19-03-2025, 19:01
I was chatting to a user online on another website in a debate. That debate then led to the topic of streaming music, where I stated "I stream because it's free!! The artists still get paid anyway." To which the un-named record store owner wished death upon me and called me a broken b*tch Philistine, an entitled c*nt and an idiot. He told me that I had to pay for my entertainment. I want you to decide if I'm wrong. (And you have to hear me out.)
Here are the reasons why I believe I do not have to buy records, and I am able to stream online for free:
1. When you get food from a farmer, do you pay the farmer directly after instead of the store? Do you directly pay the author after you read a book? No, so it's the same with music.
2. Most of these people are already MILLIONAIRES.
3. They agreed to have their music on a streaming platform for a reason: for it to be streamed. They literally want me to stream their music.
4. I don't have a record player and, naturally, don't have an interest in listening to music that way.
5. Either way, my streaming supports them even if it's less; me not buying a £5 record isn't going to make the world crumble.
6. I'm not rich.
7. He calls me a broke b*tch, yet I have to pay for Wi-Fi and this device to listen to music. I have paid to hear this.
8. I do NOT owe artists a single penny.
9. If anything, the word spreads faster on social media, so supporting them here spreads their name more.
10. If I paid for the hundreds of songs and albums I enjoyed, then I would be homeless, and if you suggest not paying for all of them, then that's not equal distribution.
The owner expects teenagers to pay for it too! He also stated more insane opinions that I'm not going to get into. (In fact, maybe I'll save his second insane opinion for another post.)
But I'm shocked how someone who's been a reviewer for 13 years and has reviewed over 33 thousand tracks can be so wrong. Please give your opinions.
(Bonus note: my points are not to suggest that streaming is better but instead to suggest that I do not have to pay for records.)
Here are the reasons why I believe I do not have to buy records, and I am able to stream online for free:
1. When you get food from a farmer, do you pay the farmer directly after instead of the store? Do you directly pay the author after you read a book? No, so it's the same with music.
2. Most of these people are already MILLIONAIRES.
3. They agreed to have their music on a streaming platform for a reason: for it to be streamed. They literally want me to stream their music.
4. I don't have a record player and, naturally, don't have an interest in listening to music that way.
5. Either way, my streaming supports them even if it's less; me not buying a £5 record isn't going to make the world crumble.
6. I'm not rich.
7. He calls me a broke b*tch, yet I have to pay for Wi-Fi and this device to listen to music. I have paid to hear this.
8. I do NOT owe artists a single penny.
9. If anything, the word spreads faster on social media, so supporting them here spreads their name more.
10. If I paid for the hundreds of songs and albums I enjoyed, then I would be homeless, and if you suggest not paying for all of them, then that's not equal distribution.
The owner expects teenagers to pay for it too! He also stated more insane opinions that I'm not going to get into. (In fact, maybe I'll save his second insane opinion for another post.)
But I'm shocked how someone who's been a reviewer for 13 years and has reviewed over 33 thousand tracks can be so wrong. Please give your opinions.
(Bonus note: my points are not to suggest that streaming is better but instead to suggest that I do not have to pay for records.)
