How do you justify not supporting artists?

>>74814865
By being poor.

>>74814865

The business model simply doesn't make sense anymore. The thing that is being sold is far too easy to get for free, that just doesn't work. If I opened up a "take a picture of this pile of leaves" store in my yard everyone in the universe would call me silly if I got angry when people took pictures of the pile of leaves without paying me or acted entitled to their money, because fucking duh. I'm offering something with no functional value other than hoping people want it and making it really easy for them to bypass me entirely while just hoping they pay me anyway.

Yes, that means there will be some kind of collapse and a lot of musicians will stop making music but it isn't like music itself is going to die. Just the outdated model people are currently selling it with.

cause they don't play live music any more?

The artists who actually need the money just want to spread their music to as many people as possible, and the artists who want me to pay don't need the money.

File: Screenshot_20170828-014055.png (69KB, 720x753px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 720x753px

>>74814865
But I do

>>74815966
dumb phonepoister

I do. I pirate music and if I like it, I go to concerts and buy merchandise. The artist gets a much bigger share that way. And if it's a defunct group, who cares?

>>74814865
Because Trent Reznor endorsed Bernie Sanders, so im just redistributing his wealth for him. That and the Fragile Deviations vinyl was a total rip off so i decided hes not getting any more cash from me.

>>74814865
I do try to
If an artist is doing it themselves, on a very small label or has been ripped off in the past and is needing to support themselves now then I'll usually buy directly from them

>>74816288
dumb post - if an act isn't selling they won't be touring, and they certainly won't have enough money to produce goods