this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
75 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

64213 readers
1402 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

FUCK ADOBE!

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dr-robot@fedia.io 18 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

If you never pay for music, artists won't be able to make new music. Where possible buy as directly as possible from the artist, e.g., through bandcamp.

[–] Afaithfulnihilist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

If you send the artist money in the form of a check or a donation more of that money goes to the person who produces the thing.

It's not possible to reach 100%, but every little bit of your dollar you ensure enters the pocket of a person who worked for a living is one less bit of that dollar that ends up in the hands of a leech or a parasite.

Giving Spotify or Google or Apple or whoever has inserted themselves into the system to absorb money for something that they don't pay for is fundamentally not healthy for any part of the ecosystem of art.

[–] Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

In a way, I don't see the point. Like, for example, what would my money do for someone like Metallica? Who've made millions for years doing what they do. I've pirated their music long ago and I don't feel guilty because I know they're a band who has signed contracts that were worth lots of money. Besides concerts, what would I be doing?

That's pretty much where I would draw the line with these things. If bands and artists have signed with a label, majority of the time, you don't need to do anything, they're already making it, that's what they wanted to do and they did it.

It is better to support those who hadn't.

[–] Afaithfulnihilist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with what you're saying, and I should have been more clear.

I'm not saying you have to send them money, but if you do let money leave your wallet, we should be trying to make sure it gets to a deserving party. I think in general, we should avoid giving money to extractive industries that don't add value and I'm encouraging you to error on the side of sending that money directly to the artist/laborers and cutting out literally everybody else.

I agree with you in that no one needs to be sending money to Metallica.

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It's not worth the time effort or attention to pretend some small extra fucked up corner of capitalism can pretend to be slightly less fantastical and violent.

End this shit. Give everyone what they need. Help people find food and housing without requiring them to sing and dance for it.

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 points 3 hours ago

"Give everyone what they need"

From who's pocket? It won't be from the wealthy, because they are powerful - the wealth is a side-effect of that. They'll still be powerful, and still have more than the rest of us.

[–] burble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 12 hours ago
[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Open https://bandcamp.com/discover?s=rand and check how many albums have sold more than 5 copies.

How are those artists able to make music without making money? Because according to you, they can't.

[–] Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Because, you'd find this hard to believe, that there are people who want to enjoy a hobby without feeling like selling out. Like there are actual artists who even see signing a contract with a record label as selling out. Because that would mean selling their soul, which countless of artists and bands have done over the years if it mean success and reach. But look at where that got them, might've got them fame and money, but it doesn't attract artists who don't care.

These artists wouldn't mind working real jobs while doing what they enjoy. And they don't mind using services like this. Some artists in the past, even saw pirating as a way of getting out and being known by people, it's happened before.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Because, you'd find this hard to believe, that there are people who want to enjoy a hobby without feeling like selling out.

Hobbyists have bills to pay, too.

[–] Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

These artists wouldn't mind working real jobs

These artists wouldn't mind working real jobs

These artists wouldn't mind working real jobs

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago

The use of "real jobs" already tells me that you don't respect artists, which is likely the real reason why you don't want to pay them.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 hours ago

Because with your logic they'd make nothing.
Never heard of passion projects?

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Artists can't pay rent now. They make music though.

I work for a better world. I do not look for excuses to reward corporations that steal from artists to burn libraries, thanks.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I feel like "not paying artists" makes as much for a better world as "not tipping waitstaff".

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus -2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It's really not something i consider worth my time and attention. I know your liberal programmed virtues tell you that supporting artists under capitalism with your dollar-vote is the done thing, but i don't agree and won't be wasting any more of my time trying to reason you out of such a convoluted position on something that barely matters.

[–] flatlined@anarchist.nexus 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

You could play the world's smallest violin for them. Couldn't get paid for it apparently, but still.

More seriously, we probably disagree and I won't try to persuade you. Abolish capitalism and all that is preaching to the choir, but while we will live under it, if an artist you like has a direct way for your support (cash, bank transfer, crypto, whatever floats your boat) that doesn't fatten music labels, would/do you?

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus 2 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Maybe, if it were convenient. Won't be though, so it's not something I've considered at length. They went after the archives though, and I think the entire concept of paying for media should take any hit that can be issued in retaliation.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago

That's an awfully defeatist way of looking at it, IMO.

[–] KAtieTot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 hours ago

"Some media company sued the Internet archive so now I'm not paying any artists for their work or the media I consume" is entitled bullshit. Esp after acknowledging many struggle to pay rent.

Burn your CDs and listen to the silence. Maybe a thought will wander through your skull-cavern