Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Perhaps your "life is unfair" line could be extended to the artists who feel it's their natural right to take advantage of the diminishing costs of digital distribution.


They aren't charging to get the song physically to you. They're charging you for the right to play it. Up until now, that has been easiest via payment on transfer of the physical good. Now that we have new mechanisms, they're still allowed to set the terms under which you may use their music.

For example, radio stations pay more. They may have the physical CD in their grasp, but they have to pay to play it on air. DVD shops get charged more per video because they rent it out repeatedly - they don't just use the same home version as you do and pocket the difference. Changing the distribution mechanism to radio stations and DVD shops to digital doesn't change the concept of copyright owners being able to set the terms of use for their content.

Now, would I like a whole new approach? Sure. I long for ways to reinvent the industry, like crowdsourcing aspects of music production, marketing etc. There will be many ways to make a living from music in the future. But that doesn't mean I think it's ok to just make up the rules as I go along and copy anything that I fancy.


That is the problem though. I am paying for the rights to pay for the music instead of paying for the music.

That is exactly where it went wrong.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: