djchameleon

It just seems like a strange philosophy to be part of when you still need to consume things and purchase things necessary to live and especially when you have large record collections like this guy. Unless he doesn't actually buy any of them and just barters for them or sells his body in exchange for records.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

innerspaceboy

I understand how my near-constant influx of rare and elusive vinyl might lead one to question my self-proclaimed anti-consumerist stance.

Please permit me to clarify:

I abstain from purchasing anything new unless absolutely necessary, including wardrobe, accessories, silver and brass items, media, electronics, appliances, home goods, etc. This decision is born both of both environmental concern and of my general distaste for contemporary goods.

My purchases are the result of careful research and a well-informed evaluation of an item's utilitarian usefulness, entertainment value (where applicable), its potential for intellectual enrichment, and its uniqueness to reflect my own personal character.

These purchases are almost always sourced from independent vendors as I will not support the corporate sales model if ever I can avoid it. I much prefer artisanal craftsmanship and antiquarian treasure over mass-produced goods.

I find very little influence following any sort of consumer trends, (just one of numerous reasons I am vehemently opposed to Apple products), and I reject all of Bernays' notions of social consumer conditioning.

I've effectively eliminated nearly all commercial advertising from my life by way of browser add-ons, my total rejection of mass media transmissions, and by not visiting or supporting websites which employ adverts, (and... frankly... by never leaving the house.)

Together, these practices and value sets are in direct opposition to the traditional, passive consumer behaviors of the hoi polloi. And by not purchasing anything new, I greatly minimize my consumer footprint on the economy.

And a side note with regard to digital goods - never pay for anything in the post-scarcity economy of the web.

Everything is free.

__________________
The Innerspace Connection | Essential Recordings | Top Archives | Hot 100 Albums | Top 550 Artists

The Batlord

He's like some bizarro world survivalist.

__________________

Oriphiel

So it's okay to pay someone for "artisinal" goods, but people who sell digital goods can go fuck themselves?

__________________
----------------------
|---Mic's Albums---|
----------------------
-----------------------------
|---Deafbox Industries---|
-----------------------------

Exo

Dude, JUST BUY A ****ING DYSON VACUUM AND RELISH IN YOUR DECISION.

__________________
LastFM

SUPREME POO BAH MODERATOR EXTRAORDINAIRE

innerspaceboy

I'd happily purchase physical recordings of Luigi Russolo if he were alive and offering anything for sale. The same goes for Stockhausen, Cage, and everyone else. But how is one to survey their catalogs of recorded works without downloading a lossless discography uniformly sorted by catalog number and date of issue? How else would you make an informed decision on which pressings, which masters, etc you'd prefer for your library? A fella needs to perform comprehensive comparative analyses to make a proper decision!

Besides, multiple studies have concluded that the ‘worst’ file-sharing pirates spend significantly more on physical media content than ‘honest’ consumers. Torrentfreak published an article about this subject in May of 2013.
Of course, I can only speak for myself, but my purchasing habits align directly with the findings of the Columbia 2012 and OfCom 2013 studies. My non-legal collection comprises several hundred thousand recordings, many of which are not available for purchase at any price from any commercial service, streaming, physical media, or otherwise, so I couldn't purchase them even if I wanted to. Still, my downloads directly result in significant media investments.

So far in 2016 my downloading resulted in over $1,600 in purchases of 45 albums and box sets. Statista reports that average US consumer music purchases in 2016 total $13 for CDs and $5 for vinyl. By these numbers, my piracy-inspired purchases total more than that of the next 90 consumers combined. And this is common among the ‘worst’ file-sharers.

While unfortunately, the other 99% of filesharers don't do their part, the 1%-ers statistically compensate for their slack. And total media spending is proportionally influenced by the amount of content you seize. So take it all! Educate yourself! Develop a discerning ear for the most exquisite recordings the world has to offer!

Then buy the finest specimens for your own library.

mmm... Dyson.

__________________
The Innerspace Connection | Essential Recordings | Top Archives | Hot 100 Albums | Top 550 Artists

Oriphiel

But dude, you didn't say that people should download Luigi Russolo's music, or discography lists, or any of the other specific things you can arguably justify, you straight up said that nobody should pay for anything digital. Not just things created by people who are now deceased, or sound files of varying quality, or archival aids, but anything. You can try to justify it from a moral high ground, flexing your big-dick spending habits (which by the way are irrelevant since you yourself admitted that the majority of the entertainment you buy is on the used physical market, and therefore doesn't support the original creator, many of which are still very much alive), but in the end by sticking to that absolute even if only %1 of the artists you like are living and would like compensation, then there are at least a few people getting screwed out of hard-earned money.

Art for art's sake is great and beautiful, but many artists even in the age of independent music spend a lot of money and time on the production, and reasonably want to at least break even. If they can't, then many artists are discouraged from making future projects. After a certain point, it just becomes unfeasible for them. True, in your time you've exposed many people to music that might have otherwise gone under the radar, but how many potential albums have been jettisoned due to lack of support? How much music has the world been robbed of 'cause people are too greedy to throw a buck or two at the artists they like? I can understand you using whatever means necessary to track down elusive albums, or downloading songs made by people who are now deceased, or using pirating as a way of sampling things in depth before buying them, but would you seriously never even think about just sometimes legitimately paying for something digital that you really really like? Not even if the artist said pretty please?

Unless, that is, you don't stick to that absolute (that all digital products should be free), and I simply misinterpreted you. I mean, if I, a person who is very much alive and in need of money, made a comic series and released it digitally only, and gave you a preview of a few pages that you enjoyed enough to want the whole thing, would you pay me for it or would you steal it? Would the price and ease of access affect your decision, or would you just steal it on the principle that it should be free simply by virtue of being digital?

Don't take this as an insult. I myself love both digital and physical media, and many of the bands I love wouldn't have ever received my support had I not used dubious means to be initially exposed to their music, and the same goes for movies. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, 'cause it sounds an awful lot like hypocrisy hidden behind flowery words. If you like consuming things, owning things, being greedy for things, that's completely understandable. It's human fucking nature. I just kind of find it strange that a guy as worldly and passionate as you is willing to pay for physical things, but not digital things, as if digital-only artists aren't worth spending money on for some reason.

__________________
----------------------
|---Mic's Albums---|
----------------------
-----------------------------
|---Deafbox Industries---|
-----------------------------

innerspaceboy

You raise several critically important points. The media marketplace in the digital post-scarcity economy is far from a black-and-white issue. It really shakes me up when people remind me that there are still some people out there who pay for non-physical goods. I really can't understand it and I often forget those people are still out there somewhere.

But what I find more confusing is your description of artists who sell exclusively digital content. How does that exist? How does anyone control valued digital goods? It would require the suppression of their inherent and fundamental qualities of being infinitetly replicable and being distributed at zero-cost. I ask this as an honest question because it defies any reasonable understanding of digital goods.

Does Apple still sell music? If so, how have they maintained that preposterous platform? It is absolutely impossible to capitalize on digital goods. This was effectively demonstrated with the complete failure of streaming services to generate a positive cashflow for over 90% of the artists whose content they streamed. This was further demonstrated by the end of the software industry. Adobe adapted to this realization by switching to subscription-based software which a small percentage of lesser-informed individuals still pay for on a monthly basis. (Much like we've seen with cable subscriptions.) It really makes no sense at all.

But do not misinterpret my intention. Artists deserve to be compensated for their works. They contribute a vital asset to the cultural economy. I don't know of any digital-only artists but you've expressed that they exist and they too would deserve compensation. As there is no way to control the distribution of digital goods, many have opted for the PWYW model which has worked well for many artists.

The fact that everyone needs to face is that currency and copyright have absolutely no relevance in the digital market. It makes no sense to charge for an infinitely replicable and distributable good. In that world, ownership is collective and universally simultaneous.

How does the capitalist philosophy reconcile itself with that fact?

__________________
The Innerspace Connection | Essential Recordings | Top Archives | Hot 100 Albums | Top 550 Artists

grindy

.

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.

djchameleon

Okay so I get all of that but two things.

Acquiring any good is still consumerism regardless of the condition that it is bought in.

Two, you didn't address the fact that you need to purchase things that are necessary to live such a groceries.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.