts to optimize itself in a largely fixed market. It’s working the same way cable used to work. I think a disruption is in order, but last time disruption started with people moving to nascent torrent sites. I guess the way I’d put it is that if you can only get some particular show through one company, that company gets to treat you shitty, cause where else are you gonna go. Torrenting, even just widespread knowledge of torrenting, gives the customer more leverage.
  - ericyd 2y ago
    But is torrenting better than buying music e.g. through bandcamp or directly from the artist's label? I do a combination of streaming for exploratory listening and buying to support artists. And live shows when I can. I'm not trying to suggest I'm holier than thou, but I really don't think torrents are the answer to this equation. However I strongly agree that the current system isn't working for artists and needs disruption.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      I know music can be bought from the artist, but is that true for shows or movies?
      - ericyd 2y ago
        Fair point, I tend to think more about music artists than film/TV.
        BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
        Yeah for torrenting I tend to think more about video media.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ericyd 2y ago

The comment I was responding to certainly seemed to be advocating uninhibited free access via torrents, but your point is reasonable. I don't think streaming is a great way to support artists either, though I do think it's better than nothing.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
I just don’t think streaming is really working for anybody. Artists are being given less and less creative control as time goes on as each streaming company attempts to optimize itself in a largely fixed market. It’s working the same way cable used to work. I think a disruption is in order, but last time disruption started with people moving to nascent torrent sites. I guess the way I’d put it is that if you can only get some particular show through one company, that company gets to treat you shitty, cause where else are you gonna go. Torrenting, even just widespread knowledge of torrenting, gives the customer more leverage.
- ericyd 2y ago
  But is torrenting better than buying music e.g. through bandcamp or directly from the artist's label? I do a combination of streaming for exploratory listening and buying to support artists. And live shows when I can. I'm not trying to suggest I'm holier than thou, but I really don't think torrents are the answer to this equation. However I strongly agree that the current system isn't working for artists and needs disruption.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    I know music can be bought from the artist, but is that true for shows or movies?
    - ericyd 2y ago
      Fair point, I tend to think more about music artists than film/TV.
      - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
        Yeah for torrenting I tend to think more about video media.