Nobody has a lawful right to listen to a for pay song for free unless it's coming from a source that pays the artist for providing that song for free. Otherwise you're a thief.
Nobody has a lawful right to listen to a for pay song for free unless it's coming from a source that pays the artist for providing that song for free. Otherwise you're a thief.
Last edited by cashpiles (closed); 07-05-2016 at 08:59 AM.
In terms of "lawful right" you are correct. When it comes to "moral right" people are less inclined to think that stealing from a mega-corporation that built its empire, in part, upon the backs of slave labor is immoral. That's part of the baggage TR gets from teaming up with Apple. Trent may like to think of Apple, as @WorzelG points out, as high minded artist-engineers, but he'd be a fool (or willfully ignorant) to ignore the other tentacles of Apple when he decides to attach his "art" to their name.
Off-Topic: I miss 2007-ets.
On-Topic: Nice track - the Eno-comparison someone made is apt, but I like how it turns more and more Reznor-ish towards the end. Only listened to it once, can't wait for a perfect occasion.
this is illusory semantics
I don't disagree with your impression of Apple at all. What interests me is the unstated assumption of the perspective you describe, which is to say that a "moral right" exists in relation to others. In other words, that someone else's (or, in this case, a corporation's) moral fallibility lessens your own moral obligation. To wit: if you accept the premise that "moral rights" exist, do your obligations in relation to that moral right exist only in relation to someone else's? This is not the same as evaluating moral culpability on a scale (i.e. murder is worse than theft) but rather a weird (albeit not impossible) premise that your moral duty to someone else depends on their own morality. (to use an exaggerated example, that murdering in cold blood a murderer is "less bad" than murdering an innocent person.)
Moreover, given that, I assume, we both agree there is no objective morality scale (i.e., neither of us accept a religious text as controlling -- not that that would matter much, given that no religious texts touch on intellectual property), others' "moral rights" exist on a spectrum only relevant to your own perspective.
My own thoughts:
1) You either accept the premise of "intellectual property" or not. If you accept the premise that ideas can be property, you are definitionally importing concepts of property onto them.
2a) Assuming you accept the premise of "intellectual property," the unauthorized use of that property is definitionally theft. It has differences from theft of "real" (meatspace) property, but those differences do not affect the implication/definition of "theft" in this context.
2b) If, however, you do not accept the premise of "intellectual property," you either think 1) ideas should be completely free - i.e., abolish all copyright, patent, etc. laws -- or 2) that "intellectual property" is a misnomer and such concepts are more appropriately defined in another fashion.
I think only way a subjective moral right can enter the equation is with the last category is if you fall into 2(b)(2). If so, I think you have the existential problem of morality to contend with before you even get to any of the other questions. To pick just one of those questions, let's assume that Apple uses truly "slave labor" (which is itself a complicated question to answer) -- is boycotting Apple the best way to liberate those slaves? Or are you valuing your own moral certitude over giving money to the "slaves", however indirectly?
CAVEAT: Pretty buzzed and tired, may not be thinking this through correctly.
^^^my problem with the slave labour thing is it applies to all such companies so anyone who owns a smartphone or whatever is culpable of the same thing and has no right to claim any high road which they do all the time with Apple.
So - habe they stopped doing interviews or what? New song released: first TRAR score without Fincher, collaboration with the NASA. And no word from either one of them apart from that Twitter announcement?
I'd be interested in hearing about the process, the motives, the inspirations. Anyone else finds this silence strange?
It's just the exciting calm before the NIN Storm.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/post/ids...3-b0eee39c0fee
nin.com has a link to the Juno video on Apple Music. I finally watched it. You know what? Trent and Atticus have done an incredible job. The music builds and shifts perfectly with the progression of the short film. This is Trent and Atticus' greatest scoring achievement. Like this shows that they are on their A game now. They did it. It makes sense. It's moving. And it amplifies and complements the video perfectly.
I think this really is the future for Trent and Atticus. This seems to be where their passion is now and I fully support them. Top quality stuff.
I've been falling asleep to this for the past two months the same as I do to the other Trentticus stuff and having these groovy space-themed dreams because of it..
Yah I got it working eventually, ta anyway.
I’m very late to this party, but goodness I truly adore this track. It’s certainly one of the most beautiful instrumentals from
Reznor/Ross. There is such an exquisite balance between wonderment at scope and delicate intimacy at work here.
It’s just stunning.
Look what I found for sale in lossless on TIDAL...
https://store.tidal.com/us/album/88645364
You're welcome
Last edited by neorev; 12-17-2019 at 02:02 AM.
Didn't know Tidal had a store
Even they don't know sometimes. I once had an issue with a purchase, and it took 2 or 3 e-mails back and forth with their Support staff to get them to understand that no, I don't have a TIDAL subscription.
Oh, also, this track is on 7Digital. Cheaper there than TIDAL:
https://us.7digital.com/artist/trent...e/juno-7888992