upvote

points

by speed_spread10 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Diogenesian10 hours 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...

reply
upvoteby _virtu5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby edm0nd1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
that seems more like a musician with poor skills and mismanagement VS piracy had anything to do with their lacking career. Piracy is awesome!
reply
upvoteby bean4699 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> 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

reply
upvoteby Diogenesian9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby bean4699 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Since the explanation for the claim is essentially pay-walled behind the book, I will just choose to ignore it
reply
upvoteby kyboren7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
"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!"

reply
upvoteby lamonade6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
(anecdotally) proving their point that pay walling something doesn't mean people will pay for it. Buying the book would have been hypocritical.
reply
upvoteby jake2004 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
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?

reply
upvoteby bean46936 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
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
reply
upvoteby bean4691 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> "Well it came from a book. Check it out if you're interested."

> "What? It's not free? Hell no I won't pay!"

I am also sceptical that my burning questions will be answered in the book, thus I choose to not buy it. Also, the Goodreads reviews don't look too good

reply
upvoteby albedoa7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It's unfathomably weird of you to frame an article as a source for your claim and then wait for someone to point out that the article does not support your claim before admitting that the source is actually a book that you haven't read.
reply