|Submited on :||Thu, 11th of Oct 2018 - 20:55:01 PM|
|Post ID :||9n9pjn|
|Post Name :||t3_9n9pjn|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2qh16|
Consumers want choices at a reasonable price-point, also to own and retain their purchases, not forced into a "licensed use" scenario. It's the same reason why video pirating is on the rise again - too many different streaming portals cost too much to have legal access, so rather than pay for all the streaming services consumers will pay for what they can, and pirate the rest.
I wouldn't have to still pirate music if music industry bullshit wasn't keeping a bunch of out of print albums off of streaming services. I'd love for these albums to be available legitimately but the only "legal" option is purchasing old cds/lps on the secondhand market, which benefits no one but the secondhand seller.
Digitized music is effectively public domain. This has been true for twenty years.
Why should we give money to a bunch of upity millionares when most music buyers barely make a living wage?
Fuck that self righteous son of a bitch from IFPI. I already paid for the music a dozen times over, with my various streaming accounts or with my time by listening to the ads you purchased.
Your the one stealing my money from the artists. Stop trying to blame your theft on me.
Bad enough when there are tracks or songs I cannot find anywhere and end up using YouTube to play them
Of course we do!
You've got to be a moron to pay for music!
Well stop charging us so much and still shoving ads down our throats. Also the artist still makes money off us if we use a tool to download the song off youtube, your still giving it views and ad time. That equates to youtube money. So even though we are getting it for ‘free’ they still make money off it. They make way more this way then back in the 90s with everyone dling off napster