2 ms·

> “I find it pretty lame that we put our heart and soul into something and then just put it online for free,” Rose says. How absolutely entitled. Almost 20 yea

> “I find it pretty lame that we put our heart and soul into something and then just put it online for free,” Rose says. How absolutely entitled. Almost 20 years ago I would have killed for a distribution platform as slick as what there is today. Is it a generational thing maybe? I don't know, but just because you create doesn't obligate people to consume.

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
It's also kind of dismissive of the entire FOSS ecosystem which basically runs on hearts and souls you can git clone for free. But I think that's more about lack of knowledge rather than anything else.
- whycome 1y ago
  It's also dismissive of a million different types of art and expression that don't have the benefit of this type of platform. Art and its value is always intertwined with artist. Is art diminished when it's known that the artist did it only to get paid? I want universal basic income just so the most artistic and interesting of us can go and try cool innovative stuff without fear of death.
  - ares623 1y ago
    IMO open source thrived is also driven by the ZIRP era boom. Lots of engineers who made bank and lots of free time (basically self manifested UBI) were free to take risks and create things without worrying about the basics. It is the most successful UBI experiment. Now that the gravy train is over, I suspect open source projects will suffer and will increasingly be at the mercy of corporate funding or VCs.
    - ufocia 1y ago
      I see more companies supporting FOSS. Maybe not through direct funding, but with code contributions. You do need a bit of both.
  - ufocia 1y ago
    Artistic and interesting is highly subjective and definitely not universal, thus it is best handled by the market approach.
    - whycome 1y ago
      I mean what’s going on right now IS the market approach. And it’s why artists are revolting.
throwayay4929 1y ago
Indeed, very strong "One fish turns to another and asks, What is water?" vibes. Even if you exclude all the discoverability functionality, just the pure distribution aspect, at this scale, makes the Spotify system impressive. Why should that system and all the work that went into it, be free? I don't think there are any legal barriers for someone to go ahead and build their own music distribution system that is more fair than Spotify. It's just a matter of putting in the time, no?
harvey9 1y ago
Before that, it said: "Others such as pop-rock songwriter Caroline Rose are experimenting too. Her album Year of the Slug came out only on vinyl and Bandcamp, inspired by Cindy Lee’s Diamond Jubilee, which was initially available only on YouTube and the filesharing site Mega." So her inspiration was someone distributing for free online. The whole article has the feel of an anarcho get together with half the participants stoned.
- joduplessis 1y ago
  lol - wouldn't be surprised.
smcin 1y ago
You're grossly misquoting Rose, as harvey9 also pointed out. Noone suggested "just because [musicians] create [doesn't] obligate people to consume". They're criticizing the compensation rate for lesser-known artists on streaming. How is this that much different to criticizing the cut that a dominant distributor takes from vendors in e-commerce or video games?

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago

It's also kind of dismissive of the entire FOSS ecosystem which basically runs on hearts and souls you can git clone for free. But I think that's more about lack of knowledge rather than anything else.

whycome 1y ago
It's also dismissive of a million different types of art and expression that don't have the benefit of this type of platform. Art and its value is always intertwined with artist. Is art diminished when it's known that the artist did it only to get paid? I want universal basic income just so the most artistic and interesting of us can go and try cool innovative stuff without fear of death.
- ares623 1y ago
  IMO open source thrived is also driven by the ZIRP era boom. Lots of engineers who made bank and lots of free time (basically self manifested UBI) were free to take risks and create things without worrying about the basics. It is the most successful UBI experiment. Now that the gravy train is over, I suspect open source projects will suffer and will increasingly be at the mercy of corporate funding or VCs.
  - ufocia 1y ago
    I see more companies supporting FOSS. Maybe not through direct funding, but with code contributions. You do need a bit of both.
- ufocia 1y ago
  Artistic and interesting is highly subjective and definitely not universal, thus it is best handled by the market approach.
  - whycome 1y ago
    I mean what’s going on right now IS the market approach. And it’s why artists are revolting.

throwayay4929 1y ago

Indeed, very strong "One fish turns to another and asks, What is water?" vibes. Even if you exclude all the discoverability functionality, just the pure distribution aspect, at this scale, makes the Spotify system impressive. Why should that system and all the work that went into it, be free? I don't think there are any legal barriers for someone to go ahead and build their own music distribution system that is more fair than Spotify. It's just a matter of putting in the time, no?

harvey9 1y ago

Before that, it said: "Others such as pop-rock songwriter Caroline Rose are experimenting too. Her album Year of the Slug came out only on vinyl and Bandcamp, inspired by Cindy Lee’s Diamond Jubilee, which was initially available only on YouTube and the filesharing site Mega." So her inspiration was someone distributing for free online. The whole article has the feel of an anarcho get together with half the participants stoned.

joduplessis 1y ago
lol - wouldn't be surprised.

smcin 1y ago

You're grossly misquoting Rose, as harvey9 also pointed out. Noone suggested "just because [musicians] create [doesn't] obligate people to consume". They're criticizing the compensation rate for lesser-known artists on streaming. How is this that much different to criticizing the cut that a dominant distributor takes from vendors in e-commerce or video games?