Don't mind me, just pirating music

>don't mind me, just pirating music

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=d508UHNTzIk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

jokes on you, i don't go outside so no one will ever steal my wallet

Honestly unless you're pirating music from some obscure garage-band that only 1000 people know exist, pirating isn't that big of a deal. If you pirate Metallica or something, it doesn't hurt them at all

im sure the major label band could do without the fraction they would receive of ten dollars i didnt spend on their album

Funny to see mention Metallica of all bands seeing how hard they went against it.

The thing with the garage band scenario is that their albums are most likely out of print, so pirating them wouldn't do them any harm as they wouldn't receive royalties from you buying their releases anyway.

>implying doing immoral things is wrong
cuck

Metallica were bitches about it yea but they were already rich as hell, some kid stealing a $.99 song wasn't gonna destroy them

If you pay for the music you support music industry jews and their rich kids on instagram.

>never study no fucks given
>pirate test answers from nerd
>nerd tells me to please stop it
>make me you bitch ass faggot
>nerd shuts the fuck up quick
>ace test like a boss as usual

yea. all records i buy tend to be from record stores or from a collector online. it seems like the vinyl market is almost entirely focused around reselling. same with tapes and cds. if i buy something the money is not going to the artist. its going to the reselling community. it might have gone through several different owners before getting to me. am i wrong that the primary music market is reselling not direct buying from labels or bands? seems like everyone i know who collects records doesnt buy new stuff.

what this should actually be in 99% of cases is a picture of someone stealing an atom-sized crumb off a plate of biscuits the size of africa

The problem with his logic is that when you sell a used CD/vinyl, you are selling one singular copy to one person. If you upload an album, you are distrusting potentially hundreds of thousands of copies to hundreds of thousands of different people.

>99% of cases
But most music is independent and don't have the money to spare.

Go back to and cry about pirating there.

i'm morally opposed to thinking of music as a capitalist commodity. does anyone else think it belittles it to reduce it to a commodity equal to a monetary value? placing it in a capitalist market reduces it to a consumerist good and devalues it. i think "piracy" and the internet allowing free and unrestricted access to music did a huge service in disrupting that market.

>don't mind me, just pirating music

there are a lot of lesser known bands whose albums i've acquired for free and subsequently gone to their shows, recced them to other people etc. i can guarantee i never would've heard them - or perhaps even developed a lasting interest in music at all - if their material wasn't freely available.

i'm not even saying this is a moral justification for piracy (it definitely isn't, and it would be disingenuous of me or anyone similar to claim they're on some anti-capitalist moral crusade when really we just like free stuff) but it is certainly a curious positive result of how widespread and accessible pirated music is now - and how much more efficiently you can consume music as a result of that.

>i'm morally opposed to thinking of music as a capitalist commodity.
The problem with this is that it costs money to make music.

Capitalism is shit. I feel you

Im amazed at how many people ITT think piracy is morally reprehensible.

Lmao nothing anyone can say will make me think pirating music, especially of a millionaire musician, is morally wrong in any way whatsoever.

capitalism inherently creates a ruling class and generates a lower class. it develops systems of keeping class systems and holding people in them. the lower classes are forced to submit their labor for the benefit of the ruling class which is small and few and in the west white men. putting art and music into this market inherently reduces it to a comsumer good. the people in power to distribute and release music inherentyl have an agenda to propogate capitalism and this top down system that is exploiting people. it is unethical to propogate a system which does this. making music a consumer good devalues it and enters human creativity and expression into a system of consumerism and exploitation.

that is simply untrue. your voice is free. your body is free. nature produces all kinds of materials to produce sound. music has existed long before capitalism. non capitalist music still exists in tribal communal cultures. if you examine the spiritual emotional meaning and affect of music in capitalist society versus tribal communities you can see how it is devalued by becoming a consumer commodity.

>ITT make me
Request noted

easy for you to say, while you pirate terabytes of music that took hundreds of man years to make

t. College student who just learned about socialism

That just says more about your underdeveloped morality than anything. I have a lot more respect for people that say "I pirate because I don't give a fuck" than people who are just blissfully ignorant of the moral aspect.

My morality is quite developed. Im a very empathetic person in general.

Am I supposed to feel bad for pirating an Ed Sheeran album because his absurdly rich record company will lose the potential money they could have had from me? Even if the money were going straight to Ed Sheeran, he doesn't need any more than he already has, and my lack of a $12 contribution won't make a difference.

What about music of dead artists? Why should I pay for a BB King album on itunes? Who is that money going to? No one that I care about is the answer.

Piracy is not stealing. The artist just loses one potential buyer.
>Scenario 1: Jimmy really likes the new Kendrick Lamar record so he downloads it illegally
>Scenario 2: Jimmy really likes the new Kendrick Lamar record so he goes to the vinyl store, but on his was a bus hits him and he fucking dies
There might be a difference between the 2 for Jimmy's parents, but not for Kendrick or his label for sure.
Saying "DON'T BUY DAMN. BECAUSE IT'S SHIT" causing anons to empty their carts in the online store just when they were about to pay is just as harmful as downloading it yourself.

>he doesn't need any more than he already has
lmao, how is this an argument for the morality of your actions?
>waaaa he makes more than me it's not fair waaa

>very empathetic
>fuck BB's family

>>waaaa he makes more than me it's not fair waaa
Thats not what I was saying lol. Im glad hes rich, God bless him. Just that I wont feel bad for not giving him more money because I think he has enough. If I had money to spare and was a fan of a struggling musician, I would absolutely buy their album. I buy albums on bandcamp pretty often too.

Guess how much freedom people can handle.

for this to be moral, you would need to consider yourself able to fairly asses how much a people "deserves" based on their needs and on their merits, and you would also need to know everyone's income. Obviously you're not claiming to be above others in this way, right?

nah m8 its moral if I dont feel bad about it

>Saying "DON'T BUY DAMN. BECAUSE IT'S SHIT" causing anons to empty their carts in the online store just when they were about to pay is just as harmful as downloading it yourself.
Good point but only true if the musician is forcing a blind buy like Joanna Newsom

Arrrgh my boy you're pirating some epic Pirate Metal, you better fuckin be matey or I'll make you walk the plank!

>owning a wallet

independent music could be thought of as one of the ONLY forms of ethical consumption in late capitalism. directly buying someones own artistic creative product and directly benefitting the laborer not the exploitatitive upper class. of course its complicated when labels, physical copies (which would assumedly have parts made unethical conditions and require media playing systems with parts that assumedly exploited labor) come in to the picture. but its far more morally viable consumption system than most consumption under capitalism.

*pirates own music to your computer*

Cute I never really thought of it that way.

pirating is coping the wallet not stealing

Spotify, my man. No one "pirates" music anymore, it's not necessary. Spotify streams nearly everything imaginable for free. They make their money on subscribers and advertising.

The world is changing; keep up.

I'll start using spotify when they have access to a vast lolicore catalog

Savvy?

is listening to spotify on browser with ublock origin morally wrong?

Anyone know any other cringy songs about downloading music?


youtube.com/watch?v=d508UHNTzIk

I can't believe they didn't call it Masters of the Web. That seems to flow a whole lot better.

Or some other way to discourage one from buying music then

Wut, I'm only talking about the ability to legally preview albums. Kendrick Lamar is available for preview so it doesnt matter what anyone says about. The only way to preview Joanna Newsom is if you can listen to it in a store whether by a promo copy they received or if they open the album for you.