3 ms·

I'm not defending Tidal, I personally think it's a cringe-worthy joke at best and I hope the worst for it. It's the attitude that was on display regarding it t

by borgia 12y ago

I'm not defending Tidal, I personally think it's a cringe-worthy joke at best and I hope the worst for it. It's the attitude that was on display regarding it though and it's the same attitude seen previously when Spotify was launched i.e. I want this for free, I believe I'm entitled to this for free and I will get it for free regardless of how you, the artist and distributor, feel about it. Musicians, etc. produce products, as any other non-service based industry does, and nobody is entitled to those products for free...yet because these are digital products a large amount of people seem to think otherwise.

williamcotton 12y ago
I hear you and I'm fully in support of intellectual property and just compensation! Do you think the people who think that creative works should be free are in the majority or are they just the loudest? I seem to get the impression that most people want artists to get paid. If anything they don't want a bunch of middle-men making all the profits. Of course some middle-men are important to the ecosystem. A publisher willing to speculate and give an advance in exchange for a future percentage of sales seems like the right kind of incentive structure to have for the industry.
- borgia 12y ago
  >Do you think the people who think that creative works should be free are in the majority or are they just the loudest? I think they're in the majority. They may not shout about it, but I think in terms of music consumption in this case they're a silent majority. Only 25% of Spotify's 60m users pay for the service. People use YouTube for their music without having to pay. Others torrent. I would say that those paying for music in this day and age, whether it's streaming, vinyl enthusiasts or whatever are the minority.
  - apk17 12y ago
    Well, youtube slaps a lot of ads on me. And esp. the american public is trained to get music for 'free', on the radio.

by borgia 12y ago

williamcotton 12y ago

I hear you and I'm fully in support of intellectual property and just compensation! Do you think the people who think that creative works should be free are in the majority or are they just the loudest? I seem to get the impression that most people want artists to get paid. If anything they don't want a bunch of middle-men making all the profits. Of course some middle-men are important to the ecosystem. A publisher willing to speculate and give an advance in exchange for a future percentage of sales seems like the right kind of incentive structure to have for the industry.

borgia 12y ago
>Do you think the people who think that creative works should be free are in the majority or are they just the loudest? I think they're in the majority. They may not shout about it, but I think in terms of music consumption in this case they're a silent majority. Only 25% of Spotify's 60m users pay for the service. People use YouTube for their music without having to pay. Others torrent. I would say that those paying for music in this day and age, whether it's streaming, vinyl enthusiasts or whatever are the minority.
- apk17 12y ago
  Well, youtube slaps a lot of ads on me. And esp. the american public is trained to get music for 'free', on the radio.