this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
411 points (99.8% liked)
Technology
37758 readers
619 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
You're acting like I'm pirating the music, here. I'm not. I said that I'm using Deezer right now, a legal and paid for way to listen to music.
I use Deezer and like I said, when I like an album, I still try to buy music from the artists that I love when I can. Which pays them much more then millions of stream.
I feel guilt free, honestly.
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.
The artists put their music on streaming platform as well. There is no such thing as ethical consumption under Capitalism. Everything is fucking exploitative as fuck, everything is awful. There is A LOT of things that I refuse to watch, play, listen to, pay for, consume, for ethical reasons.
Again: I AM NOT PIRATING! I'm using a legal way to access the music I listen to, Deezer. And buying albums that I really love when I can afford it on the side.
I think I understand how I ended up believing you were pirating even though you weren't: @zaphod makes it seem like you're doing something remotely unethical when you not only use a legitimate subscription service but also support the artists through other ways! I'm not sure what more an artist could ask from a patron such as yourself.
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?
...but I'm not pirating though! ;-;
My mistake! I lost the thread when typing my response. Don't worry, I'll call the RIAA today and cancel the snitch report I made ;)
Too late, the death squads are already at my door.
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.