David Byrne Pens Open Letter Regarding Streaming and the Music

File: old.jpg (29KB, 477x477px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 477x477px

WHY NOT LINK TO THE ACTUAL LETTER

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/opinion/sunday/open-the-music-industrys-black-box.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=3

>>68601937
Fuck, now I feel like a retard for not realizing that the letter existed by itself online.

>>68601937
Thom York of the Radioheads already said this and they're both right. But what can we, the plebs, do, if even band big as Radiohead was "forced" to put back their albums on spotify after protesting against it.

We know some things arent fair and right, but what can we do, these richfags on the top made the system to work exactly like, so we cannot do anything even if we know its bad.

David Byrne is endlessly based.

>>68602091
you could
and this is a shocker
buy albums

>>68602107
For the record I download/buy stuff. And MANY other people do too. But I'm still talking how big % of people are somewhat "forced" into these things still.

wow artists getting ripped off!
next I'll learn that the sky is blue

>>68602173
Thanks for the bump butthole taster

>>68602107
I do both. I got Google play and I buy physicals of albums that I like, usually 2 a week (at least one record). I mean they should be getting more money for streams but it's not like they're losing money. It's a raw deal but it's not hopeless.

>>68601808
Let's be real here, the only way to make money in the music industry is through touring and merchandise. Things like Spotify are like advertisement, similar to radio so you shouldn't be surprised when you get very little for it.

>>68601808
lol, didn't David Byrne's free thinking left give us this beautiful digital utopia we live in now?

Those bastard capitalist record companies were so evil, don't you remember? Now your music has be set free from those torturous shackles!

Can't cry now, Davey. You got what you wanted.

>>68602456
david byrne was never against record companies, or at least didn't express it in the talking head's music.
talking heads were mostly associated with the punk movement just by time and location

>>68602467
Then what's he complaining about? Tech corporations?

Instead of blaming the actual problem: the people who are willing consume his music and don't feel any need to pay him anything for it.

In other words he needs a big bully scapegoat to shift the blame to because he doesn't want to admit that given the choice most people will choose to be pieces of unaccountable shit. In other word his garbage ass "fans".

In other word David doesn't want to tell the inconvenient truth that the new boss is the same as the old boss if not worse.

>>68602554
why don't you actually read it before you try and act smart?

>>68602576
I did, David's crying about secret deals between labels, streaming services, and how tech companies and the record labels are fucking over artists in conjunction with each other.

What did I miss?

The only reason artists bitch about streaming services is because the label doesn't give them a higher cut, because as it is right now labels do get substantial sums from these services.

>>68602173
Help them and go to their shows. That's the best you can do.

>>68602620
that. 1. he outright says he "is doing O.K" so his problem isn't his own pay from streaming 2. he recognizes that streaming services are a scapegoat, not the actual problem

so basically the basis of your entire post?>>68602554

>sign shit contract with record company
>"Hey why are they screwing us over??"

lol

>>68602676
That's my point actually. Why doesn't David just advise musicians to take their wares elsewhere if he feels the tech/record companies are fucking them over so bad? Why not directly make an appeal to your fans to support what you do? Why wouldn't he advise musicians to bypass tech/record companies altogether?

He won't because he knows what the actually deal is but he's too much of a pandering shitbag to admit it.

>>68602715
he specifically says that his concern is with up-and-coming musicians. it's already difficult for new bands to find an audience even if they can get signed. you can't appeal to your fans if you have no fans.
it's not like he doesn't suggest a solution in his letter.

>>68602743
>I care so much about up and coming artists
>we're all in this together
>we need to fight these evil record companies
>and these evil tech companies
lol, and here's the kicker according to your dumb ass:
>that would enable you to establish yourself as an artist
>and make your career in music possible

Fuck off, you brain-dead shit.

>>68602809
are you ok

I ""worked"" as a musician for a while, played keys in a band my friend set up, the internet is great for awareness but there is no money to be made there. We made the most money by selling CDs out the back of our van after gigs.

>>68602832
I guess your done trying to defend this guys bullshit then?

>>68602859
how do you want me to argue when all you did was get upset and make fun of his claims
you seem distressed im just wondering if you're ok

>>68602848
>I made my money off physical merchandise
Good job, Gene Simmons! But seriously though, people shit all over KISS for doing the same thing, right?
>>68602883
lol

I'll take that as a "yes" then.

>>68602898
no, really
are you ok?

>>68602918
I guess this is this what you do when you lose an argument online?

€1,000 and I can buy enough new stock to re-write my brain to function thinking that they never existed :/

>>68602950
>>68602883
i'm serious anon, are you in a happy place in life? what's bothering you?

>>68602968
I guess I just got the answer to my question, thanks.

>>68602977
does it make you happy to think you're smarter than strangers on the internet because you can use strawman arguments?

>>68603074
No need to elaborate any further, you've already answered my question. Thanks though.

>>68603102
hey man, it was just a question

>>68603116
lol, of course it was.

Thank fuck, artists are often overpaid pretentious assholes anyway, they should learn to adapt to the times.

>>68603194
artists are never overpaid.

celebrities are

>>68603194
>an extreme minority at the top are extremely rich
>therefore all musicians are overpaid, even the ones earning jack shit

>>68603194
>they should learn to adapt to the times
this. only a moron would work for free and then complain that they're not getting payed

>>68603258
>>68603194
You are aware that you need money to exist in this world?
The logical conclusion of what you are saying is that noone should make any music because it won't sustain them. If you enjoy music why would you not want there to be more of it created, and for it to be a viable route to make a living off
(I'm calling that you're both failed musicians)

>>68603319
no I'm saying if you decide to make music expect to do it for free and don't complain when no one pays you to do it. you're not entitled to anything just because your a musician

>>68603319
I can't even fucking whistle properly so nice work on that call. I simply don't listen to "new" music, everything I need has already been made so I don't care about what happens to the industry. Shouldn't we be happy if the industry is crashing so that it can be remade? Struggling musicians could rely on patreon-esque services to stay afloat as many other entertainers do today.

>>68603194
Only 1% of all artists can actually live just by making music

>>68603359
Neither are you as a listener
Which is why most pop music sounds the same now

>>68603414
then what they do isn't valued in our society and they shouldn't expect compensation for a service that no one values enough to pay for. you want to make music? cool, rock on. you're just not entitled to be paid for doing so if no one agreed to pay you in the first place
>>68603428
exactly. if you don't want me downloading your music for free then you shouldn't have ever released it into an environment where that would definitely happen. I'm not responsible for your stupid decision to work for free. you don't want to work for free? cool, then don't. no one's forcing you to

>>68603466
Sure but I'm just reminding you that your actions have negative consequences for you

>>68603490
>your actions have negative consequences for you
no they don't. what suddenly retards are going to stop making music because they're not getting payed? if so oh well, who gives a shit? it's only entertainment, I'll just find something else to entertain me. negative consequences would imply the loss of something of value and music is valueless now, no one values it enough to pay for it anymore. as in if it disappeared tomorrow nothing of value was lost. get it?

>>68603566
You just went full retard, enjoy the rest of your day

>>68603589
it's cute you resorted to an ad hominem attack instead of refuting anything I said. precious

>>68603625
You just conflated monetary value with artistic value

File: football_players_moving_the_goalpost_450.jpg (63KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 450x300px

>>68603641
>artistic value
yeah, in other words you wanted to argue but you don't have the intellectual capacity to do so so now you're moving the goalposts to something other than what we were discussing which was a musician feeling entitled to compensation that's not owed to them. gotcha

>>68603466
Are you seriously fucking stupid? Being a musician is a job just like any other.Do you think the guys who built the house you live in shouldn't get paid either? Or the people who fix your car? Or the people who make your food at McDonalds? Seriously, shut the fuck up you entitled, millenial, communist brat.

>>68603694
>Being a musician is a job just like any other.
then how come no one pays them to do it anymore?

>>68603680
Ah ad hominems, why am I not surprised

>>68603723
ok, let's go back to before you tried to move the goalposts then
>no they don't. what suddenly retards are going to stop making music because they're not getting payed? if so oh well, who gives a shit? it's only entertainment, I'll just find something else to entertain me. negative consequences would imply the loss of something of value and music is valueless now, no one values it enough to pay for it anymore. as in if it disappeared tomorrow nothing of value was lost. get it?

>>68603748
That wasn't me

>>68603750
>still no argument
no, of course it wasn't ;^)

>>68603761
Are you ok?

>>68603702
because people like you keep stealing their shit

>>68603702
If you send your car to repair and then refuse to pay the person who repaired it because you think that, if they had refused to fix your car, you could have found someone else to do it, you would get fucked by the law.

Applying this logic to the music problem, you're saying "I don't have to pay you to listen to your music, because if I couldn't have listened to it without paying you, I wouldn't have chosen to listen to it."

If you think like that, stop exploiting the labour of musicians and stick to listening to royalty-free public domain music.

>>68603768
;^)
>>68603694
>>68603789
>because people like you keep stealing their shit
And the musician is responsible for that because they knowingly released their music into an environment where that would definitely happen. Or are you claiming musicians aren't responsible for releasing their music? That's like leaving your car in the ghetto overnight and crying about it being stripped the next day. Or are you claiming the car owner isn't responsible for what happened to the car after knowingly making a bad decision like that? Sounds ridiculous.

>>68603694
The guys who built my house, fix my car, and make my food at McDonalds don't work for free. Musicians choose to work for free though. So being a musician isn't a job just like any other, it's not even a job if you do it for free.
>>68603847
>then refuse to pay the person
No, sorry. I never agreed to pay any musician for anything. Your argument here is baseless.

>>68603884
Are there no artists who's music you like enough to want to sponsor?

>>68603918
No.

>>68603359
fuck you you worthless fucking retard why are you even on mu if you dont give a shit about the people who make music do the world a favor and off yourself you fucking retarded cunt

>>68603926
And if I deleted the contents of your music folder, that would be ok?

File: selena-gomez-face.jpg (24KB, 520x520px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 520x520px

>>68603928
Ok.

>>68603884
This is either bait, in which case cracking job, or someone who is so dumb as to make an argument with them useless.

>>68603884
Yeah, why buy a car if somebody's just going to steal it anyway? Just steal one instead! Let's all just live in a world where nobody pays for anything and we all just steal from each other! Next time you go to the store don't pay for anything, just shoplift. Eventually if nobody buys anything and just steals everything instead, then everybody who does any kind of job can just expect to do it for free, right?

>>68603941
I don't even have a music folder, so yes. Go right ahead.
>>68603955
In other words you don't have a legitimate argument that could refuted what I said or you would've made it.

File: a tip of the fedora to you.jpg (27KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x750px

>>68601808
>tfw I'm streaming Remain in Light right now

>>68603983
So have I got this right, you don't value music at all?

>>68603983
I'm admiring your ability to stir shit friend, no need to get unpleasant

>>68603947
going by your image response i'd say you're well on your way you fucking piece of shit cunt

File: be8c7bd7b769f1be1cd217c16f93f74.jpg (49KB, 500x527px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x527px

>>68603974
You mean like if you could steal a car and the person you stole it from still had the same car sitting in their driveway when you left? Something like that?

Then cars would cease to have any value either just like whats happened to music. What's your point?
>>68604004
>you don't value music at all?
I have no idea what "value music" is. Clarify please.
>>68604011
No, you claimed I was baiting, dumb, and making an argument against what I said was "useless". I merely concluded that
>you don't have a legitimate argument that could refuted what I said or you would've made it
from your very own words. Pretty simple actually.
>>68604017
;^)

>>68601808
didn't read. I just know that most artists' money problems from streaming come from being signed to major labels that take most of the money made for their music. their fault, not mine

also: http://qz.com/202194/steve-albini-the-problem-with-music-has-been-solved-by-the-internet/

>>68601808
>>68601937

>ITT: Retards that didn't read the open letter and believe he is bashing streaming services when actually he says they are the saviors of music.

He is completely right too, it's the fucking labels fault.

>>68604073
>clarify
If I prevented you from listening to music, would you be ok with that?

>>68604076
this
>Many streaming services are at the mercy of the record labels (especially the big three: Sony, Universal and Warner), and nondisclosure agreements keep all parties from being more transparent.
in other words stupid artists complaining because they signed a contract

>>68604103
No, wouldn't care. I'd go read a book.

>>68603983
Yor entire argument is that creative, talented, hard working people shouldn't expect to get paid for said work, because worthless, lazy entitled douchebags like you are just going to steal it anyway. Which is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

>>68604118
Do you pay for books?

>>68604120
no, that's not what I said at all. I said musicians shouldn't feel entitled to get paid for work they knowingly did for free

>>68604118
after you stole it, I presume

>>68604123
>>68604141
lol, library check out.

>>68604153
If I prevented you from reading books or listening to music, would that be ok?

>>68604164
I'd be fine with that. I'd just find something else to do.

>>68603884
>the musician is responsible for that
Your immoral actions are your own and not the responsibility of others.

>are you claiming the car owner isn't responsible for what happened to the car
He isn't. The person who decided to commit an immoral act and broke into the car is responsible. Whether or not you leave it in the ghetto doesn't affect the immorality of theft.

>I never agreed to pay any musician for anything
In fact, by listening to their music you did ascribe value to it. Whether or not refusing to pay them is immoral or not depends on if the musicians are selling their music, but you never agreeing to pay musicians is irrelevant.

>>68604137
They didn't "knowingly do it for free" you retard, they expected to get compensated for their work just like anybody else reasonably would. Just because people like you think it's okay to take it for free doesn't make it so.

>>68604169
Do you have any preference?
As in, are there any artists or authors who you prefer over others?

>>68604169
How about you go back to living in a fucking cave then?

You wouldn't download a car.

>>68604176
In other words you're claiming the musician isn't responsible for the irresponsible choice they made. This invalidates your entire argument here, if they're not responsible for the choice they knowingly made then who is?
>by listening to their music you did ascribe value to it
No, if it had any predetermined value I wouldn't have been able to listen to it for free because I would have had to pay that predetermined value for access to it. As it stands the predetermined value was zero therefore that what I had to pay. In other words: valueless.
>>68604179
>they expected to get compensated for their work just like anybody else reasonably would
They expected? So there was no predetermined agreement then, right? lol, only morons work for free or on speculation of compensation. Or gamblers. When you gamble you can't complain when you lose, Anon.
>>68604194
No.
>>68604196
Because I don't have to. I live in a digital utopia where all my entertainment is free for the asking.

>>68604287
What was the last book you read?

>>68604292
Superfudge

>>68604300
Be honest

>>68604315
Ok, you got me.

The Art of the Deal

>>68604322
Lmao I actually believe you

>>68604335
You should! ;^)

>>68604341
Yeah well played

>>68604287
Yeah, and if your employer* one week just decided not to pay you, i suppose you'd be ok with that too? I mean, what, you actually expected to get paid for doing your job? Stop being so entitled!
*assuming you actually have a job, which I seriously doubt

>>68602620
the only one crying here is you

>>68604107
>in other words stupid artists complaining because they signed a contract
This is really the only correct reply.
Don't like the terms don't sign the contract, be poor and bitch.
Or in David's case sign the contract, which I might add had a clause for any and all future distribution, profit and bitch.
Pro tip, no one gives a shit either way.

>>68601937
why not pastebin it
http://pastebin.com/CuF6Esx0

>>68602173
You could say, that it's the same as it ever was

>>68604401
Streaming services are not technically distribution, they are more like airplay

Which is a crucial distinction because it explains why streaming revenues are so low (actually higher per listener than radio plays but with far less listeners)

But DB's point about smaller artists having a harder time now is dead right

It's a good job /mu/ circlejerks over the same 20 old albums constantly otherwise they might notice

>>68604176
Let me put it to you another way, if you knowingly left a nice magazine outside and knew there was a hurricane coming who would be responsible for the magazine flying away in the wind and disappearing forever, the hurricane or you? I'd love to know.
>>68604373
Irrelevant, I have an agreement with my employer where I agreed to work for predetermined pay. Now if I showed up to McDonald's unannounced for example and started mopping the floor I'd have no reasonable expectation of compensation, which is what you're describing.

>>68604391
lol

;__; <(like tears in rain)

>>68604401
The problem is that many of these artists signed their contracts long before internet streaming existed,and the record industry is lagging way behind modern technology.

>>68604475
>The problem is that many of these artists signed their contracts long before internet streaming existed
[citation needed]

>>68604455
Not the guy you're replying to but you can't shift blame to the environment whenever it suits

It's like waiting outside someone's house with a shotgun and then shooting them when they go outside - and then in court your defence is 'what do you expect, the environment is full of criminals'

>>68604455
And if your employer doesn't feel like honoring that agreement then I guess it's tough shit for you, right?

>>68604107
exactly. and I don't even mind them complaining about that, people make mistakes. what I do hate s turning it on the fans, and pretending the people who buy their merch and go to theirr shows are evil for not buying albums. shit, even the people who just listen to the music and don't buy anything aren't immoral. this is an issue between labels/corporations and artists, not fans and artists. the only solution, long-term, is for there to be a change in music culture that stops band from signing straight to major labels, especially with bad contracts. do you think Ian Mackaye is complaining about Spotify payment? no, because he gets the (bigger) label cut as well. even on other independent labels there's more scope for negotiation between artist and label, and the labels have a vested interest in actually taking care of their artiss

>>68604487
lol, so your not going to answer the question then, right?

Who's responsible for the irresponsible decision you made, the hurricane or you?

David Byrne's Reported Networth: $40 MILLION
Pharrell Williams Reported Networth: $80 MILLION

Seriously... the only people against streaming music and torrenting are rich bastards.

>>68604504
>I guess it's tough shit for you, right?
Yes, that's right. But:
>honoring that agreement
Exactly, we had a predetermined agreement and you've already admitted these musicians don't. Therefore they have no reasonable expectation of compensation and I would.

>>68604482
You need a citation for that? Are you seriously not aware that record companies predate internet streaming by decades?

>>68604567
>The problem is that many of these artists signed their contracts long before internet streaming existed
lol, just cite the source for the claim you're making.

That's not a problem, is it?

>>68604566
It doesn't fucking matter if you had an agreement or not if they just don't feel like paying you, just like you don't feel like paying for music.

>>68604606
No, I'd be able to sue and get my money.

>>68604442
>Streaming services are not technically distribution
>>68604475
>The problem is that many of these artists signed their contracts long before internet streaming existed
SEE --->>68604401
>a clause for any and all future distribution
Do you even read, the artist want to renegotiate rights they signed away, in some cases, decades ago. I know people who have signed these shitburgers, you sign away everything, and the courts have already sided with the record companies. You have no recourse.
It's all hot air, and I'm a musician, I have a stake in all of this. I want better contracts, but in most cases you're getting an entry level contract, which basically makes you the record companies bitch. Unless you hit major gold, you've got no basis for any kind of negotiation going forward. Hell I've known people who have ended up OWING their label money. It's a serious crapshoot.

>>68604622
>the artist want to renegotiate rights they signed away, in some cases, decades ago.
[citation needed]

>>68604622
>wahhh
>I signed a contract and now I'm a record companies bitch
>wahhhh
shut up you stupid fuck

>>68604583
Are you literally retarded? Do you seriously think that recorded music has only been around for about a decade? Do you need a citation any time anyone uses basic common knowledge?

>>68604120
>Your entire argument is that creative, talented, hard working people shouldn't expect to get paid for said work.
>hard working people
>hard working people
>hard working people

Please don't equate being a musician/artist with being hard working. The two don't mingle well at all.


1. The best songs were written by another force not the one channeling it. Every good musician knows they didn't write their songs. Bob Dylan has talked about this extensively. Why should a musician get a credit for something they didn't truly create? That is the problem with copyrights in general. No one should be able to claim something is their original idea! Most of us know by now a lot of our thoughts aren't truly our own...there's such a thing as a collective consciousness.

2. Musicians rely on muscle & lyric memory. It's not hard work to perform a song over & over again repetitively in concert. It's already stored in their memory from repetitively performing it. With that said all musicians get paid well from doing concerts and live shows! That's where most of the money is made and it's always been that way before computers even existed.

3. Rich musicians only ever complain about making money through album/song sales and streaming sites. They always want a bigger piece of the pie when there's so many other factors. It cost money to host a song and have it stream to 100,000+ people each day.

>>68604615
Just like record companies can legally sue you for piracy.

>>68604660
Just cite the source for the claim you're making.

That's all you need to do.

>>68604287
>In other words you're claiming the musician isn't responsible for the irresponsible choice they made. This invalidates your entire argument here, if they're not responsible for the choice they knowingly made then who is?
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I didn't use "other words." You seem to be operating under an assumption of retrospective determination. The musician didn't force anyone not to pay them.

>predetermined value
I'm not talking about predetermined value, I'm talking about the value you derive from your use of the music. You could say that you didn't derive any value from it because you could have listened to any other piece of music, but that's fallacious because you didn't listen to "any other piece of music", you listened to a specific piece of music, and you derived specific value from it.

>>68604455
A hurricane doesn't have moral agency, you fucking idiot. If your car is stolen in the ghetto, it isn't stolen by dilapidated buildings, it's stolen by people.

>>68604663
1. is purely subjective opinion

2. it takes most people years of practice to become proficient in playing an instrument in the first place

3.Musicians should be getting a bigger piece of the pie. Sure it costs the streaming service money but the record companies aren't doing jack shit. It used to be that record companies would have to actually press press physical copies of an album. With digital distribution the record company doesn't have to physically print anything, yet they still get a bigger percentage than the artist does.

>>68604672
Then you know what would happen?

The first thing any reasonable person would do is stop working for free in that situation. See, most people don't do stupid shit like continually work for no pay and then cry about it like an entitled bitch after the fact.

Smart people don't get burnt and keep working for free, which is what you seem to be arguing here.
>>68604697
>>68604715
lol, what a fucking idiot.
>The musician didn't force anyone not to pay them.
Nor did they procure an agreement to be payed anything, therefore they have no legitimate expectations for payment.

And, no. I neither place or nor derive value from music. No value, no specific value, nothing.
>Who's responsible for the irresponsible decision you made?
>A hurricane doesn't have moral agency, you fucking idiot.
lol, I knew you wouldn't answer the question.

>>68604676
Go fuck yourself dumbshit. I don't need to do anything, least of all spoonfeed your retarded ass.

>>68604796
The only entitled bitch I see around here is you.

>>68604809
lol, I'm just asking for you to cite a legitimate source, that's all.

No need to get all bent out of shape, I'm sure you're not just pulling shit out of your ass or anything.

>>68604824
Nah, I don't work for free and then expect compensation after the fact.

File: byrne2.png (292KB, 830x848px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 830x848px

>>68601808
He's pro streaming.

David Byrne having a correct opinion on music? what a surprise.

>>68604862
No, you just expect others to work for you for free. Which makes you an entitled bitch.

>>68603194
>>68603884
You literally have contempt for art. I can't even explain to you all of the ways in which this mentality is bad for society.

>>68604773

Musicians aren't really suffering from streaming services though and they could opt out of them like Taylor Swift has done.

I don't see what the big deal is when many of these pop musicians are still making millions per year. Show me one mainstream musician who isn't making seven to nine figures per year....

>>68604515
it would be classed legally as an act of god

so, god

>>68604906
No, I don't expect it nor does anybody force them to do it. So I'm not entitled.

But they have the right to stop being stupid and working for free anytime they want.
>>68604942
>I can't even explain to you all of the ways in which this mentality is bad for society.
lol

No, of course you can't.

Music/Art should be free.

How dare someone put a pricetag on their art.

I feel musicians/artists should get REAL JOBS.

Music/Art should be a hobby one does in their spare time not a money making business.

>>68604663
You don't even understand how much work is required to be a musician.

This is some next level trolling.

>>68604982
lol

You should demand compensation form God and see what happens then.

>>68604993
>No, of course you can't.
It's occurred countless times throughout history.

Contempt for art is symptomatic of the fall of civilizations. It's literal barbarism.

>>68605010
it's a legal term for 'i dunno lol'

but still, it's a legal term and it's the best we have

>>68605003
>I feel musicians/artists should get REAL JOBS and hate their work like me. :((((

This is what these people are really saying. Simple envy for other people who are more clever than they are and are able to do what they wish for a living independently.

>>68605005
>You don't even understand how much work is required to be a musician.
>work which society has determined has no value
There's probably some turd who's "worked" at fitting a whole bowling ball up his ass, unfortunately that doesn't mean anyone is required to pay him for it.
>>68605020
lol

Fuck the future.
>>68605026
What do they do then? Sue God?

>>68604953
actually they are, every artist on itunes for example saw their sales tank when they made inclusion in apple music mandatory
in plain english, you want to sell your music on the itunes store? you also have to make it available on streaming
and as a result no one buys music on the itunes store
artists are definitely losing out from this

>>68605048
it's just a hand-wave, it means no one is liable

unfortunately for you it doesn't apply to illegal music distribution

>>68605005

Are you kidding? I create music all the time with my piano keyboard & microphone attached to my computer using track recording software. It's not hard at all and doesn't require a lot of work. If you're trying to record an orchestra than yeah..that does require work but these mainstream artists aren't doing that.

A multi-million dollar studio and a overhyped producer isn't required to create good music.

There's a ton of excellent low-budget youtube musicians who sound better than most of these "mainstream artists" and aren't signed to a record deal and many of them are pulling in $xxx,xxx/yr which is comparable to a doctor or lawyer.

It's hard to feel pit for anyone making $xxx,xxx/yr+ and has the audacity to complain that they aren't being paid as much as they should. Seriously they should fuck off and go feed the hungry since their head is so far up their ass.

>>68605041
>baseless ad hominem attack
lol

This is what it looks like when someone doesn't have the intellectual capacity to form and defend a legitimate argument.

People need to understand that the label pays the performer for the recording. The days of massive royalties from album sales are over, and that's fine. Most albums lose money. Labels provide a platform for you to tour on and pay you to write the songs you own. Industry has changed, get over it.

>>68605067
>Are you kidding? I create meaningless soundcloud thread "music".

>>68605065
>unfortunately for you it doesn't apply to illegal music distribution
Laws that can't be enforced are laws no one has to observe or obey.

>>68604993
Thinking that you have the right to freely take the fruits of somebody else's labor while you yourself contribute nothing to society is the textbook definition of entitlement.

>>68605091
that's not how law works son

>>68605041

Musicians like PRINCE, BEYONCE, MADONNA, etc. feel they're superior to others. Their egos have been so inflated that they truly think they're Gods.

This is why I feel everyone should have a "real job" to keep them grounded so they don't end up turning into a pedophile creep like Michael Jackson. Too late for that whore Madonna though...

>>68605070
Your entire argument in this thread is based on this stupid principle that people that work harder than others deserve more. They don't.

>>68605095
I don't have the right, because I'm not entitled. They can choose to stop providing their labor for free anytime they want. I'm not the one making that decision, they are.
>>68605100
Really? How does breaking a law that can't be enforced affect me in any way? What's the price I pay for breaking it?

>>68605171
you might get sued for copyright infringement
not saying it's likely, but neither is being pulled over for not using your seatbelt

it's still illegal though

>>68605117

this.... We all should make the same amount regardless of what we do. A garbage collector should make the same as an actor/actress. That's a fair community. No one should make more than someone else as it creates the entire power/class structure that has failed us for so long.

I'm glad I'm not the only who shares this idea.

Cheers to the day when we all can be "common people".

>>68605117
>this stupid principle that people that work harder than others deserve more
lol, holy shit!

lmao, but no, my argument is that smart people don't work for free and musicians that knowingly work for free don't have any legitimate expectation of compensation after the fact.

But reading is hard though, right?

>>68605198
I know you're being sarcastic but what do you have against garbage collectors?
And why do people always use them as an example of a low-paying job? They make pretty decent pay.

>>68605198
there's this little thing called supply and demand
you should read about it

>>68605198
This is a ridiculous ad hominem.

People who make more than others and have control over what they do don't do so because they work harder. They make more money because they work smarter, they worked their way into that position.

No one is going to give a shit how many rocks you break in a salt mine, because you work in a salt mine. You're supposed to get pleb money for pleb work.

>>68605191
Noooo. Getting sued wouldn't be a form of enforcement but getting convicted would. Being pulled over for not using your seat belt would also be an enforcement of the law if you were convicted.

But that doesn't answer my question, theses are laws that can be enforced. My question was how does breaking a law that can't be (can't be!) enforced affect me in any way? What's the price I pay for breaking it?

>>68605282
Are you secretly trying to get people to stop pirating?
Because you're really making me want to stop.

>>68605282
well in the case of seat belts it's a law which most people dutifully obey, despite the fact that it's completely unrealistic to pull over every car and check the driver and all the passengers, and is basically physically unenforceable

people don't only obey laws which can be practically enforced, your argument is quite weak in this respect

>>68605282
>My question was how does breaking a law that can't be (can't be!) enforced affect me in any way? What's the price I pay for breaking it?

This is actual sociopath mentality right here.

>>68605233

I'm actually not being sarcastic.
I seriously feel that way.

I have nothing against normal people who work normal jobs.

I have something against assholes like Hillary Clinton, Trump, Christian pastors flying in personal jets, elected officials making millions, actors/actresses/musicians making multi-millions, george soros making billions. It's not fair at all that these assholes can continue to make millions while there is people all over this world who don't have a meal to eat, a bed to sleep in, a permanent roof over their head. There's people in Haiti who eat DIRT cakes TO SURVIVE for god sakes...and than these fucking musicians have the audacity to complain about how they aren't getting paid enough. FUCK THEM.

I feel everything everyone makes should be divided equally among everyone. No one should get any less or any more.

>>68605253
there's this thing called DOING WHAT IS RIGHT
you should read the bible

What I wrote above is the way to a peaceable kingdom on Earth.

>>68605272
>they work smarter

That is not true. Most rich people are clueless and are blinded by their lifestyle and the position they're in to care about helping others who make less than them. They just want more and more money. They never are happy.

File: img-thing.jpg (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

>>68605307
Do whatever you choose to do.
>>68605314
>how does breaking a law that can't be (can't be!) enforced affect me in any way? What's the price I pay for breaking it?
>your argument is quite weak in this respect
lol

It's not an argument it's a question, stupid. Pic related.

>>68605351
dude bible lmao

>>68605354
ok good now we have established that you have no argument
gg

>>68605171
They're not providing their labor for free, it's being stolen. By people like you, who think they're entitled to other peoples works. What the fuck do you not understand about this?

>>68605351
>Most rich people are clueless and are blinded by their lifestyle
[citation needed]
>They just want more and more money. They never are happy.
Why should you settle for anything?
>>68605351
>I have something against assholes like Hillary Clinton, Trump, Christian pastors flying in personal jets, elected officials making millions, actors/actresses/musicians making multi-millions, george soros making billions. It's not fair at all that these assholes can continue to make millions while there is people all over this world who don't have a meal to eat, a bed to sleep in, a permanent roof over their head. There's people in Haiti who eat DIRT cakes TO SURVIVE for god sakes...and than these fucking musicians have the audacity to complain about how they aren't getting paid enough. FUCK THEM.

All of those people fooled you into giving them money. They succeeded, life isn't fair and it's not supposed to be fair.

The people who tell you that things are supposed to be fair and you are supposed to be given your fair share of things are the people who are lying to you.

>>68605342
>ad hominem attack
lol

Not an answer to the question though.
>>68605368
Argument against what? The fact that you don't know the difference between an argument and a question? lmao
>>68605383
>it's being stolen
So they had property which you're claiming I "stole" and they didn't have it anymore after I stole it?

Because that never happend, and you'd just be 100% making shit up if that's what you're claiming now.

>>68605425
oh, i thought you were the anon who said
>Laws that can't be enforced are laws no one has to observe or obey.

>>68605438
I am. You should probably stop stalling now, you're just embarrassing yourself.

>>68605464
oh so that was your argument

>>68605395

>Life isn't fair and it's not supposed to be fair

[citation needed]


It's not about getting your fair share. I realize this world is corrupt but we can make it better through better cooperation!

Imagine if 100 people who all work different jobs (some make $24000 per year, others make as high as $1 million) per years put their money into one bank account. Together they make $15 million per month. Now imagine that money is spread equally to all of them so they all get $150,000/yr. That's beautiful. That is what we all should be aiming for. Everyone can live a decent life on that amount regardless of family size.
No one needs to live in a mansion or on a pedestal high up in the clouds.

>>68605425
It's not an ad hominem attack. It's very much a fact that the mentality of sociopaths follows that of being able to justify doing illegal or immoral things because there is no one watching them or there to punish them for such behavior.

>>68605473
Think really really hard, maybe you can come up with something later. I'll wait right here.

>>68605480
>Together they make $15 million per month

I meant year not month.

>>68605490
what's your point?

>>68605425
It's called intellectual property, look it up. And it doesn't matter whether or not they have it anymore you still have no right to take it.

>>68605480
This has been tried, many, many times before in history and has always failed.

>>68605524

It only fails when someone tries to cheat the system by taking more than someone else!

Also give some examples of where it was tried and failed?

>>68605487
>here's some facts about the ad hominem attack I tried to use to evade the argument
lol

Still no answer to the question? C'mon now, you've had plenty of time.
>>68605507
Just let me know if you manage to come up with something. I'm patient.
>>68605523
>you still have no right to take it
You see that's where you're wrong, because I did take it and there were no consequences for me taking it. If I didn't have that right then how was I able to do that with no consequences?

>>68605616
you're not very good at this are you

>>68605616
Just because someone got away with doing something illegal doesn't mean they had the right to do it.

>>68605631
I know it's tough, but I believe you can do it! Like I said, just let me know.

>>68605661
is that really the best you got
damn son

>>68605605
>It only fails when someone tries to cheat the system by taking more than someone else!

It always fails for exactly this reason, because it is completely contrary to human nature.

>>68605605
>Also give some examples of where it was tried and failed?

I don't need to, I'm not your history professor, you're arguing for me to teach you about the theory, implementation, and historical results of a political system throughout the entirety of the 20th century.

If you like an artist's work, then pay them you dumb entitled commie. I don't need to say more.

>>68605649
It doesn't?
>download free music
>pay nothing
>download more free music
>etc.
>zero negative drawbacks for the downloader
Sounds like it does.
>>68605669
;^)

>>68605480
Bait, but you should be the guy who makes $1 million per year and open that bank account and invite the 99 $24000 per year people to join your in your utopia vision of the future.

No ones stopping you! And! You'll have all the takers you need for sure!

lol, let me know how it goes!

>>68605678

>If you like an artist's work, then pay them you dumb entitled commie.
That's the thing. I have a love/hate relationship with every artist, song, album.


Sometimes I listen to a song and like it but hours later or the next day I no longer like it, than maybe weeks/months I listen to it again and absolutely love it and than end up hating it again.

I realize that it's better to not pay them at all than to be eventually disappointed by their music and regret giving them my money.

>>68605816
Do you really have anything better to do than to fish for (You)s on 4chan?

I mean Saturday morning cartoons seem like a better way to pass time for kids like you.

>wtf i hate

Take your shitty memes back to your own boards, cancer

File: 1380436738487.jpg (84KB, 477x357px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 477x357px

>>68605836
there ain't no saturday morning cartoons anymore you dumb nigger. jfc how old are you

>>68605775

I do see what you mean but I believe it will all balance out with multi-millionaires and billionaires being involved.

I personally feel better about a society where no money is needed. Where food, house, clothing, and other necessities are provided for free. Everyone can do their assigned work and what they enjoy without having to worry about money.

File: 1477061796418.jpg (119KB, 786x733px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 786x733px

>>68605649
>they had the right to do it.
I don't think you understand how the world works at all, amigo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL9aJZ4SqAc

>>68605941
>assigned work
uh oh

>WAAAAAA WHY WON'T YOU LET ME STEAL MUSIC

grow up, get a job and be a real man

>>68605996
>LET
>implying anybody's asking permission
lol

>>68606014
get a job

>>68605836

You say I should pay an artist if I like their work and that's that.

But you aren't looking at the bigger picture....

Everyone who paid for Michael Jackson's work were supporting a PEDOPHILE who molested children.

Even though we all can age that he had some stellar songs I'm glad I never paid for any of his crap.

See what I mean? Everyone who bought Michael Jackson album, saw him in concert, etc. were condoning his pedophilia & mental disorder by supporting him and are just as much to blame for his molestations as he is. All of his fans enabled him to be a rich pedophile who was allowed to molest children. Karma is on them!

See what I mean? It's a double edged sword to support an artist that you truly don't know. They could be pedophiles, murderers, horrible people.

>>68606032
nah, why bother I can steal all the music I want

>DIGITAL UTOPIA

>>68606053
enjoy your digital food and digital girlfriend

>>68601808
>David Byrne

Who fucking cares.

File: 1475597203893.jpg (41KB, 500x660px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x660px

>>68606048
Sorry, man. I think I went a little too HAM all up in this bitch an ran out all the whoppers. Let it roll down to page 8 or some shit and bump it, you'll get a few nibbles at least.
>>68606064
>implying I'm not on welfare and food stamps
>implying my beautiful waifu isn't 平沢 唯

>>68606149
i knew it, you little scoundrel
why i oughtta

File: 1476329438348.jpg (70KB, 810x780px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 810x780px

>>68606164
Yeah, I'm always undefeated on /mu/. I need to move on to a board with actual intelligent people to be honest. Critical thinking/reasoning isn't really a strong suit around here.

>>68606048

To continue...


Everyone who has supported anyone reaps in the karmic debt of that person. If that person is evil and you support them (even unknowingly) you reap in what they sow. BE CAREFUL OF WHO YOU SUPPORT. USE DISCERNMENT.

Even listening to Michael Jackson is supporting him.
Songs are spells. They hypnotize and entrance you. People seem to not know this.

I can't support many artists for this reason.
I no longer listen to Michael Jackson either despite how addicting his songs can be as I know the truth now.

It goes way beyond music too.
Do you know the CEO of these companies you support?
They could be horrible people and you buying their product or using their website could make you reap the karmic debt they sow.

Better to only support holy people who are kind, generous, and never have done horrible things... than some evil fuck.

A lot of the holy people are truly evil...such as the Dali Lama and the Pope.

It's so important that you not support EVIL. This is why it's better to just make & grow your own shit... so you aren't sharing in the karmic debt of others who you hand over money to.

When you think about it..it's truly depressing. People giving their money to these evil musicians, evil CEOS, evil corporations. They don't even know that their evil. They're being deceived.

>>68606270
tbf you're not bad at acting undefeated, but you got btfo several times itt, twice by me
still, gg

File: 1476329042800.gif (548KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 640x480px

>>68606294
Nope, sorry. Nowhere in this thread was I ever refuted and none of my arguments were invalidated.

File: unnamed.png (24KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x300px

Damon Krukowski of Galaxie 500 also wrote about this really well on p4k, and he's Harvard educated, so fuck Byrne's 'letterl' and read this

http://pitchfork.com/features/article/8993-the-cloud/

>>68601808
Generally there are flaws in David's logic, or at least counter arguments to some of his complaints

>>68608159
What a general and substanceless post

Thanks for joining us today

>>68608215
The substance being that David's letter can be picked apart from a different viewpoint. Also, he's missing out important information in his setting out.

>>68606452
>he's Harvard Educated therefore his opinion matters more than someone who is not

Bad logic. A degree from Harvard doesn't mean shit anymore. Infact a college degree never meant anything besides what the elites want you to believe so you can be the dumbass paying back college loans for 20+ years.
.

>>68603694
Trust me, as an actual communist, this fucker is a moronic asshole.

>>68604544
Sounds like you didn't read the article, not only is David Byrne NOT against streaming music, he also said himself that he's "doing O.K." and he's worried about the environment being dire for up-and-coming artists.

>>68605041
>do what they wish for a living independently
If that is the case then what the fuck is everyone arguing about? I thought the whole point of the thread was they could not do it anymore?