Thing is that for most people there is two options : steaming service or piracy.
As the video market is learning right now.
Movie piracy is going thru the roof again after being almost gone as steaming services went from 1 or 2 to 6 or 7.
People won’t pay 10 dollars a month for 5 different services. But the movie companies has not understood that yet.
Same with music. I stopped pirating music when spotify came along. I won’t go back to buying “albums”. Not going to happen.
YouTube is a streaming service. A downloaded mpg file is a product, which (once you download it) you have and can do with it as you please.
A service can be withdrawn from you. You don’t own it. A product you buy (or obtain in other ways) and nobody can take it from you.
Spotify doesn’t pay that bad. The problem is that a lot of artists are stuck with deals that means say Sony takes half or more of their streaming income.
A tale as old as time, really. Record labels have always ripped off artists.
no no
i’m not talking about hollywood just about music
and get the second piracy I do not
I’m against piracy so no
the music I download today they are almost all dead or they do not make music anymore due to steaming services
I am against robbing naval vessels, as well. And I am certainly against any murder of crew on said naval vessels.
But if you mean “sharing files”, I am not against that. Sometimes, by “piracy” people mean the practice of copying and distributing (sharing) files and other media, equating it (in either ethical or legal sense) with actual piracy, but that’s just slander (intentional, malicious propaganda against sharing) or stupidity (people buying into said propaganda).
piracy for me if you share music online and make money of it
i call that piracy
but if you buy music and share with some friends I can not see that it is piracy
i have bought the music i can do what i want
it is my
What does sharing music online have to do with robbing ships and murdering seamen? Nothing! It’s a malicious term designed to defame people who share copies of media among themselves, minding their own business.
My point that there is no difference whether you share files online or amongst friends in private. Both opponents and proponents of copyright would agree with that, for different reasons.
Ahh here is the music industry argument which is partially true.
If you buy music then give to friends then music industry loses “Potential revenue”. But then don’t really know how many out of all the friends would of bought it anyway.
Here is my opinion:
Some people like to stream music for a variety of reasons, others prefer to maintain a local music collection for a variety of reasons. For the record, I am in the latter group.
Neither approach is right/wrong.
i think we have different views on what piracy is
and copyright what something I have bought and paid for
naaa no copyright in my world
On an abstract ethical level, no. Neither of these is wrong or right in itself.
On a practical level, though it is different… Because we know why streaming exists. It has nothing to do with convenience, but with control.
Nonsensical semantics. Piracy is the act of obtaining a “product” of value that is normally paid for, for nothing, by whatever means. This covers software, music, whatever.
“Sharing” music online that isn’t copyright free is illegal, as the original artist makes nothing from your “obtaining” of the music itself. In this regard Spotify is a million times more beneficial for artists, as they make some money from your use of the service.
I think we’re entering conspiracy theory territory here?
I do not mind steaming
thought steaming is a good thing
but I do not like if music artists hit hard on the grounds of music steaming
So, if I buy a brand new car for $100000 and I give it to a friend for free, my friend obtained a product for nothing (which is less that what is normally paid for). Does that make my friend a moral equivalent to a thug that robs ships and kills crewmen? Talk about nonsense.
Depending on the jurisdiction, sure. Women driving cars is also illegal in some jurisdictions. Illegality does not make something unethical.
Let me give you a free lesson in mathematics:
1000000 × 0 = 0
More importantly, one cannot demonstrate that sharing files online causes the original creator of that file any financial loss. To demonstrate that one would have to prove for everyone who obtained a copy of that file without having paid for it, that they would have paid the original creator for it were they not able to obtain it otherwise. This would require insight into alternative realities, something which is not possible.
In other words, when one shares files, nobody is harmed by that.
Only private property to me, streaming is a joke for ripping out artists and making YOURSELF a service.
- absolutely cool, especially for things that are impossible to get otherwise and it’s totally intellectually consistent concept.
When i respect artists highly and want to help out - i always support directly, if that’s an option 
As @flyingcakes i like Bandcamp, it’s a great model for both artists and users! 
Hey! One can dream… 
Ok, here’s the thing. That car is no longer yours. It belongs to your friend, you’ve effectively just bought them a car.
So unless you’re deleting all of the MP3s you’re “sharing” online as soon as you’ve shared them once, and never listen to it again, thereby transferring ownership of the music to your friend, then this analogy is utterly flawed 
Again, a terrible analogy that holds no water. Equating human rights violations to arguing for piracy is a real stretch tbh.
Again, a flawed theory, because you can’t disprove it either.
I’d be interested to see what artist revenues were like in the early 2000’s at the height of the Napster era, compared to streaming services now.
But I do know that “friends” obtaining hundreds of CDs worth of music for free from you earns artists a lot less than me streaming any of those tracks via any streaming service.
Err…