I don’t know what to do honestly. I’m fully aware of the situation. Artists deserve better then the shit they’re always getting, I’m not disagreeing. But here’s the thing, buying music is nice and all, but one: Bandcamp is going to shit. And two, I just can’t afford it.
I’m poor and I listen to a lot of things. Buying all that isn’t possible for me. Right now, I’m using Deezer, because they offered 3 months for free. And you know what? Just the 10 bucks a month that I’m saving is making a huge difference in my life.
Not to mention that discovering music without streaming services is quite hard. I left Spotify a long time ago, when the home page started recommending me more Podcasts then music. I tried a lot of things and I came to the conclusion that I hate all music streaming platform but they’re still, by far, the best way for me to listen to and discover music.
If I love an album, I’ll still buy if I can afford it (which I often can’t).
I’m poor and I listen to a lot of things. Buying all that isn’t possible for me.
So basically: you can’t afford the volume of product you want to consume at a price that’s sustainable for artists, but want the product anyway and you see that as some unsolvable dilemma? Have I got that right?
Look, it sucks that you’re in that financial situation. Not here to downplay that struggle. I’ve lived like that and it fuckin sucks.
But maybe the answer is to value the effort of musicians and either pay them for their work or consume less?
But maybe the answer is to value the effort of musicians and either pay them for their work or consume less?
What benefit would that decision have? Artists would still receive the same amount of royalties. @Plume would still spend the same amount of money. What benefit is there to artificially limit his music listening hobby because of copyright law?
This isn’t a utilitarian argument. It’s a moral one.
They want to believe there’s some moral dilemma here and they’re, by gosh, trying their best to navigate it.
But the reality is: they want music, but they can’t afford to pay artists in a way that’s sustainable, so they’re just taking it however they can get it and paying a pittance to make themselves feel a bit better.
So quit pretending. They’ve made their choice. Their priorities are clear.
My argument isn’t simply utilitarian either. It would be utilitarian to say, “It’s moral to pirate music as long as your enjoyment exceeds the harm caused to the artist.” But I’m saying that there is no harm caused by OP pirating in this situation. Don’t most moral arguments involve some kind of measure of harm? (Honest and sincere question)
It’s been a while since I studied philosophy, but for my own knowledge, do you know if there is some distinction between this sort of argument (e.g. “no victim = no crime”) and plain old utilitarianism?
In other words, what ethical theory is your moral argument based on?
By your definition of harm, no artist creating non-material goods (books, movies, music, etc) could ever experience harm due to any one individual’s actions. “I was never going to pay, so taking it without paying is a victim less crime,” etc, etc.
The problem is this is clearly harmful in aggregate.
There are countless actions that, on an individual level are relatively harmless that we deem immoral because they’d be harmful if everyone did them: e.g. polluting.
But setting aside issues of harm–which is absolutely utilitarian–there are also many actions for which no objective “harm” can be identified but which we still deem inherently immoral. For example, if someone cheats on their spouse, and the spouse never finds out, most people I know would say that action is immoral irrespective of the lack of direct harm.
By your definition of harm, no artist creating non-material goods (books, movies, music, etc) could ever experience harm due to any one individual’s actions. “I was never going to pay, so taking it without paying is a victim less crime,” etc, etc.
False. I acknowledge that there could be harm if a consumer would otherwise be able to afford to pay for all of the music they listen to. The distinction here is that if a consumer is already spending as much as they can truly afford then artists aren’t going to get any more money out of this consumer, regardless of whether or not they pay for it.
In other words: if you pirate because you must = no harm; if you pirate because you can = some harm.
That’s an interesting thought experiment about the cheating spouse, though. Thank you for the interesting perspective! This makes me want to re-visit my philosophy notes.
For the record, I pay for Spotify and also support artists through Bandcamp, merch, vinyl, and live concerts. I also pirate music which isn’t otherwise available through Spotify and/or Bandcamp (e.g. The Grey Album by Danger Mouse, and up until recently The Flamingo Trigger by Foxy Shazam) and don’t feel guilty about those instances.
I don’t know what to do honestly. I’m fully aware of the situation. Artists deserve better then the shit they’re always getting, I’m not disagreeing. But here’s the thing, buying music is nice and all, but one: Bandcamp is going to shit. And two, I just can’t afford it.
I’m poor and I listen to a lot of things. Buying all that isn’t possible for me. Right now, I’m using Deezer, because they offered 3 months for free. And you know what? Just the 10 bucks a month that I’m saving is making a huge difference in my life.
Not to mention that discovering music without streaming services is quite hard. I left Spotify a long time ago, when the home page started recommending me more Podcasts then music. I tried a lot of things and I came to the conclusion that I hate all music streaming platform but they’re still, by far, the best way for me to listen to and discover music.
If I love an album, I’ll still buy if I can afford it (which I often can’t).
So basically: you can’t afford the volume of product you want to consume at a price that’s sustainable for artists, but want the product anyway and you see that as some unsolvable dilemma? Have I got that right?
Look, it sucks that you’re in that financial situation. Not here to downplay that struggle. I’ve lived like that and it fuckin sucks.
But maybe the answer is to value the effort of musicians and either pay them for their work or consume less?
What benefit would that decision have? Artists would still receive the same amount of royalties. @Plume would still spend the same amount of money. What benefit is there to artificially limit his music listening hobby because of copyright law?
So then why post about it?
This isn’t a utilitarian argument. It’s a moral one.
They want to believe there’s some moral dilemma here and they’re, by gosh, trying their best to navigate it.
But the reality is: they want music, but they can’t afford to pay artists in a way that’s sustainable, so they’re just taking it however they can get it and paying a pittance to make themselves feel a bit better.
So quit pretending. They’ve made their choice. Their priorities are clear.
My argument isn’t simply utilitarian either. It would be utilitarian to say, “It’s moral to pirate music as long as your enjoyment exceeds the harm caused to the artist.” But I’m saying that there is no harm caused by OP pirating in this situation. Don’t most moral arguments involve some kind of measure of harm? (Honest and sincere question)
It’s been a while since I studied philosophy, but for my own knowledge, do you know if there is some distinction between this sort of argument (e.g. “no victim = no crime”) and plain old utilitarianism?
In other words, what ethical theory is your moral argument based on?
By your definition of harm, no artist creating non-material goods (books, movies, music, etc) could ever experience harm due to any one individual’s actions. “I was never going to pay, so taking it without paying is a victim less crime,” etc, etc.
The problem is this is clearly harmful in aggregate.
There are countless actions that, on an individual level are relatively harmless that we deem immoral because they’d be harmful if everyone did them: e.g. polluting.
But setting aside issues of harm–which is absolutely utilitarian–there are also many actions for which no objective “harm” can be identified but which we still deem inherently immoral. For example, if someone cheats on their spouse, and the spouse never finds out, most people I know would say that action is immoral irrespective of the lack of direct harm.
As for your last question, tbh I have no idea.
False. I acknowledge that there could be harm if a consumer would otherwise be able to afford to pay for all of the music they listen to. The distinction here is that if a consumer is already spending as much as they can truly afford then artists aren’t going to get any more money out of this consumer, regardless of whether or not they pay for it.
In other words: if you pirate because you must = no harm; if you pirate because you can = some harm.
That’s an interesting thought experiment about the cheating spouse, though. Thank you for the interesting perspective! This makes me want to re-visit my philosophy notes.
For the record, I pay for Spotify and also support artists through Bandcamp, merch, vinyl, and live concerts. I also pirate music which isn’t otherwise available through Spotify and/or Bandcamp (e.g. The Grey Album by Danger Mouse, and up until recently The Flamingo Trigger by Foxy Shazam) and don’t feel guilty about those instances.