Hacker News Reader

Comment by borgia | Hacker News Reader

Very reasonable all in all, and it's pretty clear that he's damn tired of people's antics with regards to using his work without license and then going on the defensive about it when caught.

Some people's sense of entitlement to creative, but easily replicated, works never ceases to amaze me. Whether you like Tidal and those involved or not, this week we saw its launch being met with backlash online that included comments that amounted to "Why would I pay $20 a month for this when I can torrent it free?". People acted indignant over being asked to maybe pay for some of the works they consume. As though they had a right to have a copy of the works simply because they were technologically capable of getting their hands on one without paying for it.

And then creators and artists are vilified for going after those who steal/distribute copies of their works.

I can't imagine how stressful it is for those who have to deal with these constants acts against them.

View on HN

I think a lot of the backlash against Tidal was the way it was presented.

Having all of these rich and famous musicians complaining about how they're not making enough money isn't going to go very well with the general population.

What does Tidal do to help unknown and struggling musicians? The whole thing seems to only really be about protecting the revenue streams of the musical elite.

I'm not defending Tidal, I personally think it's a cringe-worthy joke at best and I hope the worst for it.

It's the attitude that was on display regarding it though and it's the same attitude seen previously when Spotify was launched i.e. I want this for free, I believe I'm entitled to this for free and I will get it for free regardless of how you, the artist and distributor, feel about it.

Musicians, etc. produce products, as any other non-service based industry does, and nobody is entitled to those products for free...yet because these are digital products a large amount of people seem to think otherwise.

I hear you and I'm fully in support of intellectual property and just compensation!

Do you think the people who think that creative works should be free are in the majority or are they just the loudest? I seem to get the impression that most people want artists to get paid. If anything they don't want a bunch of middle-men making all the profits.

Of course some middle-men are important to the ecosystem. A publisher willing to speculate and give an advance in exchange for a future percentage of sales seems like the right kind of incentive structure to have for the industry.

>Do you think the people who think that creative works should be free are in the majority or are they just the loudest?

I think they're in the majority. They may not shout about it, but I think in terms of music consumption in this case they're a silent majority.

Only 25% of Spotify's 60m users pay for the service. People use YouTube for their music without having to pay. Others torrent. I would say that those paying for music in this day and age, whether it's streaming, vinyl enthusiasts or whatever are the minority.

Well, youtube slaps a lot of ads on me. And esp. the american public is trained to get music for 'free', on the radio.

As though they had a right to have a copy of the works simply because they were technologically capable of getting their hands on one without paying for it.

Because that's how it works by default. I'm not saying it's right or that you should agree, but you should at least understand the perspective.

By default, we have the right to do anything that we have the ability to do. The exceptions are just that: exceptions, and which have to be justified.

Now, you could say, "that's the law, therefore it's obvious that it is an exception", but we don't really take the law as an ethical system. Or do you feel that it's perfectly OK to get works for free in places where that is not illegal, like Switzerland?

You have an intuition that copying works without paying is wrong. That's fine, but you shouldn't be amazed that people who don't have that intuition feel free to do so. Even if you still condemn them for it (which is fine).

"By default, we have the right to do anything that we have the ability to do."

So if you have the ability to break in somewhere and take something, you should have the right to do it?

No, that's one of the exceptions that both the law and most people agree with.

Not to mention they totally 'pirated' the UI of Spotify. Maybe someone should tell them interface designers are artists too?

Because copyright infringement has been linked to theft, which means people view it like they would view a theft, and it thus appears completely harmless because people place the entire negative of the theft on losing the item. Imagine I had a magic power to duplicate any items, went to a friends house, and duplicated his TV. No harm to him. If anything he benefits a bit because when he is at my house he now sees the bigger TV.

Most people don't realize there is a victim in my example. The person who I would've bought the TV from. Except they are far less a victim that someone who has their TV stolen. Because I may have instead just stuck with mine and never gotten a bigger one had I had to pay. The problem is that when aggregated accross the whole population, lots of people who would've bought one now don't, and that is where the damages come from. Of course, the big players in copytright claiming the extremely high numbers for their damaging only work to further get people to dismiss this line of thinking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com