But then it always is hard to explain things when I don't understand them myself.
If you pay for Spotify rather than hacking it, you're really not supporting artists financially very much, right? Paying someone a millionth of a dollar to stream their music seems to me like kind of an insult, actually, and recording their song to a cassette from the radio like kind of a compliment.
This is absurd. One is paying them, the other isn’t. It’s not a “compliment” to not receive income, even if you think the income received is meaningless.
Further, the radio argument is flawed - the radio station paid to play that music for people who might record it. Johnny Torrent didn’t.
I dunno, every one of these arguments always comes down to “but I want it” and other nonsense to try to pretend that it’s ok to steal from artists. It’s the same justification I used when I was twelve and stole a pack of gum from 7-11, and it’s no less lame when the people making it are ostensibly adults.
The majority of your money goes to the artist/right holder, "[Spotify has] an approx revenue split of 70/30 - so that’s 70% to the artist/rights holders and 30% to Spotify."[1]
[1] https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/how-much-does-spotify-pay-per....
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/370618/spotifys-cost-of-...
Property laws exist because property is scarce. But if I copy your idea or your data, all I'm doing is wiring the neurons in my brain in the same fashion as yours, or arranging the bits on my own computer in the same order as yours.
"Intellectual property" is a contradiction in terms. I'm open to arguments that there might still be reasons it shouldn't be OK, but arguments from property rights or analogies to theft just don't work.
Pretty interesting philosophy.
I should tell that to my kids' swimming school. Or their daycare.