Until now, I have always given authors the benefit of the doubt, and presented what they could have said to make their argument stronger.
I do this when hackernews is calling an article stupid and missing some of the salvageable or mostly correct things from the article, so I do some effort to highlight these kernels of truth that most articles have because most authors do have something of value to say.
For the first time on this account on this site... This article is hopelessly naive. Music label executives dgaf. If anything, they want the history gone so that they can charge extra premiums when they release 100 year old songs or for visits to their museums. It is like saying NFL owners regret people not being able to watch the first super bowl game and relive history.
Nah... that is stuff they could sell later if they figure out how.
Expecting music labels to have any sense of democratic music access is almost insulting to artists that have been often dicked by these labels.
Part of me thinks this article is a psyop to make music label executives seem more humane lol.
I do this when hackernews is calling an article stupid and missing some of the salvageable or mostly correct things from the article, so I do some effort to highlight these kernels of truth that most articles have because most authors do have something of value to say.
For the first time on this account on this site... This article is hopelessly naive. Music label executives dgaf. If anything, they want the history gone so that they can charge extra premiums when they release 100 year old songs or for visits to their museums. It is like saying NFL owners regret people not being able to watch the first super bowl game and relive history.
Nah... that is stuff they could sell later if they figure out how.
Expecting music labels to have any sense of democratic music access is almost insulting to artists that have been often dicked by these labels.
Part of me thinks this article is a psyop to make music label executives seem more humane lol.