Hacker News Reader

Comment by smosher_ | Hacker News Reader

> > called for some sort of unobtrusive, universal DRM -- and if you care about music, you should too

> 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.

View on HN

>I don't believe profit is the best motivator for artists ...

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".

> 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.

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.

Any time some selfish jerk (and you are definitionally a selfish jerk if you happily claim that profit isn't the best motivator for artists) comes round on this topic, I always link Ryan Estrada's amazing Twitter:

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.

I think you meant to reply to me. Let me clarify: I do think profit is great for motivating the production of art which is not a thing that I value in and of itself. I don't think it's best for the art. In fact, I find art that isn't produced primarily from compulsion valueless as art.

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.

No, I was agreeing with his rejection of your post.

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.

> No, I was agreeing with his rejection of your post.

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 misinterpreting you, I'm calling you dishonest. The people you conjure up do not exist in any quantity and you know this. The only reason to tie yourself to the rhetoric you do is to delegitimize the people who need to eat, much like other people (around here, no less) attempt to write off endemic societal problems around racism "because looters".

You describe me by directly contradicting my own statements. Now you're telling me I am lying about myself just so you can paint me as some particular kind of bogeyman? You could have had this conversation without me. Try accusing a mailbox of something as an outlet, perhaps? Or do you have a need to make people feel bad?

Profit is an immensely powerful motivator up to a point. Being able to put food on your and your kids' table with your music will enable you to create MUCH more music than you otherwise would be able to.

That is true but my point is: that's not the whole story. There are other solutions to be discussed. The point I'm making is that there is a way to care about music where DRM is entirely valueless.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com