It is in the domain of the artist to decide how they wish for their art to be distributed.
Creative Commons? Sweet!
Public Domain? Awesome!
Patreon required? Good for you!
Some form of distribution involving copy protection? It's still THEIR CHOICE. Don't like it? Don't watch/listen/otherwise consume it.
You cross the line from fan to thief when you decide to take that choice from them.
But yay, anticapitalism, right? Way to stick it to the starving artists.
And honestly, it's the culture that promotes anti-artist crap (including the variant disguised as anticapitalism) that will keep many of my students from ever earning enough to eat and pay rent by doing what they love.
If you don't like the method of compensation requested by the content creator, so therefore you steal and boost toots that encourage others to steal, then maybe I was wrong about this place.
Because you don't care at all if people steal from my students.
@Downes It's not an either or situation. The main difference between the two is that the big company won't be able to tell the difference between one person's theft and a rounding error, but the revenue of the artist that partnered with said company as an inexpensive distribution method? They'll feel it intensely.
Blame it on how we got here if you want, but it doesn't make it hurt the small artists less if you tell them you're hurting the big companies too.
Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully. Read more ...