Why is Bob such a jew about his music?

Why is Bob such a jew about his music?
You can't hear it anywhere for free besides spotify and even there it's a pretty short selection...

Because he's literally the most bootlegged artist ever, he popularized bootlegs, if anyone should be a jew about stuff, it should be him, because he knows everyone's bootlegging it and have been open about doing so since the 60's

And actually, the fact that they are now putting out all that stuff officially but in such small quantities that you basically have to bootleg it, is all the proof that there's no money expected to ever come from his music anymore, it's why he tours endlessly since the late 80's

Good answer

He has every right to protect his artistic endeavours, there's nothing greedy about it.

its probably the massive corporation that owns his catalog

>why does someone want compensation for their lifetime of work?

>hnnnnn, bi bu BIIIIII ziba zub zub

what did he mean by this?

Ok, but what about those that are new to his work? They'll invariably resort to piracy to know his work further before paying for it...

don't frame it like that.

Well, he's literally a Jew for one thing.

Well, he's literally a Jew for one thing.

>don't frame it like that.
But that's what it is. People who want to be exposed to his music can do so through Youtube.

>People who want to be exposed to his music can do so through Youtube.
No, they cannot. All his songs on youtube are covers. Check it out yourself. It's never him doing the singing.

This

well, the main reason is that he's popular enough and comfortable enough financially that he doesn't care about making it easy for entitled kids to have instant access to his music without getting his fair compensation

same with robert fripp and prince before he died. they're good for money - they can't stop you from stealing it, but they'd rather get fucked that way then spreading their assholes for the music industry

now, their thinking may be a bit shortsighted if they want their music to live on with future generations to the extent that it has so far, but for now it's quite funny seeing people complain about how they have to go through the trouble of downloading something illegally in 10 minutes or *gasp* actually paying for an album to listen to their music

Fuck me, you're right. All that shit on Youtube was all covers. Makes me wonder if I ever actually heard the man himself.

>They'll invariably resort to piracy to know his work further before paying for it...
If someone's was going to steal my shit either way, I'd also make it a little bit more difficult just to spite them. Especially if I was already rich

Nobody is 'stealing' his shit. They're listening it on demand. you can't steal something that can't be stolen.

He was never deprived of money due to piracy or bootlegging, he's too big for that. If anything, it made him bigger and richer in the long run. It made him reach an audience that couldn't normally buy his shit just to 'see what it is like'.

>writes songs for your livelihood
>niggas online download them for free
>this isn't stealing

I'm pretty sure you can find his stuff on vimeo or dailymotion
I'm certain I heard a few of his albums on one or the other before buying some/pirating others

Whatever you, say. He wants you to pay a certain price for his music, that he created. If you insist on downloading it for free or for a lower price than he wants, he's not gonna stop you, but he's not going to give it to you on a plate either. I think that's fair

>Whatever you, say
kek, I'm tired

>niggas
stop using slangs you filth

and no, it isn't stealing. it's not depriving him of anything that he could achieve either.
Those that have money and appreciate him will pay for his music/shows. Those that don't will/would not and wouldn't listen to his stuff in their own dime either, they would bootleg or only listen it casually on radio. Nothing changes.

By letting other people listen his music for free he reaches a wider range of people and some of them may be able to pay his music (specially shows), and some others don't. But he won costumers by letting them hear his music for free in that scenario.

For a second I thought you were blaming the tiredness for being inconsiderate, but then I saw the comma.
Why even bother? Oh, I see, it's because you are a turbo nerd that thinks that people care about what you say and what image they might form of you due to your writing. Sad!

Prince was the worst for that type of shit and he wasn't even jewish

It's still stealing, regardless of whether it being stealing is consequential or not. It's literally taking his intellectual property and distributing it without his permission. It's the same as China stealing military blueprints and making their own knockoff shit. It's stealing in every way.

The irony of you calling someone out for using slang and then criticizing someone else for caring about what people might think of their use of language is truly incredible

pro tip: the jews are the industry heads that want you to use streaming services

>It's literally taking his intellectual property and distributing it without his permission.
I disagree.

>It's the same as China stealing military blueprints and making their own knockoff shit.
That's a very, very poor comparison.

>The irony of you calling someone out for using slang and then criticizing someone else for caring about what people might think of their use of language is truly incredible
There's nothing of ironic in that. It would be ironic if they were of the same nature or symmetric in some way - they are not.
One evaluates linguistic choices - and very lightly, playful, even; though it's fair that you cannot absorb that, specially with me putting a 'heavy' word like 'filth' at the end of that.

The other evaluates the thought behind a behavior, in this case, correcting a punctuation error, which is neither an stylistic choice or something so important or unforgivable, hence why I find strange that any confident person would care about it and correct it in a subsequent post.

I gotta say, that was a very poor try at pointing that 'irony' thing you talk about. Further, I would suggest you to drop that word from your vocabulary. That word is very abused and misunderstood - you yourself cannot comprehend it well enough to use it. Sarcastic is another one. That one is just 'cringe'-inducing -- its users lent that quality to both of these words.

If you can't make sense, just stop posting. It's better.

>you are a turbo nerd that thinks that people care about what you say
>what you say
This is a direct quote from you, in the same post that you indicated you cared about what someone else said, enough to call them filth. The choice of word and typing error may not be symmetric, but the stance you expressed was absolutely contradicted.

>gimme stuff for free!
Stop being such a Jew

>in the same post that you indicated you cared about what someone else said, enough to call them filth
I already explained that - in detail, even.

>The choice of word and typing error may not be symmetric, but the stance you expressed was absolutely contradicted.
Even if I were very seriously bashing his word choice, which I wasn't, that does not contradict anything. I didn't criticize that you would care about what someone else said, I noted that you would care about your spelling mistakes and offered an explanation as to why you would do this, and let me tell you, I was absolutely spot on on my diagnostic. Otherwise you wouldn't be grasping at straws now saying 'how ironic' when there's no irony at all.

>Bob Dylan
uhh, don't you mean
>Shabtai Zisl ben Avraham
;^)

Spotify is great, and I do not care what anyone else says. I love the fact that I can easily hook it up to my Last.fm and the fact that Primium is pretty cheap and worth it.
A lot of albums are on Spotify-more than people give it credit for.

Also a lot of artists are critical of the way music is shared now. It is annoying

>I didn't criticize that you would care about what someone else said
No, you suggested that for someone to assume other people care about what they say is ridiculous (or, that it makes them a "turbo nerd"). And you did this after insulting someone else for what they said, unintentionally providing evidence that people here (that's you, by the way) do care about what other anons say.

I still don't get how people complain about a service that lets you access a crazy amount of music for pretty cheap. I mean yeah there's controversy about them not paying their artists enough and should be called out on that but most people on here are just like "lol Spotify is for plebs" instead of real criticisms of it. If Spotify wasn't hugely popular but still had as wide range of music Sup Forums would be shitting themselves over it.

>No, you suggested that for someone to assume other people care about what they say is ridiculous (or, that it makes them a "turbo nerd")
This makes no sense whatsoever. I did not say that.
Just so you know: I was poking you with turbo nerd because I assumed insecurity on you, that is all. You bind more significance to it than there is in fact.

>And you did this after insulting someone else for what they said, unintentionally providing evidence that people here (that's you, by the way) do care about what other anons say.
Yes, people do care about what the other is saying in this place, otherwise we wouldn't be having a conversation. But that is one level of care. Another level of care is to care that you misplaced a comma and you are compelled to correct it because you really are afraid that they may think of you, how they may picture you, where in the matrix of qualities one will place you because of a misplaced comma.
But let me underline this clearly: people do care about what the other is saying. What you say is not a misplaced comma, is it? Hopefully you can stop clinging now.

>most people on here are just like "lol Spotify is for plebs" instead of real criticisms of it.
I guess you just need to understand that the people who say this are some mix of autistic, insecure and contrarian, and just need to be ignored

also, I don't think "most" people say this. certainly no one has said it in this thread

but, yeah, streaming is great for active music listeners. even if no service has everything, they still have more music than you'd be able to listen to in a lifetime, and are a good supplement to any library

plus from what I understand the artist compensation issues are more a problem with record labels' distribution of the money generated, not the services themselves. this problem predated streaming by decades

>What you say is not a misplaced comma, is it?
"What you say" is a quote from you. I'll repost it here for the second time
>you are a turbo nerd that thinks that people care about what you say
The misplaced comma is irrelevant, the sentence I just quoted (or rather the sentiment behind it) contradicts your earlier words in the same post. That's all there is to it.

I just don't see how you're supposed to stream everything you listen to all the time. Does everybody just have a 20 gig data plan these days or something?

well, yeah, high data plans are getting cheaper, and streaming actually doesn't take up much data

but that's besides the point, because pretty much every service I'm aware of has a download/offline option. it's no different to downloading albums from elsewhere on the internet, except it's conveniently all from one source

I won't go back a third time. I already told you enough to dispel this 'irony' that you cling to.

But if the misplaced comma was 'irrelevant' (either a poor choice or a sneaky one; the word with fitting meaning would be 'unimportant'), why would one correct it? It makes no sense.

You can quote me a thousand times, you can quote me entirely, if you will. If you fail to assert things correctly, if you arbitrarily or ineptly assign an incorrect meaning/impression to it, it simply won't make sense. You demonstrated that in your very post.

As I said, I already told you enough.

The comma is irrelevant to the discussion, because the discussion is about the irony of the content of your post, in isolation.

You suggested it was ridiculous for someone to think other people care about what they say (your words), while in the same post showing that you cared about what someone else said. That's all there is to it.

You may have meant that it was ridiculous for them to think that other people care about their tiny grammatical errors, but that's not what you said. The irony comes from the contradiction between what you actually said, and your words earlier in the post. It's all self-contained in that one post.

he's old as fuck and doesn't understand the internet, i'll cut him some slack.

>You suggested it was ridiculous for someone to think other people care about what they say (your words)
You are clinging to what that phrase meant literally when it's pretty clear, looking at the context and the following idea on that phrase, that when I said 'what you say' I wasn't referring to what ideas you were communicating, but in fact meant 'what you wrote', which drives better the idea of written word, and on that case, miswritten punctuation. Finally meaning: [...]' it's because you are a turbo nerd that thinks that people care about what you WROTE (or better, miswrote) and what image they might form of you due to your (mis)writing.'

I swear to god this is the last time I talk to you and I only do so because half of me trusts your stupidity.

Fair enough.

...

But I was having fun, user. Come back to me

most artists who don't understand the internet let the people who are actually employed to deal with the distribution of their music handle it

he's made a concerted effort to keep his music offline, so no slack shall be cut from me