this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
625 points (98.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54731 readers
246 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Visits to music piracy websites went up more than 13 percent last year, a new report says. The majority of those visits were to sites that allow users to download the audio from YouTube URLs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zaphod@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Assuming each of those tracks is about 3.5 min long, that's about 250 hours of music. Given your numbers they paid an average of 7 bucks per hour of music.

For context, 25 years ago a typical 45 minute album would fetch 15 bucks. And that's not accounting for inflation adjustment.

I'm sure that's totally sustainable for those artists...

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

One, this is just my favorites list, not every album I've listened to. And I've listened to my playlists on random quite a few times over the years.

Two, I don't listen to pop music, so the average is probably closer to 4-5 minutes per song. (About 362 hrs of music on the playlist, if you must know.)

Three, you can't just plug in a yearly rate, convert it to hours, and use it in any meaningful way.

[–] zaphod@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Your first two paragraphs make the picture worse, not better.

As for your last, I'm not writing an economics thesis. It was a quick analysis to illustrate a problem no sane person disputes: streaming services have substantially driven down revenue for artists, to the point that for many it's genuinely impossible to create their art while making a living wage.

Is it better than piracy? Sure. At least the artists are getting something (well, unless you drop below Spotify's streaming cutoff, in which case you can get fucked). But it's still a shitty deal and gives consumers someone else to blame as artists slowly bleed out.