If I can drill down further here, I really don’t think it’s cheapness or laziness - or not only that. I think it’s the whole mythology around the music industry of rock stars being rich. Even some musicians who have a high profile can still be struggling to make ends meet, despite showing up at red carpet events, getting out of limos (paid for by their labels, who take it out of the artists compensation). I do think that people disconnect the finished product from the actual, physical labor that goes into a song or album. it’s easy to do when it’s a commodity. Playing live, it’s easy to see the labor involved, but even then, getting to the poitn of playing in front of an audience usually consist of years of practice in the first place. But at least, at a live show, you see the person playing, sometimes dancing or performing, sweating, etc.
But it IS work. Labor is involved. It doesn’t just happen.
But often people never see any compensation for their work. Sometimes they make the calculation that it can lead to other revenue streams, and it can do that, and that’s okay when it’s the artist making the choice. I don’t think it’s always that case.
If you spend a week making, I don’t know, some wood working project. You take time and effort, you buy the raw materials, sand, cut, nail, glue, etc for a week or so and you end up with something that you intend to sell. Would it be acceptable to you to have someone just come and take it or pay a pittance for it, just because they consider it a work of art as opposed to a mass produced thing? I doubt you would, because you put time, effort, and money into this, so someone could use/enjoy what you made. How is music different in that calculus?
You don’t think so? How long before someone becomes a talented musician? How long before they are professional? I’m not arguing that music is special… I’m arguing that it’s like these other jobs, that we all do and expect to be paid for. the burger flipper (who should probably get a higher salary, since it’s unlikely they are a teenager, but a working parent) doesn’t do it for the joy of burger flipping. My aunt sure as hell didn’t stitch people up for 30 years for the pure love of helping humanity (though she certainly included that in her decision to do the job). Taking joy and pride in one’s work doesn’t mean you should do it for a free in a capitalist economy. In a perfect world, bit wouldn’t matter, but this is not a perfect world, it’s a capitalist one. People need to eat, pay their rent/bills, buy clothes, etc.
No one is arguing that, though. Fair compensation is not the same as saying all musicians should be rich.
Not always, but in some cases, it is. Again, we can’t go by our own personal morality, cause I suspect we are all music nerds, and willing to make sure that the artists we like get a share of the profits of the labors.
They have advertisers. Yet when artists (many of whom are doing this now) get some sort of advertising deals (selling songs to corporations or some sort of economic support deal), they are often called sell outs.
But again, are you the average cultural consumer or are you an outlier? I suspect the latter, since you said you worked for an indie label in the past. You get it, that people are working and buying their work means that they get some money for their work. Do you honestly think that the vast majority of consumers understand how the industry actually works and that their using a pirated version means that that is less money the pockets of the artists? do you really think people are making that connect? Cause I don’t see that, honestly.