This is why virtually every small-time musician I ever spoke to called for some sort of unobtrusive, universal DRM -- and if you care about music, you should too.
If anything, as stereotypical lower-income music lovers I find the minority who are familiar with the DRM express a desire (right or wrong) for greater access to free or low priced music, both for themselves and others worldwide. The general desire is to increase the ease with with those who love music can access it. Many wouldn't object to better DRM (if they knew what it was) but the emphasis would be on better modes of distribution with less economic discrimination.
Anti-DRM sentiment is often repeated blindly by pirates and neckbeards ("but muh software freedoms!") but when looked at economically, it makes all kinds of sense.
Some people really want to be paid for their work.
And perhaps the biggest threat to this is buffet streaming services like Spotify, which give the veneer of legitimate participation and remove incentives to buy, but reduce the remittance to artists to a vanishing fraction of what recording purchases can provide.
> I don't see the reason for the downvotes.
Perhaps because this reads like "you have to want DRM if you care about music" with no supporting argument.
I don't believe profit is the best motivator for artists and much of the music I listen to (and all of the music I make) is made by unpaid producers. With that point of view DRM is entirely uncalled for. I'm not trying to argue that point of view here, just presenting it as a contrast to reveal the hidden assumptions in the assertion made above.
Then we don't live even in the same world. By taking into account how much people has the economical means to just "make music for the sake of it", I'd believe that a very small proportion of all artists actually don't seek profit for their work.
That aside, I believe that the right to defend your intellectual property is of extreme importance and the digital counterpart to ensure that right is, guess what?, DRM.
If your platform (i.e. the internet) does not give you a way to protect intellectual property then creators will eventually dissapear or move somewhere else; you can't expect to just get things from some place and never put something in return for that, a system needs to be sustainable in order to exist by itself.
DRM tries to make the overall creator/consumer ecosystem more sustainable, and there's nothing wrong with that. That is the supporting argument behind "you have to want DRM if you care about music".
A few things. First, seeking profit doesn't mean its the motivator. Second, my meaning was that profit as the primary motivator seems to have a degrading effect on the quality of the art. By "best" I meant "best art" not "greatest quantity of art."
You can argue DRM all you want, I'm saying it's not relevant to everyone who cares about music.
https://twitter.com/forexposure_txt
Not down with DRM in the slightest, though, but that's because it doesn't work. Even the first-run benefits of it for big companies doesn't exist for the long-tail market of indies. You're very off-base and you're advocating a path that only hurts people.
There's nothing wrong with asking for money for your art, but if you only got into it because you figured you could make money on it I'd rather you had no representation in the scene. Selfish? Yes, always, and I make no apologies. Nor should people asking money for their art.
Jerk though? For having an opinion—and not even trying to convince anyone of it? There are far better reasons to call me a jerk.
Nobody gets into art because they think they could make money off it, but the opportunity cost of being good at it is so high that it's extremely rare to be good at art and not need to eat off of it. The rhetoric you air is the damaging, poisonous kind that encourages disrespect to artists as living human beings because they don't martyr themselves.
That's kinda nasty then, with the name-calling and all.
> The rhetoric you air is the damaging, poisonous kind that encourages disrespect to artists as living human beings because they don't martyr themselves.
That's bullshit. I've clarified myself, so you're now deliberately misinterpreting my words and presenting false choices. You can't tolerate a differing opinion and have to resort to namecalling and specious claims.
I'm not saying you need to have to agree with my personal position on DRM or on music, but don't tell me I have to like DRM on flimsy circular grounds.