No.11853
>>11852>consumerism as activism PokémonGO vote with your wallet!
No.11854
>>11852>We need to seriously regulate the works of dead musicians like demanding they aren’t played as much as living ones or make their music much harder to buyThat's obviously completely ludicrous and the vast majority of people would consider you deranged.
We just need less retarded copyright laws. Art should go into the public domain much faster than it is currently. Descendants shouldn't be able to mooch off a dead artist's success for decades.
No.11855
Stupidest thing I’ve read all day and I’m 100% sure this thread is bait.
No.11857
100% thought this was regarding AI artists and not whatever op is
No.11861
>>11858Makes me think we should pull all dead artists’ music from circulation.
No.11862
>>11852>>11861Absolutely retarded.
All you have to do to solve this problem is abolish IP and inheritance. No one’s music should be memory-holed after they die.
By that logic, should we remove books by authors who have passed? What about films where the director and/or main actors have died? Where does it stop?
No.11865
>>11862Or just pirate it like a normal person. No one said memory hole it.
OP just said it sucks selling works of dead artists works despite being an obvious scam, and that one anon saying IP should expire on death could stand to dream bigger, but perhaps they see reeling back the expiry date as a temporary step toward that.
No.11866
>>11852> Why buy or stream music made by dead artists when all you’re doing is putting money into the hands of their kids, money which those kids did NOT earn from their own work.1. Abolition of inheritance is a literal plank of The Communist Manifesto you mong.
2. It’s not a zero-sum game. Just because I listen to music made by dead artists doesn’t mean I’m not listening to music made by living ones.
3. If you think artists make most of their money from sales and streams you have no fucking clue how the music industry works. Artists make dimes from streaming. The vast majority of their wealth comes from touring and merch sales, not to mention endorsement deals. Rihanna isn’t a billionaire because of music but because of her cosmetics company. Taylor Swift is a billionaire because she’s putting on extravagant tours and charging way too much for tickets.
This entire thread was made with the intent of making people dumber.
No.11867
>>11865 (me)
>>11866Oh I overlooked OP's mention of streaming. Didn't know people still fell for the "watching ads is support" meme when everyone uses uBlock these days.
No.11868
>>11861This, my friends, is a perfect example of the solution being worse than the problem.
I’d rather see the descendants of dead musicians get rich, than see all that music pulled from the shelves.
Imagine walking into a record store and not being able to buy and enjoy so much beautiful music just because the artist who made it is dead. That’s incredibly fucked and a bizarre thing to sacrifice in the name of “socialism”.
No.11869
>>11852Oh FFS. This is the exact same debate we had on the worst fucking thread I’ve ever seen on this site, the “HOW WOULD SAMPLING WORK UNDER SOCIALISM??!” thread. Any socialist would agree IP wouldn’t exist under socialism so this entire complaint about having to compete with dead artists would be pointless.
No.11870
really weird thread. within the context of this present state of things and assuming total communism hasn't been achieved, whenever an artist dies their work should just immediately enter the public domain. that was pretty much the original intent of IP laws and even this would imo be a huge compromise. IP laws should just be entirely abolished.
No.11871
>buying art
Steal all art, total artist starvation
No.11874
>petit bourgeois mentality in action
im going to pirate both lol
No.11879
>>11852>>11858>>11861I know this is a bait thread, but jesus fucking christ.
What about artists like vidrel whose music only got popular after they died? Some artists like Nick Drake only see their music gain any kind of notoriety decades after death when it's rediscovered.
What about albums released just days before the artist passed (like Blackstar and Donuts to name a few)? Usually they worked on these albums when they were gravely ill and it would be unfair to shelve it all.
What about artists who pass away right before their albums are released? Should all that hard work go to waste?
And while I understand the issue with posthumous albums (e.g. many of them are just moneygrabs) some of them are genuinely good and deserve to be heard. Many artists who died young had loads of completed tracks that they wanted released but never got a chance to. An example would be Juice WRLD who had something like 400+ completed freestyles which are all saved on someone's computer somewhere and may never see the light of day. Unless no one is making a franken-album I don't see the issue.
No.11880
>>11879Just don't pay for it? Copyright should be waived the moment the author dies, they should be in the public domain.
No.11883
>>11879>What about artists like vidrel whose music only got popular after they died?As long as it's archived people can enjoy it
>What about albums released just days before the artist passed (like Blackstar and Donuts to name a few)? Usually they worked on these albums when they were gravely ill and it would be unfair to shelve it all.>What about artists who pass away right before their albums are released? Should all that hard work go to waste?Archive it. Don't allow companies–should companies as a concept persist any longer–to shelve stuff artists signed under them–be it the practice of record deals persist any longer–make. Legally require it be publically archieved while it's being made–to prevent it from being tax wrote off / shredded out of spite–then, until copyright as a practice ceases to persist, once the artist dies, it becomes public domain.
No.11885
>>11879I’d add to this that in many cases it’s not even about the money. The deceased artist or their family may want that artist’s music to be heard and distributed posthumously even if the family won’t make any money from it.
No.11886
>>11880artists living off royalties for the rest of their lives is also pretty bullshit
No.11887
>>11886Correct. The dead vs. living thing is a total red herring.
No.11888
>>11887There's a difference between being paid for making art, and living on royalties.
In such a case where a company can even be selling their art post-mortem, it's gonna be royalties. This isn't really an issue when an artist is getting paid by other means.
Unique IPs: 16