4 ms·

Piracy encouraged buying music. You'd learn of this cool band through a friend and would buy their next album when it came out. People still had the same budget

Piracy encouraged buying music. You'd learn of this cool band through a friend and would buy their next album when it came out. People still had the same budget for music but weren't so much at the whim of what music executives wanted to push at the moment. The network effects more than made up for the "lost" revenue.

Diogenesian 3mo ago
That's total bullshit. Global music revenue fell by 50% because of piracy[1]. What music piracy did was make it impossible for artists to sell albums without engaging in parasocial celebrity-building and shameless merch. And everyone knows this is true!!! Music pirates also like to point out that historically musicians only played live, so it's totally a-okay that jazz musicians can no longer make a living from the studio, that even John Scofield, the greatest guitarist alive, is only middle-class because he is constantly on tour in his 70s. People talk out of both sides of their mouth on piracy because their only real motivation is "I like getting stuff for free and don't like moral responsibility." There is nothing more contemptible than tech folks telling easily falsifiable lies about how digital music affects working musicians. The cynical dishonesty is so depressing. Ever since I was a kid I knew it was just people rationalizing theft. [1] https://tech.yahoo.com/general/articles/napster-made-monster-became-bigger-113929271.html https://tech.yahoo.com/general/articles/napster-made-monster...
- edm0nd 3mo ago
  that seems more like a musician with poor skills and mismanagement VS piracy had anything to do with their lacking career. Piracy is awesome!
- bean469 3mo ago
  > That's total bullshit. Global music revenue fell by 50% because of piracy[1]. The article you linked does not provide any source and / or a methodology for how this was calculated and attributed specifically to piracy
  - Diogenesian 3mo ago
    The article is mostly an interview with a journalist who wrote a book about Napster. The claim comes from his book. That's the source. I have not read the book. If you have concerns about the methodology you should read it yourself.
    - bean469 3mo ago
      Since the explanation for the claim is essentially pay-walled behind the book, I will just choose to ignore it
      - kyboren 3mo ago
        "People got used to free shit and stopped paying as much." "Your claim is poorly supported." "Well it came from a book. Check it out if you're interested." "What? It's not free? Hell no I won't pay!"
        lamonade 3mo ago
        (anecdotally) proving their point that pay walling something doesn't mean people will pay for it. Buying the book would have been hypocritical.
        jake200 3mo ago
        This whole thread does have me questioning my understanding of cited sources behind paywalls. A contrived example I have in my head "My friend has more definitive proof in HIS book that <claim>, it only costs $1 trillion. Go read it yourself." For this particular thread its a bit disingenuous, but in a general case how does one go about understanding / disproving arguments made like this?
        bean469 3mo ago
        You decide whether or not the benefits from you obtaining the information outweigh the cost of obtaining the information. Or you convince Elon Musk to buy the book and leak the EPUB on twitter
- _virtu 3mo ago
  At least for me, I pirate music, but I make an effort to contribute directly to the bottom line for artists. This is best done by buying overpriced merch at shows or donating directly if possible.

Diogenesian 3mo ago

That's total bullshit. Global music revenue fell by 50% because of piracy[1]. What music piracy did was make it impossible for artists to sell albums without engaging in parasocial celebrity-building and shameless merch. And everyone knows this is true!!! Music pirates also like to point out that historically musicians only played live, so it's totally a-okay that jazz musicians can no longer make a living from the studio, that even John Scofield, the greatest guitarist alive, is only middle-class because he is constantly on tour in his 70s. People talk out of both sides of their mouth on piracy because their only real motivation is "I like getting stuff for free and don't like moral responsibility." There is nothing more contemptible than tech folks telling easily falsifiable lies about how digital music affects working musicians. The cynical dishonesty is so depressing. Ever since I was a kid I knew it was just people rationalizing theft. [1] https://tech.yahoo.com/general/articles/napster-made-monster-became-bigger-113929271.html https://tech.yahoo.com/general/articles/napster-made-monster...

edm0nd 3mo ago
that seems more like a musician with poor skills and mismanagement VS piracy had anything to do with their lacking career. Piracy is awesome!
bean469 3mo ago
> That's total bullshit. Global music revenue fell by 50% because of piracy[1]. The article you linked does not provide any source and / or a methodology for how this was calculated and attributed specifically to piracy
- Diogenesian 3mo ago
  The article is mostly an interview with a journalist who wrote a book about Napster. The claim comes from his book. That's the source. I have not read the book. If you have concerns about the methodology you should read it yourself.
  - bean469 3mo ago
    Since the explanation for the claim is essentially pay-walled behind the book, I will just choose to ignore it
    - kyboren 3mo ago
      "People got used to free shit and stopped paying as much." "Your claim is poorly supported." "Well it came from a book. Check it out if you're interested." "What? It's not free? Hell no I won't pay!"
      - lamonade 3mo ago
        (anecdotally) proving their point that pay walling something doesn't mean people will pay for it. Buying the book would have been hypocritical.
        jake200 3mo ago
        This whole thread does have me questioning my understanding of cited sources behind paywalls. A contrived example I have in my head "My friend has more definitive proof in HIS book that <claim>, it only costs $1 trillion. Go read it yourself." For this particular thread its a bit disingenuous, but in a general case how does one go about understanding / disproving arguments made like this?
        bean469 3mo ago
        You decide whether or not the benefits from you obtaining the information outweigh the cost of obtaining the information. Or you convince Elon Musk to buy the book and leak the EPUB on twitter
_virtu 3mo ago
At least for me, I pirate music, but I make an effort to contribute directly to the bottom line for artists. This is best done by buying overpriced merch at shows or donating directly if possible.